Community Audiology

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Edward Leigh

Thursday 18th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) on moving this timely motion. I declare an interest: I am someone who suffers from hearing loss—it is good to be honest about these things. I recently found a picture of myself in uniform in the pouring rain, looking very miserable in Germany or on Salisbury plain, leaning against a 25-pounder. I can assure Members that those guns went off next to my ear on many occasions, and it is a very loud bang indeed.

I am not alone in suffering from some hearing loss. As the hon. Gentleman made clear, if we group together deafness, hearing loss and tinnitus, some 18 million people in the UK are affected by hearing conditions. Of those among us who are 55 or over, more than half suffer from hearing loss, as he said. Of those of us who are 70 and older—Mr Vickers, you and I were born just weeks apart—over 80% have some form of hearing loss. Some 2.4 million adults across Britain have hearing loss that is severe enough for them to struggle with conversational speech in some situations.

We all know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That is even more true in medicine than in any other walk of life. I am one of 2 million people in the UK who use a hearing aid. People should not be ashamed of using a hearing aid. People are not ashamed of wearing glasses—the Minister, Mr Vickers, and the distinguished consultant from Suffolk, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), are all wearing glasses. It is a fact of life, and we should support people.

The British Academy of Audiology estimates that there are 6.7 million people who could benefit from a hearing aid but do not currently use one. The impact is not limited to wives, irritated that we have not heard them—although I must admit that if someone is known in the family to have hearing loss, it is very convenient. I am frequently ticked off by my wife because I am generally completely useless, and sometimes I pretend I have not heard her, so there are some benefits.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

The right hon. Gentleman is busted now.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

At the risk of giving in to economic reductionism, there is a significant impact on the economy. The Royal National Institute for Deaf People has estimated that untreated hearing loss costs the UK economy around £30 billion per year in lost productivity. Adults of working age with hearing loss have an employment rate of 65%, compared with 79% for those without any disabilities. Hearing loss has a social cost as well, as it has an impact on daily life and often increases isolation. Too often, we are embarrassed by hearing loss when we should be tackling it head on.

Another problem is a lack of audiologists. Unwisely, the Government have maintained the cap on the number of people allowed to study medicine—a restrictive measure that the doctors’ unions cling to regressively. The first priority should be the health of the public. We should allow anyone who meets the high standards that we expect of those studying medicine to do so.

Instead, the doctors’ unions ensure there is a lack of domestic supply to protect their bargaining position, but that means we are forced to make up the shortfall by importing doctors from other countries, often less developed ones. Many countries, not just fully developed ones, have high standards of medical education. It seems to me, and to many others, morally dubious for the NHS to pick the cream of doctors from any developing country and bring them here. Their diligence, training and expertise are much needed in their home countries. Meanwhile, we have excellent people here who cannot get into medical school—not because they are not good enough, but because the numbers are capped.

The shortfall in audiology is yet another reason why we need to address this issue. We have over 3,000 registered audiologists working in the UK, across the NHS, the private sector and educational settings. Figures from the British Academy of Audiology show that 48% of services have reported reduced staff, with an overall decline of 8% in the audiology workforce. Nearly one in 10 clinical posts in audiology are currently vacant, and 65% of audiology services have at least one vacancy. Those shortages exist across multiple salary bands, from junior to senior clinicians.

I am not blaming this Government, by the way; I am not being party political. This problem is the fault of successive Governments and Health Secretaries, who have failed to address it. Back in 2006, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People pointed out in evidence to the Health Committee:

“A recent NHS workforce project has suggested an additional 1,700 qualified audiologists are required to cope with current pressure. This could take between 10 and 15 years to realise under the current training programmes.”

That was back in 2006, so what has happened since then? It will not surprise the experienced observer that not enough action was taken. Hearing loss is one of the most prevalent long-term conditions in England, yet it is often treated as a low-priority service. If we treated it as a core part of prevention and independence, the rewards would be innumerable. As I said, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Demand for audiology services is rising, and the International Longevity Centre estimates that by 2031, one in five Britons will have hearing loss. There is at least increasing public awareness, but with an ageing population, the demand for audiology services is rising. That puts additional pressure on the workforce and on service capacity. Community audiology should not be a marginal service. It is a preventive intervention with clear implications for the wellbeing of individuals and families, economic productivity and long-term public spending. Delivering audiology close to home is ideal, particularly for older patients and those managing long-term conditions.

The current model relies heavily on local commissioning decisions. There is wide variation in access, as well as in the scope and quality of provision across England. Patients in some areas benefit from straightforward self-referral and timely community services, while others face longer waits or unnecessary hospital referrals. I suspect that the service in London and other big cities is better than that in our home county of Lincolnshire, Mr Vickers.

We need to improve the way we collect data on audiology services, so that we can evaluate their impact across the country. Good data will help us to focus on outcomes, as any reform should. National minimum service standards would provide clarity without imposing uniform delivery models. We should preserve local flexibility while ensuring that patients know what level of service they are entitled to expect. Community audiology should be integrated into broader prevention and healthy ageing strategies.

Hearing care supports people to remain economically active and socially connected for longer. That is immensely central to maintaining human dignity as we all get older. Early intervention reduces downstream costs in social care and mental health services. The social and economic impact is huge. There is much we can do now that will produce worthwhile results, so we need action from the Minister.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Edward Leigh

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I will just make a little progress.

Amendment 60 may similarly prevent access to an assisted death for those residing within a care home or hospice, if that care home or hospice decided it would not allow such assistance on its premises.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The Minister is making a very important point, and this is what I dealt with in my few short remarks. If, according to the Minister, care homes run by religious orders will have to provide this service, those orders will have to get out of care homes altogether.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. As I say, the Government do not take a position on the policy intent that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has set out. I would simply observe that if somebody has been in a home for a considerable period of time, that home is then considered to be their home. As such, any action to take them out of that home could engage article 8 of the ECHR, on the right to family life.

I now turn to the procedure for receiving assistance under the Bill, including safeguards and protections. First, I will speak to the amendments that have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley with technical workability and drafting advice from the Government.

Amendment 58 clarifies the duty on the Secretary of State to make through regulations provisions for training about reasonable adjustments and safeguards for autistic people and those with a learning disability. That remedies previously unclear wording in the Bill. Amendment 60 is required to make provision for circumstances where the independent doctor dies or, through illness, is unable or unwilling to act as the independent doctor. Amendments 67 and 68, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, clarify that an approved substance can be self-administered using a device should the individual be unable to self-administer without one. Amendment 91 gives effect to amendment 273, which was accepted in Committee, by ensuring that data will be recorded in the final statement to ensure coherence within the Bill.

I turn now to the amendments tabled by other Members on the subject of procedure, safeguards and protections that the Government have assessed may create workability issues if voted into the Bill. New clause 7 would limit the number of times two doctors can be jointly involved in the assessment of a person seeking assisted dying to three times within a 12-month period. In situations where there is a limited pool of doctors in any geographical location or area of medicine, that could limit access to assisted dying and create inequalities in access. New clause 9 would require the co-ordinating doctor, independent doctor and assisted dying review panels to apply the criminal standard of proof that requires them to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. Cases considered by the panel are civil matters, and as such it would not be usual practice for the criminal standard of proof to be applied to their decision making—and it is a very high bar. The provision would also impose additional standards on the assessing doctor that fall outside the usual framework for medical decision making.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Edward Leigh

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 22nd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that, although I had forgotten chapter 562 in this never-ending story. My recollection is that the Prime Minister was then slapped down by the judiciary, who said, “We have a huge backlog to get through and this is not a priority.” We should thank my hon. Friend for reminding the House of yet another disastrous chapter in this story.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

In the unlikely event that we have a Labour Government, would the shadow Minister be happy if future Opposition parties, which necessarily and usually dominate the House of Lords, frustrated them? Will he advise his friends up there to respect the will of the elected House?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I will advise the other place to do what it is doing, as a revising Chamber: standing up for its constitutional obligations to look at every piece of legislation that we send to it from this place and take the measures that it feels strongly about. This set of amendments in no way prevents this policy from being enacted or flights from taking off; what we are seeing is simply those Members in the other place doing their constitutional duty.

The plan is not only completely unworkable, but shockingly unaffordable. It is likely to cost an astonishing £2 million per deportee. To add insult to injury, it puts the tens of thousands of asylum seekers who are deemed inadmissible and yet cannot be sent to Rwanda, because of the lack of capacity there, into limbo, in expensive hotels, stuck in a perma-backlog at a staggering cost to the taxpayer. This is a dreadful policy and it is shameful politics.

When the Bill was first introduced, the Prime Minister described it as “emergency legislation”, yet the Government’s management of the parliamentary timetable would suggest that the opposite is the case. Ministers had ample opportunity to schedule debates and votes on 25 and 26 March, before the Easter recess, but they chose not to do so. Indeed, there was plenty of scope to accelerate the process last week. People could be forgiven for concluding that the truth of the matter is that Ministers have been deliberately stringing this out for two reasons: first, because they thought they could make some grubby political capital from the delay; and, secondly, because they have been scrambling to organise a flight and all the other logistics that are not in place. The Prime Minister, in his somewhat whinging and buck-passing press conference this morning, admitted that the first flight to Rwanda will not take off until—checks notes—July.

Today is 22 April. We were initially told that this was “emergency legislation”, yet we are now being told that there will be a 10 to 12-week delay in getting the first flight off the ground. I do not know what your definition of an emergency is, Madam Deputy Speaker, but a 10 to 12-week response time seems a bit of a stretch. Given that none of the amendments to the Bill could be seen as wrecking amendments by any stretch of the imagination, it is difficult to see why those on the Government Benches could not just accept the amendments and get on with it. The fundamental point is that not one of the amendments that have been coming to us from the other place would prevent planes from getting into the air.

Turning first to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord Hope, this amendment simply reflects what the Government have already said: that court judgments are taken at a moment in time and that a country may well be safe at a given point, but not at another. If the Bill passes unamended, this House will, in essence, be asserting that Rwanda will be a safe country for ever more. Surely the indisputable lesson of recent times is that we live in a dangerous and turbulent world, where authoritarians are on the march and the rules-based order is under threat. Who knows what might happen in Rwanda in the future, or in any other country for that matter?

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Edward Leigh

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 17th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

We have heard that before, but let us address the narrow legal point. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it was right for a Strasbourg judge to impose an injunction in the night, on his own, without giving the British Government the chance to make their case?

[Stephen Kinnock]

What we are seeing is complete shambolic incompetence in the asylum system, and if cases are not made clearly and are open to legal appeal, legal appeals will come and, in some cases, will succeed. On the broader point, the UK is party to a number of international agreements and conventions. That reality is extremely important to our national interest. In many cases, it strengthens our sovereignty, not weakens it. So Labour Members are clear that politics is about choices, and when we look at the bigger picture of our country’s place in the world, it is absolutely clear that our sovereignty and national interest are strengthened, not weakened, by being party to these international agreements and conventions.

It is deeply troubling that every day seems to bring a new example of the tail wagging the dog. We now hear that the Prime Minister is assembling 150 judges and 1,000 staff to fast-track Rwanda cases through our courts. Sorry—what? Does he not know that under his leadership and on his watch, the Crown court backlog in this country is at a record high of 65,000? Victims of serious crimes regularly wait more than two years for their day in court, so that they can seek justice against the perpetrator. The system is completely broken because of 14 years of Tory incompetence and indifference, yet the Prime Minster clicks his fingers and, glibly, is apparently able to magic up 150 judges and 1,000 staff. Where on earth have those 150 judges been hiding all this time? Are they going to be new recruits or are they currently working? If it is the latter, are they going to be told to drop everything and transfer to dealing with asylum cases? I trust the Minister will be able to answer those questions today, but I am not holding my breath.

Regardless of the operational issues, imagine the impact the Prime Minister’s glib announcement yesterday would have on you if you were a rape victim who has been languishing for years in our broken judicial system. Imagine the anger and disgust you would feel at the spectacle of a Conservative Prime Minister sacrificing your fight for justice on the altar of his desperate attempt to cling to power by appeasing his Back Benchers. What an utterly shameful and shabby way for the Prime Minister of our country to behave.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Edward Leigh

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 17th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Presumably it is the hon. Gentleman’s most devout hope if he takes power in 15 months’ time, but charming as he is, it is a mystery to me why he thinks when he asks President Macron to take these people back, he will do so. Of course he won’t! Nothing will happen. May I gently suggest that, if there is a Labour Government, they will quietly adopt this Bill once it is an Act?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I will come to that in my comments, but as the right hon. Gentleman will know, any negotiation requires give and take, quid pro quo. As I said in response to one of his hon. Friends, to get that deal with the European Union we of course have to do our bit and take our fair share, and that will be the negotiation that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will be leading on when he becomes Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, following the next general election.

We are determined that the National Crime Agency will be strengthened so that it can tackle the criminal gangs upstream. Too much focus by this Government has been on slashing tents and puncturing dinghies along the French coastline, whereas Labour has set out its plan for an elite unit in the NCA to work directly with Europol and Interpol. The latest amendment from Lord Coaker, Lords amendment 103B, attempts to strengthen the NCA’s authority, and we support it without reservation. We are also clear that there is a direct link between gaining the returns agreement that we desperately need with the EU, and creating controlled and managed pathways to asylum, which would allow genuine refugees to reach the UK safely, particularly if they have family here. Conservative Members refuse to make that connection, but we know it is in the interests of the EU and France to strike a returns deal with the UK, and dissuade the tens of thousands of asylum seekers who are flowing through Europe and ending up on the beaches of Calais. The EU and its member states will never do a deal with the UK unless it is based on a give-and-take arrangement, whereby every country involved does its bit and shares responsibility.

European Economic Area: UK Membership

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Edward Leigh

Monday 6th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that for the UK to withdraw from the European Economic Area (EEA) it will have to trigger Article 127 of the EEA Agreement; calls on the Government to provide time for a debate and decision on a substantive motion on the UK’s continued membership of the EEA; and further calls on the Government to undertake to abide by the outcome of that decision.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting today’s debate, and I thank right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for supporting the application for it. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) for co-sponsoring the motion.

If the referendum result was indeed a vote to take back control, this House must surely have its say on that critical issue. I rise to commend the motion to the House, because all options both for the transition and for the comprehensive trade and partnership deals must be on the table. I first want to set the debate in context by outlining what the European economic area is and what it is not. I will then explain how EEA membership can square the circle between market access, sovereignty and control. I will also illustrate how EEA membership offers a sensible and workable transition out of the European Union—a bridge, rather than the potentially catastrophic cliff edge of exiting on World Trade Organisation terms.

First, what is the EEA? Simply put, it is an internal market between the EU28 and Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. It was set up in 1993 to allow the participation of non-EU states in the single market. However, the EEA internal market excludes single market features such as fisheries and agriculture, and it does not entail membership of the customs union. That means that EEA members are able to negotiate trade deals with third countries, either bilaterally or through the European Free Trade Association. That is how Iceland became the first European country to strike a bilateral trade deal with China in 2011.

It is through EFTA membership, in conjunction with the EEA, that unfettered trade in goods is achieved. EEA-EFTA membership could therefore provide a solid basis on which to sustain frictionless trade between the UK and the Republic of Ireland post-Brexit.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman just talked about a “catastrophic cliff edge”. Clearly, it is in the interests of our country that we have a free trade deal, but will he put that in context? Exports in 2016 accounted for 28% of our GDP and EU exports for 12.6%. Last month, the World Bank published a study showing that in the event of no deal and WTO rules, British trade with the EU might fall by 2%. That is 2% of 12.6%, or a quarter of 1% of our overall GDP. Therefore, when he talks about a catastrophic cliff edge, let him put it in context.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. May I suggest that he takes a trip to the port of Dover? The Brexit Select Committee, of which I have the honour of being a member, visited it recently and we were told that an additional two minutes of processing time on the 10,000 heavy goods vehicles that go through the port would result in a 13 mile tailback. A WTO Brexit, we were told, would add a lot more than two minutes. We therefore have to look at this debate in the context of the institutional capacity of our country to cope with a WTO Brexit, which is critical.