here - United Kingdom Parliament

1775 Augmentative and Alternative 6 JUNE 2013 Augmentative and Alternative 1776
Communication Services
Communication Services
only way that the hub-and-spoke model can work effectively
is if the hub can train up more people in the spokes to
deliver the more complex tools. Complexity is at the
heart of the problem in the structure. AAC is one of five
areas for which complex disability equipment is to be
commissioned nationally—incidentally, another is artificial
eyes, the national centre for which is based in my
constituency. It would be remiss of me not to congratulate
that centre during an Adjournment debate on a parallel
issue. As I was saying, though, complexity is the key: it
determines whether a patient is treated at the hub or at
the spoke.
A stroke patient will receive a relatively straightforward
medical diagnosis—it might be a devastating incident in
their personal life, but its medical nature is relatively
simple. None the less, what will restore the power of
communication to someone who has lost it will be a
complex piece of kit, yet under the current rules, as I
understand them, it would be commissioned in the
spoke. If the skills are not there to utilise that piece of
equipment, that stroke patient will not benefit, so complexity
of need has to be balanced by the complexity of the
product being supplied. That is crucial.
The other issue on which I want to draw out the
Minister is the concerns of worried providers in the
voluntary sector about their ability to bid for commissions
from NHS England. There has been a long-running
battle over whether AAC should be based in the education
or the health sector. It is now clear that it will be based
in the health sector, but one of the key elements of what
NHS England seeks to commission is an educational
component in a multi-disciplinary team. That component
is most often found in organisations such as the ACE
Centre, the Dame Hannah Rogers Trust, near the
constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes
(Dr Wollaston), or the Percy Hedley school, up in
the constituency of the hon. Member for Blaydon
(Mr Anderson). They all have immense expertise, yet
they greatly fear that the mood music emanating from
NHS England suggests that they will be unable to bid
for such provision, because of an understanding that it
must be supplied by an NHS provider. That seems
strange, given all that the Government have said down
the years about trying to ensure a broader spectrum of
provision—that more civil society organisations can
provide such services. I hope the Minister can provide
some reassurance on that.
I would also like a commitment from the Minister—this
is another fundamental aspect—that this really is a
health issue and no longer just an education issue. I
hear far too many heartbreaking stories of children
who are equipped with complex equipment when in
school but, because it is funded by the Department for
Education, lose it when they leave. It is not just a piece
of kit they are losing; it is their ability to express
themselves as fully formed adults. That is why it is so
important that this becomes a health issue, not just an
education issue.
My final query is rather technical—I beg the Minister’s
forgiveness, but this goes back to acting like a statin in
NHS England. A clinical reference group has been set
up, but it has yet to meet—it is in a form of limbo, as it
were. There is yet greater uncertainty, not merely because
it has not met, but because the gentleman who chairs it,
one Dr Thursfield, is shortly to retire from his academic
post at the University of Birmingham. There is grave
concern that his uncertain status in the clinical reference
group is imperilling its ability to meet, take decisions
and do its job. Alexis Egerton—the gentleman I mentioned
earlier—was disappointed not to be appointed as a
patient representative on the clinical reference group. I
have known Alexis since my youngest days. He did his
PhD on the funding of AAC provision, and it would be
immensely valuable to the Government and the nation
as a whole if we could find a way to allow him to play a
role in that.
Finally—I want to ensure that the Minister has time
to respond fully—will he bear in mind that the right to
have a voice is a fundamental human right? We have an
opportunity in this place to represent our constituents.
If, in doing so, we give a voice to some who hitherto did
not have one, we will have spent a useful half-hour in
this debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s
response.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Coop):
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise
to hon. Members for having to raise this point of order
at the end of a passionate speech in an important
debate. I seek your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. Today
I had a telephone call from someone in the press asking
me to comment on a parliamentary question I had
asked and for which they had the answer. Unfortunately
I was not party to that answer, as it had not been
delivered to me. When I contacted the Table Office, it
could not elucidate either. I was, however, able to obtain
a scanned copy from the press. Would you agree,
Mr Deputy Speaker, that this is not the way to conduct
business and ensure that Members are appropriately
briefed?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): It certainly
is not good form; in fact, it is very bad form. The
Member should always know at least at the same time,
but preferably before. The matter is now on record and
I hope that those on the Front Bench will pass it on, so
that we can get to the bottom of it.
5.14 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman
Lamb): I am really grateful to my hon. Friend the
Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul
Maynard) for raising this issue, and for his work, together
with that of colleagues, as a member of the all-party
parliamentary group on speech and language difficulties.
An occasion such as this is particularly valuable, as was
the meeting that we had yesterday, in ensuring that
Ministers focus on issues that might otherwise not get
attention. I learned a lot from the meeting yesterday,
and from my hon. Friend’s impassioned speech today.
He clearly speaks with real authority on this subject. I
was struck by his point about the lad who ended up
with a PhD as a result of the support that these facilities
can provide. He made the point very powerfully that
they can change lives.
Augmentative and alternative or assistive communication
is one of the more specialised areas of health and
education provision. The number of children who will
require support in this way is relatively small, perhaps
less than 0.5% of the population, so it is important that
we do not lose sight of them. My hon. Friend rightly
made the point that the ability to speak and communicate
is a pretty basic human right, and that it should be
recognised as such.