Debate contribution: Support for Deaf Children
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 21 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Support for Deaf Children
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4604179
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Like others, I welcome the motion and the opportunity to highlight the challenges faced by deaf children and their families. In preparing for the debate, I read the deaf-friendly schools guidance produced by the Department of Education, which states.
"Deafness is not a learning disability and, given the right support, deaf children can make the same progress as hearing children of similar cognitive ability."
Northern Ireland is failing to give those children the right support, and I will highlight three reasons for why I say that. The first is the fact that it is often the school that identifies that a pupil may have a hearing problem. If a child is slow to respond when called at home or does not carry out an instruction, that can often be associated with disobedience or, if the parent is more charitable, selective hearing. Often, it is only when that child gets into a school environment that the teacher, who has experience of dealing with children with a wide range of abilities and challenges, will say to the parents that they should consider having the child's hearing checked. Some contributions to the debate focused on the role of specialist teachers for deaf children, but we should not forget the vital role that teachers with no such training play in identifying such issues. That having been said, even when a teacher has highlighted a possible problem, there is often an inordinate delay in the pupil getting an appointment in the health service. When it comes to those crucial early years in school in particular, such a delay can have profoundly negative consequences for the child. Those challenges were exacerbated during COVID. One parent described to me the extremely frustrating experience of attempting to attend speech therapy appointments over Zoom. At the best of times, it can be challenging to hear someone on the other end of the line. Imagine how much more difficult that was when speech therapists were trying to pick up the subtle nuances in speech that indicate a problem. I remind the House that speech and hearing issues often go hand in hand. In a case that I was told about over the weekend, I was advised that the child has since been issued with a hearing aid. However, the child is not in P1 or even P2 but P5. Also, that hearing issue is a continuing factor in the literacy issues with which that child now struggles. Secondly, I want to highlight the evidence of how Northern Ireland is falling behind the rest of the UK. In advance of the debate, all Members will have received a copy of the manifesto of the Coalition on Deafness NI. As a basic demand, the manifesto states:
"All deafblind children should have the same educational support as those in England and Wales, i.e. children should be supported from diagnosis by a teacher with an appropriate qualification in Multi-Sensory Impairment."
Perhaps the Minister, in his response, will spell out what he is doing to get us to that point. Finally, when the Minister is responding to that point, will he explain why the support offered by the Executive for childcare is £32 million less than the amount provided by Westminster? The Executive got £57·2 million in Barnett consequentials because of a scheme introduced in Great Britain, yet that four-party Executive, of which the Minister is part, allocated only £25 million to childcare. Where, Minister, did that money go? Did it stay in your Department, or did it go to other challenges in other Ministers' budgets?
591 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.06 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:25 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.