All-Party Parliamentary Group on Deafness

All-Party Parliamentary Group on Deafness

Briefing for APPG on Deafness meeting – 22 January 2008

Verbatim Record

Malcolm Bruce: First of all welcome to every body and thank you for coming along. As you know I had an opportunity to ask the Prime Minister before Christmas, if he would meet to discuss how to improve Sign Language across the UK and he has agreed and the meeting is next week. The purpose of today’s meeting is to give every body the opportunity to share their views on priorities and hopefully to accept that what we are trying to do is get a simple message across and hopefully a simple response. I should also introduce my 2 colleagues from the all-party group. Rosie Cooper and Tom Levitt, whose support I very much appreciate. What essentially we would to get across to the Prime Minister is that there is nothing like enough provision of Sign Language interpreters both training and employment of them, and access to funding both in education and in the wider world.

We will try to focus on 2 things: If the Welsh Assembly’s commitment was replicated through England and Scotland it would require something like another 900 interpreters to be trained. And the comparison given to minority spoken languages in the UK like Welsh and Gaelic.

These are arguments to reinforce the case that Sign Language is a real language, and that it’s under resourced and under funded and we would like the Government to consider how to improve the situation and how to train and employ more sign language interpreters. I appreciate there are other issues about communication, whether its access to technology, lip speaking and so forth and I hope people will understand we are using Sign Language as a key leaver because again simpler and more direct the message it seems to me is a better result.

I will ask my 2 colleagues if there is anything in particular they want to suggest because we have to share with you that we as politicians are lobbying the Prime Minister and how we can do it most effectively to get results and as you will appreciate I am a Lib Democrat these are 2 Labour members of Parliament and hopefully between us we can you know get through to the Prime Minister. I will quote to you; in response to my question the Prime Ministers reply: “I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, and I will be very happy to meet him. It is a very important issue, and we will see what we can do together.” I took that as a positive response and a genuine wish to do something about it

Tom Levitt: I think the strongest point will be that employers and providers of goods and services have an obligation to make reasonable adjustments to provide services, in employment and access to information, to every body on as equal a basis as possible and that must mean that access in people's first language, in British Sign Language, must be much more accessible than it is. Where we ought to be pushing is to make it normal and accepted using not only Sign Language interpreters but Sign Language as a medium and a principle communication as well. It ss a right which is already in the law and those reasonable adjustments need to be recognised in the interest of the BSL using community.

Rosie Cooper. I would say that communicating with people in their own language is something that we all agree on, however it’s simple to say but difficult to deliver. I was completely shocked with an experience I had fairly recently. Both my parents are deaf, my Dad was born deaf my Mum was deaf when she was 4. My Dad is now 82 and was admitted to hospital with a stroke. Now, four years ago I reported the Royal Liverpool Hospital to the Healthcare Commission for not bringing in interpreters to deal with deaf people, and there was supposed to be an action plan, it was all supposed to be sorted out. I can tell you that 2 months ago my Dad went into hospital and I will not bore you with the details, but the important thing to say to you is that a staff nurse said to me “Your Dad has a communication problem!” He did not tell me once, he told me twice! That was after I told him that my Dad did not have a communication problem it was just that he was deaf, and therefore he could not understand him because he could not understand the language. If the staff could not sign then they should call in somebody who could. They resisted that for weeks, but eventually they did it. Now, it’s just not acceptable in this day and age. I could go on at length of the number of deaf people affected. And its not just hospital appointments but every time that deaf people have to connect with a public service there is always this problem and it is not acceptable it can't be acceptable and I am waging war on them at the minute.

Malcolm Bruce: The Prime Minister has only allocated 20 minutes for our meeting, we may get longer but he is busy. That is actually 5 minutes longer than originally provided because his office accepted that interpretation does extend the time needed to communicate. So, it’s important obviously that we focus very directly, to get a clear message across. I think at this point what I would ask if there are any particular points or issues that people want us to highlight. What I will want to say to him is allowing for what has been said by my 2 colleagues it will involve additional resources but not on a terrifying scale and what fundamentally is required is resources to train Sign Language interpreters and resources to enable people to pay for them when they are used. Notwithstanding there are a wide range of circumstances where that is the case and as Rosie has said it should be a right. Somebody at some point will have to work out what the numbers are and what the costs are to start that process. In a sense if I can get the Prime Minister to acknowledge its an issue, some Minister will have to come up with a plan and I will regard that as a positive outcome in the meeting when he asks him to action that. So if anybody has any particular issues or concerns or comments I will happily take them.

Jim Edwards: I am from CACDP. You refer quite clearly to the data and model that has been used in Wales. The point I would make from that is that they found a solution. And I think it’s very important to say that not only have they aspired to increase the number of interpreters but deaf organisations worked with the Welsh Assembly to deliver a solutions. This isn’t a problem without a solution, there is a solution on the table, it does not have to be the same in the UK but there is a solution and a workability to it.

Asif Iqbal: I represent Deaf Parents UK. I know that BSL has been recognised and its also covered by the DDA. However, I am thinking about parents access to things like health and other opportunities. Parents who have deaf children we find that in certain situations that in terms of language development they are behind but also parents have difficulty finding where to go to get resources and for me that is an important issue that needs to be raised as well.

Jill Jones: I am from Deaf Ex-Mainstreamers, I have 3 points I think are very important. I need to give you some background, we have done research into the Welsh language and what happened in that situation. They have been very supportive in developing the BSL Bill. The Minister of State, the Secretary of State for education and children and schools and families, he agrees that he could be the right person to take this on and to take it through Parliament as a ministerial Bill. Also there are 2 issues about today’s Briefing Paper. About parents choice, for them to have an informed choice. The Welsh language is based on a linguistic aspect the same as other minority languages which are in threat of being lost. It’s based on the same model and the same philosophy. It’s a linguistics one. If we accept there is a threat to the BSL language because of mainstreaming in education we have to take it on board. We have to explain to the Government how important it is for children that are deaf to be educated in Sign Language as part of their education. They have to have some choice, its not only about giving them choice, but about them making choices themselves. Its letting them know that they have informed choice because a lot of parents are not well informed in those choices and therefore can perhaps make decisions they would not otherwise have made if they had been informed. So, perhaps its my recommendation is to look at the Welsh language model as a way of moving forward with the BSL and to advise government that is what we need to do, that we need to actually make sure that they do have informed choice.

The next issue goes back to what you talked about resources. Ed Balls has already asked me to work with the Welsh language board to ask how much it has cost them so that we can actually use some of that information to estimate the costing of this project. We need to not only focus on the Welsh Language Act 1993 however, we have to also focus on 2 other Acts, one of 1988 and 1986 those are the education acts.

.

Charles Herd. I am here on behalf of ABSLTA, the Association of British Sign Language Tutors and Assessors. I get many letters from our members and others, other deaf sign language tutors who are not members. They all complain that they have given up teaching because it becomes too difficult. Mr Bruce mentioned training for interpreters but the interpreters are trained by the tutors. Now the QCA, the qualifications curriculum authority are making it very difficult for deaf people to become tutors simply because all their examinations are based on English and because of that deaf tutors are giving up all over the place and hearing tutors are taking their places. Because it’s easy for a hearing person to pass the exam. So, now we are finding is we have a lot of hearing tutors, whose ability to sign is not good. They have no Deaf Identity and no understanding of deaf culture. So really, I personally feel that we should ask the QCA to forget their rules for qualification for teaching and let us devise our own based on Sign Language. At present 7303 examination insists that all of the tutors must have level 2 English and level 2 maths. Level 2 English and maths are not appropriate for teaching Sign Language. So, why bother? If you leave it to deaf people to teach the way they know how to teach, I think that the progress of interpreters will actually happen and will be much better as a consequence. We need to change the rules of how people become tutors and how they become qualified.

Penny Beschizza: I am here for the Deaf Broadcasting Council, but I am also a member of the University and College Union. Now I know that the Trades Union Congress recognises BSL and that is something too that could be referred to and spoken about at that meeting. I want to support what Charles says, but also we need to raise the issues of deaf leadership and deaf participation at the top level, at the highest level because there is not enough. I want to say that in the last say 30 or 40 years, the number of deaf people who have gone on to study at tertiary education and higher studies has been fantastic, the number is increasing and I want that to be put on record to reflect that the deaf community is actually beginning to make its step forward in terms of its status but still there are many issues to be resolved. We don't necessarily always have to rely on interpreters and there are other systems where we can be supported, especially if the language is acknowledged. At the moment there are lots of hearing people that want deaf people to work side by side it’s only that way we can move on. That is the first thing.

Also, talking about the services at the NHS for example, there was a report done which put down just the problems that you highlighted. I was just shocked when I read it to see some of the experience that deaf people have when they actually engage the service of the NHS, so there needs to be sort of some system of perhaps more staff or hearing staff that can sign, that can actually begin to deal with some of the issues that deaf people face when they encounter the system.

Jeff McWhinney: I have been looking at what has been discussed today, I think it is important to be aware that there are a lot of misconceptions about deaf people in the deaf community. Now, the thing that we want to really put forward is the language and the culture. But there are many deaf people that don't have sign language that don't use sign language as their main language. If somebody talks to one deaf person their perspective of what is important can be completely the opposite from another deaf person and what they consider important. So its important to discuss issues with lots of deaf people. And there are lots of issues with the Health Service, there is actual legislation out there within the legal service that interpreters must be provided, its there in the legislation, they must be provided. I believe that also what should be there is that deaf people must be consulted. But when that does happen it seems that what is happening is that deaf people are not being consulted, groups of disabled people or groups for disabled people are being consulted instead of deaf groups. Now to give you one example Lewisham decided to provide an interpreting service, but they went to the Lewisham disabled group to consult about the interpreting service that they were looking to provide. Now there is a Lewisham deaf people's group and they were not approached and the Lewisham disabled association knew nothing about interpreting services knew nothing about deafness and they provided a consultation for provision of sign language in interpreters. Now going back to the Welsh Assembly and decisions being made at a very high level. Now I think the minimum that needs to be done is to have a BSL board. So its deaf people themselves who are involved in the decision making at that high level, they know what sort of issues are going on. That needs to be tackled at that high level an advisory board needs to be set up that has a parliamentary duty to advice on those issues. On education, health et cetera all of those issues that we are talking about but it needs to be at that high level.

Tomato Lichy: I am representing Frank Barnes deaf school, also I am the chair of the Greater London Deaf Association. I would like to make 2 points this afternoon. First of all thank you very much for hosting the meeting here and inviting us all along, I think its a great step forward to have all of us around the same table, I think its a great step to have that progression and to have all of us propose ideas. There are issues such as education, audiology, health, cochlear implants etc, so there are lots of issues that are around the table that needs to be discussed. The second point is that we can make lots and lots and lots of proposals and we can pass them on to the government, but at the end of the day all of them are going to come down to cost. We can't make decisions because the cost will be looked at once we make the proposals. So maybe its worth coming up with all of these proposals and then asking which do the BSL Deaf Community think are the most worthwhile to do. Because if we carry something forward which we think is important and money is put into it but actually the deaf community don't view it as important then it will not only be a waste of money but much more, it would be much better to put the proposals forward that every body agrees with.

Melinda Napier: I represent the City Lit Centre in London. We are talking about the education of deaf children, but a lot of deaf children are mainstreamed. There are very few deaf schools left. When deaf children are mainstreamed, very few have deaf role models, the only people that they meet that can sign are communication support workers or learning support assistants, they may have level 1 or level 2 Sign Language. So my work at the City Lit. is that we offer training for CSWs, communication support workers, to become higher qualified than they are at present. Now the problem we have is funding. They are paid on average say 6 pounds an hour, now they can't afford to privately pay for training because they are on such a low wage. So if support workers are using a low level of language how are the children going to be acquiring a higher level of language because their language role models are not fluent in the language themselves. So there needs to be training for the LSAs and CSWs to improve their level of language because at the end of the day the deaf children are suffering.

Robert Adams: I am from DCAL, the Deafness Cognition and Language Research Centre. Now I have been listening to every body's views here and how we have different perspective on how we deal with the issues in the country. Finland have a government plan and within that government plan they have linked it heavily into the deaf community and then provide funding for research, interpreter training and various other things. They have recognised the fact that you can't do anything without the deaf community. So, I think the most important thing is to work in conjunction with the deaf community and the BDA. There was a paper published in 1992 I believe it was which was a perfect example of helping the community recognise Sign Language and the importance of Sign Language. I can give you example of this. Who picks the interpreters? Who decides who are the best interpreters to go in for the training course? This has been looked into. As Rosie mentioned earlier, the neurological services for deaf people, that is to be honest is rubbish. So how can you improve those services. How can you link into the deaf community. To make those services improve and adequate and fit for purpose for the deaf community so again it’s linking in and working together.

Diana Brooks: I am from the National Deaf Children’s Society, I just want to pass 2 issues that our members have raised with us. The first is related to education and being able to access appropriate support there for communication. But just as importantly for families is access to BSL classes that are appropriate for family communication. We have got numerous examples to back up the real need that families have to find these classes.

Jill Jones: Just to say thank you very much for organising the meeting today and also the meeting with Gordon Brown. Unfortunately I don't have enough copies to give to every body but this paper here is the research that the gentleman from DCAL was talking about from Sweden, Norway, Finland. The Sign Language research that has gone on in those countries and then the subsequent legislation that has come out from that research. The big problem is that deaf children are not included, now the Welsh language is a much better example, I feel, for deaf Sign Language users than other research that has gone on. The important thing is to concentrate on the BSL board, the same as the Welsh language, again its replicating what they have set up for the Welsh language. Public Authorities, health services, police, court service etc all had to write a Welsh language scheme. Which was about language equality. I would like to see that set up for BSL, so have a BSL board that would be responsible for doing that. So the scheme would then ensure that the issues that we are talking about now, such as interpreters access to services. It will happen. The BSL board would monitor, evaluate and watch what was happening. They would write publications and they would write reports on the provision that is being provided. The board would include experts which we have all talked about today, that is the most important thing is to have experts and Penny talked about that earlier. They must have links with OFSTED, D C S F, all of the relevant organisations, DWP. So every one again working together and having links with every body so it puts the responsibility back on to the deaf community. We can create areas of excellence of good practice, in mainstream provision, in Bi-lingual provision.

Joanna Wootten: I work for SignHealth. I probably should say that I am not really representing my organisation in what I am about to say, these are my personal views. One thing people always talk about is money. Now you were talking earlier Malcolm, it was about how there is not enough money for interpreters. I actually disagree. I think it’s there but its ill managed. It would be possibly better if you could centralise the money that we have, for instance, if all the health bodies, Access to Work etc all pool their money we probably would have fantastic communication support across the country. I am just saying there maybe there are different ways of cutting the cake. The difficulty is that deaf people are geographically dispersed and a low incidence group which means that we have to think strategically, that means thinking either nationally or regionally, devolving things down to local budgets does not work, that is why things go wrong in Liverpool, for example. Also I don't know how many deaf people that claim DLA, spend that on interpreters. Not many I think, but if you pooled that money it would pay for very good support. You could have a review of all current money that goes towards deaf people and identify how that money could go towards the BSL board and how best it could be spent, just an idea.

Malcolm Bruce: Thank you for that. I think it’s a philosophical view how you draw money together. The provision of interpreters in Scandinavia is down to local level, but it’s funded and required by central government law, so there are ways of doing it. What I will say, first of all thank all of you for coming and giving your input. I don't want to lower expectations but I think we have to be realistic about a step at a time. We have, which is very positive, a meeting with the Prime Minister where he has indicated that he wants to hear how we can move forward. I think we need to be practical focused and that to my mind means we need to get across to him, however, its done, to ensure that there are more interpreters trained and there is more opportunity for people to use interpreters in a wider variety. As Tom has said the law that exists should be resourced in a way to make the law work in reality rather than in theory. I think if the Prime Minister accepts that and indicates that he wishes somebody to take it forward I would regard that as a good meeting. It maybe at a later stage, if that is the case that the opportunity to put forward detailed proposals to establish the BSL Board, and a BSL act may follow, but I don't think we can get that out of the meeting next week.

I appreciate that a lot of work is being done by a lot of people to try to move it forward. Also we are making it clear to the Prime Minister that Sign Language users were at this meeting and that deaf people are the people that should be the final determinant of what is required albeit in partnership obviously with hearing people and with government to deliver. So, I hope that you will feel that approach is reasonable. What I will undertake to do with Jonathan is to circulate a comment as to how the meeting went and I hope as a follow up to that we will meet again to determine what we might do to move things forward in more detailed stages. But that depends obviously on a positive outcome from the meeting. I will look to my colleagues to see whether or not if you feel that is fair or have comments to make.

Tom Levitt; We are not going to change a culture in 15 minutes. We don't know really quite where Gordon Brown is coming from. How aware he is of these issues already. That really is a question of what his constituency experience is. We need some achievable outcomes and we need his authority to instruct ministers to take those matters forward.

Malcolm Bruce: As a post script to that, I think the Welsh Assembly experience is of some value, because it is actually a practical solution and it demonstrates the actions and costs and although costs always scare governments if they can see them in a manageable context over a usable timescale then we have a reasonable chance of getting something forward. That is the way we will proceed. We have a small group that is going. We will let you know what happens and we will tell you know whether or not there is a value in having further meetings if hopefully there is something more to take forward. Thanks again to all of you for coming. I think your being here, all the correspondence and e-mails we have had over the last few weeks, I think demonstrates this is an issue in which there are a lot of people who want to get behind it and make something out of it. I have been in Parliament for 25 years and we have talked an awful long time but hopefully from now on we might start to produce material results, we have had breakthroughs in the past, so thank you all very much indeed and I look forward to working with you in the future.

[Back to Meetings]