| UK Council on Deafness | |
| [home] [search this site] [about us] [members] [news] [press area] [events] [publications] [campaigning] [consultations] [deaf awareness week] [grants] [affiliation] [contact] |
In this Report
Commons Written Answers (7 Jan 2003)
Tinnitus Research Consortium
Angela Watkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in establishing the Tinnitus Research Consortium agreed by the then Minister on 11 July 2000.
Mr. Lammy: There was no such agreement. At the meeting on 11 July 2000 with representatives of the British Tinnitus Association, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Health (Mr. Hutton), who then had responsibility for sensory disabilities such as tinnitus, was asked for advice about sources of support for tinnitus research. My right hon. Friend suggested that an approach should be made to the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its grant in aid from the Department of Trade and Industry via the Office of Science and Technology and which is the main agency through which the Government supports medical research. While it is true to say that my right hon. Friend made clear that funds for tinnitus research might be available from the MRC, it would be a mistake to imply that he undertook to secure such funds. The MRC is independent in its funding decisions and does not generally earmark funds for particular topics. The MRC has discussed mechanisms of funding with representatives of the British Tinnitus Association, and always welcomes high quality applications for funding medical research, which are judged in open competition with other demands on funding. The MRC is currently funding research projects related to tinnitus, mainly at the MRC Institute for Hearing Research in Nottingham. The MRC is also funding some more basic work on the auditory system, and this would inform any developments in treatments for a range of hearing disorders including tinnitus.
Commons Written Answers (8 Jan 2003)
Children's Vision
Andy Burnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is
taking to (a) implement a programme of vision screening among children with
hearing impairments; and (b) ensure consistent access in different areas to
specialist eye examinations for children with hearing impairments;
(2) how much public funding was allocated to raising awareness among parents,
children and teachers of (a) the importance and purpose of vision screening
in children, (b) the importance of children having regular eye tests and (c)
children's entitlement to free NHS eye tests in each year since 1997;
(3) what steps he is taking to improve the (a) consistency and (b) quality of
children's vision screening programmes in England.
Mr. Lammy [holding answer 7 January 2003]: The provision of vision screening programmes is a matter for local primary care trusts to consider in accordance with professional advice. This includes vision screening for children with hearing impairments and ensuring access to specialist eye examinations. The national screening committee recommends that all infants and children with a hearing loss should have an expert eye examination as a matter of routine. A national service framework for children, which will set standards aimed at raising the quality of the health and social care services that children receive, is currently under development. Information is not collected centrally on the amount of public funding allocated to raising awareness of vision screening and eligibility for free sight tests-which includes all children under the age of 16 and those aged under 19 in fulltime education.
Commons Hansard (8 Jan 2003)
Foundation Hospitals
Mr. Tredinnick: The Minister clearly agrees. Foundation hospitals should be required to move to an integrated delivery of service, which should include the main complementary therapies-osteopathy, chiropractic, homeopathy, acupuncture and herbal medicine. I served on the Standing Committees scrutinising the Bills in the 1987 and 1992 Parliaments that put provision of chiropractic and osteopathy on the statute book; then many doctors still considered them to be beyond the pale. The fact that they are pretty much mainstream now is to be welcomed. I have always believed that I represent two constituencies in the House. I have been lucky enough to represent Bosworth, a constituency in the middle of England, for 15 years. I have also tried to represent the interests of minority groups who practise complementary and alternative medicine for about 14 years. In that time, there has been a sea change in the House's approach to such matters. In Bosworth, I have 80,000 constituents. My other constituency consists of 10 million people-the number of people using complementary and alternative medicines every year. Recent surveys report that 4.5 million people see a complementary therapist every year. A BBC poll in August 1999 estimated that 20 per cent. of the public used complementary therapies, double the number of 10 years earlier. I shall not bore the House with statistics, but it also showed that 80 per cent. were satisfied with the treatment that they received. I checked the Library this morning and found that the country now has a population of 59.1 million. Of that total, between 25 to 35 per cent. of people now buy remedies, such as simple homeopathic preparations, from chemists. The market is expanding exponentially, as is interest. Whenever I ask colleagues in the House to sign a motion, they always tell me-although they sometimes ask me not to quote them by name-that they have, for example, relatives who take various remedies for their ills. In fact, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), went on the record in a debate on complementary medicines in the summer as saying that he used, I think it was, reflexology. The Government have been on the road to Damascus and now want people to have more choice. They have a wonderful opportunity. In 1981, there were only 13,500 therapists in the complementary sector, but there are now 40,000. That is because of a rise in demand for their services. However, those services are not supplied through NHS hospitals very much. The complementary sector remains the preserve of the middle classes. If the Minister wants a social cause to promote, she should get the range of treatments on offer firmly embedded in the public sector. Many people come to me on these matters, and I shall cite some reasons why the NHS should embrace complementary therapies. For people undergoing chemotherapy for prostate cancer and other problems, an amazingly effective treatment is the use of Chinese herbs and acupuncture. The chemotherapy is rendered much less painful, and recovery periods are much reduced. A year or so ago, I was giving awards at the Royal Free hospital to doctors who had studied complementary medicine. A nurse told me that she was not allowed to use acupuncture on transplant patients, even though fewer transplanted organs would be lost if she were given the opportunity to change patients' energy meridians. I do not want to alarm the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), but powerful steroids are used to treat skin conditions, when there are many ways to treat those conditions with homeopathic or herbal medicine techniques. Simple problems such as tinnitus or the difficulties currently treated with grommets are also susceptible to that approach. There is phenomenal, exponential demand in the health service for such therapies, yet many people do not have the opportunity for treatment. The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, has done quite a lot of work on this and the Government are coming round to the view that these therapies should be incorporated in the health service. I pay tribute to them for getting Professor Pitillo to work on regulating herbal medicine and Professor Chan on acupuncture. These disciplines will soon be regulated; they will have the stamps in the passport that the doctors want. The march of integrated health care will not be stopped. The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), should grasp the nettle now.
Lords Written Answers (8 Jan 2003)
Naturalisation Knowledge Requirements: Sign Language
Baroness Anelay of St Johns asked Her Majesty's Government: What discussions they have held with the British Deaf Association and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf about including sign language as a language the sufficient knowledge of which could give a person the opportunity to make a successful application for naturalisation as a consequence of the implementation of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
Lord Filkin: As mentioned in the letter I sent to the noble Baroness on 3 October, the British Deaf Association and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf were two of the organisations we consulted during the summer on the role of sign language in naturalisation knowledge requirements. As a result of these consultations we concluded that the best course was to waive these requirements for those with serious hearing disabilities.
Commons Written Answers (14 Jan 2003)
Mental Health
Mr. Paul Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will
make a statement on promoting mental health services for (a) the disabled and
(b) ethnic minorities;
(2) what plans he has to develop a research strategy for overseeing service
solutions for (a) ethnic minorities and (b) the disabled, with mental health
problems.
Jacqui Smith: The Department will be launching a comprehensive framework for black and minority ethnic mental health later this year. The framework will cover accessibility of services and relevant research. The National Institute for Mental Health in England (NIMHE) has set up a national black and ethnic minorities mental health innovations and research and development expert group to support the NIMHE research network to support implementation of the framework. The Government White Paper, "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century", is clear that the national service framework for mental health applies to all adults of working age, including people with learning disabilities who have a mental illness. They should be enabled to use generic psychiatric services whenever possible. Each local service should have access to an acute assessment and treatment resource for the small number of individuals with significant learning disabilities and mental health problems who cannot appropriately be admitted to general psychiatric services, even with specialist support. "A Sign of the Times", a consultation document on modernising mental health services for people who are deaf or deaf and blind, was published in July 2002. It set out proposals aimed at making a significant difference to the lives of deaf people with mental health problems whose needs were previously overlooked.
Commons Hansard (20 Jan 2003)
Dog Welfare
Mr. Andrew Rosindell (Romford): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity this evening to speak up for man's best friend and to bring the issue of dog welfare before the House. Millions of British people, including many of our constituents, either own or have owned a dog. There are an equally large number of dog lovers in Britain who recognise the importance of these creatures in the lives of humankind. I am therefore certain that hon. Members will agree that we all have a responsibility to be concerned for their well-being. Before I move to the main focus of my speech, I ask hon. Members to reflect on the significance of dogs in our everyday lives. They are not just household pets; there are guide dogs for the blind and hearing dogs for the deaf. There are schemes that take dogs into hospitals where they bring relief and joy to the sick. Dogs bring happiness and often help to the disabled.
Dogs are a great source of companionship to elderly and lonely people. There is no doubt that dogs contribute to society and play a significant role in all our lives, as is well demonstrated by the excellent work of organisations such as PAT Dogs, Dogs for the Disabled and, of course, Guide Dogs for the Blind.
Commons Written Answers (21 Jan 2003)
Infant Deafness
Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many units operating a newborn screening unit for deafness at birth (a) there are now and (b) are planned to open in 2003; where they are located; and if he will make a statement.
Jacqui Smith: Twenty-three sites are currently providing newborn hearing screening. We expect to bring on a further 16 sites by the end of May 2003, with approximately 30 additional sites during the remainder of the financial year 2003-04. First and second phase sites, by health authority (HA) area, are as follows.
First Phase
Avon HA
Barnsley HA
Bath HA
Bradford HA
Calderdale and Huddersfield HA
Camden and Islington HA
Dewsbury HA
Tower Hamlets HA
East Sussex HA
Manchester HA
Milton Keynes HA
North Cheshire HA
North Derbyshire HA
North Staffordshire HA
Northumberland HA
Nottingham HA
Oxfordshire HA
Sheffield HA
Shropshire HA
Southampton and Winchester HA
Stockport HA
Swindon HA
Waltham Forest HA
Second Phase
Barnet, Enfield and Haringey HA
Bedfordshire HA
Bury, Rochdale and Oldham HA
Cambridgeshire HA
Croydon HA
Doncaster and Bassetlaw HA
Dudley HA
Gloucestershire HA
North Hants HA
Redbridge HA
Salford HA
Trafford HA
South Wiltshire HA
Bolton HA
East Riding and Hull HA
Portsmouth and Isle of Wight HA
Sites are listed by former Health Authority areas, as these were the boundaries in existence when the selection process started.
Standing Committee (21 Jan 2003)
Communications Bill
Dr. Howells: I agree entirely. Far from shooting from the hip, I have great admiration for the RNIB. I want to tell hon. Members what I perceive the truth to be. I am sorry if that offends people, but the issue is an important one. We can bumble along from now until analogue switch-off and we may be in the same position unless we apply greater urgency about getting the audiodescription module technology and the sale and research right.
Mr. Thomas: I hope that that urgency will be applied, and that it will come from the Government as well as those organisations that have represented disabled people. It should also come from the broadcasters themselves as they realise the opportunity provided by digital switchover. Whoever is responsible for not achieving that, disabled, deaf and visually-impaired people will suffer the consequences of that lack of action. Bearing in mind that the Minister said that there should be no diminution from the change from analogue to digital, and that he will go back to his Department, pick up the minutes from that conference and reconsider how the Department can drag people into action, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
......
Mr. Thomas: I beg to move amendment No. 212. The amendment is narrowly defined but it is important to consider it at this stage. The Minister has outlined the thinking behind clause 60, mentioning particularly the public services that may be subject to must-carry obligations and any general conditions of Ofcom. However, something is missing. Many television programmes already provide audiodescription, subtitling and signing for the deaf and visually impaired. In analogue, those services are taken as read. However, an increasing digital divide is appearing. Services for deaf and visually impaired people are prepared with audiodescription, subtitling and signing but are not transmitted in that way.
To the list of services that come under the must-carry obligations, amendment No. 212 would add ''television services for the deaf and visually impaired so far as provided in digital form.''
I emphasise that phrase ''so far as provided''. The amendment does not request an additional service; it requests that analogue broadcasts with subtitling, by the BBC for example, should, when transmitted digitally under a must-carry obligation, still carry the subtitling. Some technical difficulties arise that will have to be dealt with. If the Minister accepts amendment No. 212 in principle, it would have two effects. One would be to ensure that subtitling, audiodescription and signing were explicitly on the must-carry list, and the other would be to highlight to the Committee the need to ensure the widest possible access to audiodescription and other types of assistance. Such assistance will have already been prepared but, increasingly, it is not available to deaf and visually impaired people because of the technology that they are using at home.
The universal service directive states that '' 'must carry' obligations may include the transmission of services specifically designed to enable appropriate access by disabled users.''
That raises the question of why such a statement is not explicit either in this clause or in any other clause in the Bill. It may well be that, in stating services that are to come under the must-carry obligations-services on Channels 3, 4, Five, S4C digital and so on-the Minister and the Government have in mind the automatic inclusion of audiodescription, signing or subtitling with programmes. However, in the absence of anything to that effect being explicit in the Bill, it is worth while our exploring how such services can be delivered. The present difficulty is that many visually impaired and deaf people cannot get subtitling or audiodescription on digital satellite services. As soon as the main broadcasters such the BBC or ITV transmit in digital, those aspects are lost. As a result, by the time an analogue public service broadcast with subtitling has gone up to a satellite and come back into a deaf person's home, it no longer has subtitling. That is a weakness in the present technology, which must clearly be dealt with. The Committee must concern itself with that and try to place it more specifically in the Bill, so that we know that we are protecting a publicly available service in the switch from analogue to digital.
The current provision exists on satellite. I am told by the Royal National Institute of the Blind, to which I am grateful for information, that Sky digital provides a good service that is expanding. It is good to hear that, but although it works technically and it works well, it is specifically a service for satellite. I am told that Sky uses software that is downloaded to the customer's digiboxes, so all they have to do is change to an audionarrative setting and they have an audiodescription in their own home. That open audio service is provided at no extra cost and I congratulate Sky for helping people with visual impairments to enjoy their programmes. The difficulty is that that only happens on Sky programmes and where it is provided otherwise. BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and S4C programmes may include an element of subtitling, signing, or any other access assistance. However, by the time that people get into the software, and those things get scrambled and unscrambled, the audio description is not there at the other end of the satellite system. I have been provided, helpfully, with another example of what one could see, as it were, if one were audio-assisted. On Christmas day, people using Sky could, had they needed such a service, have had audiodescriptions of ''Aerobics Oz Style'', ''The Premiership Years'' and three films: ''The View from the Swing'', ''Special Delivery'' and ''Supergirl''. I admit that I have not heard of any of those films and I am not sure that I would have been encouraged to tune in to such programmes. By contrast, if people had been watching audiodescribed programmes provided by the public service broadcasters on analogue, rather than on digital, they could have enjoyed audiodescriptions of ''EastEnders'', ''Only Fools and Horses'' and ''Chicken Run''. I am not sure if those are more appealing than the Sky programmes, but they are at least more familiar. It is clear that visually impaired people are missing out on much programming that is being made technically available to them, but which is not being delivered through satellite channels.
The BBC spent money on the audiodescription of programmes this Christmas, in which only 45 visually impaired viewers, who were taking part in a trial of audiodescription on DTT, were able to participate. That shows how far we have to go. Why do we not require broadcasters to provide versions that are technically suitable for broadcast on Sky? My amendment would do that. Why do we not require the satellite operators and digital cable to carry such descriptions?
There will be technical difficulties and costs will be involved, but I am advised that there is enough bandwidth and that there would be no additional programme-making costs, because those audiodescriptions are already being made available. My amendment does not demand an increase in the amount of audiodescription, signing, or subtitling, it simply asks that what is already available is made available on digital satellite.
The BBC transmits its audiodescription differently from Sky, so a technical hurdle must be overcome. I am advised-I certainly do not know about the relevant technology-that it is possible to reroute the audiodescription signal through particular equipment and software, which would make the mix that Sky could then use to broadcast as part of the must-carry requirements. The digital divide is increasing for many visually impaired and deaf people and Freeview has not sorted out the problem of audiodescription. Accordingly, I hope that the Minister will accept, at least in principle, that there is a need for must-carry television PSBs to include, wherever possible, television services for the deaf and the visually impaired where those are already provided in digital form.
Lords Hansard (23 Jan 2003)
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill
Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 64, line 8, at end insert "including those competent in sign language"
The noble Baroness said: In rising to move Amendment No. 90 and speak to Amendment No. 93, I am aware that it is an interesting fact that, as a result of the changes in procedures in both this House and another place, the Grand Committee sits for quite some time after the main Chambers have adjourned. However, be that as it may.
I tabled these amendments simply in order to obtain an assurance from the Minister that the Government will have regard to the needs of witnesses who are deaf or hard of hearing. The Minister will be aware that a substantial number of people in this country-somewhere between 7 million and 8 million-have hearing difficulties. One would assume that the proportion must be the same in other countries, too. As we have already discussed in debate on other amendments, the rules in Schedule 2 that cover the giving of evidence by telephone and television link refer to interpreters. My amendment simply asks the Government whether interpreters will include those who are competent in sign language or, indeed, in other forms of communication. It is obvious that that would be of benefit to those giving evidence by television. One would also need to know what measures were in place to assist those giving evidence by telephone. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I can be brief in responding on this matter. The term "interpreters", as it currently stands, is drafted in general terms and would include those competent in sign language. The provision is included to meet the requirement of Article 10 of the MLAC. In practice, domestic courts would always provide interpretation in the event of a witness not understanding the language in which the proceedings were being conducted because the interests of justice would not be served without interpretation.
Therefore, sign language applies as well as verbal interpretation. Under the terms of Schedule 2, the rules of court must already make provision for the use of interpreters. We see no reason why the term "interpreters" should not include those competent in sign language. As I have always understood, signing must be a language all of its own and therefore I see no problem with that. However, we are grateful for the opportunity to clarify the situation. I believe that that will probably have been the last word from either of our two Houses this evening.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I can be even briefer in welcoming that excellent response, which I shall transmit to the British Deaf Association and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People. They will be as delighted as I am. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Standing Committee (23 Jan 2003)
Communications Bill
Mr. Thomas: I shall speak briefly to new clause 15. This is our third debate on access for deaf and visually impaired people to broadcasting services. It is right that we have had that many debates because it gives us a chance to explore new aspects of services. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East did that when he talked about interactive services. My points about new clause 15 are similar to those that were raised during Tuesday's debate on clause 60. I want to ensure that broadcasters carry services to allow deaf and visually impaired people to take advantage of subtitling and audiodescription as technology improves and there is a possibility of more services, especially in a digital format. On Tuesday, we said that technology such as DVD, which includes options for audiodescription or subtitling, is increasingly available. The services should become available through the mass media so that it is generally available rather than available only for individual purchase.
We tend to forget the wide extent to which subtitling is accessed. It is used not only by people who call themselves disabled, but by those who have a bit of trouble following the noise of a television in the background. Elderly people use subtitling most often, but others find it useful. People in Wales who want to learn Welsh use subtitles to follow Welsh-language programmes. Although watching subtitles on broadcast programmes was considered to be strange several years ago, it is now part of the viewing experience. The fact that pressing the interactive red button on a remote control often produces more text on screen will increase the extent to which people will use television to access a range of information and entertainment that mixes vision and text. New clause 15 would ensure that Ofcom would set general conditions that it considered appropriate for the digital transmission of audiodescribed television programmes. We discussed the technical problems with that on Tuesday and the Minister told us why the availability of audiodescription on digital television had not moved along. He said that there had not been enough co-ordination between different parties, and no doubt his comments were listened to.
The new clause would not prescribe the audiodescription that should be available but would mean that Ofcom would have a duty to decide the general conditions that it considered appropriate. I followed the Government's language in the Bill by giving Ofcom powers to decide what should be appropriate. The new clause does not prescribe in any shape or form. However, I want to ensure that Ofcom gives proper consideration to making audiodescription for programmes available in the widest possible form on digital. We discussed problems of satellites in that regard on Tuesday. I hope that the Minister will accept that such a provision would strengthen Ofcom's role in relation to disabled people. During consideration of the Office of Communications Bill and this Bill, we have debated whether a representative of people with disabilities should serve on the Ofcom board. Given that that was turned down in favour of a small and narrow board of regulators, I hope that the Minister will accept that Ofcom should have a general duty to consider the matters.
The Chairman: Order. I deem it to be 11.25 am. We shall adjourn until 2.30 pm.
[back to Deafness in Parliament]
| [home] [search this site] [about us] [members] [news] [press area] [events] [publications] [campaigning] [consultations] [deaf awareness week] [grants] [affiliation] [contact] |
UK Council on Deafness, Registered Charity Number 1038448
Your use of this site is in accordance with our Privacy
Statement
© UK Council on Deafness, 2003-5.
|
|
 |
 |