UK Council on Deafness

July 2002 Parliamentary Report

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 4 Jul 2002

Films (Subtitling)

Mr. Alan Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions her Department has had with the film industry over subtitled films for deaf people.

Dr. Howells: The Department has discussed disability issues, including the provision of sub-titled films for deaf people, with the Film Council and the Cinema Exhibitors Association. The Film Council has provision for sub-titled films in its new specialised distribution and exhibition strategy and the Cinema Exhibitors Association is also working towards more sub-titled films for the deaf with the provision of new equipment. The Department has also liaised with the audiovisual industry, for example via the Broadcasters Disability Network and the British Video Association, as well as with organisations representing those with hearing difficulties in order to promote the availability of sub-titled material throughout the audiovisual sector.

Television (Subtitling)

Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how she plans to ensure that the quality standards for television subtitling are maintained once the regulatory requirements for television subtitling are extended to digital cable and satellite in future communications legislation.

Dr. Howells: The draft Communications Bill gives OFCOM a requirement to produce, publish and from time to time review, a Code relating to provision of television services for the deaf and visually impaired and the means by which such services should be promoted. The Code will include guidance on the technical standards to be attained for subtitling, as the current Code produced by the Independent Television Commission does. The Code applies to the services listed in subsection (9) of Section 203 of the draft Communication Bill.

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 1 Jul 2002

Audiology Services

Mr. Berry: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to spend more than the £20 million investment in audiology services announced on 24 December 2001.

Jacqui Smith: Since 2000-01, we have invested £30.75 million in modernising hearing aid services, including the provision of digital hearing aids. Recently a team led by James Strachan, chief executive of Royal National Institute for the Deaf, has been successful in negotiating a significant reduction in the cost to the national health service of purchasing digital hearing aids. These price reductions will enable the rollout of modernised services to proceed more quickly.

Questions for Written Answer WEDNESDAY 10th JULY

Notices given on Tuesday 2nd July

Mr Menzies Campbell (North East Fife): To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to make deaf employees exempt from paying tax on their hearing aids; and if he will make a statement.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

Clause 1
Amendment No. 5
THE BARONESS ANELAY OF ST JOHNS
Page 1, line 17, after "language" insert "or sign language"

Lords Hansard (8 Jul 2002)
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 1, line 17, after "language" insert "or sign language"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment which, I hope, is uncontroversial, but which would assist profoundly deaf people if the Government were to accept it. I thank the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, the British Deaf Association and the Immigration Advisory Service for their helpful briefing on the matter.

The amendment's effect would be to include sign language as a language the sufficient knowledge of which could enable a person to make a successful application for naturalisation. What will be the legal status of sign language under Clause 1? Clause 1(3) enables provision to be made by regulations to determine whether a person has sufficient knowledge about a language before he can successfully apply for naturalisation. We have just had an extensive and sensitive debate on that matter.

Will a person who is deaf or hard of hearing and who uses sign language be catered for in those provisions without discrimination against him/her? If so, how? The RNID and the BDA share my concern about that. The problem is that the working of the clause as drafted appears to be based on the idea that the only languages in existence are spoken languages and that the only indigenous languages in the UK are English, Welsh and Scottish Gaelic.

Will there be facilities for teaching people whose language is not English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic to learn sign language that is understood in the UK? Will those facilities be sufficient for the number of applicants wanting to use them? I listened with great care to the points made about current facilities for teaching English. The amendment takes us a stage further, because people will need even greater ability if they have to teach sign language as well.

For some deaf people. sign language is their first, or certainly their preferred, language. It is surely beyond dispute that British Sign Language-and, indeed, other forms of sign language-is a language in its own right, with its own vocabulary and syntax. We must also remember that sign languages vary throughout the world in the same way as spoken languages.

Is the Minister aware that the BDA has recently received a number of calls to its helpline asking for advice in cases of deaf people from overseas who are seeking asylum? Do the Government have figures for the number of people who are deaf or hard of hearing who currently seek naturalisation and who use sign language? I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say about the advisory committee to be chaired by Professor Crick. The Minister referred en passant to illiteracy and handicap as being within the committee's remit. Is the issue of sign language therefore swept up by the committee, or will the Government, as I hope that they will, consider it separately as a language in its own right?

I also follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. We anticipate that the Bill will be reported in October. Can the Government assure us that any regulations to be proposed to address concerns raised on languages and in general will be available to the House before Report, so that we are able properly to address those matters? I beg to move.

Baroness Uddin: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has raised a fundamental point to which we do not often adhere in discussion of nationality and immigration. In fact, I think that it may be almost the first time that it has been raised. I welcome the amendment and support what the noble Baroness said. I have nothing to add, except to say that it is critical that her concerns are taken on board. I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say, and hope that that information will then be relayed to those outside, because many disabled organisations work with disabled people. There is the issue not only of sign language but of the use of Braille and other systems. The principle is good and needs to be established, and the fears and anxieties that have arisen from the discussion need to be put out.

Lord Dholakia: We also support the amendment. We should look not only at what to include but also at exclusions from the provision; particularly whether people who suffer from mental illness should be allowed or expected to take the test.

Within the communities are people who are not part of the mainstream process within which they would receive the same benefits as indigenous people. We have to be careful in terms of their attainment of sign language and of other disabilities from which they may suffer. I hope that the Minister will look not only at what should be included but also at what should be excluded, particularly among people applying for citizenship who cannot comply because of their condition.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: The presence on the Front Bench of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, encourages me to think that the Government might accept the amendment or a variant of it. On the Homelessness Bill, which he piloted through Grand Committee, my noble friend Lady Hanham moved an amendment seeking that tenants should have read to them a particular document that was necessary as part of the procedure. Of course, that is the mirror case to what we are talking about. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, accepted the spirit of the amendment and I hope that his contiguous presence might cause the Minister to do so too on this occasion.

Lord Filkin: I am sure the Committee will recognise that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer's contiguous presence always has a benign influence on me.

The Government understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that those who use sign language should not be disadvantaged in any way in seeking British citizenship. It is our firm intent that the Bill should not have such an effect. The present nationality instructions and the relevant guide, both of which are public documents, make it clear that applicants can demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the relevant language through sign language. That will continue to be the case.

The debate is how sign language is to be tested. The exact requirements need to be considered further. As I am sure the noble Baroness knows, there are many forms of sign language. We would like to consider the matter in more detail and consult organisations with expertise such as the British Deaf Association, RNID and others. I hope that the noble Baroness will therefore be content to withdraw the amendment while we reflect and return to the matter on Report, recognising that it is unlikely that the consultation process through Sir Bernard Crick will have been completed by then and that regulations will not necessarily be ready, but no doubt we should be in a better position to share with the House the work carried out over the summer.

There are two interconnected issues: first, how people who need to communicate in sign language can be assessed in ways that do not disadvantage them; secondly, exemptions. As the Committee knows, the Bill gives the Home Secretary powers to make exemptions from some of the evaluation criteria for certain people. It was envisaged that a person of 65 or more might not be expected to comply, just as people with certain disabilities might not be expected to comply. There might be a debate as to whether a person who could communicate only in sign language should be exempt in certain circumstances, such as if he was older, or whether it would be in his interests if he was younger to be helped to communicate as well as he could to maximise his contribution to and benefits from his citizenship.

The issues require careful thought and we would like to use the summer for it, taking up some of the points on consultation that have been mentioned. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the Minister for his reply, although I was disappointed with parts of it. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and my noble friend Lord Brooke for their support. I am grateful that support came from around the Committee. As the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, said, it is important that organisations outside the House are not alarmed by the process being implemented. The House has an effective role to play in debates on the issues in Clause 1, particularly because so many of the amendments tabled in another place were not called because of programming Motions. This is one example of an important matter that could not be debated through lack of time. I am therefore grateful to Members of the Committee for giving their time to the debate.

I am disappointed that the close relationship on the Front Bench between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, did not bring forth fruit at this stage, but I accept that the summer provides proper time for reflection. My patience will not last for ever and I was disappointed to hear that the conclusions from the Crick advisory committee may not be ready for Report stage. I will consider carefully the amendments I table on Report to take account of how far that committee has reached in its deliberations and of whether the Government are prepared to bring forward regulations at that stage or by Third Reading. Those people preparing to make applications for naturalisation need to know how to approach the application in a proper manner. Having heard the Minister's response, I am prepared at this stage to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Commons Written Answers (10 Jul 2002)
Hearing Aids

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to make deaf employees exempt from paying tax on their hearing aids; and if he will make a statement.

Dawn Primarolo: The Government are continuing to remove barriers to work and ensure that disabled people do not face discrimination in the workplace. Regulations came into force on 9 July 2002, which will ensure that benefits for disabled employees which may be used both in and out of the workplace, such as a hearing aid, will not be liable to a tax charge.

Commons Written Answers (11 Jul 2002)
Hearing Aids

Annabelle Ewing: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to exempt deaf employees from paying tax on their hearing aids; and if he will make a statement.

Ruth Kelly: The Government are continuing to remove barriers to work and ensure that disabled people do not face discrimination in the work place. Regulations came into force on 9 July 2002, to ensure that benefits for disabled employees which may be used both in and out of the work place, such as a hearing aid, will not be liable to a tax charge.

Commons Written Answers (15 Jul 2002)

Public Consultations

Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the length was of each public consultation undertaken by her Department since 8 June 2001.

Estelle Morris: The following table [single entry extracted by UKCoD] provides a list of written consultations with the public carried out by this Department since 8 June 2001 including the duration of each consultation. The Department has complied with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultation in each case, applying exemptions where appropriate.

[back to top]

[back to Deafness in Parliament]

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.