| 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
Lords Hansard (3 Jun 2003)
Communications Bill
Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 236:
Page 264, line 36, leave out "from time to time" and insert "at least once every three years"
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 239, 240, 241, 244, 245, 247, 248 and 249. With all those amendments, it sounds like a big debate ahead but the issue is important rather than big.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the code relating to the understanding and enjoyment of television by deaf and visually impaired people is kept up-to-date. We want the code to be reviewed every three years instead of the ridiculous concept of "from time to time". That could mean anything. It could mean "from decade to decade" or "from each half century onwards". We all agree that the pace of change of technology in the broadcasting industry is phenomenal and that the number of cable and satellite channels is growing rapidly. We should like the code to be kept up to date and regularly reviewed. A review every three years would ensure that it does not lag behind the latest developments.
Amendment No. 239 seeks to ensure that Ofcom takes an active role in raising awareness about subtitles and other services. I find it absolutely remarkable that many deaf people are unaware of the availability of subtitles, which could solve many of their problems in relation to television. They simply do not know about them.
This is illustrated by the fact that a little while ago a noble Lord approached me and asked how his wife could receive subtitles. I said, "With analogue, it is very simple. You press the text button, 888, and there they are. You are guaranteed them nearly all the time at peak hours. It is even easier on digital television". A little while later he came back to me and said, "It is miraculous. My wife's life is transformed. She can now watch television and understand it, which she could not do without subtitles". It is a simple thing but, before that conversation, this man's wife was unable to watch television and enjoy it. That was last year in 2002.
Equally remarkable is that there is virtually no publicity about which satellite programmes are subtitled. On all five analogue channels it is indicated very clearly which programmes are subtitled. That is not the case with digital television. So the many millions of people who rely on subtitles have to wait for the broadcast and switch on to see whether the programme is subtitled. If it is not, they simply lack comprehension of what it is all about. That is not good enough. People are entitled to know which programmes are subtitled and which are not to enable them to choose in good time.
The RNID estimates that nearly half a million elderly deaf and hard-of-hearing people are missing out on the benefits of subtitles - an astonishing figure. Undoubtedly Ofcom should take an active role in raising awareness. I hope that the amendment will be acceptable to the Government.
The proposal in the Bill to extend the requirements for subtitling, signing and audio description are welcome and marvellous as far as they go, but in the small print there is the absurd provision that the companies should be allowed 10 years to introduce them. Ten years? We can start a war and finish it in a couple of months. I hope that the Committee will find 10 years totally unacceptable.
Amendment No. 240 seeks to reduce this period to five years. I believe that we are being far too modest - five years is also an exorbitant and outrageously long period - but because we are reasonable and try all the time to accommodate the Government we have suggested five years.
I appreciate that the "relevant date" referred to in the clause is not necessarily the date on which the Bill will become operative, but it could be an earlier date. For example, for Channel 5 the date is 1st January 1998. Five years on, it is 1st January 2003. But Channel 5 is already subtitling 54 per cent of its output. In view of the remarkable developments in subtitle production, it would certainly be possible for Channel 5 to reach a figure of 80 per cent by the conclusion of the Bill.
The amendments' main targets are digital and satellite channels, which should never have been excluded from the Broadcasting Act 1996. It would be indefensible to give them a further 10 years before they are required to provide a comprehensive service to deaf and visually impaired viewers.
I suspect, although I have no proof, that cable and satellite lobbyists have been hard at work on department officials. That is just my own sense of what might have happened. Officials talk to Ministers and the word goes around. I can image the lobbyists pleading poverty, saying "Our profits will be damaged. Profits will be slashed if we have to subtitle programs. We will have to sell our grannies' jewellery. Even worse, we will have to send our wives out to work. That would be a disaster. Please don't insist on subtitling for all our programmes."
I hope that Ministers will see through those nonsensical claims of poverty and expense. The costs are relatively small - typically less than £400 for one hour of television, which is peanuts. Millions of pounds are spent on programmes, so £400 an hour is nothing.
Subtitling costs have fallen in recent years and are set to fall even further. Subtitling companies are using new software that significantly increases staff productivity, which is vital to bringing costs down and making it easier for companies. I saw voice recognition technology demonstrated five years ago. It worked then and it certainly works now. It is developing quickly and is already being used by some subtitling companies and the BBC.
Subtitling has become an intensely competitive business, so companies have been forced to reduce their charges to broadcasters. I was amused the other week to receive a letter from a subtitling company executive asking me to help him to find new markets. He wrote, "The reduction in subtitling charges has been brutal". Maybe brutal to him but I warmly welcome that cut. If I could, I would make it even more brutal.
Films are routinely subtitled at the time of their cinema release. Broadcasters can merely acquire the subtitling file so that the film can be shown with subtitles on television.
Those factors are all important and, in aggregate, they make providing subtitles a very easy option. I hope that Ministers will set their faces firmly against the lobbying and arguments made by company representatives.
Cable and satellite companies have greatly exaggerated the costs. If they want to maximise the audience for their programmes, why not use subtitles? By refusing to subtitle adequately, they are excluding deaf viewers. The pathetic subtitling currently offered discourages many deaf people. There are 8 million deaf and hard-of-hearing people. Not all of them use subtitling but many have an interest in it and should be catered for.
The BBC is committed to 100 per cent subtitling by 2008. The Federal Communications Commission in the US has stated that all English-language programmes first shown in 1998 onwards must be subtitled by 2006. Why should deaf and sight-impaired British viewers be the poor relations? It would be outrageous if the provision of full and adequate subtitling had to wait until 2013. It can and should be done earlier. I look to Ministers to accept what is a modest and reasonable amendment.
Amendment No. 241 seeks to buttress the two previous amendments and to ensure that more people know how to access subtitles on both analogue and digital television and should know in advance which programmes are subtitled. Amendment No. 244 seeks to reduce the number of exemptions for subtitling or signing or audio description by ensuring that a large broadcasting company is prevented from obtaining too many exemptions for some of its channels.
This is a complicated issue. Like the subtitling amendment, the amendment on exemptions is of profound importance to us. These are the two key amendments and I hope that the Government will be willing to accept them because they will be pursued at all stages of the Bill. The amendment seeks to try to stop Ofcom providing too many exemptions. Often, when people subscribe to digital, cable and satellite television, they have to buy a package of channels. It is therefore wrong and misleading for broadcasters to be able to plead that it is technically very difficult and that they cannot afford subtitling, signing or audio descriptions of one of their specific channels.
It is really a concern that the Government are considering exempting a large number of channels. They should think again because if exemption were granted to all channels with an audience share of below O.05 per cent it is estimated that fewer than half, that is, 66 of the total 150 channels, would be faced with the requirements. I believe that such a high figure is unacceptable. The case for very few exemptions is strengthened by the low cost of subtitling, which I mentioned a moment ago.
I am glad that Kim Howells in another place said that he sympathised with the spirit of the amendment. But we do not want sympathy for the spirit; we want support for the content. He argued that it would be at best burdensome and impossible in many cases for Ofcom to investigate the details of each establishment and the funding arrangements to determine whether exclusion was appropriate. Of course, it is not impossible. And it is hardly burdensome. Every commercial broadcaster has financial accounts and other information which is publicly available. It is impossible to accept the Government's excuses to exempt these channels. It would be burdensome on deaf and hard of hearing people if they do so. I hope that they will think again. The amendments are of profound importance.
Amendment No. 245 seeks to ensure that information which Ofcom already collects is placed in the public domain. The Bill will extend subtitling, signing and audio description requirements to some 150 channels, digital, cable and satellite. With so many it is likely that Ofcom will have to take on trust a great deal of information provided by the broadcasters. It will have to do that because there is no way round taking the matter on trust. Allowing this information to be publicly inspected would ensure that the public knew about it and would ensure full compliance with the legislation.
Finally, I refer to Amendments Nos. 247, 248 and 249. They deal with the omission of people who are deaf and blind from the provision for Ofcom to review the code giving guidance to deaf, blind and partially sighted people. Having one of these sensory disabilities inevitably creates problems. I know from personal experience how devastating total deafness can be. But total deafness and blindness to some measure must be unbelievably difficult. For those who are totally deaf and totally blind, clearly television has little to offer. But many deaf blind people have the use of one of these faculties, which they should be able to maximise. It is for them that these amendments are intended. The amendments are put forward in good faith. If they are brushed aside by the Government a great number of people will suffer. If accepted by the Government, especially the amendments about subtitling and exemptions, millions of deaf, hard of hearing and sight-impaired people will be helped. I beg to move.
Baroness Wilcox: I support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, in general and Amendment No. 236 in particular. I am amazed at the audacity of the civil servants that they have put this classic, this old chestnut, this out of "Yes Minister" wording of "from time to time" when referring to the frequency that Ofcom should review the code on the provisions for the deaf and visually impaired. That is surely too loose.
In such a rapidly changing industry, would it not be sensible to have a maximum period of time between reviews to ensure that the code does not fall out of date? As we have heard, as new technology becomes available, it is important that the code is regularly altered to reflect the situation on the ground. The cost of failing to alter the wording of the Bill in this way may well be that as Ofcom is stretched in different directions, it begins to interpret "from time to time" as "whenever it suits us" or "very rarely indeed" to the detriment of the disabled consumers who have much to gain from new technology, if only they were able to take advantage of it.
Lords Hansard (3 Jun 2003)
Communications Bill
Lord Addington: This is a group of amendments to which I have been waiting to speak for a long time. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has done a magnificent job of going through them all individually and explaining what is behind them. He has actually touched on a series of subjects which we in the disability lobby have all been talking around for a long time. The fact is that we should try to enact what we can on this issue and do it now.
The points about audio-description and subtitling are based on, shall we say, what we are capable of doing. What is the technology there for? The primary point of a 10-year wait is that it is a long term project, but it will not be dealt with or even thought about until it is a medium term project. Finally, it is panicked about in the short term and done badly. That tends to be my experience of these matters. However, we can do it now for under £400 per hour. That figure has been constantly quoted to me for the past three years. In real terms, the cost is falling.
That is a tiny percentage of the cost for virtually any television programme. On the issue of exemptions, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for tabling this amendment and for allowing me to add my name to it. This issue has been a bugbear of mine for a while. Within a huge package of channels designed for the age of multi-channels - effectively anorak TV - those who are hard of hearing should be allowed to indulge their passion for, say, programmes about World War II produced from old newsreels and using a voice over. They are cheap to make with possibly a very low audience. The same programmes are repeated again and again, giving hours of broadcasting, and they could be dealt with easily by one small package of subtitles.
What runs through this series of amendments is that they are all technically achievable now. If the Government reject the amendments, not only will they be picking a fight, but they will be saying that they will not do what is easily achievable.
I shall now do the reverse of common parliamentary practice by congratulating the department on including a clause in the Bill relating to provision for the deaf and visually impaired. But you cannot go to this party without taking more than one bottle with you; you must be there for the long haul. We must get the matter right now or we shall have to return to it again and again.
As regards the first amendment in the group, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, hit the matter squarely on the head - the code must be reviewed regularly. Perhaps the expression "from time to time" has a wonderful legal precedent of which we have never heard which means that the code will be reviewed every two years and three months. But unless the expression means precisely that, the suggestion of a review every three years seems a valid one.
We are not talking about the cutting edge of technology. We know what we can achieve with the technology that is available. I hope that the Government will be prepared to take the amendment on board. They do not have to adopt its wording. I do not care who is carrying the standard so long as we win the battle. We want to get the provision into the Bill so that we do not waste time returning again and again to half measures. We can do it now. Let us do so and then forget about the matter and turn to something else. I support the comments made about the deaf-blind.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: We on these Benches always listen with the greatest respect to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, makes. He spoke eloquently and movingly on behalf of the profoundly deaf, the hard of hearing and the blind. He also emphasised the other needs of the disabled which this part of the Bill appears to misunderstand. I join the support given to the amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I hope very much that the Minister will respond not only with sympathy but also with practical suggestions.
Lord Puttnam: I hope that I may refer to a slightly unusual angle in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. I have spent the past six years visiting schools, particularly primary schools, looking at the way in which technology, when used well and with determination, can transform the lives of people who up until now have been excluded completely from society. The notion that for commercial reasons technology that is available is not being used to change people's lives is a very worrying comment on our society.
Baroness Wilkins: I support this set of amendments. When 5 million people regularly use subtitles and it appears from NOP research of January this year that another half a million deaf and hard of hearing elderly people could use them if they knew how to access them, the case for this set of amendments seems very strong. Cable and satellite channels have already been given three years' notice of the 80 per cent subtitling target, making the 10-year lead-in time appear excessive. As we have already heard, the cost of subtitling is cheap. It is getting cheaper and easier all the time so the case for exemptions seems unnecessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, so ably said, it is possible to adopt the provision now. Let us do it. I beg the Government to support the amendments.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I support this group of amendments. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, not only on the way in which he presented the amendments but also on the way in which he has conducted his own life and, indeed, on the way in which he has done so much for the disabled generally.
I agree entirely with the comments that have been made. It is a far too modest suggestion that we reduce from 10 to five years the time for digital, cable and satellite channels to reach the subtitling target. We have heard mention of Channel 5 which I believe has managed voluntarily to reach a figure of 54 per cent in five years. Sky News has made a successful attempt in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, pointed out that the costs are reducing. They seem fairly low already. The price continues to fall due to significant advances in subtitling technology.
I got to grips the other day with DVDs. I was given for Christmas - that is probably the way to get me to get to grips with something - a collection of Audrey Hepburn films. I put my favourite, "Breakfast at Tiffany's", into the slot. Immediately appeared not only the title, but the possibility of seeing and hearing the film in about 20 different languages. It was amazing. If that is possible, it is clearly more than possible that the same will happen as subtitling technology speeds up.
Quite apart from the amendments helping the Government's "inclusive" agenda, there are surely bottom-line advantages to communications companies in attracting wider audiences. We have heard already the figure of 5 million regular users of subtitling. That is a considerable potential audience to attract to channels. An even more significant figure from NOP research this year is that the use of subtitling does not, as one would surely expect, increase with age.
As most Members of the Committee know, those with hearing impediments are already the largest group of disabled in the UK. As we are all living longer, and some deafness will almost inevitably appear the older one gets, those overall numbers will clearly grow. There is a potential market to be exploited.
It is sensible to ask that Ofcom's duties include ensuring that likely users of subtitling services, both analogue and digital, have adequate information promoted by all channels, that the services exist and - at least as important - how to find and access them. That is somewhat more difficult for the elderly, given the complex systems we all now try to grapple with, than for the younger generation.
To help ensure that we know how the policy is progressing, I suggest that Amendment No. 245, which proposes that Ofcom collate and publish information on subtitling on a yearly basis, makes sense. Even if I have made the case for the amendment mainly on economic grounds, it is of course a primary duty of all governments to ensure that we all have equal access to the everyday means of gaining information, education and entertainment. The RNID estimates that there are as many as 500,000 elderly people who are deaf and hard of hearing, and there are the visually impaired as well. They all miss out on the benefits of subtitling. As the RNID states:
"This represents a huge number of people who are experiencing a reduced quality of life - missing out on news, documentaries, sport and all the other information and enjoyment that television can bring".
I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept what I think are, in a way, far too modest proposed changes, and reassure many who fear that that group of disadvantaged citizens will continue to be sidelined.
Baroness Blackstone: My noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke knows how much I sympathise with him and the issues that he has raised. I shall start with Amendment No. 236 and work through each amendment, as they are all rather different.
We would expect Ofcom to review and revise the code regularly, particularly as technical developments in the area can sometimes move quite fast. I would like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that her attack on civil servants was completely inappropriate. However, the decisions as to the frequency of any reviews and revisions should ultimately be left to Ofcom, which will have the experience and expertise to judge when such reviews and revisions might be necessary. Giving Ofcom a duty to review and revise the code at least once every three years could put an unnecessary burden on it and I doubt that it would lead to a substantially different result. We should trust Ofcom. I believe that it will be committed to carrying out regular reviews in that area.
I turn to Amendment No. 239. The current duty is to give guidance as to the means by which the services should be promoted. I cannot see that the word "extensively" adds much to Ofcom's requirement. There is already a substantive obligation in Clause 298(1)(a) for Ofcom to provide guidance on the extent to which relevant services should promote the understanding and enjoyment of programmes in their service. The amendment would undermine it.
We have considerable sympathy with Amendment No. 241. It is in the service provider's best interests actively to promote the services they offer to hearing impaired and visually impaired people as these groups make up an important part of their audience - over 10.5 million people. However, I am aware that that does not always happen and that large numbers of sensory-impaired people, particularly the elderly, are unaware of the existence of subtitling, signing and audio-description and are therefore unable to benefit from them.
In complying with the code, Ofcom will have to give guidance on the extent to which services should promote understanding and enjoyment by people with sensory impairments. It is right for this guidance specifically to cover the need for service providers to make users aware of subtitling, signing and audio-description and of how to access them, and we will consider whether an amendment is necessary to the Bill to make this absolutely clear.
I have some sympathy with the underlying aim of Amendment No. 244, but it would be rather difficult to put into practice. First, the fact remains that the obligation to provide assistance to disabled people, and with it Ofcom's only lever, is on the licence holder, even if the service forms part of a family of channels. By the same token, the costs of providing the subtitling, signing and audio-description would fall on the licence holder rather than on the parent company.
Secondly, it would be extremely difficult and resource-intensive on a practical level for Ofcom to investigate the establishment and funding arrangements of each channel in order to consider the impact of its relationship with a parent company on any case for exclusion from the obligations. I must therefore disagree with my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke. I cannot accept this amendment.
I turn to Amendment No. 240. Following the review of the statutory requirements for subtitling, signing and audio-description, the report of which was published in January 2001, we believe that a 10-year period in which to satisfy these obligations is a target which for some will be quite challenging. But it is achievable. This target will give those services with new obligations, like digital, cable and satellite services, enough time to plan for their introduction. The time-scale does not mean that there will be no subtitling on those channels until the end of the 10-year period. Ofcom will have the ability to set interim targets on the way to meeting 10-year targets, as the ITC currently does, so provision of subtitling, signing and audio-description will grow year by year.
We do, however, understand concerns expressed that 10 years is a long time and that early progress should be expected. The arguments are particularly strong in relation to subtitling, which is a well established technology that can already be provided at a relatively low cost - I agree with what was said about that - and which is likely to become cheaper to provide as new developments such as voice-recognition come on stream. Again, I accept the arguments in that regard.
We do not believe that it would be right to reduce the overall 10-year timetable for the reasons that I have already given. However, we will consider amending the Bill to set out a fixed, interim five-year target for subtitling, which would apply to broadcasters with new requirements to provide subtitling rather than leave the matter to Ofcom. A challenging five-year target would allow progress on providing subtitling to be accelerated in the early years. That would ensure that those broadcasters with new requirements in that area could catch up as quickly as possible with those already providing subtitling, and it should help to lead to a dramatic increase in the amounts of subtitling available over the period. We will consider the details further and come back with an amendment on Report.
As the Bill now stands, Ofcom must consider the extent to which codes made under this part of the Bill have been complied with in carrying out its annual factual and statistical report under Clause 351. It will be for Ofcom to decide the appropriate level of detail that should be included in its report, and I am sure it will consider the arguments for providing as much information as possible so that people with sensory impairments can properly assess the levels of provision on different services. I am not therefore persuaded that an amendment to the Bill is necessary.
I turn to the remaining amendments in the group. I know that people with a dual sensory impairment can have sight and hearing loss to such a degree that it leads to problems with accessing information. Specialised means of communication, such as the "deafblind manual alphabet", have been developed for people who have significant impairments to both their sight and hearing. Those means are not particularly well suited to television and realistically, as my noble friend Lord Ashley said, a person would need to have some form of hearing or visual ability in order to enjoy or understand that medium. In such a case, the current duty to promote understanding and enjoyment for people who are hearing impaired and visually impaired should satisfy any need in that respect, as should the existing duty on Ofcom to ensure that the code drawn up under Clause 298, or any revision to it, is accessible to persons who are deaf or hard of hearing and blind or partially sighted.
Those people with a more serious dual sensory impairment clearly have specific needs. I am aware that the talking teletext service is particularly useful for them and I wonder whether concerns about the future of that service after digital switchover may lie behind the amendments. We had a full discussion of that issue at a previous sitting and I shall not repeat what was said then.
We have taken into consideration the needs of people with disabilities throughout the development of the Bill, including in relation to the provisions on television services for the deaf and visually impaired, and I believe that the measures that we have introduced represent a significant improvement. I hope that my comments have reassured noble Lords that we take these issues seriously and that we are willing to consider changes to the Bill.
Commons Hansard (3 Jun 2003)
Digital Hearing Aids
Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight): If he will make a statement on the provision of digital hearing aids.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): Over the next two years, we are investing £94 million to make the benefits of digital hearing aids fitted as part of a modernised service available more widely on the NHS. All NHS hearing aid centres in England will be providing digital hearing aids by April 2005.
Mr. Turner : I am glad to hear it, but my constituents are concerned that they have to pay for digital hearing aids, while in wealthier places on the mainland, they are available free on the NHS. Will the Minister explain why she wrote on 27 May:
"If the services commissioned by a PCT . . . do not meet the needs of a particular patient, then GPs do also have freedom to refer elsewhere using the Out of Area . . . arrangements",
while my health trust and PCT both confirm that the nearest pilot site is Winchester and that there is no referring outside area?
Jacqui Smith: That is why it is important that everybody, wherever they live, gets access to digital hearing aids on the NHS. St. Mary's hospital in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is keen to take part in the modernising hearing aids scheme, and by April 2005 it will have the opportunity to do so. His constituents, along with those in the whole of England, will, for the first time, be able to get their digital hearing aids not by going private, but through the NHS.
Mr. Tom Levitt (High Peak): My hon. Friend will be aware that there are some 2 million hearing aid users and perhaps another 2 million who should be using hearing aids. Will she take it from me that to move in three or four years from a position in which no digital hearing aids were available on the NHS to one in which they are 100 per cent. available is a highly commendable achievement? Does she accept that that speed of progress is related to the training and availability of audiologists; and will she assure the House that appropriate training and recruitment of audiologists is taking place to complement the measure?
Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend, who has some expertise, is absolutely right. It is important that we not only introduce new hearing aids, but support that with a modernised service so that people can have the check-ups and preparation that are necessary to make the best use of digital hearing aids. We can do that, first, by helping staff to work in a different way and, secondly, by increasing the number of audiologists. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that from this September, three additional degree courses for audiologists are starting, with more to follow in coming years. Those courses, which are funded by the Department of Health, will ensure that we have the staff in place to match the extra investment that will make the service available to people using the NHS in England.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): Given that the principal logjam is in gaining access to an NHS audiologist, what progress is being made in giving private hearing aid dispensers access to the NHS contract for digital hearing aids?
Jacqui Smith: I am interested not in encouraging people to go out of the NHS privately, but in enabling people within the NHS to get digital hearing aids for free. That is why we have started private sector pilots in Leeds and Shrewsbury that use capacity in the private sector to ensure that more NHS patients get digital hearing aids, and why we are developing a national framework contract to allow us to use capacity in the private sector for NHS patients.
The hon. Gentleman's question highlights the difference between Members on this side of the House and those on the other side. He, like the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), wants to encourage people to pay and get out of the NHS; we want to encourage people to get the service that they deserve in the NHS, and that is what we will do.
Commons Written Answers (9 Jun 2003)
Digital Hearing Aids
John Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the age profile of hearing aid users who have been using analogue hearing aids for more than three years.
Jacqui Smith: Although we have made no detailed age profile, as part of the modernising hearing aid services project a sample was taken of just over 5,000 patients who had been using hearing aids for about three years or more before the project began. This showed a mean age of 70 years with a standard deviation of 14 years, that is, just over two thirds of patients in the sample were aged between 56 and 84 years.
Commons Written Answers (11 Jun 2003)
Digital Hearing Aids
Mrs. Iris Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress since 1st January on making digital hearing aids more widely available in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Browne: Digital hearing aids (DHAs) are to be introduced, on a phased basis, from September this year. Trusts with audiology departments have started to recruit additional audiologists and to install specialist testing equipment needed to support the introduction of DHAs. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has established a small working group that includes head audiologists, a consultant ENT surgeon and the Northern Ireland Director of RNID to develop guidance on candidacy for the new aids and to oversee introduction.
Lady Hermon: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the criteria for the allocation of NHS digital hearing aids in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Browne: Digital hearing aids are to be introduced, on a phased basis, from September this year. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has established a small working group that includes head audiologists, a consultant ENT surgeon and the Northern Ireland Director of RNID to develop guidance on candidacy for the new aids and oversee introduction of digital hearing aids. Draft guidance has been issued for consultation and it is expected that final guidance will issue before the summer.
Commons Written Answers (12 Jun 2003)
Audiology
Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many digital hearing aids have been issued on the NHS since they became available.
Jacqui Smith: A total of 83,397 digital hearing aids were fitted as part of the modernising hearing aid services (MHAS) project by the end of April 2003. We do not know the number of digital hearing aids fitted by those sites that have access to the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency contract for digital hearing aids but are not part of the MHAS project, nor would we know of any digital hearing aids bought outside of the contract, as neither of these figures is collected centrally. Any site with the necessary training and equipment in place may apply for access to the procurement contract so that they can provide digital hearing aids on the national health service.
Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on hearing loss in England.
Jacqui Smith: The Medical Research Council Institute of Hearing Research estimates that there are now approximately 7.5 million people in England who are deaf or hearing impaired. Most of these people acquire their hearing impairment. It is estimated that 55.1 per cent. of people aged over 60 are deaf or hearing impaired compared, to 6.7 per cent. of the under 60s. The Royal National Institute for Deaf People estimates that 1.8 per cent. of young adults under 30 have a hearing impairment.
Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the Royal National Institute for the Deaf; and if he will make a statement.
Jacqui Smith: Officials of the Department of Health are working very closely with the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, who are project managing the modernisation of the hearing aid services programme.
Commons Written Answers (12 Jun 2003)
Hearing Aid Appointments
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting time is for a hearing aid appointment at (a) the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital and (b) the Princess Royal Hospital.
Jacqui Smith [holding answer 10 June 2003]: Although the Department does not collect information on waiting times for hearing aid services centrally, the Royal National Institute for the Deaf's modernising hearing aid services project management team informs us that the out-patient waiting time in Shropshire for new patients, from general practitioner referral to having a hearing aid fitted is between 12 and 15 months. The waiting time is the same for both of the hospitals mentioned. Shropshire is currently negotiating to extend the private sector pilot, making use of high street hearing aid dispensers to increase NHS capacity, and reduce waiting times.
Standing Committee (12 Jun 2003)
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords] Evidence given by television
link or telephone
Mr. Hawkins: I can be brief. Both amendments would have the same effect, and would insert in the schedule the phrase, ''including those competent in sign language''.
There was a brief debate in another place on this subject, and on that occasion Lord Bassam of Brighton sought to reassure Baroness Anelay of St. Johns. Having read that debate, I am not clear whether Lord Bassam had got it right. It was helpful of him to put it on the record that he felt that sign language ''must be a language all of its own and therefore I see no problem with that.''
He also said: ''We see no reason why the term 'interpreters' should not include those competent in sign language.'' If that is so, it would be helpful to avoid doubt and include it in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be happy to do that. Baroness Anelay was, of course, working on behalf of the British Deaf Association and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People - two extremely worthwhile organisations, the work of which I am sure that Members and peers on both sides of both Houses would support.
Years ago, when I was working in the courts, I had a lot of experience of interpretation of different forms. In the spirit of Thursday afternoon - as the Minister puts it - perhaps I should briefly share a couple of experiences that show how easy it is to get things wrong, not just in relation to sign language for the deaf, but in interpretation of other languages. Two particular experiences from my years of practice at the Bar spring to mind. I realise that the following might present one or two challenges to the Hansard writer, so I apologise.
It was well known in the courts around the west midlands - my chambers were in Birmingham and Northampton - that there were two groups of interpreters that worked for the Crown courts and the magistrates courts. One group had extensive experience of working overseas in Asian countries. It contained people who had retired from the Army in India who had learned a number of languages on the subcontinent. They were precise, knowledgeable and always gave an accurate interpretation. The second, less reliable group of interpreters, instead of interpreting what the witness said, used to try to help the witness with his statement or the defendant with the case.
There could be a situation in court in which a lengthy reply was given in another language. I cannot speak any Asian languages, but it would be something like, ''Blblblblll Blblblblll Blblblll' - which will be a challenge for the Hansard writer. The best way to describe it for the benefit of Hansard would be to say, ''a long phrase in an Asian language.'' The interpreter would then translate that as, ''The witness says yes.'' or ''The witness says no.'' It would be clear that the witness or the defendant had said a great deal more than that. Therefore, the interpreter would not be assisting the court.
The other experience that I had in a long and big fraud case was a situation in which all the prosecution witnesses, who were crucial to the prosecution's case, were Breton farmers, none of whom spoke a word of English. Unfortunately, the principal witness had had a tracheotomy, which many hon. Members will remember was the operation that the famous actor, Jack Hawkins - no relation to me, I am sad to say - had undergone. It meant that the witness had to speak through a hole in his throat, having had an operation for throat cancer. A special microphone had to be installed in the Crown court in Northampton, so that he could be understood.
However, not only was the witness speaking French, but in a Breton dialect. Unfortunately, the prosecution chose as the interpreter a lady who spoke fluent French and English, but who had never acted as a court interpreter. From the point of view of the Court Service, that was a catastrophic error, because it meant that the interpreter would have huge problems. She was not from Brittany and did not understand the Breton dialect. What made the situation even worse was that a crucial part of the allegation that the prosecution was making in respect of this fraud related to how agricultural markets operated in Brittany.
In this country, we might call the way in which such markets worked a candle auction or a clock auction. I was one of the defending barristers, and I know that the prosecution experienced enormous difficulties. The Breton farmer would say through the throat microphone, ''Il y a une horloge.'' The interpreter would say, ''Zer is a clock.'' We spent literally hours - I kid the Committee not - trying to work out how on earth the Breton potato and wheat markets worked, through an interpreter, with all the difficulties that that involved. I hope that I have described the sensitivity of problems of interpretation that can arise in courts.
Stephen Hesford rose -
Mr. Hawkins: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, although I am
sure that you will not want us to be detained too long with my recollections,
Mr. Hurst. I must explain why, for the avoidance of doubt, I want a clear provision
in the Bill that that sort of interpretation should include sign language. Finally,
before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I must say that we might have got along
better in the fraud case if we had had sign language, rather than having someone
trying to translate a Breton dialect.
Stephen Hesford: That story could be categorised as a long phrase in English, which is as impenetrable as the hon. Gentleman's ''long phrase'' in Urdu, or whatever he attempted to convey. The relevance of it escapes me. Returning to the amendment, paragraph 8 of schedule 2 states that ''Rules of court under section 49 must make provision for the use of interpreters.''
What other definition could someone signing on behalf of someone else to demonstrate to the court what that deaf or dumb person is trying to say be listed under, other than interpreters? It is an administrative convenience for the court to obtain the right interpreter for the right purpose. It is not necessary to spell that out, otherwise we could spell out an entire list of what might be an appropriate interpreter for a specialised situation. I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken about that.
Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman understands - I hope that he was listening to what I said - that the amendments were originally tabled in another place by Baroness Anelay of St Johns at the request of two worthwhile charities, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the British Deaf Association. We did not consider on reflection that the Minister's answer that it is bound to be covered because he thought that the phrase ''interpreters'' covered sign language was sufficient. We cannot see any reason why such a provision should not be in the Bill, for the avoidance of doubt. That is all I need to say.
Mr. Ainsworth: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman used to enjoy himself so much in his past life, so we are all bemused about why he chose to trade it in and join us in Committee Room 9 so often. I can satisfy him by firming up the language, if that is what is upsetting him, without putting the term ''sign language'' in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West was right. If ''sign language'' were incorporated into the Bill, other languages would have to be covered by it.
I say to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that ''interpreters'' is a general term. It would include those who are competent in sign language. The provision will meet the requirements of article 10 of the convention but, in practice, domestic courts will always provide interpretation in the event of a witness not understanding the language in which the proceedings were being conducted. The interests of justice would not be served without interpretation. That applies to sign as well as to verbal interpretation. Under the terms of schedule 2, rules of court must already make provision for the use of interpreters. The term ''interpreters'' would include those competent in sign language, whenever that was necessary. I have firmed up the language used in another place, if that is what concerned the hon. Gentleman, and it should now be clear that such a provision will be made. It is inappropriate to put it in the Bill.
Mr. Hawkins: I am happy with the Minister's further firming up of what his noble Friend Lord Bassam of Brighton said in another place. It was helpful. In response to his initial canard, what used to frustrate me in the seven-plus years that I was practising at the Bar was that so often I came across parts of the law that needed changing. The more frustrating it became for those of us practising in the courts, the more determined I was to try to get here to do something about it. That is why I am in this Room.
The Chairman: Order. I have shown a certain degree of tolerance, but we should draw a line under that point.
Mr. Heath: I wonder whether the hon. Member for Surrey Heath can help me. I will have to display my ignorance about the number of international variants of sign language. Is it an international language? What is the possibility of finding a person who is capable of interpreting from sign language into English a version of sign language that is in another language, as it were? There may be a practical difficulty.
Mr. Hawkins: I cannot answer that question off the top of my head, but the person to whom I could most usefully refer the hon. Gentleman is my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). To my certain knowledge, she has been trained in signing for the deaf. There may be other hon. Members who have received the same training. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Commons Written Answers (18 Jun 2003)
WORK AND PENSIONS - British Sign Language
Ms Atherton: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 7 April 2003, Official Report, column 85W, on British sign language, what action is being taken to ensure that (a) rural areas and (b) Cornwall are represented on the consultation regarding the additional funding for raising awareness of British sign language; and if he will list those being consulted on how the additional funding should be allocated.
Maria Eagle: We are in the process of establishing a BSL working group comprising organisations of and for deaf people and Government Departments to facilitate the process of consultation. The organisations represented on the working group are the British Deaf Association, the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People, the Federation of Deaf People, the National Deaf Children's Society, The Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the UK Council on Deafness. The working group will be coming forward with proposals for our approval.
Lords Hansard (23 Jun 2003)
Communications Bill
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I support all that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said and I welcome tremendously the government amendment, about which a great deal has been said already. Importantly, the amendment talks about ensuring that usable equipment becomes readily available. I am told by disability organisations that, too often, revolutionary new products sit on the drawing board or at the prototype stage and are not brought to the market. That is very important.
I support all that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said about Amendment No. 53. We hope for a Government assurance on that. I believe that the Danish telecoms agency provides affordable rental equipment to deafblind, hearing or speech-impaired people to enable them to access telecommunications services. We hope it is the Government's understanding of EU law that if it is in the form of a rental service that is allowable too.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I turn to Amendment No. 22, but first, perhaps I may continue the mutual admiration society which my noble friend Lord Ashley and I like to maintain in public.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, that is very kind.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in private we love each other to bits, but that is quite different. As my noble friend Lord Ashley made the case in Committee, with his customary eloquence, for this addition to the functions of Ofcom, I need speak briefly only on what is specific to our amendment. It is a simple but broadly framed duty. We think that, bearing in mind the length of time for which we hope this legislation will remain relevant, and the impossibility of foreseeing exactly what concerns will arise, it is right to adopt a broad approach.
So, we have not used the specific label of "inclusive design", which may go out of date or become associated with a specific design philosophy. Instead, we propose a duty on Ofcom that focuses on widening the availability of consumer equipment which is convenient for use by the widest practical range of users, including the disabled. Ofcom should take such steps and enter into such arrangements as will encourage others to secure that wide availability. I know that my noble friend Lord Ashley is concerned about the encouragement of others, but it is, after all, the technology and the expertise that lies within industry and outside Ofcom, and which could not possibly be maintained within Ofcom's staff, that must be used for this purpose.
It would not be appropriate for Ofcom itself to become involved in design, much less in manufacture and marketing; so the focus is appropriately on encouraging actions by others. We also propose that the duty on Ofcom should require it from time to time to review the need for further action. Therefore, this is not a one-off programme to be done once and then put on the shelf. Ofcom should check occasionally the real state of affairs, and whether there is a need to do more. That is an appropriate role for Ofcom and will lead to improvements in the availability of equipment that is inherently designed for ease of use by the widest possible range of users. I shall move Amendment No. 22 in its place.
As regards my noble friend's new Amendment No. 12, I understand that behind it is the text relay service, Typetalk. That is a helpful facility for deaf persons, which allows users of text phones to send messages to ordinary phone users via a relay operator who reads the text message to the ordinary user and types the reply back to the text-phone user.
I can assure my noble friend Lord Ashley and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that access to the text relay service for disabled users will be assured through the universal service order to be made by the Secretary of State under the provisions of the Bill, and the implementing measures to be made by Ofcom. So the amendment would not add anything to what is already in hand. We have consulted on the order, and we will publish the results and our response in due course.
In addition to ensuring that there is access to the service, we are aware of concerns about its future development and funding. That was referred to in relation to BT. These questions require careful consideration and could have fundamental implications for the way in which universal services are provided in the UK. I can assure my noble friend Lord Ashley that the Bill allows for mechanisms to be provided to share the costs of universal service provision, which is what he was suggesting, where necessary. So there is scope within the framework of the Bill to address these issues in the way that seems most equitable.
However, there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed before we introduce those funding mechanisms. We will need further consideration and consultation. I understand that Oftel will recommend that a detailed review of universal service provision is undertaken in 2004, and that it would be appropriate to consider the funding of the telephone relay service as part of that wider review. I am sure that that is the right approach.
Select Committee Report (24 June 2003)
REPORT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL:
Improving access to, and education about, the moving image through the British
Film Institute (HC 593)
Q78 Mr Rendel: It is perhaps unfair to ask you this question, but what is being done to ensure access to films, in the first instance perhaps to those with a hearing impairment?
Mr Woodward: It is a matter of public record that we announced recently at the Film Council a pilot programme, again connected with the capital money we work with through the Arts Council, to run the first ever detailed pilot scheme to test out a variety of new technologies in cinemas for people who are profoundly deaf, hard of hearing or blind or partially sighted. There are now new technologies in terms of audio description and soft sub-titling and a variety of different mechanisms coming onto the market which we want to test to see which works best for consumers and then, over time, subject to cost, what we want to do is to think about ways of subsidising the introduction of that technology into certain venues. We think that is a legitimate use of public money. The second point I would make is less to do with the Film Council and the bfi and is simply covered by legislation. You will be aware that the Disability Discrimination Act kicks in thoroughly in 2005 and the cinema exhibition sector in the UK is thinking very carefully at the moment about the provisions it is going to have to make by 2005 to ensure that disabled access into cinema is in a much better shape than it is at present.
Q79 Mr Rendel: As far as those with hearing disabilities are concerned, clearly sub-titling has been available for some time. What have you been doing to ensure that sub-titling makes film available to those with hearing impairment?
Mr Woodward: At the moment that has been left to the market essentially to provide that.
Q81 Mr Rendel: I understand that you put out a news release in August last year saying that all DADS would be sub-titled in future for hearing impaired people. Is that still going on?
Mr Wootton: Yes, it is. In terms of our DADS and video materials, a key part of our policy is to make the DADS and videos sub-titled.
Lords Written Answers (26 Jun 2003)
Cochlear Implants
Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many adults and children were provided with cochlear implants in 2002; and how the figures compare with those in the previous five years; and
Whether they will publish figures giving the number of cochlear implants funded by primary care trusts in 2002 for (a) adults and (b) children; and
What information they have on primary care trusts delaying assessments and refusing funding for recommended cochlear implants for children becoming or born deaf; and
What steps they are taking to inform primary care trusts and general practitioners of the benefits of cochlear implants.
Lord Warner: The following table gives details of the number of finished consultant episodes (FCEs) in which cochlear implants were fitted in England for adults and children in the year ending March 2002 and the four preceding years.
1998: Children aged 0-17, 147 and adults aged 18+, 132Notes:
An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health
care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person
may have several episodes or be admitted several times within the year. Figures
in this table have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data.
Source: Hospital Episode Statistics, Department of Health. While the Department of Health does not collect figures centrally on the number of cases where funding for cochlear implants is delayed or refused, we understand that the Institute for Hearing Research surveys specialised centres each year to find the number of cases for which funding is declined. The last such survey was at the end of 2001. Primary care trust came into existence in October 2001 and full-year figures for the services they fund are not yet available.
[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.
|
|
 |
 |