| 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
Communications Bill - Duty Relating to Disabled Users - Commons Hansard (4 Mar 2003)
Mr. Thomas: New clause 20 is intended to ensure the implementation of a key facet of the European Union framework directive-the importance of regulators encouraging network operators and terminal equipment manufacturers to co-operate in order to facilitate disabled users' access to electronic communication services. We need to bridge the gap so that disabled people are not denied access to mobile phones, digital radio or digital television simply because the equipment does not meet their needs. Electronic networks and services that cannot be accessed because the equipment at the user end fails to meet the user's needs is a bit like a train that, although fully accessible, cannot be boarded by disabled people unless steps are provided at the station. Deaf and deaf-blind people cannot gain access to emergency services if no usable text terminal is available, or if the equipment is available but prohibitively expensive. All of us who use mobile phones regularly should consider how difficult it would be for us to use them, or to use digital radios, if we could not read the visual display and there was no audio alternative. It is now possible for visual displays to be read out in audio form by computer software, but we have not been able to extend that to more portable IT products such as mobile phones.
Amendment No. 209 is intended to give the Secretary of State power to consider terminal equipment for people with disabilities in determining the scope of universal service. It goes to the heart of the Bill. We have a universal service provision, and it is important for that to include such equipment. Ofcom would have a duty to promote inclusive design, and to take account of the small number of people who may not ever be reached by a completely liberalised telecommunications market because of their disabilities. This is not the first time that we have considered these matters. Until the 1990s, BT was obliged to ensure that its telephones met the needs of, for instance, people with hearing impairments with inductive coupling. I understand that in Denmark text phones are readily available to deaf, deaf-blind and speech-impaired people through Danish Telecom at subsidised prices. Last month the Government acknowledged the importance of that principle when they backed the establishment of an advisory committee on disability access by the European Commission's communications committee. It will consider the whole issue of terminal equipment, along with other aspects of access for disabled people.
The new clause and the amendment tabled in my name are important, as are the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). I am sure that he will wish to speak to those amendments. It is important, even at this fag-end of our discussion of the Bill, that we take the opportunity once again to ensure that the needs of disabled people are debated on the Floor of the House of Commons and that we properly consider the matter. I hope that the Minister's response will be as positive as possible, so that we do not need to divide the House on this issue, and so that we will know that the Government have listened to the lobbying by people with disabilities of us, as Members of Parliament and, more importantly, of the Minister as the representative of the Government here tonight.
Mr. Greenway: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of new clause 20. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) will recall that, as early as our third sitting in Committee, I was the first to raise the concerns of disabled, the blind, the partially sighted and the hard of hearing. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that I was trying to make in Committee, which is that it is all very well for the Government to rely on clause 3(3)(i), which places a duty on Ofcom to have regard to the needs of disabled persons and those on low incomes, but many elderly people-let alone those who are partially sighted-find telecommunications equipment extremely difficult to use. We had an interesting discussion in Committee about how we could better encourage equipment manufacturers to have regard to the needs of the disabled-and, especially, of the elderly-when designing items such as the zappers that help us to get the maximum use from our television sets, videos and so on. The hon. Member for Ceredigion has hit on a good point in his amendment, in that it would require Ofcom merely
"to encourage electronic communications network operators and terminal equipment manufacturers to co-operate".
There would be no intense obligation. Having discussed this issue on a number of occasions in Committee, and notwithstanding the direct reference to the needs of the disabled, the elderly and those on low incomes in the Bill, there remains the overwhelming sense that a little more needs to be done. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will be able to say something in his reply to the hon. Gentleman that will encourage us to feel that Ministers might decide, if not here today but in the other place, to go a little further. The organisations that represent the people about whom we are concerned feel that more needs to be done, and their voice needs to be heard. I hope that the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman has suggested will commend itself to the Minister.
Nick Harvey: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 70 and 71. The future provision of audio-description, accessible teletext services and other services for disabled people will depend entirely on an adequate spectrum allocation. If that does not happen, any provisions that might be put into the Bill, now or subsequently, risk being made redundant simply by the lack of a joined-up spectrum policy. We are not talking about a vast amount of spectrum. Audio-description, for example, can be delivered very efficiently. It would not do to have the delivery of key services jeopardised by a lack of adequate foresight. The amendments would tackle this issue by ensuring that the Secretary of State and Ofcom had such issues at the forefront of their mind. Rejecting the amendments out of hand, however, would send the very negative signal to disabled people that their rights and needs were not being given adequate priority.
Michael Fabricant: I rise in broad support of all of the amendments, but I want briefly to raise one specific point. In the light of the comments of the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), the Minister will be aware that clear audio can and ought to be provided, as long as sufficient spectrum is made available. However, we in the United Kingdom have a specific problem with our type of television equipment, which can make reception of cable and digital terrestrial clear audio impossible, partly because of the way in which Nicam is transmitted. Again, Ofcom could be made to knock heads together on this issue, and I hope that the Minister will be fairly active in that regard.
Mr. Timms: I welcome the close interest that has been taken in this Bill by people with disabilities and their representatives-the Royal National Institute of the Blind has been particularly active-through the recent lobby and through letters and calls to Members of the House, who have passed on those concerns to us. We are committed to an inclusive society in which everybody can play a part, and we have honoured that commitment in the Bill and in the framework that we are setting for Ofcom. At the heart of everything that Ofcom will do are its general duties, which are set out in clause 3. Clause 3(3)(i) requires Ofcom to have regard to
"the needs of persons with disabilities, of the elderly and of those on low incomes".
That central duty places the needs of people with disabilities at the heart of the Bill, and of Ofcom's responsibilities.
Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister. He has just mentioned the current content of the Bill, but how will Government amendment No. 215-which we passed earlier, and which imposes on Ofcom a duty in terms of the community as a whole-impact on disabled people?
Mr. Timms: The real comfort for people with disabilities is the specific reference in clause 3(3)(i), rather than the changes that we discussed earlier.
The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to make an order setting out the universal services to be provided throughout the UK. We have already launched a consultation on a draft order, which requires that all reasonable steps be taken to ensure that special measures are widely publicised, taking into consideration the needs of disabled users. We are extremely keen that people with sensory impairments be able to take advantage of all the benefits of digital television through improved access to services. The provision of subtitling, signing and audio description greatly enhances their opportunities, and allows them to benefit from the advances being made in television.
Clause 295 requires Ofcom to draw up, publish and maintain a code that gives guidance on the extent to which television services should promote the understanding and enjoyment of programmes by people who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted. The clause establishes targets for at least 90 per cent. of Channel 3 and Channel 4 programmes to be subtitled, for 80 per cent. of programmes on other channels to be subtitled, for 10 per cent. of programmes to be audio-described, and for 5 per cent. to be translated into sign language. I heard what the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) said about clear audio, which is also an important point.
On new clause 20, we have supported the work of the regulatory committee-set up under RATTE, the telecommunications terminal equipment directive-in investigating ways of improving access to equipment for the disabled, and we will continue to support that work. There could be further technical issues relating to network standards and specifications that would touch on Ofcom's responsibilities. Where such issues arise and, where Ofcom can play a useful role by encouraging such co-operation, I am confident that its existing duties will ensure that it does play such a role. I hope that hon. Members will gain some reassurance from that. Amendment No. 209 seeks to add to the matters that could be covered by the Secretary of State's order under clause 61 by including apparatus for users with disabilities. However, adding terminal equipment to that list would be outside the scope of the universal services mandated by the directives. The Secretary of State would have no power to require equipment to be provided as part of those services, so we cannot accept that amendment.
Amendment No. 70 is not needed to achieve its desired effect. The mechanism to ensure that Ofcom will have regard to the needs of persons with disabilities-and in particular to the benefits that they will get from the provision of audio-description, signing, subtitling and text services-is already in place.
I have drawn the widespread concern about these matters to the attention of the chairman of Ofcom, the noble Lord Currie. He has emphasised to me how seriously Ofcom will treat these concerns, and that it will organise in order to deliver effectively on its very important responsibilities to disabled people. That intention is ground for considerable encouragement among the many people who have raised concerns about this issue in recent weeks.
Mr. Simon Thomas: I welcome the Minister's comments about the present chair of Ofcom and the way in which that body has been charged with a social responsibility towards people with disabilities. Provision of the equipment is useful not only for disabled people but for a wide range of people, including the elderly, as the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) suggested. It is important that we put pressure on manufacturers, as new clause 20 suggested, to encourage them to improve their practice. I am sure that the Minister will remember discussing similar amendments in Committee. We were told that a conference had been held, but nothing happened. Blame can be laid at all doors, but we must ensure that the matter does not stagnate for years simply because nothing has changed so far. The Minister has confirmed that Ofcom should continue to knock heads together to ensure that progress is made. The DTI and the DCMS do not always have their eye on the ball on this issue, but Ofcom can concentrate on it so that the needs of disabled people are considered at all times.
In the light of what the Minister has said, and the fact that we need to progress to another set of important amendments that would affect people with disabilities, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Employment Tribunals Service - Commons Written Answers (4 Mar 2003)
Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the Employment Tribunals Service makes payment and administers the arrangements for the provision for a sign language interpreter or other forms of communication support when requested by a deaf person coming before a tribunal.
Alan Johnson [holding answer 27 January 2003]: The Employment Tribunals Service (ETS) pays reasonable fees and costs for the provision of a professional interpreter, palantypist, lip-speaker, or other professional form of communication support when requested by a deaf person coming before a tribunal.
While there are no limits on interpreters' fees, the ETS uses the rates for interpreters charged by the major agencies as a guide. The Tribunal may permit a friend or relative to act as an interpreter and he or she may claim the same travel and other expenses (but not a fee) as the deaf person.
The ETS is able to put deaf people in touch with appropriately qualified interpreters via a national register but it does not administer the provision. Such matters are left to the individual concerned because of differing personal requirements.
Television Subtitling - Commons Written Answers (5 Mar 2003)
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action she plans to take to provide information to those who would benefit from television subtitles about (a) their existence and (b) how to gain access to them.
Dr. Howells: The Communications Bill gives OFCOM a duty to draw up a code relating to the provision of television services for the deaf and visually impaired. This will give guidance as to the means by which the understanding and enjoyment of the services by the deaf or hard of hearing should be promoted and might include guidance to broadcasters on the provision of information about subtitles. It is in the broadcasters own interests to actively promote the availability of the services they are providing.
Guide Dogs - Commons Written Answers (6 Mar 2003)
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) guide dogs for the blind and (b) hearing dogs for the deaf are employed in the UK.
Beverley Hughes: I understand that there are about (a) 4,800 guide dogs; and (b) 600 hearing dogs currently at work in the UK with their blind or deaf owners. These figures have been supplied by (a) the charity, Guide Dogs for the Blind Association; and (b) the charity, Hearing Dogs for Deaf People.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Codes B to E) (No. 2) Order 2003 - Standing Committee (11 Mar 2003)
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire): Good morning, Mr. Olner, at this unearthly hour. I thank the Minister for his introduction in which he referred to the present procedure not being the most suitable way in which to ensure that the codes receive the necessary parliamentary scrutiny and approval, a point with which I wholly concur. We have before us four separate documents, which would equate to a substantial Bill if they were presented in that form. Such a Bill would be subject to several days' consideration in Committee. In the hour and a half that we have been allocated for this statutory instrument, it is clearly impossible to scrutinise the codes line by line as one would with a Bill.
As the Minister has said, the codes have been subject to wide consultation and one therefore hopes and expects that they are not controversial. From the perspective of parliamentary scrutiny, however, I submit that that is not necessarily something that we should take for granted. I will have to use a list approach to raise my points otherwise the Minister and I will be up and down like a jack in the box as I raise new questions. I want to stress that I have not got many questions because the principal issue concerns the overall package.
Starting logically with code B, the Minister referred to the papers provided by his office, which answered almost all my questions. Paragraph 2.3 refers to the ''discovery of insecure premises''. I cannot find a definition of what constitutes an insecure premise. If we are guiding police officers or other members of the police family on whether they can search premises, we should provide some guidance on what constitutes ''insecure''. Does it mean open windows or unlocked doors?
More importantly, paragraph 4.3 of code B concerns record keeping. Unless I have misunderstood it, which is possible, I am puzzled that it does not mention the use of technology. It refers to
''The record of the grounds for the search and the nature of the evidence . . . should be made in the custody record if there is one . . . the officer's pocket book, or the search record''.
One can argue that all that information could be held on software, but it seems to me that we should refer to the use of modern technology. One would hope that officers would carry some form of portable technology such as recorders or palm-top computers. The Committee will be pleased to hear that I am not going to go through every code, although strictly we should do so. My other point relates to code C. One cannot help wondering whether the codes have anything to do with personalities in the Home Office. Code C refers to people with mental vulnerability and providing special facilities for people with different disabilities, but there are virtually no references to the blind. They are referred to in paragraph 3.20, but not in the area about special provision in cells. People who are deaf are referred to in paragraph 8.2, which states:
''If a detainee is deaf, mentally disordered or otherwise mentally vulnerable, particular care must be taken''.
However, there is no reference to someone who is blind. I would have thought it self-evident that putting someone blind in a cell would require special provision. Blindness was included in the old codes, so that omission seems slightly odd to me.
Those are the key points that I wanted to raise. One could spend a great deal of time going through many other points of deviation from the old codes, trying to establish why those changes have occurred. I shall not do that because, as the Minister has said, the documents offered by his Department have been helpful, although they have not answered every possible question.
Deaf People (Television Programmes) - Commons Written Answers (12 Mar 2003)
Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on promoting television programmes for the deaf; and how much money the Government gave to support television programmes for (a) deaf people and (b) people with a disability in each year since 1997.
Dr. Howells [holding answer 4 March 2003]: The Government have not provided funding to support television programmes for disabled people. The Government's role is to set the legislative framework within which subtitling and other services for people with disabilities can be provided.
The Broadcasting Act 1996 requires the ITC to draw up a code promoting the understanding and enjoyment of programmes by viewers who are deaf or hard of hearing and blind or partially sighted. The Act also set targets for subtitling, signing and audio description services on digital terrestrial television (DTT).
The Communications Bill will transfer the ITC's responsibilities to the new regulator, Ofcom, and will extend the requirements on DTT services to digital cable and digital satellite services.
British Sign Language - Commons Written Answers (14 Mar 2003)
Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps his Department has taken to (a) recognise British Sign Language and (b) improve access to public services for British Sign Language users; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Andrew Smith: We have held discussions with various interested organisations, the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) requires service providers to consider making reasonable adjustments to the way they provide their services so they are accessible to disabled people. The provision of a BSL interpreter could be considered a reasonable adjustment. The DRC's Code of Practice (Rights, Goods, Facilities, Services and Premises) includes examples of situations where providing a BSL interpreter might be a reasonable adjustment.
The Government have funded projects with the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People to increase the number of BSL interpreters and to improve the infrastructure for interpreter training and assessment.
Equality Bill - Lords Hansard (14 Mar 2003)
Lord Ashley of Stoke: The noble Lord makes a legitimate point. However, will he bear in mind that a person with a specific disability necessarily moves along with other disabled people because of a common general interest? It is almost as if there were a federal type of communication between disabled people. It is far more likely that a blind person, for example, will know about deafness, paralysis and so on than a person with no disability because that person will tend to congregate with other disabled people in various social or economic circumstances. Consequently, a blind person is not necessarily isolated from other disabilities. In fact, he or she will be very much in touch with those disabilities.
British Sign Language - Written Ministerial Statements (18 Mar 2003)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Government recognises that British Sign Language (BSL) is a language in its own right regularly used by a significant number of people. For an estimated 70,000 Deaf people it is their preferred language for participation in everyday life. BSL is a visual-gestural language with its own vocabulary, grammar and syntax.
The Government understands that people who use BSL want their language to be protected and promoted in the same way some minority languages are by the Council of Europe's Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The Council is considering how that might be achieved for indigenous sign languages. The Government will give careful consideration to any proposals which the Council might make.
The Government has already taken action to improve access to BSL, for example by identifying situations where it might be reasonable for employers and service providers to engage the services of a BSL/English interpreter.
The Government will be funding a discrete programme of initiatives to support this statement.
Special Schools - Commons Written Answers (19 Mar 2003)
Mr. Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many special schools have been operating for (a) visually and (b) hearing impaired children in each year since 1995.
Mr. Ivan Lewis: The following table sets out the number of special schools operating for visually impaired (VI) and hearing impaired (HI) children.
Year VI HI Co Total
1995 24 43 82 149
1996 24 43 82 149
1997 24 43 82 149
1998 24 43 81 148
1999 24 43 81 148
2000 24 43 80 147
2001 24 43 79 146
2002 23 42 79 144
2003 23 42 79 144
In addition to VI and HI schools the table identifies the special schools that make a combination of provision, which may also include multi-sensory impairment (MSI).
Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill - Lords Hansard (20 Mar 2003)
Baroness Hanham: As I understand it, one of the rationales of the Bill is to give democratic legitimacy to the Government Offices for the Regions through various activities and the organisations that spin off underneath them. One could give democratic legitimacy to the regions if one wished without fouling up all of the rest of local government beneath them. It is extremely important that people within the areas that will be changed-the counties and districts-have an opportunity to comment on that. After all, they probably do not currently know or worry much about the regions. If they are electing a small number of people to act on their behalf, that queries democratic legitimacy. It is important that the Government consider the need to ensure that people understand the implications of what they are voting for-if they do not do so, we may help them. The way in which to do that is to give them two questions.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I follow the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, on regional boundaries. I keep going back to the Redcliffe-Maud Royal Commission. I have memories of that and of the reason why it failed to deal with the problem. One reason why we had the 1974 débâcle was because the Department of Education laid down that one could not run an education authority with fewer than 500,000 people. That was always a nonsense. There were many good local authorities: Reading, where I was the leader, was one of them. It was an excellent local authority with a population of about 125,000 and it led the country in providing education for the deaf and in many other innovations. Because of that restriction, we got a form of local government that was not suitable to the country. It failed and had to be reviewed shortly after.
My point is that the number of regions and their boundaries is absolutely crucial. The Committee knows very well that I believe that regional government is completely unnecessary but, whatever one's views on that, if the Government want regional government to be successful, they must ensure that the boundaries and compatibility of the areas are correct in the first place. If one does not get them right, one will have perpetual trouble. It would help the Government if they trust in regional authorities to get it right from the start and not make the same mistakes as were made with the Redcliffe-Maud Royal Commission in, I believe, 1968. It was stymied by the insistence of the Department of Education that there must be 500,000 people to have a viable education authority. That was absurd.
British Sign Language - Commons Written Answers (20 Mar 2003)
Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what contractual (a) obligations and (b) targets his Department has placed on SchlumbergerSema medical services for providing sign language interpreters for medical examinations; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Nicholas Brown [holding answer 14 March 2003]: The contract between the Department and SchlumbergerSema Medical Services defines deafness as a "Special Need" and specifies the following:
SchlumbergerSema Medical Services shall comply with any reasonable request to accommodate claimants who have special needs
When a special need is identified on the day of the examination appointment and the special need cannot be reasonably accommodated, SchlumbergerSema Medical Services shall use reasonable endeavours to ensure that an alternative appointment is arranged within 24 hours of the special need being identified and shall ensure that the claimant's special needs will be accommodated at the new appointment.
The target that the Department has set for SchlumbergerSema Medical Services in relation to special needs is that 95 per cent. of claimant's requirements will be met.
Hearing Aids - Commons Written Answers (21 Mar 2003)
Mr. Hepburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (a) hearing aid users and (b) digital hearing aid users there were in (i) the Jarrow constituency, (ii) South Tyneside, (iii) Tyne and Wear and (iv) the UK on 1 February.
Jacqui Smith: The Royal National Institute for the Deaf estimates that there are 1.8 million people currently using hearing aids in England. Information is not collected centrally on numbers of people using analogue or digital hearing aids in England or in the localised areas specified. Information related to Wales and Scotland is a matter for the devolved administrations. Whilst the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.
British Sign Language - Commons Hansard (24 Mar 2003)
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important matter, and I was delighted by the announcement last week that the Government have recognised British sign language as a language in its own right and committed funding to it. As the Minister is aware, 8.7 million people in the UK are deaf or hard of hearing. BSL is the language of the deaf community in the UK. There are no accurate figures for the number of deaf people who use BSL, but it is estimated that 70,000 deaf people use BSL as their first or preferred language. In Northern Ireland, an estimated 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the deaf population use Irish sign language.
BSL is not a new language and it was not created by hearing people. BSL is a naturally occurring form of communication. It varies from area to area, just as dialect affects spoken languages, but it is clear that there is one single British sign language in the UK. I find it remarkable that BSL has survived through the prohibition of the use of sign language in educational institutions, the oralist movement, much prejudice and a period of being ignored and shunned. What does that suggest? It is that BSL is natural and inherent to the deaf. It is appropriate that BSL should receive the recognition it deserves. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that she will confirm that that rightful recognition will also be extended to Irish sign language.
Although BSL is different from English, it has much in common with spoken languages, sharing grammatical processes and features that have led linguists to begin to analyse it as a natural language. I shall touch later on some of the results of that research, along with the results of neurological research. BSL is a language of movements and space. It uses the hands and facial movements, storytelling and abstract communication. It exists in a visual-spatial mode, allowing much versatility, such as juxtaposition, the manipulation of symbols, the isolation of features and the discussion of events and objects that are separated in time and space. There are iconic symbols, such as those for "give" and "food", but there are also signs that are arbitrary, such as those for "easy" and "allow".
Stories in BSL incorporate mime, but contrary to popular belief mime is not the essence of BSL. If it were, a hearing person would have no difficulty understanding BSL, but I know from experience that it is not possible to understand a signed story. Mime is used as a vehicle for enhancing the story, rather than to convey the full meaning.
Linguists say that all natural languages have design features, including a semantic system, a grammatical system, a sound system and a lexicon. BSL has its own semantic system, in the form of signs instead of words, and its own grammatical system. It would not be possible to translate word for word from BSL to spoken English. Obviously, we cannot expect it to have a sound system, but building blocks are present in signing. Spoken language consists of sounds that have little meaning in themselves, but which are used as building blocks to make words. Similarly, in sign language we can see components that are smaller than signs, such as the location of the sign in space or its direction, the type of movement made by the hand or the hand shape. Each sign is complex, with an inner structure comprising all those features.
It is clear that BSL is a rich, complex and unique means of communication, with spatial syntax and grammar that conform to the definition of a language. Linguistically, BSL has all the components of any spoken language. Neurological research carried out on stroke victims has shown that BSL uses the same neural pathways as grammatical speech. Stroke lesions to the left hemisphere can cause aphasia for sign that is analogous to the aphasias of speech. The Minister may be interested to know, or may know already, that aphasic signers are not impaired in other non-linguistic visual-spatial abilities, such as waving goodbye and shrugging. That illustrates the distinction between sign and gestures.
Visual-spatial activity is controlled by the right hemisphere of the brain. Lesions to the right hemisphere therefore result in spatial disorganisation, but the ability to sign is not affected. Even though sign is a visual-spatial language, it does not use the visual-spatial processing area of the brain. Instead, it uses the same area as spoken language. That demonstrates clearly that BSL is a language in its own right.
When the UK signed up to the European charter for regional and minority languages, we agreed to sign up to the provisions of part II of the charter, which ensures that languages are properly taught and that they are protected, and to promote academic research into all the regional and minority languages used in the UK. As hon. Members know, the Council of Europe does not recognise any indigenous sign language under the charter. I hope that my argument demonstrates that sign language is a language linguistically and neurologically, and that that will strengthen the case in the discussions with the Council of Europe and will help to convince the council that sign languages should be adopted under the charter.
In last week's statement it was announced that the Government would consider the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) in the report to the Council of Europe on European sign languages. I hope that the Minister will give some assurance that she will do what she can to ensure that the members of the Council of Europe give the report full consideration on 31 March.
The official recognition of BSL will provide many practical benefits. Although the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 provides some protection of the rights of deaf people, there are aspects to which the Act does not apply. Those are linked not with deafness as a disability, but with sign language as a minority language. I seek assurances from the Minister that last week's announcement will rectify the problem, bearing in mind that legislation that would provide better protection for BSL users could be included in the European charter for regional and minority languages.
I am sure the Minister shares my concern that much of a deaf child's time is spent outside their natural language. I should like her to consider the amount of learning time that is consumed by the lack of a shared language between student and teacher.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West): On the subject of shared language, the hon. Gentleman and others may not be aware of the wonderful work done by the university of Wolverhampton in my constituency with British sign language, with teachers who are hearing-impaired or deaf using that as a medium of instruction. On the back of that, the British deaf film and television festival, which I had the pleasure of opening recently in Wolverhampton, takes place annually. It is such centres of excellence for minority languages that we need.
Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and welcome the good work done by his university. It is vital to introduce language as early as possible. Young children can be fluent in signing at the age of three. That clearly facilitates a free flow of information, an intercourse of minds and possibly the development of speech. There is no evidence that signing inhibits the acquisition of speech. As the chosen language of the deaf, BSL has been undervalued by the rest of society. Most minority groups accept the language of the wider society and become bilingual, but that is not always possible for deaf people. Will the Minister consider that in this case, the responsibility lies with wider society to meet the communication requirements of deaf people?
The Minister will be aware that in 1999 there were just under 300 qualified and trainee BSL/English interpreters in the UK. There is not sufficient provision of certified interpreters. Indeed, it is thanks to the British Deaf Association that we have an interpreter for tonight's debate. I hope that, with the official recognition of BSL and the money that the Government are committing, it will be possible to provide an official interpreter if not for all debates, at least for relevant debates or for those for which members of the public have requested such a service.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that the standard of interpreting varies. Interpreting fatigue after one hour can cause significant errors. That is happening because there are not sufficient interpreters and they are overworked. Although the DDA requires a BSL/English interpreter to ensure that a deaf person has equal access to a public service, there are not sufficient interpreters and the requirement is not always met, especially given that one needs to book an interpreter up to six weeks in advance for an important appointment or job interview. Indeed, I was due to meet someone who wanted to do work experience in my office, but the interview had to be cancelled at short notice owing to the non-availability of an interpreter.
Official recognition would actively promote the teaching of BSL. Article 8 of the European charter makes provision to encourage or provide teaching in or of the regional or minority language at all the appropriate stages of education. I am also concerned that the importance of training tutors is often lost in the push for more interpreters. There is a need to invest at the grassroots in order to benefit the wider community. I see the Minister nodding; she may have some points to make about that shortly.
I am sure that the Minister realises the positive impact on social exclusion of more people in society being able to sign, even at a basic level-as well as easing the pressure on interpreters. I understand that, at present, about 4,000 people are attending BSL classes in the United Kingdom. They are showing initiative and willingness to help by signing. I should be interested in whether the Minister can provide details on the level of funding allocated to that from the £1 million-worth of initiatives that have been announced. I tried to find out from the Department exactly what that £1 million-worth of funding would be spent on. Perhaps people will have to bid for that pot of money, or it has not yet been allocated. There does not seem to be much information available about what it is to be spent on.
Sign language is complete as a language. It is capable of expressing every emotion and discussing any topic. It can be abstract or concrete. It is as much of a language as English, Welsh or Cornish. I hope I have illustrated that greater recognition under the European charter and acceptance of Irish sign language could offer opportunities for the increasing involvement of deaf people and easier access to information, knowledge and legal security. The provision of proficient BSL interpreters in employment, further education establishments and in law would offer a greater range of choice to BSL users.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond now or in writing to the following questions. Will she support my hon. Friend in presenting his report at the European Council? Will she confirm whether what the Government have said about BSL applies to Irish sign language? Will she clarify whether the £1 million-worth of initiatives is a one-off or recurring funding? Will she give an assurance that the money will not simply be taken from other Departments' spending on deaf issues, and that it is additional funding? Will she say something about the regulation of BSL courses, qualifications and tutors? Will she clarify whether funding from the £1 million will be made available to Scotland or any Scottish initiatives? Finally, will she uphold the rights of all deaf British and Irish children, and guarantee them a bilingual and bicultural education?
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate and I shall be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on initiating the debate. It is extremely well timed, as the issue is to be debated in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe next week. I note that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), the leader of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe is in the Chamber, as is the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) who is, I think, the only qualified BSL interpreter in the House. I am glad that he is in the Chamber on this occasion-[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman tells me that he is a sign language user. He certainly has the subject very much at heart. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), not only for the statement made last week but also for the reference in it that the Government acknowledge that BSL users want the language to be given the same protection as minority languages under the European charter. When the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee of the Council, of which I am a member, debated the charter, I asked our rapporteur why sign language had not been incorporated and was told that nobody had thought about doing so. Although the Parliamentary Assembly wanted to amend the charter, at that point it was too late to do so. However, there is growing recognition that an equivalent instrument would be extraordinarily helpful. I appreciate that the Government have not given unqualified support for that but they realise that there is a demand and have promised to consider the matter. That is extremely welcome.
In the course of preparing my report, I visited Scandinavia because the deaf community told me that it had the greatest provision for deaf sign language users. One simple statistical example will show how far we have to go. In Finland, where the population is 5.5 million and the proportion of deaf people is the same as in most other countries, there are 600 qualified sign language users. In my country, Scotland, which has a similar population, there are fewer than 30. As a consequence, deaf people are excluded from a variety of activities that are accepted as normal in Scandinavia.
The Government have acknowledged the force of the argument and they have taken an important first step down the road. I thank the Minister and congratulate her on that. I hope that we can work together to make that step the first on a road to ensure that sign language users are fully included in our society.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on his good fortune in holding the debate at this particular time. The timing could hardly have been better. I welcome the remarks made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). He and I will be meeting tomorrow and I do not think that it will break any confidences to say that I shall want to talk to him about how we can support the work that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) are doing at the Council of Europe to take BSL recognition further. The steps taken last Monday to recognise BSL and the Government's declaration are important, but they are only a step on the road and not the end of the road. Indeed, my hon. Friend and I have already had some discussions about how the Government can assist the process currently under way in the Council of Europe. Obviously, we cannot tell the Council what to do, but we want to make clear our objective to take BSL recognition further. We want to do all that we can to help our delegation, which includes my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Gordon, to ensure wider European recognition for sign languages.
While I am handing out congratulations, I congratulate the deaf community who, for at least 20 years, in great heart and without giving up, have campaigned for the recognition of their language, as other minority groups have done in the past for their language. I am very pleased, having considered the issue in my current role for some 18 months, to have been able to assist with that. There is no doubt that but for the campaigning efforts of the deaf community, not only in bringing this to the attention of parliamentarians and Governments, but in continuing to insist that it is an important issue of self-esteem that needs to be taken seriously, it is unlikely that this step would have been taken.
I have taken a particular interest in the matter since I have been in the job, but so did my predecessor, the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), who originally, in 2000, asked the Disability Rights Commission for advice about how recognition could be taken forward. The DRC suggested in its report that British sign language should be recognised and that using the Council of Europe's charter for regional and minority languages was the most appropriate way of doing so. Were it not for the unfortunate fact, as the hon. Member for Gordon said, that the framers of that instrument simply forgot about sign languages and that, as independent experts have confirmed, it is not designed for the recognition of sign languages, we may have made more progress across Europe in respect of indigenous sign languages. We now have to ensure that progress takes place. The report by the hon. Member for Gordon says that there are about 44 such sign languages, so it is not only a matter of BSL.
As those familiar with the charter may know, it is specific in its definitions. Our advice has consistently been-this has been confirmed by the committee of experts-that the charter as it stands cannot be used, but the Council's Parliamentary Assembly, to its credit, has called on the Council to find a further means of protecting and promoting sign languages, and we want to do what we can to support that. I am sure that we will be able to co-operate with the parliamentarians who are involved to encourage progress on wider European recognition. I am anxious that that should happen.
Although the Council will bring forward proposals in due course, the Government wanted to act in advance of that: hence the written statement. As many deaf people I have talked to made clear, this is a matter of identity and self-esteem, and I have tried to make progress on it since I first came into the job as Minister with responsibility for disabled people. I met representatives from organisations of and for deaf people more than a year ago to hear first-hand their perspectives, and we are still committed to moving forward still further. The statement, which was published last Wednesday as a written statement to the House, reflects the fact that the Government have already taken steps to improve access to BSL. For example, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires service providers to consider reasonable adjustments to the way in which they provide their services so that they are accessible to disabled and deaf people. The provision of a BSL interpreter could be considered as a reasonable adjustment in the right circumstances, and certainly the Disability Rights Commission's code of practice on rights, goods, facilities, services and premises includes examples of situations where providing a BSL interpreter might be a reasonable adjustment.
There are several other examples of where access to BSL has been improved. For instance, the Government meet the reasonable costs of BSL interpreters for deaf and hearing-impaired litigants, and witnesses for hearings in civil and family proceedings, and have put in place arrangements for providing interpreters in investigations and proceedings in the criminal justice system. The NHS Executive has produced a video called "When is it my turn? Making the NHS better for deaf people", which was produced by an all-deaf film crew and looked at improving access to the full range of services for deaf users, including access to interpretation. A good practice guide, "Doubly Disabled: Equality for disabled people in the new NHS: Access to services"-a rather strange title-was issued at the same time as the video and includes a section on providing good-quality services for deaf and hard of hearing people. It is vital that we raise awareness in our public services and in other areas, as well as making available access to interpretation.
The Government have also taken steps to ensure that deaf children, young people and adults normally have access to BSL provision when that is appropriate to their needs. Many teachers and other staff have taken the opportunity to make use of the resources that the Government have made available for supporting training in special educational needs and disability to improve their understanding of BSL. I am sure that that will increase as the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 is implemented over the next few years.
For students in higher education, access to BSL is assisted through the disabled student allowance. Those allowances became non-means-tested in 1998 and have subsequently been extended to part-time undergraduate students, to full-time and part-time postgraduate students and to Open University students and other distance learners. Expenditure on the disabled student allowance has increased from just over £13 million in 1997 to £45.5 million last year. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will know, that can pay for communication support such as BSL interpretation.
In the employment field, the access to work programme does a similar job for BSL users who may be attending an interview or who may need communication support and interpretation to do their job. The number of people who are helped by the access to work programme has tripled since 1997, as has the budget for the programme. Beyond the extra £1 million that was announced with last week's statement, more money and more resources are going into interpretation where it is needed. That £1 million is additional money; it is not drawn from existing budgets or from AMI expenditure that had already been planned.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked how the money would be spent. We expect that about half of it will be spent on assisting in the training of more interpreters. As he made clear-and I agree with him-one of the main problems is a lack of interpreters. There are not enough of them around. Even with the best will in the world, it is often difficult for service providers to provide interpretation when it is necessary.
Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister give way?
Maria Eagle: I am afraid that I do not have much time left, although I appreciate that we all have a lot to say on the subject. Beside the Government, others have been active in promoting access to BSL. For example, the DRC has jointly, with the British Deaf Association and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, produced guidance on BSL English interpreting. The DRC is currently consulting on the guidance. The consultation closes on 7 April. The joint project is one example of the work being done by non-governmental organisations with an interest in this issue.
There is still much to be done. The Government recognise that further work is needed to raise awareness so that the status of BSL is understood and so that it is fully accepted as a language-one that is used by a significant number of deaf people. The written statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made to the House is an important sign of the Government's commitment.
BSL is important for deaf people's sense of identity and self-esteem. It has a symbolic significance that should not be underestimated. However, its significance is greater than that. Practical benefits will follow from the initiatives that were announced in support of the statement. We will be working with deaf organisations to progress those initiatives. However, I cannot give full details of that today.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is quite rightly concerned to ensure that there is a continuous funding stream for the training of BSL tutors and so on. The £1 million that the Secretary of State has announced is in addition to existing resources. For example, the "success for all" strategy of the Department for Education and Skills is investing £200 million over the next three years in improving and raising standards for teaching and learning in further education. There is no reason why BSL tutors and trainers should not benefit from that funding in the same way as tutors and trainers in any other specialist subject.
I want to emphasise that the statement is not the end of the story, significant though it is. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to Irish sign language. That will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who will no doubt be in touch with the hon. Gentleman on the intentions for Irish sign language.
This is not the end of the process. It is a beginning and a step on the way towards increasing the profile of BSL and of recognising it for what it is-a language. I am committed to continuing to encourage wider recognition through the Council of Europe-to the extent that I can press for that-and to improving the opportunities for access to all aspects of life for deaf people whose first language is BSL.
I was never that good at learning languages. The extent of my vocabulary in BSL is to say, "BSL recognition". With that, I should probably resume my seat.
Communications Bill - Lords Hansard (25 Mar 2003)
Baroness Wilcox: As a spokesman on trade and industry, I am passionately for the consumer and believe in free trade. For the consumer, I fear that the Bill does not go far enough to promote access for all. For consumers who are deaf or visually-impaired, insufficient information has been provided on the availability of subtitles and more effort should be made to encourage formats and design that are user-friendly for disabled consumers. The noble Lords, Lord Ashley of Stoke and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, spoke with great experience as campaigners on that subject.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, having worked for about 20 years as a presenter and producer in documentary television, I welcome the introduction of the Bill and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on his pre-legislative scrutiny. I shall take the advice of my noble friend Lady Cohen and not repeat material which has already been covered in the debate. Your Lordships will be glad to hear that I have scrapped most of my speech. My noble friends Lord Ashley and Lord Addington have covered most of the points that I wish to make so admirably that they do not need repetition. I shall therefore speak briefly.
My media career started in the early 1970s with a "World in Action" programme questioning whether the building of a segregated village in Holland for severely disabled people should be replicated in Britain. At the time I was about to start work at MIND with a politically-minded social worker called Tessa Jowell as my assistant director. How much has changed since then.
One of the most important changes for disabled people is that our full inclusion in all areas of life has become central to government policy. The Bill holds the potential to further or to threaten that full inclusion. In order to take part in this information society that grows faster and more complicated every day, we must all have access to and be able to afford the digital communications technology that is our future. It is a prerequisite for equal citizenship and full inclusion. But there is a widespread fear among disabled and older people that we face increased exclusion.
Digital technology provides a two-edged sword for disabled people. It holds the potential to do things undreamed of by former generations but, as my noble friend Lord Ashley showed so clearly, it can shut us out from even the most basic communications services when our needs are not taken into account. If disabled and elderly people are not to be made the second-class citizens of the information society, I believe that the Bill must lay down watertight regulation to ensure that the broadcasting and telecommunications industries do not exclude disabled people. Ofcom needs to be given powers on the face of the Bill to eliminate that risk of exclusion.
In addition to the amendments forewarned by my noble friend Lord Ashley and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I should like to add one more. I seek a guarantee of continued access to a text-based teletext service. Teletext is a vital source of education, information and news to thousands of blind and deaf-blind people. It is accessible on analogue through equipment which turns the text into Braille or large print. But digital is based on pictures and no device can read a picture. It is essential that this vital lifeline for deaf-blind people to the world around them is not simply cut away, leaving them at the mercy of the market-place.
This threat to deaf-blind people exemplifies how essential it is that specific duties to ensure the full inclusion of disabled and older people are laid on the face of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Currie, emphasised, Ofcom is a creature of statute. Therefore what the Bill does or does not make explicit really matters if issues such as these are not to be lost along the way. The future inclusion of disabled people in the information society is too important to leave to ad hoc arrangements, the discretion of officials or, most important, the whim of the market.
The Government have done much to meet the needs of disabled and older people in the Bill, but I am afraid that it is not enough. The Bill will set the standard for many years to come. It must ensure that disabled people are fully included if we are to take part in the information society as equal citizens.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Bill, with its wide-ranging remit, but I must say frankly to my noble friend on the Front Bench that quite a few amendments will be required before it is satisfactory to some of us.
I propose mainly to deal with the Bill's effect on disabled people, as did the noble Lord, Lord Addington. On a more general issue, I hope that the Bill will be made to work for the benefit of consumers now and in the longer term.
I am anxious to make a specific point. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on the proposed changes to media ownership laws. I hope that the Government will accept his suggestions, which I very strongly support.
I particularly welcome the Bill's proposals to extend subtitling and signing requirements to cable and television services. Their exemption showed a scandalous disregard for disabled people, and is a classic example of the naivety of governments in the face of commercial lobbying which claimed that subtitling was too expensive. That is an absolutely nonsensical claim. Goodness knows why Ministers bought it.
The basic fact about subtitling of television is that, without it, television simply does not exist for people with a serious hearing impairment. For them, it is a silent or mumbling box of moving pictures, devoid of all sense and substance-a teasing reminder of our greatest medium of communication but rendered meaningless by the absence of subtitles. It is a ridiculous situation when subtitles can transform the understanding of television for profoundly deaf people. If subtitles are not available, such people cannot watch television because they cannot understand it.
The targets proposed in the Bill for subtitling are reasonable-for example, 90 per cent every week for Channels 3 and 4, and 80 per cent every week for other services. But we should not lose sight of a 100 per cent target, which is the eventual aim.
Many of the 50,000 profoundly deaf people whose first language is British Sign Language do not have the necessary language skills to allow them to follow subtitles. They need on-screen signing, and the targets for that are inadequate and certainly need to be revised in the Bill.
However, if the targets for subtitles are reasonable, the target date of 10 years is laughable and absolutely nonsensical. IT companies, which often aim at target dates of 10 weeks or 10 months, must be laughing at the Government's target of 10 years. By then, of course, we may well have television sets on our watches or even our spectacles! Providing subtitles should be child's play. Whoever put the case for 10-year targets and persuaded the Government to accept them was skilful at pulling the wool over the eyes of Ministers.
That is yet another example of commercial interests pleading poverty, regardless of the fact that, if successful, they would damage the interests of deaf people. I urge the Government to change their minds, and I shall give them an opportunity to do so with amendments in Committee and on Report seeking a five-year absolute maximum within which subtitling should be at 100 per cent. Another source of concern is the proposal for exemption from the suggested provisions for subtitling. Many factors will be taken into account in considering whether a channel should be exempt, and Ofcom will properly make some exemptions. I presume that it will not readily dish them out like confetti, but there is a danger that it will allow them on flimsy grounds, to the detriment of deaf people. Again, I shall be making suggestions at a later stage of the Bill.
I turn briefly to some issues that affect people who are blind as well as those who are deaf and, indeed, those with other disabilities. Equipment design that includes meeting their needs is very important. Many products connected with television, such as video recorders and subtitle access, are more complex than they need to be and they create major difficulties for disabled people. What we call "add-ons" are costly and expensive, but if we have inclusive design-that is, if such add-ons are prepared at the manufacturing stage-the costs to the manufacturer are minimal and the disabled person gets a better product.
Another issue that affects people with all kinds of disabilities is the issue of an advisory committee with a special remit on disabled and older people. Without that, the problems encountered by such people could easily be overlooked-indeed, they will be-despite the provisions in the Bill, which I regard as inadequate. Such an advisory committee to the consumer panel should be set up to articulate the needs of disabled and older people.
Much of what I said earlier applies to audio description and other problems for sight-impaired people. Audio description provides a commentary to fill in the picture for those who are blind and cannot see it. It is a very valuable exercise and one that is indispensable for blind people. We should have far more of it.
The provisions of the Bill will affect the lives of people with sensory disabilities. With appropriate amendments, which I am sure the Government will look on kindly and sympathetically when we reach the Committee and Report stages, the Bill can be of enormous value to them or it can leave them still excluded from some of the wonders of television. I am optimistic that the Government will help.
Digital Services (Disabled Access) - Commons Written Answers (25 Mar 2003)
David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures she will introduce to allow (a) hearing impaired and (b) other disabled people to use digital TV, radio and telephone services.
Dr. Howells: The Government recognise that disabled people often need terminal equipment with particular features if they are to be able effectively to access communications services. The regulation of these matters is decided at a wider European level and the standards established have effect across Europe.
We are working with manufacturers, the disabled groups and the telephone regulator, Oftel, to draw together the expertise necessary to improve the range of equipment available to disabled users.
The Bill also extends the Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) targets for subtitling, signing and audio description to digital cable and satellite broadcasters for the first time.
[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.
|
|
 |
 |