| UK Council on Deafness | |
| [home] [search this site] [about us] [members] [news] [press area] [events] [publications] [campaigning] [consultations] [deaf awareness week] [grants] [affiliation] [contact] |
In this Report
Commons Written Answers (1 Mar 2004)
EDUCATION AND SKILLS
Deaf-blind Children and Adults
Diana Organ: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills
(1) whether children's trusts will be given responsibility for implementing Social Care for Deaf-blind Children and Adults Local Authority Circular (2001)8;
(2) whether children's directors will be given specific responsibilities in relation to deaf-blind children.
Mr. Stephen Twigg: The Green Paper "Every Child Matters" set out proposals for the development of children's trusts to integrate children's services and said one of the key services within trusts should be children's social services. "Every Child Matters" also set out that the Government intend to put forward legislation to require directors of children's services to be appointed, who would be accountable for education and children's social services and for overseeing services for children delegated to the local authority by other services. We are currently considering responses to the Green Paper and will shortly set out a programme for change for children's services.
Lords Hansard (3 Mar 2004)
Special Educational Needs (extract)
Lord Davies of Coity:
However, in my contribution to this debate, I shall concentrate on those with the greatest need-those with the severest disabilities and those who need the maximum attention. I wish to concentrate on those in an educational establishment where the ratio of teachers and carers to one pupil can be 1:1, 2:1 or sometimes 3:1. I refer to the Royal School for the Deaf, Manchester, which is a charity established in 1823 before, I believe, Manchester was afforded parliamentary representation.
For more than 180 years, that school has been catering for children with deafness and other disabilities-often a multiplicity of disabilities, both physical and mental. So much so has that been the case that very shortly the school, of which Her Majesty the Queen is patron, will change its name to "The Royal School for the Deaf and Communication Disorders". As the school is non-maintained, a large amount of the funding comes from the voluntary sector. As I have recently become a little involved in that work, I should declare my interest.
The Royal School for the Deaf, Manchester, costs in the region of £5 million a year to run. Currently, it has 78 pupils. About one-third of those are from Greater Manchester; approximately one-third are from elsewhere in the north-west; and a further one-third are from all over the United Kingdom. Half the pupils are residential and a number of those are in the school's care 365 days a year. At present, there is a short waiting list for places.
All the children at the school have exceptionally complex learning and social needs with a range of additional disabilities, including multi-sensory impairment, exceptionally low cognitive ability and additional communication needs. The school also admits a significant number of children within the autistic spectrum, children with cerebral palsy and those with challenging behaviour alongside other special educational needs. The school is often referred to as "end of continuum" as it takes children and young people whose placements in mainstream and special schools have broken down, more often than not because their complex needs are being compounded by their challenging behaviour. For some, the only alternative would be some form of secure provision.
Having tried briefly to acquaint your Lordships with the work of the Royal School and the children that it takes, I shall now quickly address the Government's strategy for special educational needs, which, of course, builds on the strategy Every Child Matters. The strategy illustrates a continuation, starting with early intervention and working in partnership, which includes working with parents, and it looks at ways of tackling bureaucracy. Those can obviously be wholly supported.
However, the Royal School for the Deaf, Manchester, feels that some areas have not been fully addressed and it has some genuine concerns, with which I am persuaded to agree. In the Government's document, pages 44 to 48 are appropriate to the Royal School. The last sentence of paragraph 2.29 on page 44 includes the words:
"There are concerns about the high cost of such placements".
Although that is a general and not a specific statement, the Royal School is worried. Although it has received a glowing report from Ofsted, the Royal School is concerned that the document may not fully recognise that high costs reflect the high need of provision required. The costs for a day student at the Royal School are approximately £15,000 a year but, for a 52-week residential pupil with a multiplicity of disabilities, requiring education and care on a ratio of one-to-one or higher, the cost can be as much as £180,000 a year.
The fear that arises from the document's comment is that, if the costs are to be trimmed, the quality of provision will also suffer and that will be counter to what the Government's strategy is all about. We feel that there must be a clear realisation of the costs involved in providing education and care for children who suffer from the worst of disability and behaviour difficulties. Although the Government's paper addresses broad issues, it appears, we feel, not fully and specifically to address the needs of children with the most complex difficulties.
In our view, there is certainly a need to ensure that those children do not lose the resources and skills required. Unfortunately, at present, there is a desperate shortage of suitable support for children with complex needs who have additional mental health problems. Regrettably, there is a lack of skilled staff to deal with the needs of complex children, particularly in regard to child and adolescent mental health services. We feel that there must be very positive action on the part of government to ensure that skills and resources are in place if the strategy is to succeed in respect of those children about whom I have spoken.
In conclusion, I hope that I have highlighted the fears and concerns of those at the Royal School who, day in and day out, provide service to those children whose need is great. I hope that in reading this debate the Government will enter into a positive dialogue with those at the sharp end who provide the education and care for those who need it the most. That, I feel, is the approach that will achieve the greatest success for these children and young people.
Select Committee Report (5 March 2004)
Joint Committee on the Draft Disability Discrimination Bill (extract)
Q115 Chairman: Would you assume, then, at the end of the voluntary code, that the Bill should include a regulation making power, because you would not want another Act of Parliament to do it presumably? If it is shown at the end of 2005 that it needed legislation, you would expect the Bill to provide a regulation making power to enable that to happen?
Mr Betteridge: I think at this point that would look like the most likely and reasonable way forward, yes, because we need to move as quickly as we can and as practicably as we can, and given we are here with this Bill that would be a logical next step. I do have just one or two more examples where policy and practice, which at the moment is legal, may not be in the future if this Bill has the teeth that many would like. British Airways, whom many disabled people describe as generally excellent in many aspects of its service delivery, recently were the subject of a court case whereby a disabled person who had requested extra leg space for the duration of the journey was told their ticket allocation procedures could not allow that sort of flexibility, and that prevented the person making the journey. Similarly, with easyJet, the pilot asked a group of deaf people to leave the plane because he considered them to be in some way obtrusive or a nuisance for the purpose of the journey and that seemed to be based, going back to the point on whether it is behavioural or the impairment, largely on assumptions about behaviour than facts. So there are a number of areas where we are looking to this Bill to really make a difference to strengthen the law we already have.
Select Committee Report (5 March 2004)
Joint Committee on the Draft Disability Discrimination Bill
Written Evidence (extract)
DDB 84 Citizens Advice Bureau
Draft Disability Discrimination Bill - Comments for Joint Scrutiny Committee.
A West-Midlands CAB client was refused a sign language interpreter for a home visit arranged by the council, to check gas appliances in her home. The bureau found the company completely unaware of DDA requirements and of the view that deaf people didn't need access to information about work being carried out in their home.
Select Committee Report (5 March 2004)
DPTAC response to the Joint Committee in respect of the Department of Work and
Pensions' Draft Disability Discrimination Bill (extract)
Summary of comments and recommendations.
The consultation process.
The draft Bill was published on 3 December 2003. DPTAC is very concerned by the length of time it has taken to produce the draft Bill in alternative formats. It has taken a month to provide the Bill papers in Braille, and audio-tape versions and on-line text in a format which can be read by the screen readers used by many visually-impaired people. British Sign Language and 'Easy Read' versions for people with learning disabilities were still in preparation after six weeks of the consultation period had elapsed. DPTAC seeks assurances from the Government that it will ensure that all documentation that its departments, agencies and regulators produce for consultation will be available in accessible formats on the day of publication.
Select Committee Report (5 March 2004) (extract)
DDB 76 UNISON
UNISON's submission to the Joint Committee on the Draft Disability Discrimination
Bill
New anticipatory duties will need some safeguards if they are to enjoy success. Employers, trade union representatives and Disabled people themselves may be victims of a growing number of exploitative business concerns that are designed for greedy profit rather than assisting employers to meet their duties or to support Disabled people's rights at work. We suggest that the Joint Committee considers evidence in the first instance about the standards used in auditing premises, the production of Braille services and the provision of sign language interpreting.
Select Committee Report (5 March 2004) (extract)
DDB 56 Sense
Sense Submission to the Joint Committee on the Draft Disability Discrimination
Bill
2.7 Announcements need to be made both visually and audibly, as clearly as possible. Some deafblind people will have enough vision to be able to access a visual announcement as long as the font used is reasonably large and clear. Other deafblind people have enough hearing, with the assistance of a hearing aid, to be able to hear clear audio announcements. However many announcements are not loud enough or clear enough for anyone to understand. Speaking as clearly as possible should be emphasised in disability equality training. However, there are many deafblind people for whom both visual and audible are difficult to access. Staff should to be aware that this is a possibility and be willing to repeat announcements and other information if asked.
2.8 Alarms and other warnings. Deafblind people, who are unable to see visual warnings or hear audible warnings, can often miss warning announcements or alarms on trains, buses and aeroplanes. Staff should to be particularly aware of this difficulty and be ready to alert people when there is a problem.
2.9 Moving around on the method of transport can be very difficult for a deafblind person. The lighting needs to be bright and uniform, to ensure that there are no areas of shadow.
2.10 One member of Sense finds that when he is in a taxi he cannot see the fare display and he cannot hear what the driver says when he is sitting in the back of the taxi, so he does not know how much he needs to pay. In this situation he says that he just gives the taxi driver a ten pound note and hopes for the best. This situation really emphasises the need for disability training, including deafblindness and for information such as the cost of fares to be displayed very clearly in large print and the driver to face the person so that they could be lipread.
2.11 These changes would not be difficult or expensive for transport provider. The regulations need to be produced as soon as possible, before the bill is completed its passage through Parliament. Once the bill has become law the codes of practice need be produced as soon as possible, to explain the bill to transport providers.
Commons Written Answers (8 Mar 2004)
Disabled Employees
Mr. Goodman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will set out the number of employees in his Department who have a disability, broken down by disability type.
Yvette Cooper: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (excluding Government Offices and its agencies) has 2,107.5 full time equivalent (FTE) staff, of which 52 staff have declared that they have a disability. The range of disabilities declared by these staff are:
Disability, Number
Hearing, 8
Hearing Impairment Plus, actual number not published
Learning, actual number not published
Learning Difficulties Plus, actual number not published
Mental Illness, actual number not published
Mental Illness Plus, actual number not published
Mobility, actual number not published
Mobility Plus, actual number not published
Other, actual number not published
Physical Co-ordination Difficulties Alone, actual number not published
Physical Co-ordination Difficulties Plus, actual number not published
Reduced Physical Capacity, 6
Reduced Physical Capacity Plus, 9
Speech, actual number not published
Vision , 11
Visual Impairment Plus, actual number not published
For some disabilities the actual number is not published in order to protect the privacy of the individual in line with exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
Commons Written Answers (10 Mar 2004)
Digital Hearing Aids
Mr. Nigel Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time is for digital hearing aids in (a) England and (b) Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement on measures he intends to take to reduce waiting times.
Dr. Ladyman: Information on waiting times for non-consultant led specialities such as audiology is not collected centrally and so we are unable to estimate an average waiting time for digital hearing aids in England. At the end of December 2003, waiting times from referral to fitting at Gloucestershire Royal Hospital were 54 weeks for patients referred by the ear, nose and throat department, 56 weeks for those referred by general practitioners and 112 weeks for patients who self referred for reassessments. These times all include an eight-week period from assessment through to the fitting of the hearing aid.
The Royal National Institute for the Deaf modernisation team is carrying out a number of initiatives to reduce waiting times and new courses have been introduced to increase the number of audiologists available nationally.
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE - Other (19
Mar 2004)
Draft Disability Discrimination Bill
Memoranda submitted by British Council of Disabled People and National Centre for Independent Living (extract)
Q348 Lord Swinfen: Do you have evidence of where disabled people are disadvantaged in other aspects of the criminal justice system?
Ms Hurst: Gosh, yes. They are disadvantaged in access to the whole of the justice system, particularly if they are unable to verbally communicate. There is a case of a woman with multiple sclerosis who used a board. She was intellectually totally competent but she needed to use a board to spell out what she wanted to say and she had been physically abused in the institution that she was living in but the judge refused to take her case because she used a board to give evidence and he saw that evidence as inadmissible. Deaf people, people with learning difficulties, often are denied access to justice because of not having sign language interpretation. Many of us cannot be jurors because you need a personal assistant or you need sign language interpreters and you are not allowed to take them into the jury room. On the other side we cannot be judges, we cannot be members of the legal profession. I am afraid the list is endless. There are awful problems around people with autism where their behaviour is seen as socially unacceptable and they are arrested and nobody treats them in a non-discriminatory way because they have not had to. There is no methodology, there is no come-back for us.
Commons Hansard (22 Mar 2004)
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation (Extract)
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) (UUP): I welcome the improvements and changes that are taking place in the health service, particularly in dealing with those with hearing problems and in using the independent and private sector. Is the Secretary of State aware, however, that there is some concern about whether, after new hearing aids are provided and adapted, people go back to that sector or to the national health service? Is he prepared to deal with that situation, bearing in mind the fact that people get used to those who provide the service and want the follow-up to be convenient?
Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. By arranging a plurality of provision, we are giving a better degree of service and a choice. That is being introduced steadily. It is not the illusion of theoretical choice for everyone that is being offered by the Opposition, which depends on how much money one has in one's pocket.
The increased capacity that we are introducing will genuinely extend choice for patients in the NHS. As the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) says, some of that choice is provided by the independent sector, and I assure him that as the years go on we do not intend to limit and narrow the choice available to patients; rather, we intend to preserve that choice and, as far we can, extend information, power and choice for patients.
Commons Written Answers (23 Mar 2004)
Digital Hearing Aids
Mr. Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on access to digital hearing aids.
Dr. Ladyman: The Royal National Institute for Deaf People has successfully managed the Modernising Hearing Aid Services (MHAS) project on behalf of my Department. Already digital hearing aids are available in two thirds of the National Health Service audiology departments in England and by April 2005, they will be available throughout England.
Commons Hansard (24 Mar 2004)
Disabled People (Assistance Dogs) (extract)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): First and foremost, I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on securing the debate. One of the benefits of this Chamber is that it gives us the opportunity to raise such issues, which although not always at the top of the political agenda, are none the less very important to many of our constituents. As he thoughtfully set out, it is possible to raise people's awareness of such important issues, and I congratulate him on choosing to do that.
I fully recognise the important role that assistance dogs play in enabling many disabled people, especially those with visual and hearing impairments, and increasingly those with more complex care needs, to lead independent lives. I am pleased to endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman said about the value that those animals and the charities that train them have in improving the lives of disabled people.
It is important that we debate such issues because I do not think that there is a general awareness among the public, who do not deal with such things on a daily basis, about what assistance dogs can do. Many people still think of guide dogs for the blind. They do not realise that dogs can help hearing-impaired people and that others, like Naomi, can assist people who live with MS. A dog can deal well with things that those people may find hard to cope with.
When people read our debate in Hansard, many will be amazed to learn that dogs can help to pay for shopping at the supermarket, something that they already do. That is one of the innovative new services on which the charity sector and Canine Partners in particular have taken the lead. I am pleased to pay tribute to their work and to say publicly that the dogs' work is valuable.
The hon. Gentleman referred to direct payments. There is no doubt that the advent and increasing use of direct payments has been a big stimulus in assisting disabled people to take full control of their own care needs and how they are provided. Such payments have also stimulated local authority social services departments to think more innovatively about how to fulfil their obligation to provide care services to disabled people in their areas.
I congratulate local authorities such as Wiltshire, which helped with Naomi, and Surrey on realising that the role of dogs can go beyond simply helping those with a visual or hearing impairment. Such authorities appreciate that dogs can provide the care that in the past we thought could only be provided by humans. I congratulate them on their innovative approach.
Commons Written Answers (31 Mar 2004)
Post Office
Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
(1) what assessment Post Office Ltd. made prior to the programme of closure of sub-post offices in Wakefield of its responsibilities under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in respect of access to services provided to customers who are (a) blind or visually impaired, (b) wheelchair users, (c) users of electric wheelchairs, (d) deaf, (e) frail due to advanced years, (f) mentally incapacitated or impaired and (g) sufferers from heart conditions, emphysema or other conditions which restrict mobility; and if she will make a statement;
(2) what assessment was made during the development of the Post Office Area Plan for Wakefield of the impact of closure of sub-post offices on customer waiting time at the main post office in Wakefield city;
(3) what action Post Office Ltd. is taking to reduce customer waiting time at the main post office in Wakefield City.
Mr. Timms: These are operational matters for Post Office Ltd. and I have asked the Chief Executive to respond direct to the hon. Member.
Commons Written Answers (1 Apr 2004)
Subtitling
Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on how her Department is responding to Ofcom's recommendations for subtitle provision, with particular reference to live events.
Estelle Morris: The Government are committed to extending access to broadcasting services for people who are deaf or hard of hearing-hence the new statutory requirements in the Communications Act 2003. The Act requires Ofcom to draw up a code on subtitling provision and gives them the ability to exclude programmes and services from the subtitling requirements after considering a number of criteria including the extent of the benefit for disabled people and technical difficulty.
Ofcom consulted on a draft code and I understand that, in light of representations received, Ofcom do not now propose to exempt live programming from the subtitling requirements. Indeed Ofcom have concluded that it is important that live programming should be included in the requirement and we welcome that conclusion.
[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.
|
|
 |
 |