UK Council on Deafness

May 2003 Parliamentary Report

In this Report

• British Sign Language - Commons Written Answers (6 May 2003)
• Communications Bill - Lords Hansard (15 May 2003)
• British Sign Language - Commons Written Answers (19 May 2003)
• Benefit Agency Officers (Sign Language) - Commons Written Answers (20 May 2003)

Commons Written Answers (6 May 2003)
British Sign Language

Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 3 April 2003, Official Report, column 838W, on British Sign Language, what the financial value was of the contracts allocated (a) to improve the training infrastructure and (b) to address the shortage of British Sign Language interpreters since 1997; and if he will make a statement on the effects on BSL interpreter numbers in Britain.

Maria Eagle: The contract with the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People (CACDP) to improve the training infrastructure for British Sign Language was worth a total of 198,750. Separately, a contract exists with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People (RNID) to recruit and train interpreters, to which DfEE/DWP and the RNID will each contribute 245, 400 over its lifetime.
These initiatives have made a contribution towards an increase in the number of registered interpreters in Britain, and there are currently 298 interpreters registered by the Independent Registration Panel with the CACDP. However, the system for registration and the basis of registration changed in April 2002, therefore it is not possible to directly compare these figures with those pre- April 2002.

[back to top]

Lords Hansard (15 May 2003)
Communications Bill

Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 39:

After Clause 9, insert the following new clause -

"DUTY TO PROMOTE INCLUSIVE DESIGN AND DISABLED ACCESS
(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to take such steps, and to enter into such arrangements, as appear to them calculated -
(a) to bring about a better awareness and understanding of inclusive design principles, techniques and standards among -
(i) the designers and manufacturers of apparatus designed or adapted for use in connection with electronic communications services or associated facilities; and
(ii) the providers of electronic communications services;

(b) to encourage the designers, manufacturers and service providers mentioned in paragraph (a) to adopt inclusive design principles and techniques in the development of new apparatus, facilities and services; and
(c) to bring about a better public awareness and understanding of inclusive design in relation to electronic communications apparatus, facilities and services.
(2) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to encourage electronic communications network operators to co-operate with -
(a) the manufacturers of apparatus designed or adapted for use in connection with electronic communications services or associated facilities; and
(b) the manufacturers of assistive devices for disabled people, in order to facilitate access by disabled users to electronic communications services.
(3) References in this section to "inclusive design" are references to designs which result in apparatus and services which are accessible to, and usable by, as many people as reasonably possible, and to the greatest extent possible, without the need for special adaptation or specialised design.
(4) References in this section to "electronic communications services" includes web sites."
The noble Lord said: "Inclusive design" is a formal term for a simple but important concept. It means the designing of products and services so as deliberately to make them available or accessible to as many different users as possible. In that context it is aimed at enabling disabled people to use communications equipment and services immediately and without adaptation.

Without inclusive design, disabled people are excluded and frustrated. In addition, they face extra costs. Video recorders are a good example: had they been inclusively designed originally, they would automatically have recorded sub-titles, and deaf people would have been spared years of frustration and extra cost. It did not happen. Deaf people have been deprived of video recordings for years because of the failure to have inclusive design.

Inclusive design is an effective, cost-efficient way of providing for disabled people. If any required features are included in the original design, rather than added on later, the cost is often minimal. A PhoneAbility study, carried out in 1999, found that 20 out of 44 features required to make telephones more accessible could have been added initially at no, or minimal, cost.

Design with disabled use in mind often benefits other people, not just disabled people. For example, an Easy TV study for the Independent Television Commission, the Consumers' Association and the Design Council found that all users had problems with digital equipment - I know I do. They wanted fewer buttons, clearer labelling on remote controls, quicker responses to pressing the buttons and simpler user manuals. All those features are important to people with impaired eyesight and other disabilities.

Technological developments are racing ahead, leaving many people behind. Almost daily - certainly, almost weekly - new products emerge aimed at confident, fit, lively young people who thrive on complexity and sophistication. The rest of us struggle and ask our grandchildren for assistance. I am always begging my grandchildren to explain things, and they do it confidently and with no problems. Inclusive design would mitigate and alleviate many such difficulties. It is wrong in principle and unnecessary in practice to have a divide between the young, quick and nimble and those of us who are a bit slower, possibly less agile or, perhaps, with a disability.

I conclude by making clear to my noble friend the Minister that the amendment would not allow or encourage Ofcom to regulate or set standards in the field. That would be inappropriate. Instead, the amendment would give Ofcom a responsibility to promote inclusive design so as to combat exclusion and make equipment more accessible and usable. It would also ensure that Ofcom encouraged co-operation between network operators and the manufacturers of relevant equipment.

I hope that my noble friend will give a sympathetic response. The issue is of enormous importance to many disabled people, quite apart from the general benefits that would accrue from pursuing the policy. I beg to move.

Lord Addington: The noble Lord has very ably introduced this amendment, which I think is one of the potentially most useful amendments for the disabled. As the noble Lord said, it will also be helpful for those people who are dealing with a barrage of new technology. My daughter is now eight months old and has realised that the video recorder will look wonderful with toast inside it. I am sure that within a year she will be programming it herself. But if we can make it so that these devices are easier to use, we shall not be dependent upon the current generation of crawlers to show us how to use the next generation of machines.
The idea that we promote usability in a body such as Ofcom is very sensible. Computers, and anything with computing design, generally have spare capacity to take on board many new projects and, thus, make use of existing capacity. This amendment also ties in with the Disability Discrimination Act, which refers to the concept of reasonableness when making some kind of allowance. Such a duty is probably hinted at in existing law. We are trying to build on what we have and to do as much as we reasonably can to ensure that the new technology is usable by everyone. Surely that is at least hinted at by the amendment.
I suggest that if the amendment is not acceptable, the Government should look long and hard at ensuring that capacity to promote inclusive design is somewhere within the legal framework. That would head off many problems and would probably save money; for example, if disabled people are to have access to multi-media, expensive adaptations would not have to be made. The intentions of the amendment are good, but if this is not the right form I should be very interested to hear what is.

[back to top]

Commons Written Answers (19 May 2003)
British Sign Language

Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he is taking to address the implications for schools and colleges of the decision to reorganise British Sign Language, with particular reference to (a) teacher supply, (b) validation and (c) funding issues.

Mr. Miliband: While the Government has recognised British Sign Language as a language in its own right, we remain committed to preserving diversity and choice in relation to the different communication methods available for deaf and hearing impaired people. Children with hearing difficulties will continue to be taught in accordance with their and their parents' preferred style. Under the terms of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, it is now unlawful for schools and further and higher education institutions to discriminate against disabled learners by treating them less favourably than others. In addition, institutions have a duty to provide reasonable adjustments to provision where people with disabilities might otherwise be substantially disadvantaged. The Government does not expect the statement of recognition to have any new implications for schools and colleges in relation to teacher supply, interaction between deaf children and others, or funding. We shall however be keeping all these issues under close review.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is providing 1 million to fund a discrete programme of initiatives to support the Government's statement of recognition. The DWP will shortly be consulting organisations of and for deaf people about how this funding should be allocated.

[back to top]

Commons Written Answers (20 May 2003)
Benefit Agency Offices (Sign Language)

WORK AND PENSIONS

Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many employees in benefit agency offices are qualified as British Sign Language interpreters; and if he will make a statement.

Maria Eagle: The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Acting Chief Executive, Clare Dodgson. I have asked her to reply to the hon. Member.

Letter from Clare Dodgson to Mr. Gibb, dated 20 May 2003:

As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the number of employees in benefit agency offices who are qualified as British Sign Language interpreters. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Acting Chief Executive of the Agency.

The working age parts of the Benefits Agency became part of Jobcentre Plus in April 2002. Some Jobcentre Plus offices include staff who have received training in British Sign Language, but we do not currently collect information on their numbers.

The Jobcentre Plus Customer Charter states that a British Sign Language Interpreter or other suitable communicator will be provided when needed. In addition all Districts have a textphone service available. The textphone number for each District is included in all their customer correspondence.

Obtaining figures on the numbers and the level to which people have been trained in both Jobcentre Plus and the Department for Work and Pensions as a whole will be incorporated as one of the initiatives we are planning as part of the European Year of Disabled People.

I hope this is helpful.

[back to top]

[back to Deafness in Parliament]

UK Council on Deafness, Registered Charity Number 1038448

Your use of this site is in accordance with our Privacy Statement

© UK Council on Deafness, 2003-5.