| 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 Hansard (6 May 2004)
Battery Recycling
Paul Flynn (Newport, West) (Lab): What plans she has to ensure that the reprocessing of end-of-life batteries can be undertaken in the UK.
The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith): Most car batteries are already recycled in the UK, as are many button cells containing mercury and silver. A plant for recycling lithium batteries is being built in Scotland. Increased collection of household batteries would make such recycling more economic, and my Department has held discussions with a company interested in developing a facility in the UK.
Paul Flynn: Is it not a nonsensical aspect of environmental policy that the small number of batteries recycled through zinc reprocessing plants have to be shipped to France, because we no longer have such a plant in the United Kingdom? If the directive becomes mandatory, up to 30,000 tonnes of end-of-life batteries may be shipped to France. The news that there will be a plant in Scotland is welcome, but should we not ensure that the nonsense of sending batteries to France is ended and that we develop zinc-processing facilities, particularly at Newport, which has become a major centre for recycling fridges and end-of-life vehicles?
Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend importantly links the action that we need to take in response to the EU batteries directive with the opportunities that that provides for recycling. Once we can collect significantly more batteries than we do at present, important opportunities for recycling will obviously open up. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Department is holding discussions on the issue with the battery industry, which is aware of that significant recycling opportunity.
Mr. Michael Weir (Angus) (SNP): At those facilities, will the Minister consider the recycling of zinc air batteries that are used in hearing aids? There is a great deal of worry among users of hearing aids that under the directive the batteries could effectively be banned because of the difficulties of recycling.
Jacqui Smith: I agree that we need to be careful to deliver the objectives of the directive, which aims to reduce the disposal of waste, but to do that in a way that does not disadvantage consumers or those who make significant use of particular batteries, as the hon. Gentleman points out. That is why, in the next two weeks, we shall consult on the details of how we take forward discussions on the directive. I am sure that that is one of the issues that will be borne in mind as we carry through that consultation.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): Will the Minister confirm, though, that more motor car batteries are being dumped illegally since the rules on recycling such batteries were tightened up a few years ago? Will she give the House a prediction of levels of vehicle dumping after the introduction of the end-of-life directive?
Jacqui Smith: The end-of-life vehicle directive, along with other Government measures, related to our action on antisocial behaviour, for example, is an important way in which we can ensure that we reduce the dumping of vehicles. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the position with regard to automotive batteries. Already, 90 per cent. of automotive batteries are collected and recycled in the UK through a UK recycling plant. Although the hon. Gentleman can raise concerns about how we maintain that, we already have a good position in respect of automotive batteries, which can only be improved by both the consultation on, and the implementation of, the end-of-life vehicles directive.
Commons Written Answers (10 May 2004)
Hearing Aids
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
(1) if he will make a statement on the implementation of the modernising hearing aid services programme;
(2) what continuation funding will be available for the modernising hearing aid services programme after central funding ends in 2005; and if he will make a statement.
Dr. Ladyman: The modernising hearing aid services (MHAS) programme has resulted in the provision of digital hearing aids and the modernisation of services in two thirds of the audiology departments in England. By the end of March 2005, all audiology departments will have been through the programme. An extra £26.4 million capital and £12 million revenue is scheduled to be distributed to lead primary care trusts for the financial year beginning April 2005 as part of the general allocations.
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS hearing aids are digital in
(a) Essex and (b) England; and if he will make a statement.
Dr. Ladyman: This information is not collected centrally.
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in Essex on the modernising hearing aid services programme.
Dr. Ladyman: Four of the five acute trusts in Essex have modernised audiology departments and are fitting digital hearing aids. Epping Forest Primary Care Trust (St. Margaret's Hospital) will commence fitting digital hearing aids in 2005.
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects full take-up of NHS digital hearing aids to be achieved in
(a) Essex and (b) England.
Dr. Ladyman: All audiology departments in England will routinely be fitting digital hearing aids by March 2005, two thirds are already doing so.
The Department is investing a further £94 million in the financial years 2003-04 and 2004-05. This is additional to a total of £30.75 million invested since the Modernising Hearing Aid Services (MHAS) project began in September 2000.
Essex Strategic Health Authority, and primary care and other trusts within Essex continue to work towards meeting the March 2005 target.
Commons Written Answers (10 May 2004)
Hearing-impaired Patients
David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to ensure that patients who are deaf or have hearing problems have full access to the NHS services by October.
Dr. Ladyman: The Department is working in partnership with the Disability Rights Commission on a range of measures to support the National Health Service in improving access to information and services, communications and levels of awareness of disability issues. These measures include, for example, developing health sector-specific practical guidance and promoting awareness of the access duties within the NHS.
Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve the way that the NHS communicates with patients who are deaf or who have a hearing impairment.
Dr. Ladyman: The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires service providers to make reasonable adjustments to the way they deliver their services so that disabled people can use them. In January 1999, the Department issued guidance to chief executives of National Health Service Trusts on providing good quality services meeting the needs of disabled people. This guidance contains a section explaining the needs of people who are deaf or who have a hearing impairment setting out a range of ways in which better communication can be supported. For example, the, guidance recommends that interpreters used for medical consultations should be appropriately qualified, that hospitals and health centres should maintain an up to date list of accredited sign language interpreters, and that letter headings, leaflets and information sheets should include text phone, fax and email numbers to facilitate responses from deaf people.
NHS organisations are responsible for their own compliance with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. However, the Department is working in partnership with the Disability Rights Commission on a range of measures to support the NHS in improving access to information and services, communications and levels of awareness of disability issues. These measures include, for example, developing health sector-specific practical guidance and promoting awareness of the access duties within the NHS.
Commons Written Answers (11 May 2004)
British Sign Language Interpreters
Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to increase the number of qualified British Sign Language/English interpreters.
Maria Eagle: The lack of tutors at the higher levels is recognised as being a significant blockage in the system to recruit and train BSL/English interpreters. On 4 May, I announced we were putting in place a programme of work to support the Government's position statement on British Sign Language (BSL) and had raised the original funding allocation by a further half million to £1.5 million. One of the two priorities this work will address is helping establish a framework to support BSL tutors, for example by providing on-line training material and developing tutor support packs. These measures will, over time, assist an increase in interpreting provision.
Lords Hansard (11 May 2004)
Television Programmes: Subtitling
Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have studied Ofcom's proposals for the future of subtitling television programmes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, the Government are committed to extending access to broadcasting services for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. That is why we have the new statutory requirements in the Communications Act 2003. The Act requires Ofcom to draw up a code on subtitling provision. The Government are fully aware of Ofcom's proposals but, provided it adheres to the provisions of the Act, the detail of the code is a matter for Ofcom.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that profoundly deaf people are entirely reliant on subtitles for following television? But, although the recent Communications Act provided for what he and my noble friend Lady Blackstone called,
"a dramatic increase",
in subtitling, that aim is being frustrated by Ofcom's proposals. Ofcom has now withdrawn the preposterous proposal to end subtitling of parliamentary programmes and the equally preposterous proposal to end subtitling of live television programmes. It has withdrawn its silly ideas. However, Ofcom is still insisting that it should end the annual increase in subtitling, which we have now and which is very valuable; it is also insisting that it will licence only 50 out of the 200 television channels that we have. That means that 150 channels have no responsibility for subtitling. That is bizarre and the intentions of Parliament are being absolutely disregarded. What can the Minister do to help?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I share the pleasure of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that Ofcom has withdrawn its proposal to exempt live programming and parliamentary programming from the subtitling obligation. It is in no small degree due to his efforts and those of the advisory committee that that has happened.
Where he and I still have to disagree is about whether there will be a dramatic increase in subtitling. The Ofcom code says that there has to be an increase to 10 per cent at the end of the first year -that is the end of December this year - and to 60 per cent four years later. I call that a dramatic increase. The issue then is whether there should be annual targets. My view is that broadcasters in the normal course of business will wish to advance towards the 60 per cent target at a reasonable pace, but if they do not I would expect Ofcom to pursue them and to ensure that they do.
As regards the channels that are to be exempt, that is done on grounds of cost and is justified by the Act, but Ofcom is undertaking a study of cheaper methods of subtitling, which should increase the number of channels covered by the subtitling obligation.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, should not Ofcom be requiring the satellite and cable companies to be making the step-by-step increase in the proportion of programmes that are subtitled? Was that not in the spirit of what we agreed when discussions took place on this issue during the course of the Communications Bill's progress through this House? Does the Minister also agree that the hourly cost of subtitling is very low - between £250 and £400 an hour? Taking that into account, surely Ofcom should be issuing a requirement that subtitling should increase every year.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has rightly drawn attention to the fact that digital, cable and satellite channels are now included for the first time in the subtitling obligation. I have already replied to the question of whether there should be annual targets. Ofcom argues that, as light regulators, it should not be setting annual targets for all channels, but I have already indicated that I expect broadcasters to move towards their 60 per cent five-year target at a steady rate - and if they do not, I would expect Ofcom to do something about it.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, is it not the case that it is perfectly technically feasible to add subtitles on an optional basis-that they need not be seen by people who do not need to see them? Why is it then so difficult for the television companies to continue as Ofcom would prefer?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not aware of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, about optional subtitles. I have no reason to doubt his comments, but I do not think that that affects the thrust of the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley.
Lord Rix: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that, sooner rather than later, television programmes should be interpreted in all accessible formats?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I assume that what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is saying is that in addition to subtitling there should be audio description. If so - yes, I do think that the targets for audio description are inadequate. There may well be technical ways forward to improve on those targets and I am negotiating with broadcasters to that effect.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, when he said that these,
"changes should lead to a dramatic increase in the provision of services to help people with sensory impairments to enjoy television",
that we did not assume that it would mean a freeze for five years at 10 per cent; we expected it to go on increasing?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I do not think that Ofcom expects a freeze for five years at 10 per cent. It says that there will be a target of 10 per cent at the end of year one and a target of 60 per cent at the end of year five. As I have made clear, I expect that target to be approached steadily. If it is not approached steadily and there is no improvement in the mean time, I expect Ofcom to do something about it.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, with regard to music channels, for example, is not the challenge to find the right balance between the need to subtitle and the need to protect copyright in a way that does not make the provision of music totally unworkable in practice for the industry?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that that is one of the considerations that Ofcom will have to take into account, but I am not sure that it has been addressed in the Ofcom code at present. I shall have to look into the matter and write to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, about it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Ofcom Advisory Committee on Old and Disabled Persons met for the first time last Thursday? I declare an interest as a member of that committee. The final decision on the Ofcom code is for the main board, but the chairman of Ofcom, the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, gave us an undertaking at our first meeting that the views of the advisory committee would be taken into account by the main board.
I hope that my noble friend agrees that it is very important that the Ofcom code that finally appears is fully in line with the very firm assurances given by Ministers in both Houses during the passage of the Communications Bill. We have already heard a quote from the Minister. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, the then Minister of State, said:
"Ofcom will have the ability to set interim targets on the way to meeting 10-year targets, as the ITC currently does, so provision of subtitling, signing and audio-description will grow year by year"
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already been quoted three times in the past few minutes. As the Bellman said in The Hunting of the Snark,
"What I tell you three times is true".
I cannot go back on what I said on 1 July last year. What I meant by a dramatic increase, I believe, is achieved by the Ofcom code. Continuing progress towards 60 per cent subtitling in five years' time, which is what the Act requires - all credit to those who insisted that it should - is dramatic progress. I congratulate the advisory committee on its work and look forward to the full board of Ofcom accepting the representations that the advisory committee has made to it.
Commons Written Answers (12 May 2004)
Digital Hearing Aids
Mrs. Humble: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when digital hearing aids will be available on the NHS in the constituency of Blackpool, North and Fleetwood.
Miss Melanie Johnson: Digital hearing aids have been available on the national health service from the Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre Hospitals NHS Trust since January 2004. Priority is currently being given to new patients who require a hearing aid for the first time. However, existing patients are eligible for consideration subject to agreed criteria.
Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Second Special Report -13th May 2004 (extract)
10. We are concerned that the BBC has chosen to quibble over technical standards and that ITV has argued that its regional programming prevents any audio description. We look to Ofcom to promote the development of television services for deaf and visually impaired people across all broadcast platforms, in line with the requirements of the Communications Act. In particular, we recommend that BBC and ITV networked programmes are made available with suitable audio description via digital satellite for the 500,000 Sky subscribers who are blind or partially sighted. (Paragraph 60)
Appendix 1 - Reply from the Government
The Government agrees with the Committee about the importance of developing television services across all platforms for deaf and visually impaired people. We are discussing with the BBC, ITV and Channel Four and understand they are considering options to make their audio-described programmes available in the near future.
Appendix 2 - Reply from the Office of Communications (Ofcom)
Ofcom takes seriously its responsibility to implement the requirements of the Communications Act in relation to access services for people who are deaf or blind, or who have visual or hearing impairment, or both. To this end, we made progress on this an early priority and published a draft code for consultation in December 2003. The draft code includes an expectation that broadcasters will use reasonable endeavours to ensure that subtitling, signing and audio description can be accessed by the greatest number of viewers possible, whether they receive their services by terrestrial signal, satellite or cable. We expect that the BBC and ITV will move forward on extending access to audio described programmes in the near future. Given the low quotas for audio description set by Parliament, Ofcom considers that the BBC and ITV would maximise the benefit to blind and partially-sighted viewers if they concentrated provision on network rather than regional programmes.
Commons Written Answers (18 May 2004)
Hearing-impaired Patients
David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Health
(1) what steps he is taking to address the problems experienced by deaf or hard of hearing patients who miss NHS appointments due to poor communication;
(2) what plans there are to introduce
(a) loop systems for hearing aid users and
(b) visual displays in
(i) reception areas and
(ii) consulting rooms in general practitioner surgeries.
Dr. Ladyman: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on 10 May 2004, Official Report, column 163W.
Commons Written Answers (10 May 2004)
Hearing-impaired Patients (extract)
Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve the way that the NHS communicates with patients who are deaf or who have a hearing impairment.
Dr. Ladyman: The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires service providers to make reasonable adjustments to the way they deliver their services so that disabled people can use them. In January 1999, the Department issued guidance to chief executives of National Health Service Trusts on providing good quality services meeting the needs of disabled people. This guidance contains a section explaining the needs of people who are deaf or who have a hearing impairment setting out a range of ways in which better communication can be supported. For example, the, guidance recommends that interpreters used for medical consultations should be appropriately qualified, that hospitals and health centres should maintain an up to date list of accredited sign language interpreters, and that letter headings, leaflets and information sheets should include text phone, fax and email numbers to facilitate responses from deaf people.
NHS organisations are responsible for their own compliance with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. However, the Department is working in partnership with the Disability Rights Commission on a range of measures to support the NHS in improving access to information and services, communications and levels of awareness of disability issues. These measures include, for example, developing health sector-specific practical guidance and promoting awareness of the access duties within the NHS.
Commons Written Answers (19 May 2004)
Hearing-impaired Patients
David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to introduce deaf and disability awareness training for front-line NHS staff.
Mr. Hutton: NHSU, the organisation set up by the Department to establish a university for the national health service, is leading the development and delivery of disability equality and awareness training tools and resources as part of a wider disability learning and development strategy. An initial prototype learning programme, aimed at providing staff with a broad overview of disability awareness, will be ready for consultation in the autumn.
There are no plans for centrally funded training programmes that deal specifically with deaf awareness.
Commons Written Answers (24 May 2004)
Batteries Directive
Mr. Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(1) what representations her Department has made to the European Commission regarding the impact on users of hearing aids of the proposed Batteries Directive;
(2) what representations she has received from
(a) organisations representing the hard of hearing and
(b) manufacturers of batteries regarding the impact on hearing aid users of
the proposed Batteries Directive.
Mr. Morley: The UK Government have made no representation to the European Commission about the impact of the proposed batteries Directive on batteries used in hearing aids. This is because proposals issued by the Commission for a new batteries Directive do not contain any requirement prohibiting the sale of batteries used in hearing aids.
However, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) voted during their first reading of the proposal on 20 April in favour of an amendment, setting limit values for prohibiting the sale of all batteries that contain more than 5ppm of mercury by weight. The Government understands that because hearing aid batteries may contain more than 5ppm of mercury and 40ppm of lead, by weight, in a zinc air hearing aid battery, there is now concern as to a possible ban. However, the Government have not, as yet, heard from any organisations or manufacturers that may be affected, nor have they heard the reaction of the European Commission to the amendment.
It should also be noted that the European Parliament also voted on an amendment to exclude from the controls of the new Directive, batteries and accumulators placed in medical devices; namely, those designed to maintain vital functions, where uninterrupted functioning is essential and the batteries and accumulators can be removed only by qualified personnel. If this amendment were accepted, it would not be clear whether those hearing aid batteries containing more than 5ppm of mercury and 40ppm of lead would be excluded.
HMG believes that the inconsistency between these two amendments is likely to be addressed by the European Parliament in its second reading. If the threshold limits proposed, remained in the Directive, and led to the prohibition of batteries contained in hearing aids, or indeed batteries contained in other medical devices, this would be opposed by the UK and, we believe, by other member states also.
Mr. Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from manufacturers of batteries regarding the proposed European Batteries Directive.
Mr. Morley: We have received representation from the British Battery Manufacturers Association (BBMA) and the European Portable Batteries Association (EPBA) who represent all major manufacturers of portable batteries. Also, we have held discussions with Collect Nicad who represent the manufacturers of nickel cadmium batteries.
We expect to have further meetings with battery companies and other stakeholders now that the batteries consultation paper has been issued.
[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.
|
|
 |
 |