Grumpy Old Deafies

Uganda's Anti Homesexuality Bill [PDF] is disturbing, across the board. Certain groups are take a harder hit, including the Deaf community. If you think LGBTQ issues have nothing to do with you, because "I'm straight" you're wrong.

You do not have to be gay to be sentenced to death under this bill.

I will go into why in a moment.

However, a bit of background. The bill creates an offence (amongst others) called Aggravated Homosexuality (s.3). If you participate in Aggravated Homosexuality, this is your sentence:

s.3(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.

You can commit such an offence, if you have a sex with a person of the same gender, and the "victim" having a disability (s.3(e)). Victim in this context does not mean rape, but includes what is usually regarded as consensual (agreed) sex. However, here disabled people are treated not to be able to give consent to sex.

Don't think this includes Deaf people? Wrong!

"disability" means a substantial limitation of daily life activities caused by ... sensory impairment and employment barriers resulting in limited participation. (page 4)

The proposed law says: Deaf people are incapable of understanding what is going on and they cannot give consent. It assumes Deaf people (amongst others) are stupid, and do not have autonomy.

Whatever your sexual orientation, every Deaf person should take offence at that.

So to recap, if anyone of the same gender has sex with a Deaf person and the authorities find out about it: they get sentenced to death. If you don't think the authorities will find out, read on.

The Bill does not just impact LGBTQ people but anyone. Aggravated homosexuality includes all “serial offenders".

So if:
1. You're someone who has gay sex once and doesn’t turn his partner in to the authorities.
2. You're a straight person who doesn’t turn in gay friend(s) into the authorities (Part III).

Then you get sentenced to death.

Just think about that for a moment. You know the Deaf community is small and intimate nature due to being bound by a common language. Find out some random information about someone in a social situation, and if you don't tell: you get sentenced to death. You do not need to be gay, to risk being sentenced to death.

If that does not disturb you to the core, I really don't know what will. Go and read the bill for yourself [PDF], if you don't believe me.

I guess few will be travelling to Uganda anytime soon, but one has to wonder about basic human rights of Deaf people (and many others, in fact everyone) out there. Exactly who is protecting individuals against fundamental human rights? And where the hell is WFD in all this?

Source:
Waking up Now: Uganda's Kill-the-Straight-Friends-of-Gays Bill (discovered via @zephoria).

Posted by alison at 6:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Parliamentary Tours are usually held each summer, or organised by a constituent's MP, so visitors can see the Commons and Lords debating chambers, the Queen's Robing Room, etc. A question was recently asked in parliament about access:

Jacqui Smith (Redditch, Labour)

Although I welcome the progress that has been made, I want my hon. Friend to be aware of what happened earlier this year, when I tried to organise a tour of Parliament for the Redditch Deaf Club. My office was told that no one could be assigned to the group because of cost reasons. Furthermore, I understand that there is not full hearing-loop availability throughout the whole tour. I do not think that that is good enough, and I hope that the level of progress will be upped to ensure that all our constituents can access tours of this place, regardless of their disabilities.

Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, No Department; Middlesbrough, Labour)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Induction loops are fitted in the Public Galleries, Committee Rooms and main Dining Rooms. On sign language, visitor services can provide a sign language tour, if it is booked in advance. Otherwise, the diversity managers can put a Member or visitor in touch with a British sign language interpreter, which would, of course, be at the visitor's expense. The House is in the process of providing British sign language training for 12 House staff, who will be able to assist visitors at short notice and at no cost to the visitor. I hope that that is a positive response for my right hon. Friend. However, if she has other such matters to raise, I shall be happy to take them up and refer them to the House of Commons Commission.

Now, did I read that correctly? I don't quite understand what he's saying here. Here we have the government proposing it breaks its own law? Deaf person pays for the interpreter, what gives? Hello, service provider with lots of resources what about your obligation for reasonable adjustments? So parliament passes the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, then refuses to follow its own law.

And why doesn't Redditch Deaf Club just sue?

If you read the rest of the debate, it goes onto say, "We have, of course, focused very seriously on disabled visitors who visit the visitor centre." Really?

Source:
They Work For You
Hansard

Posted by alison at 9:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0)

Deafies are now the underdogs! A programme that features Dr. Ádám Kósa, relevant bit starts at 15:10.

Some interesting comments by Brussels, that they now need to think of 24 languages instead of 23. Hopefully Ádám's presence will start to make them think of sign languages a bit more when it comes to policy.

Elsewhere:
MEP Profile: Ádám KÓSA

See also:
Dr. Ádám Kósa addresses the EU Parliament
Dr. Adam Kosa: First Deaf Member of the European Parliament (MEP)
European Parliament Elections: Dr. Adam Kosa

Posted by alison at 10:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

Helene Jarmer is to take a seat in the Parliament of Austria or as is properly known, the Republik Österreich Parament.

She will take a seat for Die Grünen, in English, The Greens – The Green Alternative.

Helene is taking over Ulrike Lunacek's (hearing) seat, as she has just been elected to the European Parliament.

Helene is the current President of Österreichischer Gehörlosenbund (Austrian Deaf Association).

Congratulations, Helene and we wish you the best of luck.

Wow, that's makes three Deaf people elected as politicans in Europe! All this is making me feel rather giddy, and it feels kind of surreal. In the space of a few days we also have Dr. Ádám Kósa elected as MEP and Helga Stevens re-elected to the Flemish Parliament.

Isn't it about time the rest of the world started catching up. Where's the Deaf mainstream politicans in your country? Get out there, and be visible.

Elsewhere:
Helene Jarmer, Die Grünen (German - Green Party)
Press Release: Österreichischer Gehörlosenbund (German - Austrian Deaf Association)
The Greens – The Green Alternative (English - Wikipedia)
Österreichisches Parlament (English - Wikipedia, Parliament of Austria)
EUD: Austria (English / sign)
Interview with Helene Jarmer (German plus sign)

Posted by alison at 12:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

Deaf lawyer, Helga Stevens has been re-elected to the Vlaams Parlement or Flemish Parliament, as a candidate for N-VA. She represents the East Flanders constituency; amassing 12.71% of the vote. You can see the result here. Helga was first elected to the Flemish Parliament in 2004.

As a bonus, here's the video. Helga is on the stage wearing a yellow jacket:

More pictures over at EUD. Huge congratulations, to Helga.

As a bonus, EUD also has some pictures of Ádám Kósa's election.

Elsewhere:
Helga Stevens, official website (Dutch)
Helga Stevens Facebook supporter page
Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie (N-VA) on Wikipedia, New-Flemish Alliance (English)
Helga Stevens, Wikipedia page (Dutch)
Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie (N-VA) (Dutch)

See also:
Helga Stevens Elected (Deaf Blawg)
Helga Stevens update (Deaf Blawg)

Posted by alison at 1:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Deaf lawyer, Dr. Ádám Kósa has won a seat at the European Parliament! Here's the result (its in Hungarian).

He represents FIDESZ (here's the Wikipedia page in English on FIDESZ (Hungarian Civic Union)).

All I am capable of saying: bloody fantastic news, history has been made! Way to go, Ádám, congratulations! :)

UPDATE:: EUD has some pictures of Ádám's election victory. There is also a video on Facebook, however its in spoken Hungarian.

See also:
European Parliament Elections: Dr. Adam Kosa

Elsewhere:
FIDESZ 2009
Facebook: Adam Kosa for first Deaf European Parliamentarian!
FIDESZ

Posted by alison at 11:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

Today the California Supreme Court upheld a decision on Prop 8, in other words banning gay marriage (existing 18,000 same sex couple marriages stand), in California.

Apart from thinking along the lines of, 'Hello, California! You might like to join the rest of us in 2009 sometime; until then you have no right to call yourself a progressive state. You disgust me', I came across this quote on the Day of Decision:

"No civil rights movement has EVER lost. Never. It is not a matter of if our community will win full equal rights, including marriage. It is only a matter of when. But as in all civil rights movements, we will have to fight like hell for it."

-Robin Tyler, petitioner-case to overturn prop 8

That quote says it all, and perhaps something that deaf people can take heart from and remember. Civil rights battles are never lost, they are eventually won. Just don't get burnt out on the way (anyone who's been there, will be all too familiar). However, for a battle to be won, it needs to be fought. Apathy and fear of challenging the status quo will not get you anywhere: you'll be in the same place decades from now. Think about it, and don't place the work in the hands of a few.

Any discrimination is discrimination, and it impacts everyone. Even if you can tick off majority status for every box, be it ethnic background, age, sex, sexuality and abled bodied. To tolerate discrimination around you, lacks humility plus respect to fellow human beings.

Intolerance of the other and inequality does not just hurt individuals, but whole communities or even societies. And if you're so shallow just to think in terms of money: it hurts that too.

Its activists and people who challenge the status quo everywhere, who change the tide. No-one has ever changed the world nor progressed by towing the line. You should think about lending your support, don't let a few carry that burden for what is ultimately everyone's benefit. Be visible.

Photo credit: bobster855 under Creative Commons

Posted by alison at 6:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBacks (0)

The EHRC is the body for England, Wales and Scotland that is charged with the promotion of equality. From personal experience, in terms of meeting the needs of individuals it doesn't do this well (if you represent an organisation, your reality is distorted). Furthermore, how far removed it can be from deaf people. Ask yourself this: what has the EHRC done for you?

Recently the EHRC had a press release Commission's enforcement team takes on more than 300 cases in first 18 months, and goes onto state:

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has now used its enforcement powers on 337 occasions.

So I got my MP to ask such a question in parliament:

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Minister for Women and Equality how many completed cases originating in (a) Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) England the Equality and Human Rights Commission has taken up on behalf of individuals since its inception; and how many such cases concerned (i) disability discrimination, (ii) sexual discrimination and (iii) racial discrimination.

Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston, Labour)

Between October 2007 and 31 March 2009, the Equality and Human Rights Commission undertook 203 completed cases on behalf of individuals:

(a) 191 cases originated from England;
(b) Eight cases originated from Scotland; and
(c) Four cases originated from Wales.
(i) 179 completed cases concerned disability discrimination;
(ii) 10 concerned sexual discrimination; and
(iii) 14 concerned racial discrimination.

Three cases concerned more than one strand of equality.

Okay! Let me get this straight. The glossy press release says 337 cases. The parliamentary written answer says 203. What gives? No synchronised statistics makes me think someone is lying somewhere. Place that on top of a huge annoyance, and one is not a happy bunny.

Next point. FOUR cases in Wales. Four? Hello? I would really like to know what the Welsh EHRC has been doing for the past eighteen months, and exactly how many millions are they being paid for seemingly next to nothing as far as output goes? Joe Public the taxpayer should be annoyed too, that's your money that's being wasted. Can anyone realistically accept a bill of millions (to run EHRC) to come up with four cases, value for money? You can talk policy until the cows come home, but without enforcement we're not going to get anywhere. And if someone out there really believes that's the the extent of discrimination in Wales, ha! Currently I have six open files, all instances of discrimination, just stuff I've experienced. I've approached the EHRC for mediation, and got nowhere. The result, they just wasted my time. More about this, maybe, in another post. The point is, that's just one individual: there's more out there.

Looking at the above figures, we have: 88.11% cases around disability, 4.9% relating to sexual discrimination, 6.86% pertaining to race and 1.47% of mixed strands.

The whole point of social policy is to take your casework. Spot trends. Take the major trend, and turn it into some major policy rethink plus campaigning. To adopt this approach, is not major rocket science, but rather common sense. Let trends speak, you can talk general policy streamlining all you like but they are no more than abstract ideas. Get led by practice.

Additionally, how come little news items that feature on the EHRC's news page relate to disability? If you see any mention of the EHRC in the media, it always seems to be about gender. Why isn't the public face of EHRC reflecting discrimination ratios? If you follow EHRC on Twitter, you'll understand the lack of disability updates.

And for a final bonus, let me ask you this. Where was the EHRC when deaf people complained about ITV (removal of regional BSL input for the news)? Where was the EHRC when deaf people complained about genetics and how the Department of Health completely failed to include deaf people in consultation? Where is the EHRC when deaf people are trying to campaign for updated telephone access? Exactly what does it understand about BSL recognition? So it goes on ....

And one last question: exactly why isn't the EHRC's website in BSL? The body that is supposed to take a lead against discrimination, is discriminating against BSL users. Instead you've got this tokenistic crap, and you still need to navigate the English first.

This body needs a serious leadership rethink because right now, its not working. EHRC, championing equality and human rights for all. Not.

Source:
They Work For You
Hansard

Posted by alison at 2:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

The 2009 European Parliament Elections takes place in June.

Deaf lawyer, Dr. Ádám Kósa from Hungary will be standing at the forthcoming elections, as a candidate for FIDESZ. Wikipedia has information in English on FIDESZ (Hungarian Civic Union). Adam's official statement:

It would be a great honour and privilege to represent the interests not only of people with disabilities, but the whole nation as the first Deaf and sign language user to represent in the European Parliament.

A profile of Hungary's candidates can be seen on FIDESZ 2009. Adam also has a Facebook group, Adam Kosa for first Deaf European Parliamentarian! which has some links to other videos. Whatever your political affiliations, this should be celebrated and supported.

As a side point, the wider issue of the importance of disability within European elections has been highlighted by the European Disability Forum, with a a website Disability Votes Count. Here's a video by the same:

I commend the effort behind this, and any mode to drive a point across for the importance of diversity Diversity is crucial to any conversation (politics included), as privilege transforms assumptions. In other words reshapes what you think is the norm or perception, and this becomes a skewed sense of reality.

However, this information is available in various written languages. Is it not ironic for a website promoting access (andreceived funding for the same), there's no information available in signed languages?

In any case, we hope that you'll vote in the forthcoming elections and I know I'm rooting for Adam, even though (being UK based) I can't vote for him.

Posted by alison at 5:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

This post is about amendment 78 of clause 237 of the
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill 2008-09. It concerns the acoustic quality in schools. In other words, school buildings are failing to comply and as a result an amendment was tabled.

Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister, Children, Schools and Families; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)

.... [snip] .... There is genuine concern about some of the architecture being used. The National Deaf Children’s Society has raised particular concerns with me about the acoustics in some of the new buildings. It said in its briefing to the Committee that open-plan teaching spaces were being promoted without proper consideration of how to ensure high-quality acoustics in such spaces, which is a real concern for deaf or hearing-impaired children, and we need to address it. .... [snip] ...

Continue reading "Parliament: Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, Clause 237" »

Posted by alison at 7:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

This debate concerns an amendment to Clause 210 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill 2008-09, around the requirement to for school inspectors to have "training and expertise in special educational needs [SEN]". The debate below happened at the House of Commons Public Bills Committee stage (of parliament), you can read the full debate by following the links.

The proposed amendment to the Bill was introduced by Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister, Children, Schools and Families; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 210, page 120, line 28, at end insert—

‘(2A) The Chief Inspector may only make an interim statement about a school in England that has provision for children with special educational needs if it has been assessed by an inspector who has training and expertise in special educational needs and has properly engaged with such pupils at that school.’.

.... cont

There's more to this debate, here's the deaf mention:

Continue reading "Parliament: Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, Clause 210" »

Posted by alison at 7:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In a previous post, we said that we'd go through relevant articles in UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The UK will be implementing this Convention in Spring 2009.

In this post we will focus on Article 33: National Implementation and Monitoring.

It might seem an odd way of approaching the Convention, since we've not gone through other relevant articles yet. However, for people to take the forthcoming posts more seriously, we need to highlight what the role of deaf people could be.

The relevant text is (you don't have to read it, this will be broken down below):

Article 33 - National implementation and monitoring

1. States Parties, in accordance with their system of organization, shall designate one or more focal points within government for matters relating to the implementation of the present Convention, and shall give due consideration to the establishment or designation of a coordination mechanism within government to facilitate related action in different sectors and at different levels.

2. States Parties shall, in accordance with their legal and administrative systems, maintain, strengthen, designate or establish within the State Party, a framework, including one or more independent mechanisms, as appropriate, to promote, protect and monitor implementation of the present Convention. When designating or establishing such a mechanism, States Parties shall take into account the principles relating to the status and functioning of national institutions for protection and promotion of human rights.

3. Civil society, in particular persons with disabilities and their representative organizations, shall be involved and participate fully in the monitoring process.

Point 1:
There needs to be a focal point(s) in the government. i.e. central point(s) to co-ordinate to make implementation happen. There are different levels of goverment. E.g. local authority, government departments like the Department of Health and other services such as the police, etc. The Convention will apply to all of these levels.

Point 2:
There needs to be framework (plan / outline) set up by the government. The framework needs to include independent mechanisms. The setting up the framework needs to follow the principes in the Convention. The aim of this framework is to promote, protect and monitor implementation of the Convention.

Point 3:
This one is important, and is relevant to you.

It says that:
(a) disabled people (which includes deaf) and;
(b) their representative organisations

shall be:
- involved
- participate fully

in monitoring.

In other words, to check if the Convention is working in practice. So, this Convention is going to be effective in the UK, you need to try and understand it, plus participate. Representative organisations need to be involved too.

Who are the Reprsentative Organisations?
So what does representative organisations mean (under point 3)? For deaf input, many deaf organisations can claim to have a membership base, thus can go running to the government and say that it is representative of us. "We have a membership base, so we represent deaf people!". They might have the numbers to prove it because their base might consist of people who are 70+ a little bit hard of hearing, and subscribe to their magazine. Not that I am dismissing older people here, just trying to get a point across that numbers are not the same as democratic processes or involement. Would such an organisation be qualified to represent BSL users, etc? Who decides on representation, how is this defined and how can power be placed in the hands of deaf people themselves?

Who are likely to be the UK government institutions?
It appears that the co-ordination role for implementing the UN Convention in the UK is being done by the Office for Disability Issues (ODI). The ODI has an Equality 2025 committee, described as a "network of disabled people which advises the Westminster Government on how to achieve disability equality.

Secondly, we think that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) will part(?) take on the role of independent monitoring. The Convention requires something called National Human Rights Institutions (NRIs). The EHRC achieved this status in February.

International Monitoring
This Convention is also being monitored on an international level. This is the responsiblity of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). This is a body of independent experts which monitors implementation of the Convention by countries (state parties). Countries have to send regular reports to the Committee, about implementation. They must report within two years after implementation. Afterwards, every four years.

The international Committee will examine the report, and can make suggestions and general recommendations, and send this to the country concerned.

Their first session of this Committee was held in February 2009. The agenda for this meeting is here. The minutes don't seem to be available online yet.

From the membership list of the Committee I don't recognise any of those names as being deaf people? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Can hearing people monitor and make recommendations on articles relating to sign language?

Comment and Ask the Readers:
We could say much more about monitoring, but trying to keep to the basics. What do you think of the above? Do you think effective monitoring will be achieved, and do you think that deaf people will be involved in the process?

Question. Who is actually getting UK deaf people involved at this stage, and letting them know about the Convention? This has to happen to meet the requirement of Article 33.

This blog is independent, and if you weren't reading about this here, would you know about it? Its not WFD's responsibility (they are an international organisation). So what are UK deaf organisations and the government doing? Deaf people cannot participate fully unless they have the basic information!

What are your views on representative organisations, and how do you define representation?

See also:
Part 1: UK and UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Posted by alison at 10:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In the Spring 2009 the UK will ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

This is an important Convention, and even has specific parts relating to sign language. The potential implications are huge and it is important to at least have some awareness of what is happening.

I will cover this topic in a number of blog posts, because there's too much for one post. I am going to try and reach out to different people on different levels, so the posts might not be enough for you. If someone wants to translate these posts into BSL, please feel free.

Background to the Convention

This is linked to human rights. Human rights are basic rights and freedoms to which all people are entitled to. E.g. right to life, equality before law.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and other international instruments has not always reached disabled people. This means that human rights of disabled and/or deaf people have not always happened, or these groups need specific measures to protect their basic rights.

In 2006 the United Nations (UN) agreed on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This Convention includes a number of measures aimed at disabled and deaf people. The inclusion of clauses relating to Deaf people were advocated by the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD).

UN conventions comes under international law. English law has a legal system called dualism. This means international law needs to be made law in our own country before it comes into effect. In other words the Convention needs to be ratified.

This Convention was opened up for country signature on the 30 March 2007. You can check if your country has ratified the Convention.

So what about the UK?

The government has said it will ratify this Convention by Spring 2009. See this written answer in the House of Lords on 18 December 2008.

On 3 March 2009, Jonathan Shaw, Minister for Disabled People, announced that the parliamentary process for the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities had begun. Full statement can be seen here.

But we have the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), why do we need more law?

The Convention is based on human rights, and not really a law around the prohibition of discrimination (as the DDA). It is about promotion of basic rights.

Articles relating to Sign Language

Whilst the UN Convention contains many articles that apply to deaf people, there are some specific articles that relate to sign language.

Sign language is specifically mentioned eight different times in five different articles. Within the next few posts, I will go through these articles, and hope people will participate as to what it could mean in practice for Deaf people in the UK.

Elsewhere:
Cm: 7564 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: New York, 13 December 2006 (DWP Command Paper)

Posted by alison at 6:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham & Morden, Labour)

Nikita is 17 years old and profoundly deaf. She moved to my constituency in September with her Gurkha family. Despite having been allocated a Connexions adviser and a social worker, and having had assessments and meetings, she still does not have the one thing that she wants: a college place. May we find the time for a debate on how effective the Connexions service actually is, and how it interfaces with social services departments?

Harriet Harman (Lord Privy Seal, House of Commons; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

I suggest that my hon. Friend considers seeking a meeting with the relevant Minister about her constituent, whom she is backing so actively. She may also consider making the general issue the subject of a Westminster Hall debate.

Comment:
What a surprise! Many deaf people can fall outside the net when it comes to mainstream services basically not having a clue. Call me cynic, but I've seen this one once too many times.

Posted by alison at 9:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Tom Levitt (High Peak, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he plans to take to enforce a multi-agency approach to safeguarding vulnerable adults, with particular reference to those who are both deaf and blind.

Phil Hope (Minister of State (Care Services; Minister for the East Midlands), Department of Health; Corby, Labour)

A revision of the key guidance, "No Secrets: Guidance on developing and implementing multi-agency policies and procedures to protect vulnerable adults from abuse", is currently under way. As part of this, a large public consultation took place between 16 October 2008 and 31 January 2009—a copy of the consultation document has been placed in the Library.

The consultation document asked a large number of questions about how we need to change and develop the "No Secrets" guidance, to strengthen and improve existing safeguarding arrangements for all vulnerable adults, including whether new legislation is needed. The review is also considering how to improve prevention of abuse, and how to assist all people—including those who are blind or deaf - in making decisions about risks and choice in their lives.

The consultation on safeguarding adults has elicited a huge amount of information, from both service users and professionals—which is being considered very carefully by Ministers.

Comment:
Here, the purpose of Tom Levitt's questioning is clearer.

Page 37 of the report [PDF] lists the people involved in the steering group. It seems to list one name, Jackie Scott, Deaf-Blind UK (first meeting), which does not instill confidence (deafblind only, and one meeting). I thought the NSPCC If the government is serious about deaf inclusion, and meeting its statutory obligations then please can some

There is only one direct relevant mention in the report, I am able to find. 6.10 of the same report states:

The communication needs of victims including people with sensory impairments, learning disabilities, dementia or whose first language is not English must be taken into account. Interviewers and interpreters may need specific training.

Even I am able to see this report is completely inadequate when it comes to deaf people, and it doesn't even begin to address the issues. The government should already be aware that deaf people are or have been at a much higher risk of abuse.

We've been here with the Department of Health before, with the Stop Eugenics campaign. See here for more information.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 places a legal obligation on public bodies to consult with disabled people (including deaf people) - see Disability Discrimination Act 2005, particularly Part 5A (amending the Disability Discrimination Act 1995). And to have due regard to including but not limited to: promotion of equality of opportunity, promotion of positive attitudes towards disabled people, and to take steps to meet disabled people’s needs even if it means favourable treatment. See here [PDF], and this is also highlighted in the Department of Health’s ‘Single Equality Scheme 2007-2010’, specifically at pages 96-97.

So, how come there's no deaf involvement Department of Health? Haven't we been here once before, with the government breaking its own law and policy?

Source:
They Work For You
Hansard

See also:
Parliament: Disabled Witnesses

Posted by alison at 7:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Tom Levitt (High Peak, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps he plans to take to ensure that witness statements from disabled adults who communicate using non-formal methods can be accepted in courts.

Maria Eagle (Parliamentary Secretary, Government Equalities Office; Liverpool, Garston, Labour)

In the criminal courts statements from disabled adults who use non-formal methods of communication are treated in the same way as statements from a witness whose first language is not English.

When taking a statement from a witness who requires assistance with communication, the police interview is conducted with necessary assistance, such as an accredited deaf signer, an intermediary, or communication aids or relay interpreters where more than one form of communication is required. The statement is written by the police officer following the witness interview and then communicated back to the witness, with any necessary assistance to check its accuracy before the witness is invited to sign it.

So far as the admissibility of the statement is concerned, this is a matter for the court to determine in each case. Written statements are admissible in certain circumstances but normally a witness would give evidence orally in court, again with any necessary assistance with communication.

In the civil courts there are no plans to change the current arrangements in respect of witness statements. Each court has a customer service officer who is able to assist users by providing services such as hearing loops, sign language or lip speakers. When required, arrangements may be made to give evidence outside the court room, for example in a hospital. The judge, parties and court staff adopt a flexible approach to allow each case to be dealt with individually according to the circumstances of the person concerned and to accommodate any special needs.

Comment:
Sloppy English coming from the government, "Accredited Deaf Signer". It implies the signer is deaf, and not good for specifics. Yes we know she means a BSL/English Interpreter or sign language interpreter; but if parliament is supposed to be supreme and good for following policy, this isn't exactly a good start. And yes, I know there's such a thing as a relay interpreter who can be deaf, but relay is mentioned further in the sentence.

So why is this question being asked by Tom Levitt? Isn't this a basic DDA provision, thus why an issue?

Source:
They Work For You
Hansard

Posted by alison at 7:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Wales; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police forces have procedures in place to provide British sign language interpreters and lipspeakers on a 24-hour basis for deaf people requiring assistance at police stations; and what steps her Department has taken to facilitate police force compliance with the requirements of the National Agreement on Arrangements for the use of Interpreters, Translators and Language Service Professionals in Investigations and Proceedings within the Criminal Justice System, as revised in 2007.

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

This information is not currently held centrally.

All chief officers of police have been issued with guidance on the use of the National Agreement.

ACPO is aiming shortly to write further reminding forces of interpreting requirements for those requiring lip speakers and British Sign Language services. This is being done in partnership with the Office of Criminal Justice Reform, who are preparing an additional leaflet of guidance in respect of deaf people in the criminal justice system.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 6:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what facilities jobcentres offer to deaf people who arrive to make enquiries (a) with and (b) without an appointment; and how many front line jobcentre staff have qualifications in British Sign Language.

Stephen Timms (Minister of State (Employment and Welfare Reform), Department for Work and Pensions; East Ham, Labour)

The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, Lesley Strathie. I have asked her to provide my hon. Friend with the information requested.

Letter from Lesley Strathie, dated 22 July 2008:

The Secretary of State has asked Lesley Strathie to reply to your question asking what facilities Jobcentres offer to deaf people who arrive to make enquiries (a) with and (b) without an appointment; and how many front line jobcentre staff have qualifications in British Sign Language. I am replying on behalf of Lesley Strathie as acting Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus.

Within Jobcentre Plus we recognise the diverse range of customers we serve and we are fully committed to providing equally accessible and available services to all customers.

Customers who are hearing impaired can obtain support from Jobcentre Plus in the following ways:

if a customer is able to use a hearing loop, we provide integrated and portable hearing loop facilities in each Jobcentre;

where customers prefer to have a qualified British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter present, the Jobcentre will arrange for an external interpreter to be present at the interview. We currently have four contracted providers that provide BSL interpreters nationally, or staff can use local qualified interpreters, lip speakers, or deaf blind interpreters; or

alternatively, customers can choose to bring friends, relatives or intermediaries to act as interpreting agents for them. If a customer provides their own professional qualified interpreter they can be reimbursed with reasonable costs.

We do not hold a central national database of staff who are qualified in BSL and this information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

Jobcentre Plus is committed to providing a first class service and ensuring we fully support all our customers.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 5:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Maria Miller (Shadow Minister, Children, Schools and Families; Basingstoke, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families for what reasons the Disability Discrimination (General Qualifications Bodies) (Relevant Qualifications, Reasonable Steps and Physical Features) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 have not been the subject of a disability equality impact assessment.

Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)

We have consulted with the interested disability organisations about laying the draft regulations (dated 19 June 2008) without carrying out an equality impact assessment. A consortium covering Scope, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, Skill, the British Association of the Teachers of the Deaf, the British Dyslexia Association and the National Deaf Children's Society has told us it is reluctantly prepared to accept this approach. This is in order to avoid delays which could disadvantage disabled candidates or those considering whether or not to undertake a course.

When I took the DDA General Qualifications regulations through the House last summer I made it clear that the practice of exemptions from parts of an assessment, and therefore the resulting enhancements, will continue to be lawful after September 2007. This absolutely remains the Government position.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 7:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Michael Gove (Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Children, Schools and Families; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families

(1) what arrangements are in place to ensure that the teaching of literacy is accessible to deaf children, with particular regard to the use of phonics;

(2) what arrangements are in place to ensure deaf children who fail to attain level 3 at key stage 2 English are receiving catch-up support tailored to their needs;

Simon Hughes (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons; North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (1) what steps he is planning to implement to reduce the gap in attainment between deaf children and their hearing peers; and if he will make a statement.

Kevin Brennan (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Cardiff West, Labour)

Our key priority is to personalise learning by focusing on each pupil's progression so that every child achieves their potential. Our renewed literacy strategy builds on Sir Jim Rose's independent review of the teaching of early reading by putting phonics at the heart of 'teaching reading in order to help to raise attainment levels amongst all pupils.

The review found that there was a wide range of expert support and guidance available to help schools match provision to need regarding the teaching of literacy.

Through the national strategies we will continue to encourage teachers to apply inclusive principles to address issues of accessibility, including the needs of children with severe sensory impairment such as deafness.

The primary national strategy and other partners provide a range of intervention programmes to help those children who struggle most in reading and writing. These include the Every Child a Reader and Every Child a Writer programmes. The former provides intensive one to one support in reading for five and six year olds, the latter is a new pilot currently under development but will include one-to-one intervention in years three and four in the areas of writing that children find hardest to master.

Extra help is available for those children who need it to prevent them from falling behind: we provide early literacy support (ELS—year 1), Y3 literacy support (Y3LS) and further literacy support (FLS—year 5). These three packages are designed to help those children who, without additional help would not reach level 4 at the end of year 6.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

See also:
Parliament: Deaf Education, No Official Statistics

Posted by alison at 5:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

It appears that the Hearing Aid Council is being abolished next year, and its work merged with the Health Professions Council.

The Hearing Aid Council describes itself as:

We are the Government body that regulates the private hearing aid market. To sell a hearing aid in the UK you must be registered with us and meet our standards of education, training and conduct. You can complain to us if you are worried someone may not meet our standards or is selling hearing aids illegally.

With the HPC describing itself as:

We are a regulator, and we were set up to protect the public. To do this, we keep a register of health professionals who meet our standards for their training, professional skills, behaviour and health. We currently register over 180,000 professionals from 13 professions.

We only know all this, because it has appeared in Hansard.

Ben Bradshaw (Minister of State, Department of Health; Exeter, Labour)

[snip]

I accept that it is not ideal that this House did not have the opportunity to consider this provision in its deliberations in Committee. I hope, however, that hon. Members will forgive the fact that this is a late addition to the Bill in recognition of the very real benefits that this measure will bring for patients and consumers. First, this will provide improved protection for the hearing impaired and simplify the regulatory framework for hearing aid dispensers. Although the council has done a fantastic job over the past 40 years, it is operating under legislation that is increasingly outdated with gaps in consumer protection. The Health Professions Council, established in 2001, has modern and comprehensive legislation that will provide for a much more complete service to patients and consumers. As a multi-professional statutory regulator, it can provide greater resources while charging considerably smaller fees to the profession. Secondly, and importantly, the Hearing Aid Council itself, the Health Professions Council, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the British Society of Hearing Aid Audiologists are all fully supportive of this move, and are working together to ensure that the transition will be as smooth as possible.

[snip]

A question. Did anyone actually bother to ask deaf people, since they are the ultimate consumers (and who's interests are supposedly been protected)? Has a single deaf person been involved in this consultation, and more to the point do they even know its happening, nevermind the pros and cons? Biggest deaf organisation bullshit being involved doesn't automatically wash at GOD, no-one pulls the wool over our eyes here. Personally, private hearing aid dispensing doesn't interest me, however structures / power does.

The proposed idea might even be a good idea, but are deaf people even in a position to even judge that? If there is a move away from specialist services, will there be enough recognition of getting deaf people involved in the profession? I'm talking role model argument here ....

Ask the Readers:
What do you think (that's if you even care)? Did you even know this was happening?

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 8:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Deaf children's education or rather the standards, has been a subject that has been buried under the carpet by consecutive governments. Its a subject that plays like a broken record, and the same mistakes made decade after decade, with no-one actually listening. There was a question in parliament around educational attainment:

Stewart Jackson (Whip, Whips; Peterborough, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families

(1) what proportion of deaf and hard of hearing children gained five or more GCSEs at grade C and above in the Peterborough City Council area in the last year for which figures are available;

(2) what proportion of children gained at least two A-levels in the Peterborough City Council area in the last year for which figures are available;

(3) what proportion of deaf and hard of hearing children gained at least two A-levels in the Peterborough City Council area in the last year for which figures are available.

Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)

94.6 per cent. of candidates at the end of A/AS level (or equivalent) study achieved at least two A-levels in Peterborough local authority by the end of 2006/07.

Figures for deaf and hard of hearing children are available only at disproportionate cost.

There really cannot be no disproportionate cost here, it would just require an additional box on some already produced form. The real cost, the government doesn't want to acknowledge its failure. To do so, it would perhaps mean that it would have to fix it. Statistics aren't so easily buried. Conrad (1979)*, puts the reading age for deaf school leavers being less than 9 years.

In 1998, Powers and Gregory** concluded, that there has been no overall improvement in the achievement of deaf and hearing-impaired students since Conrad’s 1979 survey.

Whilst the collection of statistics might be a cost, acknowledgment of the issue from a public body, and more to the point addressing the underlying problems longer term is going to be much cheaper. A literate and educated deaf population is preferred, over and above one that is confined to a lifetime of relying on the welfare state. Of course, the cynic in me governments are only interested in short term targets, i.e. 5 years and under. They're just concerned with winning the next election.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

* Conrad R. (1979) The Deaf Schoolchild (London: Harper and Row)
** Powers, S. and Gregory, S. "The educational achievement of deaf children: A literature review" Deafness and Education International, 1999, 1(1): 1-10

Posted by alison at 9:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Rudi Vis (Finchley & Golders Green, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many British Sign Language users worked in each prison at the latest date for which figures are available.

Maria Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Liverpool, Garston, Labour)

Information on the number of prison staff or official visitors who are able to use British Sign Language is not collated centrally nor required to be recorded locally.

A number of staff based at prison establishments have chosen to learn British Sign Language (BSL), however there is no requirement for them to disclose or record this either locally or nationally. There are also organisations such as the Birmingham Institute for the Deaf (BID), the Royal Association of Deaf People, and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf (RNID) who will put prisoners in touch with qualified signers who will visit the prisoner. Not all prisoners who have hearing difficulties will use BSL.

When a prisoner is identified as needing either an interpreter for BSL, or would benefit from receiving visits from someone who speaks BSL, the prison will arrange for an interpreter or suitable visitor through local or national support agencies.

Comment:
1. Relying on volunteers to go and visit say, once a month, is not the same as fulfilling your statutory duties;
2. RNID putting prisoners in touch with qualified signers(!), please leave comments to let us know what service this is, as we've not heard of it;
3. The government makes note of physical adjustments in respect of say ramps, and possibly notes this via maps and general accessibility when say housing wheelchair users. This would be part of a nationwide audit, in being able to identify services that are accessible and DDA compliant. Why are BSL users right at the bottom of the pile, and yes there is a requirement. You have a requirement to make adjustments, and part of this adjustment should be anticipatory in order to meet this need. What about the Disability Equality Scheme here?
4. "Not all prisoners who have hearing difficulties will use BSL". What's this got to do with the question, is the government trying to play down the fact it doesn't have the figures here? The use of terminology here, "hearing difficulties" and the association of a medical issue goes right in the face of a BSL recognition statement that Maria Eagle made herself in 2003 (as Minister for Disabled People)!
5. Do you see an underlying trend here? Avoid any collection of statistics when it comes to deaf people.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 9:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

David Laws (Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Children, Schools and Families; Yeovil, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what guidance his Department issues on assessing the ability of deaf children in examination in subjects where a listening component is generally required; and if he will make a statement.

Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)

The Department does not issue guidance on detailed issues relating to examinations: it is for the qualifications regulators and the awarding bodies to ensure that appropriate arrangements are made, in the light of their duties under the Disability Discrimination Act. The Joint Council for Qualifications prepares issues advice on access arrangements on behalf of awarding bodies.

The Government have made clear that the content and curriculum of qualifications should offer all candidates the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge, skills and understanding and display their strengths. When other reasonable adjustments have been considered but cannot be made we would therefore expect that the practice of exemptions from parts of an assessment, and the resulting enhancements of grades will continue.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 8:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Bob Spink (Castle Point, UKIP)

I know that the Leader of the House cares about the 9 million people in the UK who are deaf or hard of hearing, for whom lip-reading is an absolutely essential life skill. Could we have a debate on the Government's guidance to local authorities on the cost of lip-reading classes? Uncaring councils such as Conservative-controlled Essex county council are pricing vulnerable groups out of lip-reading classes, and I am sure that no one in this House wants to see that practice.

Harriet Harman (Lord Privy Seal, House of Commons; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, and this is one of the reasons why we have placed a specific duty on all organisations in the public sector, including local authorities, not to discriminate against people on grounds of disability, and to promote equality of opportunity and inclusion. The kind of services that he has described as being put at risk by Essex county council are exactly those that allow people to play a full part in the economy, by going out to work, and in the life of the community. I will raise this issue with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and see what it has to say about it.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 8:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Lord Hanningfield (Shadow Minister, Transport; Conservative)

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What representations they have received from gliding clubs and individuals regarding the proposed requirement that all aircraft carry Mode-S transponders and radio equipment; and whether they have received any representations regarding the effect of the proposals on deaf and hard-of-hearing pilots.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lords in Waiting, HM Household; Labour)

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) consultation regarding proposals for an incremental expansion of the use of Mode S transponders in the UK concluded on 31 May 2008. The CAA advises that approximately 2,100 replies were received of which a significant proportion originated from private individuals with gliding interests or organisations associated with gliding.

The CAA is assessing the responses and, in due course, will publish a summary of responses and a response to consultees. At this stage in the assessment of responses, the CAA is not able to provide an indication of representations regarding the effects of the proposals on deaf and hard-of-hearing pilots, although none has been identified to date.

However, I have been advised by the CAA that the changes proposed will not have an effect on aircraft flying in uncontrolled airspace below 10,000 feet outside of a mandatory transponder carriage zone, which will include the majority of recreational gliders.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 11:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last week we blogged about a forthcoming tender from the Department for Children, Schools and Families in respect of a project to improve access to and demand for BSL.

The tender has now been released and we've taken liberty to upload it here [Word], so that anyone can access. The specification is described as:

COMPETITIVE GRANT SPECIFICATION FOR A PROJECT TO IMPROVE BRITISH SIGN LANGUAGE PROVISION AND STATUS FOR FAMILIES OF DEAF AND HEARING IMPAIRED CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE.

More information is given on the aims and objectives of the project:

Aim
The overall project aim is to improve British Sign Language provision and status for families of deaf and hearing impaired children and young people

Objectives
In order to achieve the aim, the project should deliver the following objectives:
• increase awareness of British Sign Language and choice for families with deaf and hearing impaired children to learn and communicate using BSL;
• increase demand from the children’s workforce to improve BSL skills, including to higher levels, to meet the needs of BSL users and ultimately improve Every Child Matters outcomes;
• increase the availability of BSL tutors, courses and interpreters, including to higher levels;
• demonstrate how existing centres of excellence in BSL, such as deaf special schools, specialist units in mainstream schools or BSL course providers, can play a key role in achieving the project’s aims; and
• demonstrate how progress can be sustainable beyond the project’s life within the current and planned early years, schools and post-16 funding arrangements and disability legislation requirements on service providers.

This project could be delivered in one or more areas or regions to test a particular approach and should be expected to last for a two year period. Given the breadth of the project, proposals from consortia would be particularly welcome, reflecting the breadth of experiences in this area.

This funding is for two years, with a possibility of the project being extended for a further year.

There is a meeting for potential bidders day from 10.00-12.00 on 23 May, details of how to register your interest is included in the Word document.

The closing date for tender applications is 12 noon on the 4 July 2008.

Ask the Readers:
What kind of projects would you like to be considered? Should they be deaf led? Do you think this means BSL recognition? Throw us your thoughts in the comments.

Source:
BSL Specification [Word]

See also:
BSL Recognition: Tender to Improve Access & Demand for BSL

Posted by alison at 11:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Another question has appeared in parliament around the effectiveness of employment schemes:

Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he has taken to measure the effectiveness of specialist disability employment service providers from all sectors working with specific impairment groups, including deaf people, under the (a) Pathways to Work, (b) Flexible New Deal, (c) New Deal for Disabled People, (d) Remploy and (e) Workstep schemes.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

All Department for Work and Pensions contracts with employment service providers, including specialist disability employment service providers, contain the performance standards required. Professional contract managers monitor the extent to which these performance standards are met, and address any performance issues through established processes.

Providers of specialist disability employment services are also subject to Ofsted inspection and independent audit.

Remploy's financial and operational performance is regularly reviewed as part of the Department for Work and Pensions' sponsorship role of the company which is a non-departmental public body.

Comment from Alison:
Are deaf people asked if all of the above works? Box ticking? Leave us your thoughts in the comments.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

See also:
Parliament: Assistance for Deaf People into Employment

Posted by alison at 11:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

For anyone who has been following the Stop Eugenics campaign will know there's been a campaign against Clause 14(4)(9) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

A petition has now been approved on the Downing Street website, relating to clause 14(4)(9). Please go and sign it (open to UK residents only).

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Keep reproductive liberty: drop clause 14/4/9 of the HFE Bill.

The details are:

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (HFEB) is due to pass through the House of Commons soon.

The media has said that Clause 14(4)(9) of the Bill would allow people to create "designer deaf or disabled babies", but it would not. It would let people create designer HEARING babies.

This is because if a couple who are going through IVF have a test to see whether their embryos are deaf or hearing, if there is a mixture of deaf and hearing embryos, Clause 14(4)(9) would FORCE them to reject the deaf embryos.

This is clearly a form of EUGENICS. Forcing parents to reject some embryos over others has no place in a democratic society.

Clause 14(4)(9) creates a situation whereby, in law, the life of a Deaf person becomes of lesser worth than that of a hearing person, despite the Government's aim for a more equal society, through the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights.

We the undersigned therefore call on the Houses of Parliament to fully drop Clause 14(4)(9) of the HFEB.

Source:
Number 10 Petition: Keep Reproductive Liberty Drop Clause 14(4)(9)

See elsewhere:
Stop Eugenics

Posted by alison at 7:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

A question around deaf people and employment:

Sandra Gidley (Shadow Minister, Health; Romsey, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what mechanisms are in place to help deaf people into employment.

Stephen Timms (Minister of State (Employment and Welfare Reform), Department for Work and Pensions; East Ham, Labour)

We are committed to helping all people, including deaf people, into suitable, sustainable employment through Jobcentre Plus.

Access to Work can provide a range of individually tailored support to enable disabled people to enter or stay in employment. Access to Work can fund specialist support for deaf and hearing impaired people in work. One type of support that deaf people may find particularly helpful is the funding provided through Access to Work for British Sign Language Interpreters, Lip Speakers or Palantypists.

People with health conditions, including deaf people, may also benefit from the help that is available through Pathways to Work. This service provides extra support and opportunities to help people with health problems and disabilities gain employment and retain it. Pathways to Work provides a series of interviews with an adviser and access to programmes to increase skills or confidence, or to help manage a health condition. Financial incentives may also be available to help people move into work.

Disability Employment Advisers in Jobcentre Plus work with people needing more extensive support. They need not be receiving benefits and may be in employment but worried about losing their job due to their disability. Disability employment advisers can advise on appropriate employment opportunities, act as advocates on the customer's behalf, and negotiate with employers, as well as refer people, where appropriate, for an occupational health assessment, or draw on the professional expertise of work psychologists specialising in working with disabled people. Disability employment advisers can also advise on specialised support available for disabled people. This includes Work Preparation, WORKSTEP, New Deal for Disabled People where it is in operation, Residential Training Colleges, Job Introduction Scheme and Access to Work.

Between December last year and March of this year, we undertook a public consultation 'Helping people achieve their full potential: Improving specialist disability employment services'. The consultation sought views about ways in which the Access to Work programme and other programmes for disabled people could be further improved, and ways to enhance aspects of the disability employment adviser role. We will publish our response during the summer.

Comment from Alison:
Firstly the consultation was not made available in BSL, thus how can the Department of Works and Pensions even begin to claim it consulted with Deaf people? Consulting with your stakeholders is a legal requirement. The proposals in this consultation, would have an adverse effect on Deaf people by way of cutting back Access to Work funding for public bodies, including universities who are are often cash strapped. BSL is a recurring cost, and employees in these institutions would possibly experience undue hardship. Where was the equality impact assessment, and more importantly the government addressing solutions to ensure that BSL users are included, and their thoughts fed into this consultation process. Is the government breaking its own Disability Equality Scheme here?

As a wider note, all of the above schemes, whilst some might be positive in their own right smacks very much of sticking plasters over problems and not tackling root issues. This includes the perception of deaf people within society.

For example, the RNID last week was dancing around London making hearing people feel sorry for deaf people, and practically giving the message they cannot do anything. All in the name of fundraising. The same organisation purports to run employment services for deaf people, and get them into work. See the contradiction? Is it any wonder that a wider society gets confused. If mainstream attitudes were more positive, and an entrenched approach that deaf people are able to do xyz, then would there really be any widespread need for recurring employment services?

Recurring services suit deaf organisations down to a tee, because its an income stream. Deaf organisations in theory should be working towards a strategy to dispense of themselves, not working towards a longer term strategic goal to increase their annual turnover (which seems to be at the core of many 5 year plans). The latter, is somewhat ironic, and quite possibly goes against its own broad charitable objectives.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 11:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

A question in parliament around subtitling on television:

Rosie Cooper (PPS (Mr Ben Bradshaw, Minister of State), Department of Health; West Lancashire, Labour)

What steps are being taken to ensure that television programmes are accessible to deaf children—and deaf adults, for that matter—through more comprehensive subtitling and sign language for programmes?

Andy Burnham (Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Leigh, Labour)

I do not know whether my hon. Friend was present in the reception in the House last week at which we marked the successful completion by the BBC of 100 per cent. Subtitling on all programmes —a condition and requirement laid down in the Communications Act 2003. Other public service broadcasters are currently reaching about 90 per cent., I believe, and I hope that they will follow the BBC's lead and work towards 100 per cent. subtitling. Watching TV and enjoying programmes at the same time as other people is an incredibly important part of ensuring that there are no barriers and no discrimination in our society. I pay tribute to the work of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, and indeed of my hon. Friend, on this issue.

Comment from Alison:
I've commented on this issue before, so I'm not going to repeat. Firstly, it appears that the government is doing its own media spin here, and advertising a success. Both MPs are from the same party, etc and it almost looks like an act to show its being inclusive / pat itself on the back. That's me being cynical.

However, why does the RNID take sole credit for the issue of subtitling, and give impression to MPs that this work is their sole doing? I'm sure lots of unpaid deafies burning midnight oil for decades, would be downright pleased that up to £100k salaries (who've been in a job a few months or years, tops) bag the glory. It lacks integrity.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

See also:
BBC Vision Celebrates 100% Subtitling

Posted by alison at 11:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The first disability discrimination case has been brought against a recruitment agency - Sales Link Services - and won. The case in hand concerned a deaf person, Pauline Alexander:

Although Alexander is deaf, that had not prevented her from formerly being director of a property company and, having applied to the agency in her present occupational guise as a diversity trainer, she felt she was well qualified to work in the field. But Sales Link Services had other ideas.

"I was asked to phone in, which I did using TypeTalk [a relay telephone service for deaf people]," says Alexander. "The person I spoke to said he thought my hearing loss would be an impediment to doing the job. He asked me to send a CV, but contacted me the following week, saying that although they did not doubt my capabilities, they would not invite me for interview or registration because of my hearing loss."

When Alexander pointed out that this was discriminatory, the agency backtracked, inviting her for interview.

The Employment Tribunal awarded Pauline Alexander £5,000 in compensation plus legal fees, against Sales Link Services. You can read more via the link below.

Source:
Rights and Wrongs

Continue reading "First Sucessful Claim of Disability Discrimination against a Recruitment Agency" »

Posted by alison at 1:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Last week there was a debate in parliament about the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Within this debate, there was reference made to cochlear implants, and wider benefits not being factored or measured when making a budgetary argument. This suggestion was made by the RNID:

Sandra Gidley (Shadow Minister, Health; Romsey, Liberal Democrat)

... That might be a little unfair, but many patient groups feel that they are treated unfairly and that wider benefits are not fully taken into account. It would help the public accept some of the decisions more readily if they were reassured that such factors had been taken into account. The then Minister of State, Department of Health, who is now Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, came before us at the time and said that he was satisfied with the situation. Sadly, such is the reputation of politicians that the public do not regard that as quite enough evidence.

That aspect came up again yesterday when I was at a reception that was hosted partly by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People. NICE is looking into cochlear implants. One of the concerns raised—it might be a false concern—was that while there would be savings for the education system because children with cochlear implants could engage in mainstream schooling, that might not be fully factored into the equation. It is clear that a one-size-fits-all solution is difficult to arrive at when examining wider impacts.

Since there's a current review on the case for bi-lateral cochlear implantation, any cost argument will be politically motivated by this.

Comment from Alison:
I really wish deaf organisations would stop giving out mixed messages here, and the onus for the deaf person to fit within society to be a cost benefit. Push cochlear implantation, because it would save money. Perhaps for some, there might be less recurring cost, but essentially it also gives a strong message with a CI you aren't meant to be demanding speech to text (or whatever rocks your boat) as far as access goes. It gives a strong message that the individual is solely responsible for fitting, and appearing "normal".

It is also bad policy reasoning, and moves away from an *individual* decision, without pressure. It starts to get dangerous as you trample onto an interpretation of a duty to have medical intervention, because you cost society money (another false argument). This is not a message that politicians need to be given, because it will have a ripple effect on the rest of us including children. Deafness should not be a cost-benefit exercise, and the same exercise is not frequently performed at the justification of women, black people, gay people etc.

For this reason alone, there needs to be Deaf input into this review, as like it or not it will have implications for the rest of us, and an undue pressure in medical settings or even an expectation to have an operation.

As a side note, I've worked with many children who have CIs. One summer I attended an event, where I had to deliver training, and one child in particular was extremely disruptive. They were told to go out from group settings etc, and demanded to go home. During the break I talked to this child one to one, and just let them talk. It transpired that they once attended a deaf school, and they were bribed into a CI by being told they could have a pet. After switch on, the child was transferred to a mainstream school; where they said they had no deaf friends, and found it difficult to communicate. Stating that they wanted to run away and they hated it. During the course of the residential, the child became more placid, co-operated and no longer wanted to go home (the place and to re-call the parents to tell them this). When the parents came to pick up the child at the end, they demanded to meet the person who "managed to control their child". The only response I was able to give them, "I just listened". It is stories such as this, that need to be remembered when people are policy pushing the you must fit into our agenda.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

The Northern Ireland Assembly recently had a generic debate on health services. Within this debate it made mention of a review of deaf mental health services in Northern Ireland:

Michael McGimpsey (UUP)

The Bamford Review did not examine needs in respect of the mental health and well-being of people who are blind or partially sighted; however, it did examine those needs with respect to people who are deaf.

Ask the Readers:
I've not come across The Bamford Review before, but does anyone know if it contains any useful or new recommendations in respect of deaf people's access to mental health services? What about deaf children?

Source:
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 1:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sandra Gidley (Shadow Minister, Health; Romsey, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Secretary of State for Health

(1) how much funding was provided for support services for deaf people in each region in each of the last five years;

(2) what steps he is taking to improve health services for deaf people.

Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Bury South, Labour)

Information on funding provided for support services for deaf people is not held centrally. Funding for audiology and support services for deaf people, along with the majority of other services, is provided through the general allocations to national health service trusts and social services departments. It is their responsibility to allocate resources to audiology services based on their knowledge of the needs of their local populations and the resources available.

Primary care trusts are responsible for commissioning the full range of health services for their local populations including deaf people, and for ensuring that they meet their capacity needs through improving existing NHS services, and where necessary, by procurement of additional independent sector capacity.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 12:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

John Barrett (Shadow Minister, International Development; Edinburgh West, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his Department is doing to publicise Access to Work.

Stephen Timms (Minister of State (Employment and Welfare Reform), Department for Work and Pensions; East Ham, Labour)

The Access to Work national delivery team is currently implementing an internal marketing strategy to ensure that all Jobcentre staff involved with disabled customers are fully briefed on the Access to Work programme. This will cover the aims of the programme, eligibility criteria and the application process.

The programme is also being promoted through presentations and exhibitions, and through close working partnerships developed with the major disability groups such as the Royal National Institute for Blind people, Royal National Institute for Deaf people and MIND.

Articles have appeared in external publications such as 'Disability Wales' and the National Spinal Association magazine illustrating how Access to Work can practically support disabled people into paid employment. Additionally, Jobcentre Plus includes information on Access to Work in internally produced magazines such as 'Inspire'. This magazine, which is targeted at job seekers, is available, along with other leaflets on Access to Work, in all Jobcentre Plus offices. The magazine 'Engage', also produced by Jobcentre Plus and aimed at employers, regularly carries information about Access to Work, along with other Jobcentre Plus services.

Information about Access to Work is available on the Jobcentre Plus and Directgov websites. Directgov as a source of information about Jobcentre Plus services for disabled people is widely publicised, for example, in the latest issue of 'Ability Needs' magazine. Disability employment advisers, who are often the gateway to Access to Work, are regularly in contact with small to medium sized employers locally and will raise awareness of Access to Work when appropriate.

Comment from Alison:
Hello government! Instead of churning out the easiest bog standard off the shelf response to cover yourselves, I would appreciate if you could put a bit more thought into this. Remember the Disability Equality Duty, where you're required to consult disabled people (including deaf) in respect of institutional delivery or attitude? Well here's a pointer, working partnerships with major disability groups, including the RNID really is not enough. Such corporate organisations can be out of reach for many of us, and information with a deaf organisation as a gatekeeper really is not a good idea. There's paternalistic / control issues here, linked with charities.

I just tried to do a quick search for Access to Work + BSL and I seem to be getting information about the fact you can use AtW to pay for interpreters. Where's the information in BSL? Does anyone know if this exists? Putting information online in BSL would be a start, but this is not the only way of information dissemination. My key question, what other methods are you using for dissemination?

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 11:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

David Drew (Stroud, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment she has made of the effect of the introduction of the nationwide concessionary fare scheme on (a) the level of eligibility set by local authorities and (b) the level of access by disabled people.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State, Department for Transport; Doncaster Central, Labour)

The criteria for eligibility for the statutory minimum concession are set out in statute supported by revised guidance recently issued by the Department.

The Transport Act 2000 (or for those resident in London, the Greater London Authority Act 1999) makes provision for concessionary travel to a wide range of disabled people. Categories of disability were drawn up following representation from local government and support from the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. The people eligible are as follows:

any person who:

is blind or partially sighted;

is profoundly or severely deaf;

is without speech;

has a disability, or has suffered an injury, which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his/her ability to walk;

does not have arms or has long-term loss of the use of both arms;

has a learning disability, that is, a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning or;

would, if he/she applied for a grant of a licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, have his/her application refused pursuant to section 92 of the Act (physical fitness) otherwise than on the ground of persistent misuse of drugs or alcohol.

Travel concession authorities (TCAs) continue to be responsible for administering concessionary travel schemes for their residents, assessing eligibility and issuing passes. They remain able to offer travel concessions on a more generous basis than that specified as the statutory minimum.

As the England-wide statutory minimum was introduced on 1 April it is too soon to assess the effect of its introduction, but as part of our monitoring of concessionary travel the Department intends to carry out a survey of TCAs during summer 2008. This may include details of which authorities choose to offer more generous concessions and is due to report in the autumn.

Comment from Alison:
Lack of parliamentary time is frequently cited for not pushing more law through, and having a greater impact on wider government policy. So why do the same questions get re-hashed again and again, in a relatively short time. This question has been asked before (see links below). A waste of resources.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

See also:
Parliament: National Concession
Parliament: Bus Services Concessions
Parliament: Bus Services Concessions (2)
Parliament: Bus Services, Disabled

Posted by alison at 9:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ann Winterton (Congleton, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions are issued on the procedure and protocol which a police officer must follow in (a) questioning and (b) physically taking hold of a person with a speech impediment observed to be under the influence of neither drugs nor alcohol, when the officer cannot understand what the suspect is saying.

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

holding answer 24 April 2008

The Code of Practice for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers (Code C) issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, provides that if a person appears to be blind, seriously visually impaired, deaf, unable to read or speak or has difficulty orally because of a speech impediment they shall be treated as such while in police detention. A person with speech difficulties must not be interviewed in the absence of an interpreter unless they agree in writing to being interviewed without one. Where there is doubt about the speaking ability of a parent or guardian attending as an appropriate adult, an interpreter should also be called unless they agree in writing to the interview being proceeding without one.

Comment from Alison:
Whilst this question is not specifically about deaf people, the Minister's reply is interesting. Firstly, I'm not sure why intoxicated people are being compared to deaf people. For those under the influence of alcohol, the crux of the matter is around mental functioning, and not speech per se. Speech in this instance can only be used as an indicative measure, with regards to a person's mental lucidity. When the Minister does refer to deaf people, he goes onto state that an interpreter should be present, "unless they agree in writing to being interviewed without one". Whilst a line needs to be drawn somewhere, its still a bit catch 22. What happens if official forms aren't clear, thus the suspect or interviewee is unsure what they are signing? Are all deaf people assertive enough, and is there an opportunity to change one's mind as an interview progresses? i.e. they thought they would manage, but it turns out not. The form that is signed, is it clear that a u-turn is acceptable at any time (given you're on the police's territory here, and perhaps a bit more difficult to be assertive)?

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 9:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Andy Reed (Loughborough, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what provision is made for deaf people to access services provided by his Department through call centres.

Kevin Brennan (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Cardiff West, Labour)

The Department for Children, Schools and Families operates a telephone enquiry service that offers a textphone/minicom service for deaf people. We also accept enquiries by email, fax and letter. DCSF periodically contracts with suppliers to provide telephone helpline services to the public, usually in support of information campaigns; in such instances our contract stipulates that a textphone service should be provided.

Source:
Parliament: Deaf Telephone Access to the Dept of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Hansard
They Work For You
See also:
Parliament: Deaf Telephone Access to the Dept of Innovation, Universities & Skills
Parliament: Deaf Telephone Access to the Home Office
Parliament: Deaf Telephone Access to the Department of Works & Pensions
Parliament: Deaf Telephone Access to the HM Treasury
Parliament: Contacting the Department of Transport
Parliament: Deaf Telephone Access to the Department of Health

Posted by alison at 2:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Andy Reed (Loughborough, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what provision is made for deaf people to access services provided by his Department through call centres.

Gareth Thomas (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for International Development; Harrow West, Labour)

The Department provides access to its services for deaf people via a minicom number in its Central Enquiry Unit.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Service (ACAS) and Companies House, who are Executive Agencies of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, also provide access via minicom numbers.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

See also:
Parliament: Deaf Telephone Access to the Dept of Innovation, Universities & Skills
Parliament: Deaf Telephone Access to the Home Office
Parliament: Deaf Telephone Access to the Department of Works & Pensions
Parliament: Deaf Telephone Access to the HM Treasury
Parliament: Contacting the Department of Transport
Parliament: Deaf Telephone Access to the Department of Health

Posted by alison at 1:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

4. asked the Minister of Education to detail the provision for training teachers of deaf pupils. (AQO 3017/08)

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin)

Tríd is tríd, déanann an oilúint múinteorí thosaigh múinteoirí atá cáilithe go ginearálta. Ach aithníonn an oilúint i riachtanais speisialta oideachais riachtanais speisialta daltaí agus díríonn sí ar straitéisí le riar ar na riachtanais sin.

Initial teacher training produces generally qualified teachers. However, training in special educational needs in all courses covers the recognition of pupils’ special needs and focuses on strategies to meet those needs. Some student teachers choose a special-educational-needs-specific option during their training programme, and some spend part of their teaching practice in special schools.

During the induction and early professional developmental stages of new teachers’ careers, they are also educated in — and expected to demonstrate their competence in — the recognition of pupils’ special educational needs. The Department’s schools census statistics for 2007 show that there were 887 children with severe, profound or mild/moderate hearing loss on the special-needs register. To ensure that teachers of the deaf receive appropriate in-service training, the Department of Education resources the education and library boards to fund a number of places on a mandatory course for those teachers who are employed by schools or boards. Candidates for that training must meet certain criteria that are set by the Department of Education.

Recently, the Department allocated £10,000 to the education and library boards to cover the costs of training for teachers of the deaf who work with children up to the age of three. That allocation was made on foot of the Department of Health’s hearing screening programme for newborns.

I have also been advised by the chief executives of the education and library boards that a range of training is available for teachers of the deaf to ensure their continuing professional development.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I thank the Minister for her response. Does she acknowledge the importance of training for teachers of deaf children? Will she confirm that the issue will be included in the special educational needs review? When will the review be concluded and its results publicised?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin)

Training for teachers of deaf children is important. I will pass on Mr Ramsey’s comments on the special educational needs review to the review team. The review will go to the Committee for consultation soon — if it has not already done so. I am looking at the Chairperson of the Committee for Education for confirmation, but I think that it is in the process of going to the Committee. It will be a fundamental review, and I will pass on any comments that are made on it today to the review team. Members will have opportunities to contribute when the review is before the Committee and at all other stages.

Source:
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 10:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract (Labour)

Whether, in the light of the report of the Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales in the cases of Dennis Rimmer and Norman Dickinson, retired miners whose British Coal industrial deafness claims were dealt with by Beresford's Panel Solicitors Scheme, they will request reports from the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Legal Complaints Service concerning the other 6,796 claimants whose cases were sold by Beresford's to its panel of 10 firms of solicitors between June 2002 and March 2004.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Labour)

Reports by the ombudsman on individual cases are confidential to the parties concerned. It would not be appropriate for the Government to have knowledge of or to comment on individual cases.

The legal profession is independent and as such complaints about solicitors are a matter for the Law Society. However, the Government take a close interest in this issue and seek regular updates from the Legal Complaints Service (LCS) and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to ensure that progress is being made.

The Law Society tells us that in respect of the coal health compensation scheme, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has authorised investigations into 60 firms of solicitors; 20 firms have been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and the SRA has won the first three disciplinary cases heard there. To date, solicitors have refunded more than £3.6 million to miners. This figure is expected to rise as more investigations are completed.

It is also our understanding that the Legal Complaints Service has received 3,383 complaints to date, of which 2,538 have been closed. Of the 2,538 closed matters, 162 were upheld and 1,139 were conciliated. The remainder were closed due to reasons such as the customer resolving the matter with the solicitor without LCS assistance, the complaint being outside the LCS jurisdiction; i.e. the complaint was against a union, or the customer not responding.

The Government have legislated in the Legal Services Act 2007 to create an independent Office for Legal Complaints, which will remove complaints handling from the legal professional bodies.

Note from Alison:
It appears that Jim Beresford the solicitor at the heart of this, is the highest earning solicitor in the UK> In 2006 he took home £16.75 million - that's a salary of £45,000 a day - for the representation of 'sick miners'. This salary was based on industrial injury claims, the solicitor concerned as now been referred to the Solicitor's Disciplinary Tribunal. 70% of claimants received less in compensation, than the fees that were paid to their lawyer.

The parliamentary question above, related to how many of these claimants related to deafness?

Ask the readers:
What do you think of the salary earned? Should the proportion of the £1 billion in lawyer's fees be better in the injured miner's pockets (including those with acquired deafness), or should (a part of) excessive fees be retained by the government?

Sources:
Hansard
They Work For You
The Daily Telegraph: Solicitor paid £16m to represent sick miners
The Guardian: Solicitors make millions from sick miners' claims
Alberto F's Flickr Stream: Coal Miner, image under a Creative Commons Licence.

Posted by alison at 10:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly centred around the following motion:

That this Assembly expresses concern at the lack of further education courses specifically targeted at young people with learning and physical disabilities; recognises the lack of provision for disabled young people over the age of 19; and calls on the Minister for Employment and Learning to provide sufficient further educational opportunities to ensure that these young people achieve their full potential. –— [Mrs O’Neill.]

Which amendment was: Leave out all after “expresses” and insert

“its continued commitment to securing training and employment opportunities where appropriate for young people with disabilities; and awaits the outcome of the review of such provision undertaken by the Minister for Employment and Learning.” — [Mr B McCrea.] [Mr McClarty]

Within this debate, a specific mention of deaf people was made, by Alastair Ross (DUP)

Along with many Members, I have asked questions on widening access to courses and was informed that, in 2006, students at further education colleges included 488 blind or partially sighted people and 839 who were deaf or had hearing impediments. Those are people who can go into mainstream courses if certain provisions are made. Therefore, it is imperative that access to mainstream courses is made easier and that the requirements of disabled people are met. Some measures are simple, such as making physical access easier, much of which is already covered in legislation. My colleague Mr Spratt referred to a range of legislation that exists in that field.

Comment from Alison:
The motion is about courses targeted at deaf people (amongst others), yet the response to this talks about mainstream courses and access to this. Whilst access to mainstream courses is imperative, it fails to address the key issue of treating everyone exactly the same which can lead to discrimination. Sometimes mainstream just does not do. Trying to fit a circle through a square comes to mind.

Source:
They Work for You

Posted by alison at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with representatives of deaf communities on provisions in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

Dawn Primarolo (Minister of State (Public Health), Department of Health)

Officials at the Department have had contact with the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, the British Deaf Association, Islington Deaf Campaign and the Stop Eugenics group. Communication with these groups is ongoing.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 10:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Andy Reed is at it again, with his telephone questions:

Andy Reed (Loughborough, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills what provision is made for deaf people to access services provided by his Department through call centres.

David Lammy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills)

The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills has its telephone enquiry service provided as a shared service by the Department for Children Schools and Families.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families' telephone inquiry service offers a textphone/minicom service for deaf people. They also accept inquiries by email, fax and letter.

On information campaigns—such as provision of Student Finance—our advertising directs people to our campaign website which is fully accessible for people with impairments. A textphone number service is available on the aspirational Aimhigher website; and a transcript of the information DVD is also provided.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

See also:
Parliament: Deaf Telephone Access to the Home Office
Parliament: Deaf Telephone Access to the Department of Works & Pensions
Parliament: Deaf Telephone Access to the HM Treasury
Parliament: Contacting the Department of Transport
Parliament: Deaf Telephone Access to the Department of Health

Posted by alison at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There is a post on Stop Eugenics, of a summary of the meeting at the Department of Health on 19 March 2008, to discuss concerns over clause 14(4)(9). This summary is available in both English and BSL.

A direct link to the post can be found here.

Posted by alison at 4:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Andy Reed (Loughborough, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision is made for deaf people to access services provided by her Department through call centres.

Liam Byrne (Minister of State, Home Office)

The Home Office provides textphone facilities in all of its contact centres. The numbers are:

Central Home Office: Textphone 020 7035 4742.

Border Immigration Agency: Textphone 0800 389 8289.

Identity and Passport Service: Textphone 0870 240 8090. Typetalk is also available through the 24-hour Passport Adviceline 0870 521 0410

Criminal Records Bureau: Textphone 0870 909 0811.

Comment:
Hello deaf organisations! This is called pissing about and time wasting. There's way too much serious work that needs to be doing, instead of clogging up the political process with meaningless questions. Most of us in 2008 would prefer to use e mail. Besides that, get into some real issues not issues that are "safe" because you are too wimpish to do anything else. What are deaf organisations there for?

Source:
Hansard
They Work for You

See also:
Parliament: Deaf Telephone Access to the Department of Works & Pensions
Parliament: Deaf Telephone Access to the HM Treasury
Parliament: Contacting the Department of Transport
Parliament: Deaf Telephone Access to the Department of Health

Posted by alison at 10:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Andy Reed (Loughborough, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what provision is made for deaf people to access services provided by his Department through call centres.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions)

Deaf people can use the typetalk service or our separate textphone numbers to access all our call centres.

Comment:
Again, what is the deal with all these parliamentary questions on how to contact various departments by telephone. Does it actually necessitate a parliamentary question for this subject? Any random person can go use Typetalk now to phone up, and really doesn't need this amount of political work! There's plenty of other things deaf organisations could be doing to occupy themselves, instead of using Andy Reed as some puppet. Or is there some bet happening re how many times Typetalk can be mentioned in Hansard?!

Ask the Readers:
Are government departments really putting the phone down on people calling through relay services? What's the purpose of these questions? Marketing? Money spin?

Source:
Hansard
They Work for You

See also:
Parliament: Deaf Telephone Access to the HM Treasury
Parliament: Contacting the Department of Transport
Parliament: Deaf Telephone Access to the Department of Health

Posted by alison at 10:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Parliament is a good place to weed out attitudes of our legislators, via the language used. Within a debate on Families, Community Cohesion and Social Action a speech from Baroness Platt of Writtle (Conservative), in the House of Lords stated:

Macmillan nurses and Samaritans are wonderful too, as are the organisations specialising in care for the blind, the deaf and the arthritic. As many noble Lords have said, how lucky we are in our country to have the loving work of all those people.

Okay! So those who are specialising in the care of the deaf, are wonderful and provide very loving work! For all of you working for deaf organisations, Baroness Platt says thank you spoon feeding us all. Forget equality, you are doing a wonderful job. Next time you are feeling unloved and under appreciated by those awful deaf people, come back to these words to soothe you. You are caring for us through some mission, and more to the point, doing so lovingly. So thank you very much.

Don't get me wrong, I can do loving but not in the form of pity. Its not the first time its happened this parliamentary session, we've already had a Peer stating that deafness is a "life threatening condition". Die from being deaf? Okay!

To think these people shape the law of the land ...!

Ask the Readers:
What do you think? And is this post sarcastic enough for GOD? Feed us with your comments!

Source
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 7:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Andy Reed (Loughborough, Labour)

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provision is made for deaf people to access services provided by his Department through call centres.

Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury)

HM Treasury does not provide services through call centres.

Comment:
So HM Treasury doesn't speak to hearing people on the phone! Tax man doesn't use the telephone is a difficult one to believe. What about deaf employees, or aren't there any?

Besides, what's with all these call centre questions in parliament? Is the rnid doing some indirect marketing or what?!

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

See also:
Parliament: Contacting the Department of Transport
Parliament: Deaf Telephone Access to the Department of Health

Posted by alison at 1:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Andy Reed (Loughborough, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision is made for deaf people to access services provided by his Department through call centres.

Ben Bradshaw (Minister of State, Department of Health)

The Department has a single public facing call centre. This has a textphone and accepts calls made using Typetalk.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

See also:
Parliament: Contacting the Department of Transport

Posted by alison at 12:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Andy Reed (Loughborough, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision is made for deaf people to access services provided by her Department through call centres.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport)

The Department for Transport and its agencies are very conscious of the need to provide a high level of service to all customers, including those with hearing disabilities. As a result, all call centres are able to communicate by phone with hearing impaired customers using text-based systems.

Comment: this is a bog standard response from the government, and doesn't address the concern behind this question. The government would inevitably have sought advice from the rnid, which (a) is a predominately hearing run organisation and (b) has a conflict of interest here, in that it runs a monopoly relay service in the UK. Of course its going to recommend its own product! The fact its a "charity" existing for the "interests of deaf people" is somewhat a red herring. Just because an organisation is labelled as a deaf charity, doesn't necessarily mean they are operating in the interests of deaf people! That's the first smoke screen people frequently fall for, and fail to get their own organisation interests can be in conflict.

As a public service body, the Department of Transport has a legal obligation to consult with deaf people (not hearing people claiming to represent us). Through that consultation, it might just realise that relay services and/or textphones are outmoded technology and it should take steps to improve other forms of alternative communication and publicise these. For example, e mail. Its not rocket science!

Ask the Readers:
What do you think?

Sources:
Hansard
They Work For You

Elsewhere:
Department of Transport Disability Equality Scheme
Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

Posted by alison at 6:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 6 March 2008, Official Report, column 2753W, on concessions: mentally ill, what the evidential basis is for determining which groups of disabled people should be entitled to concessionary bus fares.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State, Department for Transport)

The Transport Act 2000 (or for those resident in London, the Greater London Authority Act 1999) set out the eligibility criteria for statutory concessionary bus travel, covering any person who: is blind or partially sighted; is profoundly or severely deaf; is without speech; has a disability, or has suffered an injury, which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to walk; does not have arms or has long-term loss of the use of both arms; has a learning disability that is a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning; or would, if he or she applied for a grant of a licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, have his or her application refused pursuant to section 92 of the Act (physical fitness) otherwise than on the ground of persistent misuse of drugs or alcohol.

The Secretary of State issued guidance to local authorities which sets out the statutory minimum requirement which they must observe to satisfy the law, and to which they must have regard in reaching a decision on eligibility.

Sources:
Hansard
They Work For You

See also:
Parliament: Bus Services Concessions (2)
Parliament: Bus Services Concessions
Parliament: National Concession
UK Parliamentary Round Up 1

Posted by alison at 6:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Roger Berry (Kingswood, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what conclusions his Department has reached in fulfilment of the duty under section 3.111 of the statutory code of practice of the disability equality duty.

Jonathan R Shaw (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine, Landscape and Rural Affairs) and Minister for the South East), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

DEFRA was one of the Government Departments that was criticised by the Disability Rights Commission in 2007 for failing to produce an effective Disability Equality Scheme. Rather than trying to improve and strengthen the disability aspects of our Joint Equality Scheme, DEFRA took the opportunity to produce a more focused and effective single equality scheme for disability.

Our new scheme was developed with the involvement of disabled people and was approved by the new Equalities and Human Rights Commission at the end of 2007. This new Disability Equality Scheme has been published in full and summary form on the DEFRA internet site.

Over the past year, and during the course of developing our new scheme we have seen some very tangible improvements for disabled and deaf staff and service users. We have, for example, created a central disability fund to meet the cost of reasonable adjustments for disabled and deaf staff in the Core DEFRA Department. Our bullying and harassment policy has been revised and we have recruited and trained a cohort of harassment advisors. We have also launched a mediation service for staff. In addition, we have strengthened our relationship with DisNet, our staff network for disabled staff. A very significant advancement has been in the governance arrangements for our Disability Equality Scheme. We have set up a Disability Equality Scrutiny and Advisory Group made up of independent disabled experts to monitor and advise on our progress against our action plans.

Sources:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 10:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 6 March 2008, Official Report, column 2753W, on concessions: mentally ill, if she will make it her policy to hold a consultation on broadening the scope of the eligibility criteria for statutory concessionary bus fares.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State, Department for Transport)

The Transport Act 2000 (or for those resident in London, the Greater London Authority Act 1999) make provision for concessionary travel to a wide range of disabled people. Categories of disability were drawn up following representation from local government and support from the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. The people eligible are as follows:

Any person who:

- is blind or partially sighted;
- is profoundly or severely deaf;
- is without speech;
- has a disability, or has suffered an injury, which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his/her ability to walk;
- does not have arms or has long-term loss of the use of both arms;
- has a learning disability, that is, a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning;

would, if he/she applied for a grant of a licence to drive a motor vehicle under part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, have his/her application refused pursuant to section 92 of the Act (physical fitness) otherwise than on the ground of persistent misuse of drugs or alcohol.

The Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007 does not change the criteria for those eligible for a concessionary pass. The Act retains the discretion of travel concession authorities to offer their residents more than the statutory minimum concession. Any such enhancements are subject to their assessment of local needs and their overall financial priorities.

The Secretary of State issued guidance to local authorities which sets out the statutory minimum requirement which they must observe to satisfy the law, and to which they must have regard in reaching a decision on eligibility.

We have no plans at present to consult on changes to the eligibility criteria for statutory concessionary bus travel to include other groups of people, such as those with mental health illnesses. Our current focus is on the successful implementation of the new all-England off-peak bus travel concession from April this year.

Local authorities retain the ability to offer discretionary concessions over and above the statutory minimum at their own expense. This can include offering concessionary travel to groups of people other than those currently defined in legislation.

Initial analysis suggests that the estimated annual cost of extending the statutory concession to people with a mental impairment would be at least £49 million.

Sources:
Hansard
They Work For You

See also:
Parliament: Bus Services Concessions
Parliament: National Concession
UK Parliamentary Round Up 1

Posted by alison at 6:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Deaf people in the UK are generally entitled to a free bus pass. In April, those living in England will be entitled to travel throughout England for free. Recently a question came up in parliament, in relation to mental health but the answer touched on the legal criteria for bus passes (which includes deaf people):

Bob Laxton (Derby North, Labour):

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations she has received on the withdrawal of concessionary bus fares for people with mental health problems as a result of the introduction of the national concessionary bus travel scheme in (a) Derbyshire and (b) other areas; and if she will make a statement.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State, Department for Transport):

A number of representations about changes to local, discretionary concessionary bus travel schemes have been directed to my Department. This includes representations about Derbyshire's decision to continue to fund only elements of their local discretionary travel scheme.

The Transport Act 2000 sets out the eligibility criteria for statutory concessionary bus travel, covering any person who: is blind or partially sighted; is profoundly or severely deaf; is without speech; has a disability, or has suffered an injury, which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to walk; does not have arms or has long-term loss of the use of both arms; has a learning disability that is a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning; or would, if he or she applied for a grant of a licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, have his or her application refused pursuant to section 92 of the Act (physical fitness) otherwise than on the ground of persistent misuse of drugs or alcohol.

Local authorities retain the ability to offer discretionary concessions over and above this statutory minimum at their own expense, these including offering concessionary travel to other categories of people such as those with mental health problems.

Central Government are responsible for the England-wide statutory minimum concession which, from 1 April, is being improved to allow eligible people free off-peak local bus travel anywhere in England. We are providing £212 million to local authorities to cover the additional cost of this, and are confident that in total there is sufficient funding to cover the whole cost of this concession.

Anyone who has gone to a deaf event in the UK will know how conversation soon steers towards bus passes (even if the topic is something completely different) and becomes a running joke.

Ask the Readers:
Should deaf people even get free bus passes, and why? If we get a free bus pass, are we equal citizens?

Sources:
Hansard
They Work for You

See also:
Parliament: National Concession
UK Parliamentary Round Up 1

Elsewhere:
Expansion of free bus travel in England
Department of Transport: Concessionary bus travel: frequently asked questions
Welsh Assembly: Concessionary bus fares for the elderly and disabled
Scotland: Concessionary Bus Pass
Northern Ireland: DLA SmartPass

Posted by alison at 3:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Recently there was a parliamentary question on the proportion of translation services contracted out to commercial providers:

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of his Department's translation and interpreting work is outsourced through framework agreements with commercial providers; and if he will make a statement.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions)

Under the Race Relations Amendment Act (2000) and the Disability Discrimination Act (1995), the Department has a responsibility to make appropriate provision to communicate with customers who do not speak English or Welsh, or who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, or who provide the Department, at our request, legal or official documents written in a foreign language.

The Department for Work and Pensions provides a national range of translation and interpreting services across all of its agencies that include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Use of multi-lingual staff, who are willing and able to interpret or to undertake an interview in a foreign language

• Face-to-face individual interpreters and signers for local office customers

• English to Welsh translation for documentation which is partly done by the small in-house Welsh Language Unit and the remainder by external providers

• Ethnic Translation Services of a large number of written documents in a wide range of languages

• Written English and Welsh to Braille translation and Braille to English and Welsh translation

• Formatting of printed documents into easy-read format

• Telephone interpreting service (multi-lingual)

In order to deliver these services on a national basis the Department for Work and Pensions has established a number of framework agreements via full open tender processes with a number of external providers.

All of the above services are outsourced except for a small number of multi-lingual staff who offer their services on an as required basis within their local office.

One has to ask two questions, how much is demand outstripping supply here and are translation services value for money? Is the government able to look at the bigger picture, and readdress an economics equilibrium?

As a general observation, shame the government can't heed its own legal advice and translated information into BSL or consulted directly on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Sometimes a lot of this policy is just talk, and no action!

Sources:
They Work For You
Hansard

Posted by alison at 4:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Mark Harper (Forest of Dean, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many (a) blind and (b) partially sighted people are claiming disability living allowance mobility component.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions)

The Information is not available in the format requested. At May 2007 there were 61,420 people in receipt of the mobility component in disability living allowance whose main disabling condition was that they were blind or they were deaf and blind.

Sources:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 7:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury & Atcham, Conservative)

To ask the hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission what services are provided within the parliamentary estate for hon. Members to facilitate meetings with constituents who are deaf; and if he will make a statement.

Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

There are deaf loop facilities in all Committee Rooms in the Palace and in all Committee and Conference Rooms on the first floor of Portcullis House. Portable equipment is available for the smaller meeting rooms in both buildings. Deaf loop facilities are also provided in the Public Gallery of the House of Commons Chamber and in Westminster Hall Chamber.

When sign language facilities are required in meeting rooms, House staff liaise closely with the Member concerned to ensure that the best possible solution is achieved for the deaf person and the sign language interpreter, depending on which room is being used.

The House provides advice and assistance to Members, but does not meet the cost of providing sign language interpreter services directly from central funds. Members are entitled to reclaim the costs incurred in engaging and using interpreter services from their individual Incidental Expenses Provision. This is set out explicitly in the Green Book which states, in section 5.13.2, on Incidental Expenses Provision, that an allowable expenditure would be:

"Interpreting and translation services (this includes sign language, interpretation and Braille translation)".

The Diversity Manager in the Department of Resources can provide contact details at the RNID for obtaining sign language interpreter services, which cost between £120 and £160 for a two hour period.

Comment:
A loop is provided in the public gallery should a person want to sit in on debate. What happens if that member of the public is unable to use a loop? In other words, needs an interpreter or speech to text. Whilst the question was asked about meetings with constituents, the House of Commons Commission doesn't give any information about visitors either. It implies that it would not meet the cost of providing an interpreter, so would any access for sitting in the public gallery of parliament need to be met by a constituent's MP? What about an international observer? Why are people who have some residual hearing - and are able to access a loop - allowed to have access to proceedings, and BSL users or those requiring speech to text, not?

What is the deal with only the rnid providing BSL/English Interpreters? Is parliament guilty of promoting one organisation here, as if its a monopoly?

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 9:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Affairs; Orkney & Shetland, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether there are plans to set up an email helpline for Digital UK to enable those with hearing difficulties to make enquiries on digital switchover.

Andy Burnham (Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Leigh, Labour)

Digital UK intends to introduce a public e-mail contact channel in autumn 2008. The RNID has advised that e-mail is an accessible communications channel for deaf and hard of hearing people and a specific address for them would not be required. Digital UK's customer contact centre staff have undergone disability awareness training and are able to answer questions relating to all aspects of digital switchover.

Digital UK promotes its text service number 0845 234 0380 on all information leaflets, including door-drops sent to every household in a TV region in the build up to switchover. In addition their leaflets are available on request in large print, Braille and other accessible formats on 0845 234 0388 or through their general call centre number on 08456 50 50 50.

As digital switchover approaches in a region, Digital UK will work through organisations which represent deaf people at a local or regional level to reach those who may need extra help to switch. This was the approach taken in the Copeland area.

RNID and TAG, a consortium of national organisations working on behalf of deaf people to promote equality of access to broadcasting and other electronic communications, are members of the Consumer Expert Group which advises Government and Digital UK on consumer issues relating to digital switchover.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 2:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform if he will review the definition of relay services for the deaf in the Government's 2003 Universal Service Order to include newer technologies such as video and internet protocol relay; and if he will make a statement.

Malcolm Wicks (Minister of State (Energy), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Croydon North, Labour)

holding answer 22 January 2008

The matter raised is the responsibility of the independent regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), which is accountable to Parliament rather than Ministers. Accordingly, I have asked the chief executive of Ofcom to reply directly to the right hon. Member. Copies of the chief executive's letter will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 2:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Lord Morris of Manchester (Labour)

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What powers the Department for Children, Schools and Families has, or could seek, to assist the Royal School for the Deaf and Communication Disorders in trying to deal with budget deficit and the potential loss of low-incidence specialisms and expertise to severely disabled children and young people.

Lord Adonis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; Labour)

All non-maintained special schools (NMSSs) such as the Royal School for the Deaf and Communication Disorders (RSDCD) are responsible for their own financial viability. Local authorities (LAs) are responsible for any fees charged by a school for a child they may place in a school. Any discussion or negotiation of fees is a matter between a school and LA. The department has worked with the representative bodies of LAs, NMSSs and independent schools in developing a national contract for the placement of children and young people in day and residential provision in these schools. Although the contract is widely adopted by schools and LAs, it is not compulsory, nor could it be, as fees are a matter to be agreed by individual parties.

NMSSs do have access to capital and revenue funding streams from the department and RSDCD has received £131,081.17 direct funding from the department in 2007-08. The school will receive a further £15,075 in revenue funding before the end of the financial year.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 2:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This concerns a debate on the Special Educational Needs (Information) Bill. Relevant bits highlighting deaf issues is included below. You can read the full debate by following the links at the bottom of this post.

Sharon Hodgson (Gateshead East & Washington West, Labour)

.... The Royal National Institute for Deaf People also tells us that many deaf and hard-of-hearing children are not performing as well as they could, but that it has been very hard to obtain the information it needs to tackle areas where there is poor support and underperformance. The Bill would make a crucial difference in ensuring that deaf and hard-of-hearing children's needs are properly identified, and would encourage more teachers to identify hearing loss in the classroom. ....

Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister (Children, Young People and Families), Children, Schools and Families; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

.... As the Special Educational Consortium, reinforced by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, says, having more information has the potential to improve our understanding of what works, to provide a better basis for the sharing of good practice, to improve our understanding of training and professional needs and to provide a more secure basis for the development of national policy. The Ofsted report of 2004 found that under-expectation was a significant factor in the underachievement of children with SEN and that too little is known about the attainment of pupils with SEN. We know that the RNID is flagging up the incredible statistic that only 32.9 per cent. of deaf children across the board achieve five GCSEs at grades A to C, whereas the average for all children is 57.1 per cent. We need to know more about that underperformance....

Barbara Keeley (PPS (Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC (Minister for Women)), Leader of the House of Commons; Worsley, Labour)

.... My hon. Friend said that special educational needs come in all shapes and sizes. I want to focus on deaf pupils and to consider how existing SEN provision affects them. First, however, following my hon. Friend's speech and interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I pay tribute to St. George's Roman Catholic high school in my constituency—a mainstream school that excels in provision for pupils with SEN. About 15 per cent. of the pupils have some level of special educational need and it was the first school in Salford to be involved in the dyslexia friendly schools initiative. The measures outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West can but help to improve St. George's—to develop and better the school's already impressive performance. As we have already heard, it is important that schools such as St. George's are willing to tackle SEN and not take the easier path of concentrating on pupils with no extra needs.

I am sure all Members agree that SEN is a complex issue. The range in type and extent of special need is wide; different needs require different provision, which is why I want to focus on the needs of pupils who are deaf. There are about 35,000 deaf children in the UK—90 per cent. are born to hearing parents who have no experience of deafness or knowledge of how to communicate with a deaf child. Until the new-born hearing screening programme was rolled out in 2006, diagnosis in the early years was poor, which meant that deaf children often missed out on crucial opportunities to develop their language and communication skills. The National Deaf Children's Society says that an undiagnosed deaf child aged three will know only about 25 words, compared with 700 words for a hearing child of the same age.

Lack of information and support after diagnosis has been a problem. If hearing parents with deaf children lack adequate support they will be prevented from making informed choices about how to support their child and communicate with them effectively. The combination of those factors means that deaf children are generally a long way behind their hearing peers when they start school, even if they have similar cognitive abilities, which leads to a big gap in educational achievement.

Fortunately for deaf children in my constituency, the Thomasson Memorial school for the deaf in Bolton, which is a regional resource, is available to them. Every year, a number of my young constituents attend the school, where one of the teachers is another of my constituents—Mrs. Eileen Hosie. I have visited the school, which is in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly). The school is making an excellent contribution to the provision of education for deaf pupils in Salford and throughout the north-west. Many areas do not have such resources, however, which compounds the attainment gap for deaf pupils.

In March 2007, when the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) was a Minister in the Department for Education and Skills, he stated in a Westminster Hall debate that only 32.9 per cent. of deaf children in England achieved five or more A to C grades at GCSE, compared with the then national average of 57 per cent. That is an attainment gap of 24 per cent. Given that deafness is not a learning disability there is no reason why deaf children should achieve less than their hearing peers of similar cognitive ability. That gap is not acceptable to me.

Those statistics demonstrate the importance of the Bill, because they were the only statistics my office could find on the educational attainment of deaf children. If we do not know that the gaps exist, how can we take appropriate action to close them? I welcome the duty to collect and publish information about children with SEN that the Bill would place on the Secretary of State. It is important for a variety of reasons.

At present, there is little incentive for local authorities to make the provision needed to reduce the attainment gap between deaf and hearing children. By collecting and monitoring information on provision and on outcomes for deaf pupils we could do many more things. We would know about the attainment gap and understand it, so we could start to see where targeted action is needed in schools. We could identify high-performing areas across the country and find good practice that could be shared with other areas. We could assess which interventions were effective in raising the achievement of deaf children. We could improve our understanding of the training required by teachers so that they can communicate effectively with deaf or hard of hearing children. We could give the parents of deaf children more informed choices and enable the public to hold local authorities to account for their performance in the education of deaf children.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West said, the Bill will make a crucial difference in ensuring that the needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing children, as well as the needs of those with other special education needs, start to be properly identified and addressed. Importantly, the Bill will complement the recent progress that has been made by the Government in improving the life chances of deaf children.

The report "Aiming high for disabled children: better support for families", which was published in May 2007, set out the vision that every disabled child should have the chance to fulfil their potential. Such a vision requires the collection of information for which my hon. Friend is calling. Of course, it was announced in the children's plan that £18 million would be used to provide better data for schools about the progress of pupils with SEN. That is key.

Furthermore, the roll-out of the newborn hearing screening programme, which I mentioned earlier, will result in the majority of deaf children being identified by the age of six months. That should remove a key barrier to the development of deaf children. There is no reason in principle why the attainment gap for deaf children should not now start to close provided that there is sufficient political commitment supported by a programme of targeted interventions. That is where my hon. Friend's Bill comes in.

My hon. Friend acknowledged that the Bill does not offer a universal solution. The Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the National Deaf Children's Society have both said that rather than effecting change, the collection and analysis of information on SEN will facilitate change. The data will provide these and other organisations with the leverage to campaign for improved policies and to build progress on progress.

My hon. Friend has shone a spotlight on unnecessary underachievement, and I commend her for it. I support her Bill because its measures will help to ensure that every child has an equal chance of success. We cannot continue with a 24 per cent. attainment gap between deaf children and hearing pupils and the massive waste of potential that goes with it. My hon. Friend's Bill will be an important step towards closing that gap, and I hope that we will support its Second Reading today.

Anne Snelgrove (PPS (Rt Hon Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State), Department for Transport; South Swindon, Labour)

.... I thank the hon. Gentleman for his correction and apologise to Baroness Warnock—I must have inferred from her comments that she was a member of another party.

The Warnock report rightly challenged many assumptions, especially prejudice about the potential of children with special needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) identified very well the gap in attainment for children with hearing difficulties and deaf children. It is 24 per cent. at GCSE level, which is incredible. I suspect that it is the same for other disabilities such as blindness and it is shaming that we have not examined the matter adequately in the House. My hon. Friend is right to focus on that.

Thirty years after the Warnock report, we still need to challenge assumptions. Many of the children whom we are considering need and deserve a properly resourced place in a mainstream school. Many deaf children would be better off being stretched educationally in a mainstream school, but with properly trained secondary school teachers, as other hon. Members have said. They do not need a return to the prejudice and second-rate provision of the 1970s that Warnock identified. The system that I advocate is based on the needs of the child, not the assumption that mainstream provision is always wrong and special needs schools are always right. It clearly depends on collecting and analysing the correct data—that is why the Bill is crucial. It seems like a small point, but it is a huge matter. We should be able to base our actions on the right information. .....

.... The Bill strengthens the Secretary of State's power to collect information and will assist in improving outcomes for children with special educational needs. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley, I am pleased that the National Deaf Children's Society is supporting the Bill. ....

Lynda Waltho (PPS (Rt Hon David Hanson, Minister of State), Ministry of Justice; Stourbridge, Labour)

... As the Royal National Institute for Deaf People states in its briefing, the Bill has the potential to improve our understanding of what works; raise expectations; provide a better base to evaluate projects and progress; provide a secure basis for sharing good practice; improve our understanding of training and development needs; and provide a more secure basis for future national policy. ...

Mark Harper (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Forest of Dean, Conservative)

... Some of us have been lobbied about underachievement among deaf pupils, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley). I have discussed the subject with the RNID, which is pushing for an improvement in information as a catalyst for improvement in services and educational outcomes for children with hearing impairments. ....

Maria Miller (Shadow Minister, Children, Schools and Families; Basingstoke, Conservative)

.... We have also heard from hon. Members about the human cost of undiagnosed or incorrectly supported special educational needs. The hon. Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) highlighted the significant attainment gap experienced by deaf children and how unacceptable that is given the nature of that special educational need. I was concerned to hear that the gap between deaf children and those with no special educational needs was 24 per cent. Other hon. Members talked about the economic costs of undiagnosed special educational needs. The Minister will leave the debate with a clear message that hon. Members from across the House feel that the situation cannot persist. ...

Kevin Brennan (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Cardiff West, Labour)

... My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) spoke passionately as always, in this instance about deaf children. She mentioned the wonderful work done by her constituent Eileen Hosie, who teaches deaf pupils. We share the concern expressed by the RNID and the NDCS about the attainment of deaf children, and the Department is working closely with those organisations to try to understand the issues and establish how data can be used to focus on improving provision. ...

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 3:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families

(1) what standard of British Sign Language attainment is required of teachers of the deaf;

(2) what comparative assessment he has made of the educational progress of deaf children taught using British Sign Language and those taught using total communication.

Kevin Brennan (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Cardiff West, Labour)

Where qualified teachers wish to specialise in teaching children with a sensory impairment, including a hearing impairment, they must obtain an additional mandatory qualification (MQ). The current specification for MQ courses includes the expectation that participants successfully completing the MQ for teachers of pupils with hearing impairment should have a minimum competence in signing, equivalent to the CACDP (Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People) Stage 1 qualification. The Training and Development Agency for Schools is currently reviewing the MQ specification, which has included detailed consultation with the approved MQ providers and a range of other interested parties. The Department has made no comparative assessment of the educational progress of deaf children taught using British Sign Language and those taught using total communication.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 4:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Michael Gove (Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Children, Schools and Families; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families

(1) how many pupils with statements of special educational need are recorded as attending (a) maintained special schools, (b) maintained mainstream schools and (c) other educational settings broken down by category of special educational need;

(2) how many pupils in (a) maintained and (b) independent schools have a diagnosis of autism;

(3) how many pupils with autism attend (a) maintained special schools, (b) maintained mainstream schools and (c) other educational settings, broken down by category of special need;

(4) how many statements of special educational need were issued in respect of children (a) with autism and (b) recorded as deaf and having impaired hearing in each year for which figures are available;

(5) how many and what proportion of deaf and hearing-impaired pupils are recorded as having (a) special educational needs with a statement, (b) special educational needs without a statement and (c) no special educational needs.

Kevin Brennan (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Cardiff West, Labour)

Type of special education need is only collected for pupils with statements of SEN and at School Action Plus within maintained mainstream and special schools and non-maintained special schools. This information is not collected for pupils in independent schools or pupils at School Action.

The available information has been placed in the Library and can be found in table 9 of SFR Special Educational Needs in England: January 2007, which is available on the Department's website here.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 4:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Michael Gove (Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Children, Schools and Families; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many (a) maintained and (b) independent schools for deaf and hearing-impaired pupils there were in each year since 1997; and how many places were provided in each category in each such year.

Kevin Brennan (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Children, Schools and Families; Cardiff West, Labour)

The numbers of maintained and independent schools that have statutory provision for deaf and hearing impaired pupils are given in the following tables. The number of places provided in these schools is not collected centrally. Table A: Maintained schools

	First Priority	Second Priority	Third Priority	Total
1997	10	5	0	15
1998	10	5	0	15
1999	10	5	0	15
2000	10	5	0	15
2001	8	4	0	12
2002	7	4	0	11
2003	7	4	0	11
2004	7	7	0	14
2005	7	6	1	14
2006	7	4	1	12
2007	8	4	1	13

Table B : Independent schools

	First Priority	Second Priority	Third Priority	Total
1997	13	1	0	14
1998	13	1	0	14
1999	13	1	0	14
2000	13	1	0	14
2001	15	1	0	16
2002	15	1	0	16
2003	'14	1	0	15
2004	14	1	0	15
2005	14	1	1	15
2006	14	5	1	19
2007	14	4	1	18

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 3:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by j at 4:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There was a debate in the House of Lords on audiology:

[W]hat progress has been made in implementing the National Audiology Action Plan contained within the Department of Health report, Improving Access to Audiology Services in England; how they intend to ensure that audiology is regarded as a priority area by strategic health authorities and primary care trusts; and what specific role they envisage for the independent sector.

Its too long to copy here, but if you want to read it go here.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 4:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Simon Burns (Whip, Whips; West Chelmsford, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will introduce a nationwide scheme to enable deaf people to send text messages to the emergency telephone number 999.

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

holding answer 18 December 2007

The telecommunications service providers, in discussion with the emergency services, have identified technical solutions for providing an emergency SMS for the deaf, and those with hearing or speech impairment. The mobile service providers are currently scoping a trial which will assess the technical feasibility of providing a service to mobile handsets which have been registered for the service.

The service will provide an alternative option for those who routinely use SMS and either do not use a text relay service or may be in circumstances where it is not available. It is anticipated that the trial will be conducted in the second half of 2008.

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Posted by alison at 4:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The ability to use SMS to contact emergency services in the UK is thin on the ground, and depends on area provision. If you travel to another area, you might need to source another number or perhaps you cannot register with other local services. Yesterday an answer was published in parliament over any government plans over a national scheme:

Simon Burns (West Chelmsford, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will introduce a nationwide scheme to enable deaf people to send text messages to the emergency telephone number 999.

The Home Office answered:

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing), Home Office)

holding answer 18 December 2007

The telecommunications service providers, in discussion with the emergency services, have identified technical solutions for providing an emergency SMS for the deaf, and those with hearing or speech impairment. The mobile service providers are currently scoping a trial which will assess the technical feasibility of providing a service to mobile handsets which have been registered for the service.

The service will provide an alternative option for those who routinely use SMS and either do not use a text relay service or may be in circumstances where it is not available. It is anticipated that the trial will be conducted in the second half of 2008.

Ask the readers: do you use a text relay service these days? Do you even own a minicom? Could you safely say that you could rely on a relay service to respond in an emergency situation?

Sources:
They Work For You
Hansard

See also:
Parliament: 999 sms?

Posted by alison at 9:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There's currently an article on BBCi around low energy light bulbs and skin reactions.

What caught my eye was this:

The government is planning to prevent the sale of conventional bulbs by 2011 to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Okay, so how exactly are deaf people going to fare under this? Have you ever tried to lipread someone under low energy light, and sustain this? I know I can't. Sure, logic states that sign language is more eco sound, but we run into issues around usage.

I first used low energy bulbs in 1993, when I lived in a Community House, which was very big on sustainable living. In other words, I shared a house with eco-nuts well before their time. However, since the house was all hearing - apart from me - there was communication issues. I could not interact on low energy bulbs. Consequently, the house changed all its light bulbs and this was a compromise that people were prepared to make because they got it communication wasn't happening. Nevermind communication, I was left with a constant headache.

I tried low energy bulbs again about 4 years ago, and the same issues arose. My low energy bulb usage is now confined to the hall, or other spaces where I know communication is minimal. Within the main rooms, it has to be brighter lights.

Don't get me wrong, I fully support and understand green initiatives, without a planet there won't be an opportunity to communicate at all. However, have deaf people been consulted on this proposal, especially to comply with the Disability Equality Duty? What about the Equality 2025 agenda?

So what will deaf people do come 2011? Right now, it looks like we will be forced to use low energy bulbs.

Some questions:
- have these bulbs become brighter?
- are there any plans to address brightness to accommodate certain people?
- will there be any exceptions to shopping, e.g. those with low vision or Ushers, who need spaces lit up?
- will we be forced to buy a lifetime's stock of conventional light bulbs, or import these from another country? This is not an option I want to take, but the green agenda needs to also think about inclusiveness.

This goes beyond a home space, and into public spaces too. Lighting does effect how I follow an interpreter, or even communicate via other means out there.

If anyone knows of any particularly bright bulbs, or means to address this issue, please use the comment box.

Posted by alison at 9:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (0)

Also to be found on Stop Eugenics.

Posted by alison at 11:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday Malcolm Bruce asked the Prime Minister a question in relation to BSL recognition:

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon, Liberal Democrat)

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that while the Government rightly give tens of millions of pounds every year to support indigenous British languages such as Welsh and Gaelic, another British language—British sign language—gets no such support. Will the Prime Minister meet me, and a delegation of sign language users, to discuss how the Government can meet their needs, as they are currently failing to do?

To which the reply was:

Gordon Brown (Prime Minister)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, and I will be very happy to meet him. It is a very important issue, and we will see what we can do together.

It is understood that various individuals approached Malcolm Bruce at CACDP's 25th anniversary the day before, and brought up the issue of BSL recognition.

Whilst such a question has to be welcomed, my concerns are:

a) why has BSL recognition been reduced to money, or possibly an indication of project funding (again)? Sure we need funding to happen, but this is about language rights, and without such rights an equality being secured, we don't have BSL recognition;

b) does the question assume that the government recognises BSL, since it does not ask anything about this? What happened to legal recognition?

b) who such a delegation to see the Prime Minister would be? The question focuses on sign language users (as opposed to Deaf people) which could be seen as a good thing, but will Deaf people lead this? Whilst many people are passionate about BSL recognition, and have some concept in their head they want to promote sign language, few people actually grasp what it recognition really means.

So who's going to lead from here? UKCoD? Are we going to have a pathetic repeat of 2003?

Source:
They Work for You (question)
They Work for You (answer)
Hansard

See also:
Government response on BSL & the UN Convention of Human Rights for Disabilities
Parliament: BSL on websites & recognition of BSL
So, was the BSL Recognition campaign all a waste of time?

Posted by alison at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by j at 6:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Coterie of the Zombies pulled together this vlog, which makes a lot of ideas accessible even for children. There's a link to this in the comments of this blog, however, it deserves more attention:

Full post, including an English transcript can be found here. Go and tell him what you think of it. Thanks, Howard!

See also:
EFEB: BDA Letter to Members of the House of Lords in BSL
Guest: Clark Denmark - Stop!
Parliament: Deaf Embryo selection to be made illegal
HFEB: Explanatory clause on deaf selection
HFEB: BDA draft letter to Professor Marcus Pembrey
HFEB: other places discussing Deaf Eugenics

Posted by alison at 11:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The draft BDA letter has now been translated into BSL:

The letter in English can be found here [PDF] (AMENDED: 4 Dec 2007. after BSL translation). Please note this letter has gone to relevant people sitting in the House of Lords.

Huge thanks to Gavin Lilley for his time in translating this letter, Katie Rogers for organising this, and both to Gavin and JG Jones for spending a lot of energy over the weekend getting this uploaded after several false attempts.

See also:
Guest: Clark Denmark - Stop!
Parliament: Deaf Embryo selection to be made illegal
HFEB: Explanatory clause on deaf selection
HFEB: BDA draft letter to Professor Marcus Pembrey
HFEB: other places discussing Deaf Eugenics

Posted by alison at 7:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Clark Denmark has agreed to guest vlog on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, and thoughts around eugenics:

Thanks Clark. Deaf people particularly in the UK need to see this, please pass this on. More BSL content to follow.

If you want to watch a video in ASL on this subject, check out this vlog by DE.

See also:
Parliament: Deaf Embryo selection to be made illegal
HFEB: Explanatory clause on deaf selection
HFEB: BDA draft letter to Professor Marcus Pembrey
HFEB: other places discussing Deaf Eugenics

Posted by alison at 9:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

A petition was created by John Walker on ratifying British Sign Language under the UN Convention of Human Rights for People with Disabilities:

On 30th March 2007, UK signed the Covention of Human Rights for People with Disabilities. This convention states that Deaf and hard of hearing people have a right to: 1. Access through the use of professional sign language interpreters(article 9(2e)). 2. The acceptance and facilitation of the freedom of expression and opinion, and access to information, in British Sign Language(article 21b). 3. The recognition and promotion of the use of British Sign Language(Article 21e). 4. In Education, the facilitation of the learning of British Sign Langauge and the promotion of linguistic identity of the deaf community(article 24(3b)). 5. The employment of teachers who are deaf and qualified in British Sign Language to teach deaf and hard of hearing children(Article 24(4)). 6. The recognition and support of the cultural and linguistic identify of deaf people who use sign language and their deaf culture(Article 30(4)).

These fundamental principles already ratified by the UK Government, can be implemented by the adoption of a 'BSL Bill' (as an addition to the Sign Language Recognition presented by the DWP on 18th March 2003) and be developed at the soonest opportunity.

I have to congratulate John for bringing this issue back into the political process again. Here's the official government response:

Thank you for your e-petition. The aim of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is to enable the 650 million disabled people across the world to access existing human rights. The Convention will set international human rights standards ensuring that disabled people enjoy the same human rights as everyone else. The Government believes this is an important initiative and one that will help shape protection of disabled peoples' rights for the future.

The UK was among the first states to sign up to the Convention on its first day of opening on 30 March this year at the United Nations, New York. Signing the Convention demonstrates the UK's commitment to human rights for disabled people and shows our intention to proceed to ratification without any undue delay.

Currently the UK is scrutinising its laws, policies, practices and procedures carefully against the rights under the Convention before it ratifies the Convention. The Convention will come into force 30 days after at least 20 states have ratified or acceded to it. As of 2 November, seven states have ratified the Convention.

The Convention will not form part of domestic UK law. However Countries that ratify the convention will also have to report regularly to the UN about the steps they are taking to implement the Convention and protect and promote disabled people's human rights.

There are several references in the Convention to sign language which would, if implemented, enable sign language users around the world to communicate and receive information in their first language, including, when appropriate, having professional sign language interpreters to facilitate access to buildings and other facilities open to the public.

The Convention also requires that States take all appropriate measures to ensure that disabled people can exercise the right to freedom of expression and opinion on an equal basis with others including accepting, facilitating, recognising and promoting the use of sign languages.

The Government has recognised British Sign Language as a language its own right and has invested in projects intended to leave a legacy of improved access to training for British Sign Language tutors and increased awareness of the language.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 imposes a duty of reasonable adjustment for disabled people in a wide range of aspects of life, including access to employment, goods, facilities, and services, private clubs and the functions of public authorities. A reasonable adjustment can include the provision of a British Sign Language/English interpreter for a person who uses British Sign Language as their first or preferred language.

Further information on the Convention can be found on the Office for Disability Issues website: www.officefordisability.gov.uk

Whilst this a good start international law wise (and how does it measure up with the nonsense that is currently going through parliament). The government's response is predicted, and exactly why we need a BSL Act. UK people - we live in something called a monist state. I don't have time to go into an analysis now, there's more urgent campaigning that needs a response this week, i.e. Human Fertilistaion and Embryology Bill. This needs a proper response. Later.

Posted by alison at 4:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The BDA has acted as a respondent agent on behalf of the Deaf community, and a draft letter [PDF] (AMENDED: 4 Dec 2007) has gone to Professor Marcus Pembrey (Professor of Paediatric Genetics), who is acting as an advisor to the House of Lords on amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

We owe a huge thanks to certain individuals in making this letter happen. You know who you are. This is only a very small step in what could be a long process.

If you are unable to access the PDF, the full text is in the extended entry for this post.

See also:
HFEB: Explanatory clause on deaf selection
Parliament: Deaf Embryo selection to be made illegal

Continue reading "HFEB: BDA draft letter to Professor Marcus Pembrey" »

Posted by alison at 4:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Much to report on the subject of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill that is going through parliament. Things have been moving fast in the background, and we are having to try and digest complex law in a short space of time. A huge thanks to people (including internationals) for their support - we need it.

The Bill reaches the Committee stage at the House of Lords on Monday 3 December, so timing is extremely tight for our first battle. Today the first preliminary response was submitted. More later.

However, wanted to mention something about how the international stage has had an effect on this legislation, and something we all need to think about and be ready for. Within the Bill's explanatory notes is note 109 which states:

Embryo Testing

109. Clause 14(4) contains a provision that relates to the provisions on embryo testing (see note on clause 11). New sections 13(8) to (11) amend the 1990 Act to make it a condition of a treatment licence that embryos that are known to have an abnormality (including a gender-related abnormality) are not to be preferred to embryos not known to have such an abnormality. The same restriction is also applied to the selection of persons as gamete or embryo donors. This would prevent similar situations to cases, outside the UK, where positive selection of deaf donors in order deliberately to result in a deaf child have been reported.

We are unaware of any situations to date where an embryo has been specifically tested for a deaf gene by deaf people, then selected. In any case, genetics is not as simple as that. There's 200+ deaf genes, and even if its present we don't know how this will be expressed, i.e. deaf or hearing baby, and the factors determining this are complex.

However, through media misreporting we think this may be down to choices deaf people have made in respect of donors (egg or sperm donation), and now there is a political backlash.

Think about the implications of this law's intention:

- What about a straight relationship that needs IVF intervention - does that mean a deaf gene carrier can never partake in donation of eggs / sperm?

- For gay relationships - a deaf gene carrier (say a friend) can never donate their eggs or sperm for the conception of a child? (Incidentally this same Bill attempts to strengthen gay parenting rights).

What do you think?

Source:
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill: Explanatory Notes

See also:
Parliament: Deaf Embryo selection to be made illegal

Posted by alison at 2:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is currently passing through parliament, and currently in its second reading in the House of Lords. A bill is proposed law that passes through parliament, to be debated (and amended) before it becomes law. i.e. an Act of Parliament.

Clause 14

This week debate touched on Clause 14 which states:

(9) Persons or embryos that are known to have a gene, chromosome or mitochondrion abnormality involving a significant risk that a person with the abnormality will have or develop—

(a) a serious physical or mental disability,
(b) a serious illness, or
(c) any other serious medical condition,

must not be preferred to those that are not known to have such an abnormality.

That means you aren't allowed to select a deaf embryo, and this has been confirmed as parliament's intention through the passage of this Bill (and could be used for statutory interpretation later).

House of Lords debate

Baroness Deech (Crossbench)

In the scientific field, the Bill confirms the wider use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. That is good. I hope that your Lordships will be pleased that the deliberate choice of an embryo that is, for example, likely to be deaf will be prevented by Clause 14.

This prevents selection of an embryo if it is known to be born deaf. It does not prohibit selection on the basis that a child will be born hearing, and prefers it. Since genetic testing will be common place in the UK in future, you are hardly going to be able to leave things to nature and 'wait and see', if a child is born deaf or hearing.

Huge Implications on deaf fertilisation

This could have huge implications for families where there is a genetic trait of deafness. Say e.g. you have a deaf gene in your family, and for whatever reason needed assisted fertilisation in order to get pregnant. If the embryos developed were known be deaf, a female would not be allowed to be made pregnant by a deaf embryo, and a hearing embryo must always be picked. This could also mean that deaf people are prohibited from partaking in assistance with fertilisation (donation of eggs, sperm). Do you agree with this?

Parallels of past historical oppression

To me this starts to enter eugenics and what Alexander Graham Bell was advocating. A lesser form of sterlisation of deaf people, what was practiced in Nazi Germany, to prevent deaf pro-creation.

Who is objecting to this, or speaking on our behalf?

What the hell is anyone doing about this proposed legislation? If it is ignored, by summer 2008 this will on the statute books and will be law. Who exactly is protecting deaf interest here, and statements by politicians that we are not equal? All those deaf organisations who make millions "on behalf of us" are doing what exactly? Sound asleep in a coma? Too hearing controlled or damn scared to say anything, through fear of upsetting their funders, and other chartiable philanthropists? Deaf voice and protection of interests is where exactly?

Sources:
They Work for You
Hansard

Further Reading:
The Origins Of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution, Henry Friedlander (Essay)
Crying Hands: Eugenics and Deaf People in Nazi Germany, Horst Biesold
Missing: Children of Germany's Deaf People
Alexander Graham Bell - Wikipedia

Posted by alison at 1:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (51) | TrackBacks (0)

There was a recent question in parliament over the waiting times for hearing aids:

Adam Holloway (Gravesham, Conservative)

What the average waiting time was for hearing aid assessments in (a) Gravesham and (b) England in the last period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

It seems the current median waiting time is one year for this particular area (waiting time could be longer):

Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health)

The median waiting time for a diagnostic audiology assessment, including hearing assessment, is 52 weeks at the Medway NHS Trust, which includes the area of Gravesham. The average for England is 16 weeks.

Adam Holloway (Gravesham, Conservative)

Does the Minister think that the Government will hit their own target of six weeks to initial assessment by 2008, given that now some of my constituents are waiting up to 12 months? Has he thought about the distressing effect of such waits, especially on the elderly?

Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health)

The length of waiting times in the hon. Gentleman's local trust and in some others is entirely unacceptable. That is why we have a target of a maximum wait for assessment of six weeks to be achieved everywhere by March 2008. It is also the reason why, in March, I issued the new audiology framework, which is essentially a strong message to every trust in the country that they must reduce waiting times to the level achieved by the best PCTs, which is already happening in many parts of the country.

The debate continued with the suggestion of solutions such as mobile audiology clinics, which is already in place in Staffordshire.

What are your thoughts on this subject?

Source:
Hansard
They Work For You

Further Reading:
18 Weeks Delivery Programme
Improving Access to Audiology Services in England [PDF] - March 2007
Improving Access to Audiology Services in England [PDF - tagged for accessibility] - March 2007
Improving Access to Audiology Services in England [Word] - March 2007
Transforming Adult Hearing Services for Patients with Hearing Difficulty - A Good Practice Guide [PDF] - published June 2007

See also:
Should people be told to pay for NHS hearing aids?
Coming soon: will you be forced to get your hearing aids from the RNID?

Posted by alison at 11:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Recognise Sign Language in Copenhagen

Hooray for the Danish Deafies who marched last weekend!

Posted by j at 10:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

A rather un-grumpy vlog, featuring Jen, her runaway dog and some trees...

English script:

It's International Sign Languages Day today, and I thought I would vlog from my corner of the world, just to show that, indeed, there are sign languages all over the world.

So here I am in the middle of nowhere - AKA Yorkshire - quite near my house. It's kind of over there somewhere... can you swivel the camera please?

[CAMERA PANS TO SHOW TREES & NICE BLUE SKY]

Great, thank you. Oh no, the dog's running off! [LOL] Happy International Sign Languages Day! Oh, one last thing...

PROTECT BRITISH SIGN LANGUAGE IN LAW - NOW!

Posted by j at 5:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (0)

Parliamentary democracy is supposed to be one of the building blocks of our society. Parliament usually is an elected body, in place to represent its citizens. Deaf people as citizens should have as much democratic right to be represented, as their hearing counterparts. However, being part of a minority group, and a geographical disperse population problems will arise around this representation.

It is not a topic that can be covered in a single entry, and one that possibly needs a series of posts. However, for the purposes of this entry, I would like to examine how the set up of deaf organisations could have a detrimental effect on the engagement of the political process. This will be a somewhat introductory post, and first some background information.

Deaf organisations in the UK

For a small island that is the UK, we have a surprisingly large number of organisations, and it is thought that there's well over 400, possibly excluding more grass root clubs and other organisations. These organisations don't necessarily include deaf people, both at its membership or governance, but will have an interest in 'deafness'. For example, the British Society of Audiology.

In 1993, the United Kingdom Council on Deafness (UKCoD) was set up in 1993 as an umbrella body for deaf organisations in the UK:

UK Council on Deafness was founded by a consortium of deaf organisations to improve and extend co-operation between member organisations in promoting and representing the interests of deaf, deafened, deafblind and hard of hearing people. The inaugural meeting of the Council took place in September 1993.

There is no direct individual membership to this organisation, and membership is only open to anyone calling themselves a deaf organisation in the UK. The exact criteria for deaf organisations seems to be quite fluid, and the organisation does not have to be accountable to anyone (apart from perhaps its funders or the Charity Commission). UKCoD's website quotes:

Charities and Professional Bodies working in the field of deafness.

Thus if you were a collective organisation of deaf people (and you were not a charity), say a club or a campaigning group, then you would be ineligible. It seems that professionals who perhaps do not have direct experience of being deaf have a higher priority as far as membership goes, over and above grass root activities. There is an alternative affiliate membership, however does not afford the same benefits.

As an umbrella organisation, UKCoD has since taken on itself to undertake other roles, such as the administration for the British Society for Mental Health and Deafness (BSMHD), and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Deafness.

Democratic process (or lack of), for law and policy?

It is the latter role I would like to focus on, for the rest of this blog entry, and more specifically the influence over the parliamentary process. What happens to issues in the UK currently could be illustrated by the following chart:

This illustration has been kept as simple as possible, and misses out some possibilities. For example, this diagram also does not include the government, or wider society influence.

Deaf people are at the bottom represented in the diagram as stick people. Say you had an issue, e.g. BSL recognition or wanted a law to create an obligation for video content online to be subtitled. This is what could happen:

1. Deaf person takes up the issue with MP. Deaf person wants to sort this out, and perhaps get this issue tabled in parliament. Same process as for a hearing person. Check out stick person on the right, who tries to take the issue straight to the top, and their issue gets deflected. See next point.

2. Deaf person is sometimes discouraged by their MP. Contacting your MP, the process works perhaps on more personal issues, and direct representation can happen. However, this does not always happen and when engaging in this process, they encounter a barrier. Deaf person gets told by the MP they deal with the All Parliamentary Working Group / UKCoD. You explain that you cannot be a member of UKCoD. Instead you are told to go to local deaf organisation, and they will represent you via UKCoD. (This has happened in real life: it has happened to me, and others I know of).

3. Go to a deaf organisation. However, the organisation that will listen to you is small compared to others. The organisation says that it will try its best and bring the issue up in UKCoD, however:

- it will possibly get watered down in order to reach a compromise for other members. E.g. BSL recognition got watered down at UKCoD because Delta thought they had the right to have a say re: BSL (then refused to sign a submission?), the same goes for the Ewing Foundation.
- UKCoD has a 100 strong membership, largely dominated by organisations controlled by hearing people or perhaps not organisation members themselves, thus not accountable to its intended beneficiary group: deaf people. E.g. The Elizabeth Foundation is neither accountable to a membership, nor is there any deaf input, yet has a say in UKCoD.

4. Try a new tactic, get representation through a larger organisation. However, this organisation is not a membership one so it has no obligation to listen to you or any other deaf person. Or it doesn't do listening very well (try RNID as a classic example of this). Therefore your request or view enters a void, and you just wasted your time.

5. UKCoD decides what to do with the issue, and how to filter this. Deaf input at this stage, since hearing people dominate?

The cosy relationship between MPs and UKCoD means that people on the ground are the last to know, or are discouraged from engaging in the democratic process. Take the example of how BSL recognition was announced in 2003, those at the top of the UKCoD ladder and deaf organisations found out several days before key activists who had initiated the campaign. Such a set up discourages people from campaigning again, and possibly contributes to apathetic people.

Is UKCoD an effective organisation when it comes to influencing participation in a democratic process?

Some people would identify UKCoD as providing some co-ordination, and indeed perhaps power in numbers against mainstream bodies, and organisations that act like monopolies such as the RNID; and thus a positive influence on law making processes and other activities.

However, a question has to be asked: is UKCoD's very existence disempowering to deaf people? How involved are they? What do you think? What do you think about engagement in the political process generally?

Does a similar set up exist outside the UK?

Anyone outside the UK who is reading this, would you mind letting us know in the comment box if you have such umbrella organisations in your country? If so, what is the balance of power or democracy like?

UPDATE:: Ben has done a BSL translation of this post:

Posted by alison at 9:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBacks (0)

The problem with having deaf organisations communicate with the government "on our behalf" is that they are communicating THEIR interests which is NOT necessarily the same as OUR interests (Deaf people). Government departments and other bodies need to realise that the voluntary sector and individuals are not the same, and there is a massive conflict of interest happening.

Furthermore, we aren't actually consulted or information reaches us before changes happen.

Proposals for hearing aids:

The Department of Health has published proposals around contracting out services to the voluntary sector. Hearing aids are a central part of this. In other words we would go and get our ears tested, then be issued with a prescription. A bit like a prescription for glasses or medication.

It is then proposed you would take this prescription along to the RNID, and they would issue us with hearing aids. The RNID would be provided with money by the Department of Health, to issue NHS hearing aids or you could have the option of paying for private hearing aids. The RNID here would effectively become a retailer.

My initial thoughts:

- your personal details would be held in yet another one of their databases, and they have access to our medical information (used to develop other services, and become a monopoly charity?);
- they already hold a monopoly over subsidised relay serivces, and due to their hugeness perhaps other services too / no choice to go elsewhere;
- it would give more power to this organisation that has little regard over accountability to its user base;
- these proposals were available earlier this year, and I only found this by chance. Who is bothering to consult with us, and are we happy about? In my case no way;
- why hasn't this information been made available to us before now, so we could express our thoughts?

Ask the Readers:

Would you be happy if the NHS gave you a prescription for hearing aids (new, replacement, serviced, etc.), and you were then told to take this prescription along to the RNID to get your hearing aids? Do you want this proposal to go ahead?

Does anyone know where this proposal is on the DOH Procurement and Proposals site? Is there a consultation, or if there was one has it passed? This is perhaps something that we need to respond to, if possible.

Source: Third Sector (full article below).

Update: An excellent post from The Coterie of Zombies on this, go read.

Continue reading "Coming soon: will you be forced to get your hearing aids from the RNID?" »

Posted by alison at 10:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBacks (1)

Ofcom has been carrying out a consultation in respect of how BSL is transmitted on television. The consultation is supposed to end this Friday.

I responded to this consultation, and further responses can be found on their website. As a side note, they are not publishing all responses (even though these were submitted one month ago, and permission given from the author). I know Rob and Joe have also responded, why hasn't Ofcom published these? Perhaps it highlights serious flaws which Ofcom is actively avoiding to highlight?

As part of my response, I made a formal complaint against Ofcom in respect of their lack of consultation in BSL. This was a consultation about BSL on television, thus it appeared more than strange that this consultation was delivered only in English. A bit like consulting about the future of S4C (including a reduction in hours), only in English, and not make this consultation available in Welsh.

I have since received a reply from Ofcom, which is below. For ease of reading my initial complaints are highlighted in bold. Ofcom has not responded to all the complaints that I raised, including lack of information around the extension of the consultation date. At the end of this post, I have some initial thoughts on Ofcom's response. Please could you use the comment box to record any thoughts you have on this, as it may influence how I proceed further with this.

Continue reading "Ofcom's response to a formal complaint around lack of BSL consultation" »

Posted by alison at 11:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBacks (0)

There was a debate in parliament yesterday, on hearing loops in shops. Whilst I get people want and the need to address problems around loops, the point of this, etc. I can't help skimming through this 'debate' and reading it as a double act to promote the rnid. All this name dropping.

Tom Levitt MP, who introduced this debate used to be a trustee of the rnid, and an indirect way to drum up some business. The cynical person in me can't help remembering that the RNID sells loops too, why not mention Hearing Concern instead? (Side note: loops coming to a local Woolworths store soon?)

Cynicism aside, a serious question: what will that debate achieve? Whilst it says DDA this, DDA that, will it achieve anything enforcement wise?

Continue reading "Parliament: Hearing Loops (Shops)" »

Posted by alison at 10:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

A second parliamentary question on Access to Work implies a political game is being played here and all is not well as far as Access to Work goes. Do Ministers actually get it this message - we are not happy - when such questions are aired? They must do, being MPs themselves, and knowing such questions will generally arise from constituents or an organisation. However, the dry answer which comes back, implies they are running away from the problem, or pretending it does not exist.

Lynne Featherstone (Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what provisions have been made in the workplace to allow for deaf employees to carry out their work efficiently in the last five years.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions)

In the last five years, the Government have significantly improved the protection afforded to disabled people, including people with hearing impairments, under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). For example, from 1 October 2004, we extended the employment provision of the Act to cover all employers and all previously excluded occupations with the exception of service in the armed forces.

The DDA requires employers to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees or job applicants where the disabled person would otherwise be at a substantial disadvantage compared to a non-disabled person. For a deaf person, this may include installing induction loops or visual warning displays in place of, or in addition to, audible warnings.

Provision of assistance for people with a hearing impairment is available through Access to Work. As well as giving advice and information to disabled people and employers, grants are available towards the approved costs that arise because of an individual's impairment. For example, Access to Work can help pay for communication support for people who are deaf or have a hearing impairment. Funding for Access to Work has increased from £51 million in 2002-03 to £64 million in 2007-08.

Updated and strengthened guidance on the provision of support workers, including communication support for deaf and hard of hearing people, was issued to all Access to Work Business Centres in December 2006. The guidance describes the types of support that may be suitable, for example sign language interpreters, lip speakers and palantypists, as well as the steps to take to establish the type and level of appropriate support.

Source: Hansard, They Work for You

Posted by alison at 12:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

A question around Access to Work has appeared in parliament:

Rosie Cooper (PPS (Rt Hon Lord Rooker, Minister of State), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, West Lancashire, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidelines are issued to Access to Work staff on the provision of communication support professionals for deaf and hard of hearing employees; and how they are enforced.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions)

Updated and strengthened guidance on the provision of support workers, including communication support for deaf and hard of hearing people, was issued to all Access to Work Business Centres in December 2006. The guidance describes the types of support that may be suitable, for example British Sign Language Interpreters, lip speakers and palantypists, as well as the steps to take to establish the type and level of appropriate support.

A National Access to Work Delivery Team has been established and has been fully operational since April. The National Access to Work Delivery Manager has appointed two senior operations managers who are responsible for improving consistency of decision making nationally and for regularly monitoring that business centres comply with national guidelines.

Source: Hansard, They Work for You

My question, has anyone noticed any changes in decision making during 2007, or differences in support? Are there still wide discrepancies from area to area? Do you find it more difficult to get certain support now, due to budget considerations?

Does anyone have a copy of this new guidance, that could be shared?

Posted by alison at 12:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Parliament is currently debating a National Concession for travel, meaning that concessionary will be available outside London. If for example you are Deaf and live in London, you will be eligible for a Freedom Pass allowing you free access to public transport in London. However, coverage over the rest of the country is patchy. Debate is happening whether concession should be applied nationally, and this includes Deaf people:

Michael Lord (Central Suffolk & North Ipswich, Deputy-Speaker)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 6, page 2, line 14, at end insert—

'(4A) For the purposes of this section a disabled person is a person who—

....

(b) is profoundly or severely deaf,

Source: They Work for You, Hansard

Does anyone know if a 'national concession' means say, you live in Cornwall would your concession be restricted to Cornwall only, or could you travel and say use a concessionary card in London or Birmingham for local travel?

One point I want to make about this, it is well known how much Deaf people love their "bus pass" over here, and its about the one issue that can stir political passions in the most apathetic of people. If you have attended any community debates, you may have witnessed Deaf people going way off point from the subject matter and start talking about bus passes. My question, financial consideration aside: what is the justification for Deaf people having concessionary travel? Does concessionary travel exist in other countries?

Posted by alison at 12:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has been debated in the House of Lords. Lord Ashley of Stoke (a Peer who is deafened), included a bit about deaf people in his speech. The relevant passage is below:

Lord Ashley of Stoke (Labour)

However, in the vast area of the world to be affected, the authorities must bear in mind the paramount importance of the involvement and active participation of disabled people. Once the convention and the protocol become fully operational, they can resolve a whole range of injustices affecting disabled people. For example, on a disability of which I have personal experience, deafness, many people are denied their rights in Britain and elsewhere. The convention emphasises the need to provide access to communication support, including sign-language interpreters, and it places a duty on Governments to ensure that deaf people are no longer excluded from a wide range of activities. This will be a great boon to deaf people everywhere.

You can read the entire debate by clicking onto the links below.

Source: They Work for You, Hansard

Posted by alison at 1:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations her Department has received about continued funding for UK Deaf Sport; and if she will make a statement.

Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport), Department for Culture, Media & Sport)

The Department has received correspondence from Craig Crowley, chair of UK Deaf Sport, most recently in April 2007. Mr. Crowley expressed his disappointment at UK Sport's decision not to fund his organisation and asked that UK Sport review the decision.

Since we won the right to host the 2012 Olympic games, UK Sport has revised its strategy, and it is now primarily focused on supporting Olympic and Paralympic sports. However its World Class Pathway Programme does not discriminate against deaf athletes, and there are already some talented deaf athletes on the Pathway who will continue to receive the support they need to succeed at the very highest level.

In my reply to his letter, I suggested Mr. Crowley contact each of the Home County Sports Councils to see if they would be prepared to fund UK Deaf Sport for the Deaflympics, and to obtain advice on alternative sources of potential funding.

Source: They Work For You, Hansard

It seems that the Department of Culture, Media and Sport by virtue of its funding stream now requires participation from Deaf people via the Paralymics or via the mainstream. To quote:

its World Class Pathway Programme does not discriminate against deaf athletes

Who made this decision, and were Deaf people involved with the decision making process? Because a hearing person (who is possibly quite clueless about Deaf issues), decided this "does not discriminate", doesn't mean that its true.

Posted by alison at 1:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

In the UK digital television is required to meet an eventual 5% target for producing signed output on television (unless granted an exemption). Since the interpreter cannot be turned off, this annoys some viewers, and from time to time we usually see threads on mainstream forums complaining about this. The latest such thread can be seen here.

What annoys me here, is not their ignorance but what is Ofcom (the regulatory body responsible for this) doing? Ofcom long ago should have produced materials, including encouraging broadcasters to do on screen, why an interpreter was present. Instead due to a lack of education, we get frustration, and with it will come a resentment towards Deaf people.

The stupid thing is, Ofcom could very well be going against the Disability Equality Duty (a legal requirement) here, to promote positive attitudes.

See also:
Ofcom fails its own Disability Equality Scheme?

Posted by alison at 12:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The way the government treats us is a complete joke. Seriously. In the light of the question / answer I posted yesterday, here's another one.

Kerry McCarthy (PPS (Rt Hon Rosie Winterton, Minister of State), Department of Health, Bristol East, Labour)

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the merits of providing British Sign Language (BSL) videos on his departmental website for the benefit of those whose first language is BSL.

John Prescott (Deputy Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister)

Following the recognition of British Sign language (BSL) as a language in its own right in March 2003, the Government committed £1.5 million funding for 10 projects designed to improve the infrastructure supporting BSL tutors and to raise awareness of the communication needs of Deaf BSL users among employers, service providers and in the wider community. The aim is for the outputs from the projects to have a lasting and sustainable impact. There are no videos on my departmental website.

You really could not make it up. Okay, for the record who thinks the outputs from the £1.5 million, had a lasting and sustainable impact and the government recognises BSL in a practical sense?

Otherwise, check out the contradictory statements by Mr. Prescott, such as we recognise BSL but there's no BSL on my site. Go away. We aren't going to spend any money. And no, you don't get any free courses either. Please someone please tell me how this is supposed to fit into 2020 vision of full and equal citizenship?

Source: They Work For You, Hansard.

Posted by alison at 1:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Jane Fletcher has won a claim for constructive unfair dismissal, harassment and failure to carry out reasonable adjustments in the workplace.against Walsall Deaf Centre. This includes failure to provide AtW assistant (note: this could be an interpreter), the staff failed to use sign language whilst communicating, difference in pay / duties, complacency towards her epilepsy.

Hopefully this is an important judgment. I've seen deaf organisations behave incredibly arrogantly, get away with too much; to the extent they play games with people's lives and not take staff seriously enough. I hope this forces organisations to review their practices, sit up and take notice.

Source: Birmingham Post

Continue reading "Employment Tribunal Judgement: Walsall Deaf Centre" »

Posted by alison at 10:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

It seems that politicians are experts at not getting it. The latest from the House of Commons is that lipreading classes and learning sign language is not a skill for life. This obviously comes down to funding, not being classed as a 'basic skill' affects how a course is funded. Deaf people in other words have to pay.

Jamie Reed (PPS (Mr Tony McNulty, Minister of State), Home Office, Copeland, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will classify the teaching of lip reading and sign language as a basic skill for those with impaired hearing.

Parmjit Dhanda (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills)

We recognise the importance of lip reading and sign language for the deaf and hard of hearing. Lip reading and sign language are eligible for LSC funding but do not form part of the Government's "Skills for Life" definition of provision commonly referred to as 'basic skills' as they are not mapped to the national literacy and numeracy standards.

The majority of the cost of learning is supported by public funds, but the learner is also expected to contribute to the cost unless certain conditions apply: for example, learners on income-related benefits are eligible for fee remission, as are learners aged 16 to 18 years; and individual providers may choose to waive a full fee or charge a reduced fee. Some providers also have 'access funds' that they are able to make available to individuals to help with the costs of a course. In 2004/05 lip reading classes were free to more than 80 per cent. of learners either as a result of national policy or at the discretion of the provider.

This is obviously a strict and narrow definition, and who said that access to communication cannot be literacy? They are basic skills to survive in life, no? From a BSL recognition viewpoint this is an interesting one. Had the language been Welsh, there would be a right to call this a basic skill, because Welsh is on par with the English language here. The BSL recognition we have in the UK is nothing short of tokenistic bullshit.

Source: Hansard, They Work for You

Update in Plain English: In the UK English and Maths courses in adult education are free. The government classes them as essential or basic skills. The question above, asked if lipreading classes or BSL classes could be an essential or a 'skill for life' / basic skill for deaf people, and thus free. Parliament said no, it is not a basic skill or a life skill for deaf people. Deaf people are expected to pay for course costs. In Wales, Welsh language courses are a basic skill, because of the status of the language. i.e. Welsh courses in Wales are free. We don't have the same language status for BSL, so can't apply the same reasoning. Why this is, is another story.

Posted by alison at 8:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

A question was tabled in the House of Commons around a national 999 sms service:

Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up a nationwide 999 text message service for deaf people who cannot telephone the emergency services.

The reply:

Vernon Coaker (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office)

An emergency text relay service is already available to give the deaf and hard of hearing access to the emergency services. In addition a working group, including representatives from the emergency services and the mobile operators, has been set up by the 999 Liaison Committee to see whether an SMS emergency number service can be provided.

Why doesn't the government ever get it? I've yet to see a question properly answered in parliament.

Whilst there might be an emergency text (as in minicom / TTY) service, who has a minicom these days? I don't. Do you ever see anyone carrying one about? For international readers, we don't have a internet based relay service.

Question on They Work for You

Posted by alison at 11:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Earlier Jen posted a reply from the BBC in respect of BBC See Hear, and the proposed cut backs. In the comments, I left a copy of an e mail I had sent to the BBC asking the BBC what it was doing in respect of its obligations under the Disability Equality Duty (DED). Why hadn't the BBC consulted about the changes at See Hear?

I had since got a reply, questioning if the DED applied, as it did not include programme making (clause 2.1). In response to this suggestion, here is a rather lengthy e mail that I've sent to the BBC See Hear plus Wilf White (responsible for DED consultation). Apologies in advance for its length.

I would very much appreciate other people's thoughts on this.

Continue reading "BBC breaking the law in respect of See Hear?" »

Posted by alison at 9:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Ofcom is the regulator for the communications industries in the UK. That includes television.

Currently Ofcom has a consultation happening in respect of BSL on television. This is a major consultation, and will affect every BSL user in the UK who accesses television.

The Communications Act 2003 states that after 10 years, 5% of all output on digital channels, needs to be in BSL. (There is separate legal obligations in respect of subtitling). Now Ofcom is "consulting", in respect of the future of BSL on television. Such questions are being asked:

- should programmes be interpreted?
- would it be better to have a BSL channel instead?
- should be have a specific programme for BSL users?

etc.

I have many thoughts on this, however there is just one major thought dominating my head and has been for over two weeks.

This consultation is about BSL television, and about how BSL users are going to access television. The entire consultation is ONLY available in English. Why?

Its a bit like publishing a consultation on S4C and only making the consultation available in English and not Welsh. Say you are consulting with French speakers, but do so only in Japanese.

So where is the BSL? By Ofcom's own omission it says:

some deaf people whose first language is signing can find it difficult to understand subtitles, and so use signing to understand television programmes.

Okay, if it acknowledges that, why the hell has it only published the consultation document in English? How can it even pretend to be consulting with BSL users about their service, if the information is not available in BSL?

Instead it is consulting with groups such as the RNID. Since when did they know about BSL users, if they are intent on curing deafness and secondly operate under 100% hearing SMT, and just one Deaf person on its Board of Trustees? So how exactly is that consultation?

Thinking about what law can be used here to give Ofcom a good kick up the rear end and put an end to some institutional discrimination that's happening here, one immediately thinks of the DED.

As a public service provider, Ofcom had to publish a Disability Equality Scheme and theirs can be found here.

9.23

In developing policy that may affect disabled people, Ofcom has a duty to engage and consult with this community.

And as part of their action plan, by 2007 they are supposed to:

Review communications networks and services and assess the barriers to access and inclusion, which will include use of services by disabled customers.

Not doing very well so far then.

The whole point of the DED is that the people affected are supposed to be consulted direct, and there is more involvement by disabled and Deaf people. How can it even pretend to be consulting with BSL users, if the consultation document is not available in BSL? What is Ofcom on when it says that BSL users may respond in BSL? Okay, but how are they supposed to access your material in the first place?

What are deaf organisations doing about this, and how come no-one is even kicking up a fuss about it. Everyone asleep?

For Ofcom to pretend that it is consulting, by saying that it has spoken to the RNID makes a mockery of the whole process. It is not an organisation OF Deaf people, therefore doesn't even count as far as consultation goes here.

Is Ofcom is failing its own scheme, and in need of being reported to the Disability Rights Commission?

Posted by alison at 10:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Several weeks ago I submitted this petition at the Number 10 website:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to: 'add subtitles to all multimedia content online produced by Number 10, & respective government departments'

Downing Street currently has video content streamed on YouTube, with links from the Number 10 website.

Which streams content presented by the Prime Minister. However it carries no subtitles.

Deaf and hard of hearing people cannot access this content. Thus marginalised and not part of an 'inclusive society;.

This petition is for Downing Street to comply with the DDA and actually make all its online content accessible.

Furthermore, it calls on the government to encourage other service providers to subtitle content online, by setting an example.

This was submitted at the time the new French Prime Minister went into office, as I had found the YouTube link via the BBC website (Tony Blair congratulating the new President).

A couple of weeks later, this petition was returned to me rejected, as it had contained a link! The link happened to be the relevant page on the Number 10 website. So I resubmitted the petition, just deleting the line for the link.

The petition has now been rejected again, and I've received this reply:

Films also appear here where they carry subtitles where appropriate.

Your petition will now appear in the list of rejected petitions.

I've quickly looked at this page, and I don't see any subtitled content. I don't have time to look in more depth right now, and would appreciate anyone finding it, letting us know where it is.

Whatever. When the original petition was submitted, there was no subtitled content (that at least one could find) on that website, because I really looked. To me it looks like 3-4 weeks later they've tried to get their act together (that's assuming there's subtitles on the site).

This pisses me off, because it comes across as spin the government not wanting to admit its mistakes, and secondly, why should I even have to flag this and its not done as a matter of course?

Why can't YouTube be subtitled anyway, why do we have to search for the accessible version? What does "where appropriate" mean anyhow?

Posted by alison at 12:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday a question was tabled in the House of Commons around Language Service Professionals. A more accessible page is available on They Work for You.

Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills

(1) if he will take steps to protect the professional title of language service professionals for deaf people, including (a) BSL/English interpreters, (b) lipspeakers, (c) deaf-blind interpreters and (d) speech to text reporters;

(2) if he will take steps to create a register of all language service professionals for deaf people, including (a) BSL/English interpreters, (b) lipspeakers, (c) deaf-blind interpreters and (d) speech to text reporters for public bodies;

(3) when he will answer Questions (a) (i) 115951 and (ii) 115952 tabled on 11 January, and (b) 126821, tabled on 7 March, by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham.

The Minister answered with this reply:

Bill Rammell (Minister of State (Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education), Department for Education and Skills)

The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) have responsibility for funding providers of post-16 further education and training. This funding includes Additional Learning Support (ALS) which is used by providers to fund the additional learning needs of learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities, including those learners with hearing impairments. Providers determine how their ALS funding is used to ensure that it meets the needs of their learners.

The Department is not responsible for protecting the professional titles, or providing a register of language service professionals, as it is for providers to determine how best to meet the needs of their learners, and therefore which professionals to use to deliver this support.

This totally does not get the issue, not answer it.

Please go over there now and vote no (that it does not answer the question). The link is here (voting is in the right column).

This clearly does not answer the question, and actually detracts completely from the issue. The Government protects professions such as: social workers, teachers, solicitors, barristers, etc. So why is it detracting responsibility here?

As a side note, why are these called Language Service Professionals anyway? I absolutely detest the term. Or should we be welcoming this? Since when is speech to text a language? Don't get me wrong, I recognise there's other forms of communication support, but isn't this an open ticket for more confusion? Its difficult enough trying to get across the issues around minority languages to the mainstream anyway.

I guess in part, a lack of consultation is getting me riled up here, did anyone actually bother asking DEAF people? There is zero ownership in the UK, and deaf organisations here are so bad at it. Now someone is imposing on us that we should be making up sentences such as, "Hello, I will need an LSP to access the meeting".

Does any other country use this (crap) term?

See also:
Interpreters and the whole set up scaring me

Posted by alison at 12:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

The British Sign Language Bible Translation Project now has its own website.

I'm only going to focus on BSL as a language here. Irrespective of what your religious beliefs are (even if you have them), this is an important project in terms of raising the status of BSL. Whether the Bible is translated into a particular language has been used as one benchmark in denoting the validity of a language. After all, besides legal recognition raising the status of a language takes many forms.

Wish the site would push the language model a bit more. Who said only Deaf people would like to access the Bible in BSL?

It also states:

Why do we need a Bible in BSL?

Many Deaf people find reading English difficult; it is hard to learn English without access to the sounds of the language from birth.

I hate this sentence. Please someone hit the delete button. It comes across as BSL is the failure option, even though unlikely intended by its authors. This sort of sentence isn't unique on this site, and is seen across too much literature. We don't need to devalue BSL.

In tone, it reads like this: I tried to use English - can't, couldn't, I am a failure. Therefore they had to teach me BSL instead. Sorry about this, but I need help.

Whilst Deaf people's brain might be wired up differently, and there's the exposure to language and even educational opportunity: don't make excuses for using BSL. Some people use English, some people use BSL.

If we are going to raise the status of BSL, it needs to be treated as a language, and is used in the same way as other minority languages around the globe. No apologies or excuses necessary, as it devalues BSL. Instead it has every right to be used in the same way as English, Welsh, Gaelic, or any other language globally.

I can only hope the translation will be disseminated online, and to allow embedding on various other sites. I'm thinking of making this website as a case study from a geek angle over at Noesis, over the need to move towards web 2.0 and also the whole information thing. May take a while, as I've got several thoughts that need covering and so many posts I would like to write.

Posted by alison at 1:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Slashdot is carrying a post about Lip-Reading Surveillance Cameras

Now the British government is considering taking it literally by adding lip reading technology to some of the four million or so surveillance cameras in order identify terrorists and criminals by watching what everyone says.

Infowars expands on this:

Computer-based lip-reading technology would help video surveillance systems spot people planning a crime or terror attack by literally watching suspects’ lips for clues. Once it finds someone speaking certain key words or sentences, the system would automatically send an alert message to a central console, mobile phone, or other communications device. Police or security agents could then be dispatched to the scene to question the individual.

Lipreading is difficult enough for humans, thus how does the government expect a computer to do it? A case of artificial intelligence overtaking human intelligence? Has anyone bothered to figure how you lipread the difference between PAPER and BABY for example? Since criminal trials expect a standard beyond all reasonable doubt, how is this going to be admissible in court?

I've got a better idea. If this ever pulls off, how about trying this out on the next generation of speech to text captioning? Perhaps we could expand our access when it comes to accessing some of those spoken language vlogs we are currently unable to?

Posted by alison at 8:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Since a lot of us bang on about the lack of campaigning that happens, bottom up, something caught my eye in the Third Sector around training for campaigning. Support groups set up for campaigners by the McKechnie Foundation.

“We will be connecting people at the forefront of social change with their peers, giving them a level of support that campaigners, unlike fundraisers, have not enjoyed in the past,”

And goes onto say:

Participants in the forums will be able to discuss campaigning methods, share concerns and develop solutions to the collective challenges they face. There will also be presentations on key topics such as new media.

It appears to be after smaller groups, possibly underlying a grassroot movement:

The Foundation hopes the forums will be of particular benefit to campaigners from smaller organisations who have little access to training.

Anyone up for it?

Posted by alison at 8:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

A Number 10 petition petition has been set up around the use of accredited and professional interpreters in legal proceedings. This isn't limited to BSL, but other languages too:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ensure that accredited and professional interpreters are used in legal proceedings, from time of arrest throughout the judicial system, and that 'language agencies' who provide unqualified so-called interpreters should be strictly monitiored and disqualified from providing interpreting services. More details

Further detail is provided as:

Unqualified interpreters are being employed at police stations and at Court, to provide a service that must be accurate and professionally undertaken.

Only interpreters from the 'Nation Register of Public Service Interpreters' should be used for judicial purposes (including the initial stages of an investigation). Members have proved themselves to be proficient, having passed stringent exams, and are monitored regularly.

Most agencies employ unqualified interpreters, many of whom cannot speak English; they are generally unqualified and do not meet the standard required, thus, foreign offenders 'get off', due to poor interpretation services from the outset.

The police, CPS, and Courts MUST use accredited interpreters.

With so many foreign migrant workers in the UK, the NRPSI network of accredited interpreters MUST be used, in order that foreign offenders can be treated in the same way as indigenous Britons.

Whilst I support this, I feel frustrated how little people really understand how things work online. Again, as with my question around the subtitling petition, I immediately ask is the time frame realistic? Waiting one whole year loses momentum, and a week is a long time in cyberspace, nevermind a year. I will have forgotten about this in a month, and the long timeframe discourages me from the urgency to address this. Even if you need time to reach out to others through conferences, and written publications, it is still too long. Do people really need one year to collect names?

Posted by alison at 11:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It seems that Deaf people aren't allowed to stand for election because of an election law dating back to 1766. Bournemouth Council disqualified "deaf and dumb persons" from standing as councillors.

For international readers, a Councillor is an elected person, involved with stragetic and political governance of their local council. Politics and administration on a local scale.

Bournemouth has since apologised, for the language used. However, nowhere in the reporting does it state that Deaf people can become Councillors, and just highlights an old law as an excuse to discriminate. If this council needs a little help, may I point out that we've already had two Deaf Councillors who use BSL, David Buxton and Stephen Dering. Both have since stood down, but it begs a question. Myra Goldberg also stood for council elections too.

Because of this law, does this mean that David and Stephen's time as Councillors was invalid and illegal? Or has this law since been repealed? How would this stand up to the DDA or Disability Equality Duty anyway?

Source.

Continue reading "Deaf and dumb banned from being Councillors!" »

Posted by alison at 3:57 PM