Grumpy Old Deafies

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 (0) | 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 (7) | 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 (1) | 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