Appendix 16
Memorandum by Mr David Buxton
ELECTORAL LAW AND ADMINISTRATION
In the years 1990, 1994, and 1998, I stood as the
Liberal Democrat council candidate in the London Boroughs of Southwark
and Lewisham. I won in 1990 to become a Southwark Councillor for
four years. Southwark Council had to pay sign language interpreters
for any Council meetings that I attended, but would not agree
to pay for my surgeries, tenant/resident's meetings and relevant
casework visitings. However, I fought hard in the first three
months with the help of my Chief Whip and in the end they agreed
to pay up to 10 hours a month. It was not enough to enable me
to fulfil my public role to the full.
Secondly, in the above elections and in the 1997
General Election, I stood as the Liberal Democrat parliamentary
candidate for the constituency of Lewisham East. It is my understanding
that I was the first ever born-deaf parliamentary candidate in
British political history using British Sign Language as my first
language.
During the election campaigns, it was totally impractical
for me to employ a qualified sign language interpreter. A qualified
sign language interpreter costs in total about £120 per day
plus travelling expenses. However, working full time on an election
campaign would have required using two interpreters, as interpreters
require breaks throughout the day.
Over the five weeks of the General Election campaign,
I only at least half managed to carry out my duties as a parliamentary
candidate through the kind voluntary assistance of my hearing
friends, who were not qualified but willing to help with sign
language interpreting and voice-overs for public meetings. If
I had paid for a qualified sign language interpreter a very sizeable
share of my campaign budget would have been used up, due to the
strict election law for campaign expenses limit.
I believe it is vital that recognition is given to
the extra costs facing deaf and other disabled people where standing
for public office. This would not be a huge step for Parliament
to take as the extra costs facing elected MPs are already recognised.
For example, I understand that Anne Begg MP, who has Gaucher's
disease receives an extra allowance of £20,000; Bernie Grant
MP can claim allowances 33 per cent higher than other MPs as a
result of his diabetes, and David Blunkett, the Secretary of State
for Education and Employment can claim allowances 157 per cent
higher than the standard rate for MPs due to his blindness.
In addition to specific assistance being offered
to disabled MPs, it is also worth noting that assistance is given
to disabled people in obtaining employment through the Access
to the Work scheme. This scheme is partly based on the assumption
that there are certain specific costs facing deaf and disabled
people.
There is a desperate need for the Home Office to
allow personal assistance to deaf and disabled people standing
for public office. Funding from the Home Office would allow a
deaf person to employ a qualified sign language interpreter (or
perhaps instead a palantypist or a lipspeaker) and for other disabled
people to cope with any extra costs that they might face, for
example in travelling.
It is vital that deaf and disabled people are given
a full and equal chance to stand for public office. For this to
ever occur there must be a clear recognition by the Home Office
of the extra communication and other cost facing deaf and other
disabled people throughout an election campaign.
Finally, I am not speaking for myself as a Liberal
Democrat but for all the political parties to ensure that deaf
and disabled people are given opportunities to stand for which
ever political party they believe in.
2 June 1998
| 
