Campaigning in the local elections for deaf children

This blog is about the local elections happening in some parts of England on 5th May. No, come back! I’ll try and make it interesting!

I normally pay little attention to the local elections, even though I’m a self-confessed political geek. This time, I’m making an exception because of the cuts that local councils are making to services for deaf children across England. These decisions were made by councillors now seeking re-election. The local election is the perfect opportunity to hold them to account and to remind them that their fate lies in my pen-wielding fingers [Insert *evil cackle* here].

As far as I can tell, the local elections are rarely exploited by campaigners like me. My guess is that many local councillors will be so unused to even being even noticed, they may be quite startled to be targeted and asked what they’re doing to protect and save services for deaf children. All local authorities are required to publish names and addresses of their candidates. So I’m calling on people to go to their council website, find out who’s standing in their area and get their local candidates to pledge to support deaf children where there are elections taking place in their hood.

One place where I’m taking a very close interest in Stoke on Trent, where swingeing cuts have been made to the education service for deaf children. With my National Deaf Children’s Society hat on, I have written to all the councillor candidates in the area asking them to sign a pledge to help deaf children. I’ve also been sending tips and guidance to parents on how to do the same. It will be interesting to see how it goes. Pledges have a bit of a bad rep at the moment (not naming names, but I’m sure Nick Clegg knows what I’m talking about) but, if anything, the hope is that no councillor after the 5th May will be ignorant about the need to save services for deaf children. And hopefully they will be looking nervously behind their shoulders to see what parents of deaf children think in the meantime.

Equality safeguards under attack?

I hate silly rules. I hate being told not to do things that I would never do anyway. Boo to silly patronising rules.

So when the Government say they want to cut red tape and bureaucracy and free up business, who could disagree? Let’s fire up the economy and have a street party!

But hang on a minute. Aren’t some rules there for a reason? Aren’t they there to protect vulnerable people? To make sure that their needs aren’t being overlooked?

Take the Equality Act and (before that) the Disability Discrimination Act. They contain duties seeking to protect disabled people from discrimination. I didn’t get the memo that disability discrimination has now been eradicated. Oh, it hasn’t.

The Act also include duties for public sector bodies: to make sure they assess the impact of their polices on disabled people and consult and involve them in decisions about them. All evidence I’ve seen suggests this leads to better policy-making. It certainly stops you from doing something stupid like halving the number of Teachers of the Deaf and still pretending it will have no impact on the service for deaf children.

Other important duties exist to safeguard the rights of deaf and other disabled children – in particular:
* the right to be assessed and have special educational needs support in schools
* to receive social care support such as short breaks
* to equal access to education
* to investigate where a child may be suffering harm

These duties are important. The last time I looked deaf children were still 35% less likely than all children to achieve 5 GCSEs (incl. English and Maths) at grades A* to C – even though deafness is not a learning disability. Still more likely to suffer mental health problems and be victims of child abuse. Still among the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children in society today. With public spending cuts now starting to bite, these rights and duties are even more important – to make sure that a relatively small group of children are not forgotten about and still get the support they need to achieve their potential.

So why, despite all of this, does the Government seem intent on getting rid of these basic protections? To ask once whether these are important duties would be worrying enough. But to ask thrice would imply seem sort of concerted attack on the rights of disabled children.

Exhibit number one: the “Red Tape Challenge”, asking whether the Equality Act should be scrapped altogether.

Exhibit number two: the Government Equalities Office asking how to reduce “bureaucracy” associated with the Equality Act public sector duty.

Exhibit number three: the Communities and Local Government “informal” review of all statutory duties.

My first response to all of this is: is it a good use of government money to be running three concurrent consultations asking the same sort of questions? Could the money not be better spent on, say, reducing the deficit or protecting deaf children?

My second response to all of this is: are you for real? Are they seriously questioning whether we should just do away with equality duties and duties that protect children? The starting assumption in all three consultations is that these duties are bad, bureaucratic, burdensome. I always thought promoting equality for disabled people was a good thing. Does society really want to be wasting the huge many talents (such as modesty) of people like me? Do they not think I have a right to have a say on decisions that affect me? I might have some good ideas of my own (like fewer consultations). Do we no longer want to make sure disabled children are protected?

To be fair, in the latter consultation, the defendant does recognise that some duties are vital (though they don’t ask whether some duties should be strengthened). But I would argue that some duties are so vital, it’s offensive to even question whether they should be scrapped. It’s also alarming in the extreme to parents of deaf children who, I think, have enough to worry about than participate in some “I’m a bureaucratic regulatory burden, get me out of here!” charade.

A desire to cut red tape should not be at the cost of essential protections for deaf children. End of.

Councils failing to come clean on cuts to help for deaf children

I’ve never been to Stoke on Trent. I can count on the one hand the number of people I personally know who’ve ever been to Stoke on Trent. Until recently, the most I knew was that they’re into their pottery. And now, thanks to their swinging cuts to help for deaf children, I know more about Stoke on Trent than I ever expected to at the start of the year.

And the big thing I’ve learnt is that council officials making cuts cannot or will not give straight answers to straight questions. I make an example of Stoke on Trent because I worry that other councils are playing the same games with deaf children’s futures – and it cannot go unchallenged.

We knew that even though the number of Teachers of the Deaf had been cut by half, there was a risk of further redundancies. What stunned me is that they would even think about making further cuts so soon after parents launched a campaign to save the service. Once you’ve been busted, you don’t try and get away with it a second time. But no, they went ahead and cut another post.

Or did they? The council deny it. A flat denial, no less. No redundancies, no cuts, no worries. This is technically right. But it’s also wrong. Confused? I think the council wants you to be.

We know from parents of deaf children with inside information that interviews have taken place among the entire team. We know that one Teacher of the Deaf has not been “placed” as a Teacher of the Deaf and has been verbally told as such. So she’s not working with deaf children. But because she hasn’t (yet) been made formally redundant and is still technically a Teacher of the Deaf, the council can say with a straight face there’s been no reductions or cuts. No matter that deaf children in the area will now have one less Teacher of the Deaf supporting them than a week before.

What really offends me is that rather than come clean with local parents of deaf children, explain the situation, work with them, get their views, the council seem intent on making cuts by the back door and providing parents of deaf children with as little information as possible.

It’s outrageous and I’m really glad that local parents of deaf children are challenging the council on this. The council cannot be allowed to get away with it.

Across the rest of England, NDCS has now issued Freedom of Information requests in other areas where councils have not yet come clean about their plans.

When things fall on deaf ears in Parliament

I’ve set up an alert with the lovely people at theyworkforyou.com so that whenever a politician mentions the word ‘deaf’, I get an email alert. I’m thinking of setting up some system where a big red flashing light comes up whenever deafness is uttered in the Houses of Parliament and I’m propelled into a deafmobile that rushes me to Westminster.

Anyhow, I’m really glad I did set up this alert. These politicians are ALWAYS asking deaf people for help and information. I never noticed it before. It’s really quite touching, that we, deaf people, are held in such high esteem that we are so often called upon in the corridors of power.

But I am sorry to say that we deaf people are FAILING the politicians. They cry to us, like hungry puppies, and we ignore them. And now when they ask us for help, they know we will not act.

Let us consider some recent cries for help:

Lord Howarth of Newport said on the 29th March: My fear is that appeals to traditional constitutionalism may over time fall on deaf judicial ears.

Jim Fitzpatrick MP said on the 24th March: I hope he will give some reassurance that the efforts of the brave men and women of the coastguard service and those who depend on them, as well as those who support them, will not fall on deaf ears.

Jo Swinson MP said on the 21st March: If we did not act, we would send the message that if populations asserted themselves and demanded their rights, asking the international community for help when peaceful protest was met with murder, their request for help would fall on deaf ears.

Oh my golly gosh, I feel so guilty. All of these calls for help falling on my big old deaf ears and I didn’t do anything about it. And clearly they’ve begun to notice. They talk about things falling on my ears as being a BAD thing. Oh no.

Mind you, what can a humble guy like me do? What do I know about coastguards, judicial constitutionalism and Libya? Whilst I hate to spurn calls for help, surely there are better ears for these issues to fall on?

I urge the politicians to STOP letting things fall on deaf ears. There’s only so much burden we can take.

Learning to talk to media

I had media training last week. I was done over by a proper hardcore TV journalist at the end of the day and then forced to listen to myself on tape afterwards.

My first thought was that whilst I sound like a sophisticated metro kinda guy in my head, on tape, I’m very deep and fast. A bit like a miner who’s drank way too many cappucinos. I pited the palantypists.

My second thought is that I probably pause too long when I get a question I’m not expecting. And that’s there is no graceful way of saying “Err…” for 30 seconds.

Aside from that, I surprised myself in not being too bad at it. The journalist flattered me by saying I have a “nice turn of phrase”. How my cheeks blushed, like a scarlet leaf on the promise of an autumn day, like a… etc. Truth be told, my mock interviews were about cuts to help for deaf children and I simply allowed my outrage to show. It was a good thing the training was in a monastery or I might have let some naughty words slip through.

On a more serious note, I learnt it’s not as easy as it looks. There’s no point speaking to journalists unless you’ve got something to say and can say it clearly and with oomph. And it’s very easy to stray off-message and talk about something that isn’t really going to help the campaign. And it’s really not cool to say “Err…” for 30 seconds.

Should we all be making more of the need to get media right in order to get campaigns right?