CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

MADE BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 8 OCTOBER 2013

SIR MALCOLM BRUCE and STEPHEN LLOYD

MR JOHN BARON, MR JIM CUNNINGHAM, JIM DOBBIN, MRS MARY GLINDON and MR DAVID NUTTALL

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations

Made before the Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 8 October 2013

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr David Amess

Bob Blackman

John Hemming

Mr Marcus Jones

Ian Mearns

Sir Malcolm Bruce and Stephen Lloyd made representations.

Q1 Chair: Thank you very much for bringing this to the Committee. This debate has had quite a long gestation period. We are very grateful that you have come. Certainly in terms of MPs’ postbags, this has been quite a big issue for people. If you could outline what this debate is for, for the sake of the record, that would be great.

Sir Malcolm Bruce: First, thank you very much for being so indulgent: for letting us come, and for allowing us that gestation period. There were, however, a number of reasons for that.

We would like to have a debate now mainly because a number of issues have come to a head. There is a general recognition that deaf people need support, particularly communications support, for work, education and just social engagement. At the best of times, it is not as good as it should be and, obviously, these are not the best of times, so we have a real concern.

The previous Government had an initiative called I-Sign, which worked on pilot schemes in Devon and Merseyside to support deaf children and their families. It was very successful, but so far the current Government have not extended it. They have not ruled it out, but they have not actually delivered, so it would be good to make some progress on that.

In addition, we had an early-day motion earlier in the year on recognition and support for sign language. It was recognised by the Department for Work and Pensions, but that does not make it recognised in a fully legal sense and there was really strong support for saying that we need to do more to give support to sign language users.

Let me say, in parentheses, that it is a British language; it is an indigenous language-or languages, because there is Irish sign language as well. There are people for whom it is their only language, which is not true of languages such as Welsh and Gaelic: I do not know anybody who speaks Welsh or Gaelic who does not speak English, but there are people who use BSL who have limited communication capacity in English.

You will be aware, I think, that the National Deaf Children’s Society ran a petition, which generated more than 50,000 signatures, calling for support for services specifically for deaf children. That is something else that we would like to focus on. In the current economic climate, there is real concern that local authorities, which are really responsible for delivering these services, could be cutting back. One of the suggestions is that a standard should be set for local authorities, and perhaps Ofsted should inspect objectively to see that those standards are maintained and made accountable.

Those are the key points. Perhaps I should say, selfishly, that I have a private Member’s Bill coming up-unfortunately, not high enough on the list. Again, there has been a huge amount of work put into it by an awful lot of agencies representing deaf people, who genuinely want to see these issues taken forward. A debate in the Chamber of the House would demonstrate that Parliament understands the needs of those people and wishes to have a full debate and make proper representations at all levels of Government to ensure that deaf people get the support that they need.

Q2 Chair: Okay, that’s great. So it would be a three-hour debate with a substantive motion. It is quite a long substantive motion. Could you please read it out for the record?

Sir Malcolm Bruce: It is a draft motion. If you think it is too long, it can be curtailed. If you want me to read it for the record, I will:

"That this House recognises the importance of services for deaf children and young people and acknowledges the wide attainment gap; further recognises that communications support for deaf children and their parents is vital for social development and educational progress; acknowledges that the Government has stated there is an expectation that funding for vulnerable learners is protected but is concerned about recent evidence"-produced by the NDCS-"which shows that in 2013/14 over a third of local authorities plan to cut education services for deaf children; urges the Government to take steps to hold local authorities to account and support parents in doing so, including by asking Ofsted to inspect these vital services, improving access to communication support including sign language, and strengthening the Children and Families Bill; and urges the Government to deliver and implement reform of special educational needs (SEN)."

It is giving local authorities, Government and Ofsted responsibilities.

Q3 Chair: You’ve covered all bases. Thank you. Stephen Lloyd, would you like to add anything?

Stephen Lloyd: Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Committee. I have a quick couple of things to say in support of my colleague, Malcolm. There is a line that might surprise you, that deafness is not a learning disability. Of course, we all know that, but if you look at the outcomes of the data of the percentage of people who are profoundly deaf-not someone such as myself who is hard of hearing-about half the number of people get pass GCSE results compared with hearing people. That is half, yet this is not a learning disability. That is clearly due to communication issues.

The figure actually shows 37% of deaf children last year achieving five good GCSEs, compared with 69% of other children. I can tell you from my many years of experience in the field that around 65% to 70% of deaf people are unemployed. Consequently, the positive steps taken by the previous Government in putting some proper investment into education and quality teaching for deaf children is beginning to make a real difference. If it is reduced, it would be a real blow. The debate would give us an opportunity to present that and some real data on the Floor of the House. I think that would make a real difference.

Chair: Thank you very much for that. This coming Thursday has been allocated, but this afternoon we will be allocating for the Thursday after that. We also provisionally have the Thursday after that in the Chamber. We will let you know as and when that becomes allocated. Thank you for coming.

Sir Malcolm Bruce: Thank you.

Stephen Lloyd: Thank you.

Mr John Baron, Mr Jim Cunningham, Jim Dobbin, Mrs Mary Glindon and Mr David Nuttall made representations.

Q4 Chair: You have been here several times before, so we do not need to go through how this works. The topic is defence reform.

Mr Baron: Yes, it is. I will just briefly run over it. I hope the Committee has the motion in front of it; that gives a good flavour. Why do we think this is urgent now? Because the Government are placing great hopes on their plan to replace 20,000 regulars with 30,000 reserves. As we speak, the redundancy notices are imminent for the regular troops, yet more and more reports are coming out that the reservist targets are being missed. Not only that, but the number of TA soldiers is actually falling, not increasing. We have had a recent MOD report that states that the operation to boost the number of reservists is falling well short of its required targets for both this year and next. It acknowledges that publication in July of the Reserves White Paper has done little to improve the situation. It is now talking about its costing a lot more money and affecting morale. So we have that on one side.

On the other side, we have a recent report by the Combat Stress charity that says we have a ticking time bomb here, because mental health problems are more acute among reservists, because the support is not there, so there is extra cost there. Meanwhile, the Government refuse to come to Parliament with a fully costed plan. They keep telling us that everything is fine in the garden, but when we press them, they fail to produce a fully costed plan. The bits of the jigsaw that we know are alarming. I could go into more detail if the Committee wishes.

Q5 Chair: Could you just read out the text of your substantive motion? You are asking for a three-hour debate in the Chamber on a substantive motion?

Mr Baron: A three-hour debate in the Chamber, yes. It might be tweaked slightly, but this is the essence of the motion: "That this House notes concerns about the Government’s defence reforms; questions whether its Reservist plans will deliver either the cost savings or the defence capability it expects; and urges the Government to delay the disbandment of regular units until it is established the Army Reserve plan will work." We could add, "and is cost-effective".

Q6 Chair: Does anyone wish to add anything to that?

Mr Cunningham: I certainly support John. I will not rehearse the history of this, because we have had all sorts of debates, but I think the Government should be made to come along and tell us exactly what the costs are going to be and how the recruitment is going. More importantly, at the end of the day, the defence of this country is at stake.

Q7 Mr Amess: John, when was the last time that this issue was debated?

Mr Baron: I am not sure that this issue per se has been debated. You may refer back to the fusiliers debate a year ago, but that was on a specific battalion issue. This is a much broader matter. Why has it arisen? Because we have had a series of reports telling us that we are missing our reserve recruitment targets. TA numbers are falling. We have had more anecdotal evidence of rising costs. For example, employers are deemed to be reluctant now to let key employees go for extended periods, which is why the Government are throwing more money at employers, and all the time the costs are going up. Every time we ask for a fully costed plan, whether at Defence questions or during Defence statements, we hit a stone wall.

Q8 Chair: May I ask about the Defence Reform Bill that is in Committee at the moment? Is the issue covered by that Bill?

Mr Baron: We do not need legislation to reduce the size of the Army. You can reduce the Army from 102,000 to 82,000 without any legislation whatever. The Defence Reform Bill touches on where the reservists will be deployed and so on, but does not essentially address this fundamental issue of a fully costed plan being lacking, when all we get are reports of costs going up, recruitment numbers and targets being missed, and recruitment going down.

Q9 Chair: If this were something that would come under the Bill, obviously we would refer you to amendments to it.

Mr Baron: To answer your question directly, you do not need legislation to cut Army numbers. The motion is saying: Stop cutting the regular troops until we know for sure that the reservist plan will work and will be cost-effective. At the moment, we have not had a straightforward answer from the Government on those two issues.

Q10 John Hemming: As with the previous item, there is a need for a motion. Obviously, we need the Chamber for that. It cannot go to Westminster Hall. Is there any issue of timeliness? Is there an urgency that requires it to be considered in the next week, or in the next month or two months?

Mr Baron: The sooner the better, because the redundancy notices are about to go out. We could leave it a month or two, but we are losing experienced-dare I use the term?-battled-hardened troops all the time, and meanwhile, the only reports we are getting back is that we are missing our recruitment targets. There is a real concern here that we could have a gaping big hole, which is why I think there is good cross-party interest in this issue. This is not about more spending commitments; it is about whether taxpayers’ money is being spent well on a plan that, at the moment, all the evidence suggests is failing.

Chair: Thank you very much. As I said to the previous group, we have the Thursday after next, which we will be allocating now. We provisionally have the Thursday after that, but we will let you know.

Mr Baron: Potentially, if I may ask, could it be next Thursday?

Chair: It could be, but we have a full list of things that have come beforehand. Thank you for bringing that to us. We will let you know this afternoon.