I am duly chastised by Dennis Robertson for the speed at which I speak. I have to strike a balance and get through all of what I have to say today. Hopefully, the signers can keep up.
In Edinburgh, we held an open meeting at Deaf Action, where we discussed the bill with adult BSL users. There was enthusiastic support for the bill, even though it was seen as a stepping stone in a long-term project to improve access to services for BSL users.
To enable people to share their views in BSL, we set up a Facebook group, which provided an easy way for people to communicate by posting BSL video clips. The group has attracted more than 2,300 members and been shown to be a good example of how public bodies can be inclusive and accessible for deaf people.
Throughout our work, we published key documents in BSL and our evidence sessions were broadcast with live BSL interpretation. The views of the deaf community have been extremely valuable in helping us to understand the context of the bill. We are grateful to everyone who submitted views and evidence to us.
I now turn to the committee’s findings. First, I am grateful to the minister for his response to our report, which he has helpfully provided in time for the debate. While everyone who gave evidence to us agreed with the aim of the bill—to raise the profile of BSL—there were different views about whether the bill was the best way to achieve it. Some public authorities told us that they felt that the existing legislation was sufficient, and they therefore opposed the bill. Most cited the Equality Act 2010—which provides protection for people with certain characteristics, including a disability—as the appropriate mechanism for addressing the communication needs of deaf people. It was suggested that BSL users were already protected under the act, as employers and service providers have an obligation to anticipate the needs of employees and service users and to make reasonable adjustments for them.
We explored that viewpoint in detail during our open meeting at Deaf Action and in our discussions with witnesses. From those discussions, it became clear to us that the bill is about promoting BSL as a minority language. That is an entirely different approach from using legislation that protects deaf people based on the view that they are disabled.
The British Deaf Association put it succinctly in saying that the Equality Act 2010
“accords rights to individuals to protect them from discrimination but it does not protect or promote BSL as a language.”
The bill is an important step in helping to meet the linguistic needs of BSL users in the same way that previous legislation did for the Gaelic language in Scotland. That is distinct from the protection that is offered by existing equality legislation, which identifies BSL users as disabled.
During our scrutiny process, we were also acutely aware that the bill does not impose obligations on service providers or confer rights on BSL users. We were therefore keen to find out whether the BSL community felt that the bill goes far enough. The clear message that came back was that it is a positive first step to improving services for BSL users.
The preparation of BSL plans is the primary means by which the bill seeks to promote BSL, so those plans are crucial to the delivery of the bill’s objectives. From the views that we received, there was general agreement that the planning framework that is proposed in the bill—in which the Scottish Government’s national plan sets out priorities that inform and guide the lower-level authority plans—is a sensible and strategic model. For the committee, the most important thing is whether the BSL plans deliver the improvements that the bill aims to achieve, which are to heighten the profile of BSL and to increase its use in the delivery of services. The quality of the national plan will, of course, be crucial in that respect, as it will set the tone for the authority plans.
As I mentioned earlier, we received lots of views and comments on the bill via Facebook and during our informal discussions. BSL users told us about the challenges that deaf people experience when they are accessing services, and they called for BSL plans to address the following key priorities: the promotion of BSL in an education setting; improving access to healthcare and social care for BSL users; improving employment opportunities for BSL users; providing early years support for deaf children and their families; enabling the inclusion of BSL users in cultural and leisure activities; and recognising the particular communication needs of deafblind people and ensuring that their interests are taken into account.
If the bill is passed, the Scottish Government and public authorities must ensure that their plans are meaningful and reflect the needs of the BSL community. Effective engagement and consultation with BSL users will be crucial to the development of meaningful plans, and we strongly agree with the view that the bill should require BSL plans to be made available in BSL. Frankly, it is inconceivable that plans would not be made available in BSL. I note the Scottish Government’s view that the cost of translating BSL plans would now be classed as an additional cost of the bill rather than be subsumed under the existing equality duties, as had been previously suggested.
We also welcome the Scottish Government’s proposal to establish an advisory group that will provide advice to the Scottish ministers. As the national plan will set the framework for action on BSL, the advisory group will have a key responsibility in ensuring that the bill is implemented and meets the needs of BSL users. It will be important to ensure that the membership of the advisory group reflects the interests of the BSL community and supports the minister’s commitment to ensure that BSL users, including deafblind BSL users, are represented on the group. Their expertise and knowledge will be vital in ensuring that the advisory group provides effective advice and guidance to ministers.
In addition, we suggested in our report that the group’s expertise could be of assistance to a wide range of public bodies, not just the Scottish Government, and we would be keen for it to act as a resource that is available to all listed authorities under the bill. We very much welcome the minister’s suggestion that that will indeed be the case and that the advisory group will provide guidance on the style and content of authority plans.
The committee supports the proposal to extend the scope of the national plan to include public authorities with a national function that are accountable to the Scottish ministers. We recognise that that will lead to fewer plans being produced and reduce bureaucracy. In our report, we cautioned that incorporating the plans into a single national plan must not dilute public authorities’ accountability for delivering the actions that are included in the plan. I note the minister’s comments that, in his view, that approach would strengthen the level of accountability and not dilute it.
The important thing for the committee is whether the bill will help to deliver improvements for BSL users. In addition to introducing BSL plans, the bill proposes a performance review that is to be carried out by the Scottish Government and laid before the Scottish Parliament. The performance review will provide a basis for the Scottish ministers and listed authorities to be held to account on their performance against the actions in their published plans. Therefore, the review element is central to the bill’s success.
The information provided by listed authorities in their plans will be used to judge performance. However, as the first cycle of plans will not include such information, that will not take effect until the second performance review and beyond. As the minister has usefully indicated in his response to our report, an alternative approach to collecting information during the first cycle to inform the first performance review will need to be developed.
The Scottish Government has suggested moving away from what the bill describes as a “Performance Review” to what would instead be called a progress report. That is partly because of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities concern that it would be inappropriate for the Scottish ministers to assess local authorities’ performance as it
“suggests a top down, command and control relationship between the Scottish Government and local authorities rather than the partnership relationship which currently exists.”
Although the committee understands COSLA’s concerns, we did not arrive at a final position on the Scottish Government’s proposal and asked for further clarity about how the progress report would operate. We look forward to receiving updates on that from the minister, which we will consider in the context of any amendments that are lodged at stage 2.
On the cycle for publishing BSL plans and performance reviews, the bill suggests that that should be done every parliamentary session. As a result, there are some fairly complex arrangements that take account of, for example, the early dissolution of the Parliament. Therefore, we agree with the Scottish Government that there would be merit in simplifying the process by decoupling the publication cycle from the parliamentary timetable. However, we did not arrive at a conclusion on what length the new cycle should be. Some people suggested to us that five years was too short; others were concerned that extending the cycle any further could mean the loss of more educational opportunities for deaf children. The minister is now proposing a cycle of six years, which we will consider at stage 2.
We accept that there would be benefits in allowing a longer lead-in time for the publication of the first national plan than the bill provides for. An extended timetable would allow the BSL national advisory group to be established, and I think it likely that the committee would support such an amendment.
We, along with the Government, recognise that the bill could give rise to further cost implications, such as the costs in implementing the plans. Although there are likely to be additional costs, that is not a reason to oppose legislation that seeks to support the BSL community’s communication needs. The minister has expressed a similar opinion.
I will mention briefly one other issue that is included in our report: the provision for a minister to be appointed with special responsibility for BSL. We are content with the Scottish Government’s suggestion of removing that requirement on the basis of ministers’ collective responsibility and the understanding that BSL sits within a ministerial portfolio.
The committee supports the bill’s general principles and recommends that the Parliament agrees to them. It is clear that further work is going on behind the scenes to give effect to some of the proposed changes that Mark Griffin and I have highlighted and any that the minister may mention in his contribution.
The committee welcomes that the Scottish Government and the member in charge have shown willingness to work together to develop the bill. We look forward to considering any amendments that are lodged at stage 2.
14:38