Chamber and committees

July—that is what I was thinking. Perhaps I can come back in early autumn.

I think that the way to identify the answer to that question is probably to consult the community about ideas on where it would like to see progress. On language policy, it is always fascinating that politicians generally crave targets, outcomes and outputs, and rightly so, but that often misses the wealth of heritage, history, community and culture, which are harder to squeeze into obvious outcomes. We see that with other languages as well.

I wonder whether there is a question to pose to the community, both from the committee’s perspective when you think about your recommendations and in relation to the Government’s decisions on which actions to prioritise.

There are two specific routes for monitoring. First, there is our own progress report, which is produced halfway through the lifespan of the plan. We will work with the implementation advisory group on the national plan to ensure that that reflects the experiences of BSL users. The progress report will set that out in black and white. That will be available for the committee to scrutinise so that it can be clear about what progress has or has not been made.

The other form of monitoring relates to the engagement that takes place across all the listed authorities for the sharing of best practice. As I said earlier, we fund BDA Scotland to support those listed authorities as they develop and implement their plans. It is an on-going iterative process.

From listening to the committee, I get the strong impression that it is keen for us to explore a third alternative to those two forms of monitoring. I am certainly open to doing that, because we want to understand how to ensure that best practice is followed across all the different listed authorities. We are also aware of the ALLIANCE’s recent report on local plans. We engage regularly with it as part of the implementation advisory group.

I am very open to anything that the committee believes that we can do to improve monitoring, while stressing the point that monitoring can sometimes morph into direction. There are reasons why, in this particular subject area, direction from the centre is not always the most effective way of progressing matters, especially when national targets are created that may distort what a local area wants to prioritise.

On the points from the BDA around accountability, implementation, and inconsistency, the point about inconsistency reflects—fairly, I think—my comments at the outset in relation to the convener’s first question. In some areas there is high-quality, excellent provision—there is a very positive response to that—and in other areas, they say, “We want what they’ve got”. The point is about having that consistency across the country, so I take on board the criticism about the inconsistency.

In terms of accountability and tracking the spend, we invest considerably in organisations that work with and represent deaf BSL users and deafblind people in Scotland; we have referenced some of them already—BDA Scotland, the Scottish Ethnic Minority Deaf Charity and Deafblind Scotland—and then separately we are investing funding in improving services. I do not know whether the committee has been sighted on some of the work that we have done through the Scottish Government CivTech programme on improving accessibility to BSL interpreters. That can all be closely monitored and evaluated.

There is a difference between Gaelic and BSL—and this may not be a difference that the committee is willing to tolerate and the feedback might be, “No, we want to see you change this”. There is a difference because of the responsibility on listed authorities. For example, having specialist BSL social workers is a responsibility of local authorities, so it is for local authorities to monitor. Tracking the spend becomes more challenging when there are areas of responsibility on local authorities. I would say that the difference with Gaelic is that it is managed on a more national level rather than on a more local level.

There may be points to consider there around whether the Scottish Government should take responsibility for more funding from the centre that then becomes specialist funding, which would be different from how things have been approached so far, which is about more mainstreaming; local authorities get their pot of funding and then they determine how that is spent. That is a difference and perhaps leads to the challenge around tracking the money because it is happening at a local and national level.

The one point of challenge I would make is that sometimes the temptation is to say, “Bring it back to the centre,” so we bring it back and then we get into the difficulty I referenced earlier where you then have the Scottish Government determining that every part of Scotland should get an allocated pot for this service and that service, which may mean that some local authority areas find themselves focusing on a particular priority that may not be the top priority.

For example, in the Highland Council area, their argument would be that even though they have the training provision for BSL, their big challenge is recruitment. Another area may have exhausted the funding for training and need more funding for the training because there is an ample supply of people who are interested. None of those issues are insurmountable—we can overcome them all—and the committee’s challenge is helpful in that regard.

Kevin, do you have anything to add on the point around accountability and tracking spend?

Our responsibility is to improve the quality of life for BSL users, especially deaf and deafblind BSL users. In terms of that parity of esteem, we work with key partners who represent the deaf and the deafblind communities in Scotland. That is part of the work of the implementation advisory group, whose members are the ones who ultimately provide accountability on the actions in the plan and provide their experience to help strengthen its delivery. The point is that it is not just me telling the committee where I believe that progress has or has not been made, because we have the implementation advisory group, and key partners who represent deafblind communities are involved with it, and they are the ones who advise us whether progress has been made.

I think that your question was whether there is parity of esteem between all BSL users, and I stress that the partners who represent deafblind and deaf communities are represented on the implementation advisory group.

Kevin McGowan or Andrew Godfrey-Meers might want to say more on that.

Thank you very much for sharing that. I know that you will be very aware of all the work that we are doing around domestic abuse and the funding that is available there. Of course, that also needs to take into account BSL users.

Let me consider the question in the wider context of BSL users’ experiences in the justice system. We are working on an amendment to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill to remove the legislative barrier that prevents people with certain physical disabilities from serving as jurors. We think that we need to make more progress in and around BSL users’ experiences of participating in the justice system. That is not only about supporting them as survivors, but also about supporting them to participate in every aspect of the justice system. You and I know that it is often the case that, if we do not have representation from a community in every aspect of the justice system, we are less likely to see progress.

We also think that it is important to roll out different forms of support. Different types of communication supporters will be allowed to be present in the deliberation room at a later stage under the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. We also have the BSL justice advisory group, which was established in February 2020. It brings together a number of organisations to provide expertise and guidance to justice and legal agencies, and it meets quarterly to discuss and monitor implementation of solutions for BSL users.

I am happy to go into more detail about the equally safe strategy and so on. Funding is available for organisations, but the question is about more than just domestic abuse and the experience of survivors; it is also about how we adapt the entirety of the justice system to take BSL users into account. The more representation you have, the easier it becomes for survivors who are experiencing the justice system.

I am not aware of it having been watered down. The BSL national plan is a six-year plan, so it represents our commitment to improving lives. It is important to state that we are committed to delivering on the plan, but we are also committed to responding to feedback. It is not that the BSL plan is so rigid that, if the community makes representations in another area where they feel that more progress needs to be made or issues need to be strengthened, we ignore that.

The plan is heavily informed by consultation with the community, and the actions in it were all chosen because they address the barriers that BSL users had identified in their daily lives. However, as all lawmakers and representatives in the Parliament will know, the plan is there to provide strategic focus. In a sense, it is a means by which all parts of Government can get behind the plan, because the nature of any language is that it cuts across all spheres of Government. It is not just the remit of the BSL team to implement the plan; it requires change from education, justice and so on. Having the national plan brings together or requires responsibility to be taken by other areas of Government.

However, as I said, it also requires us to respond to the feedback that we hear regularly. Take the procurement round for Contract Scotland BSL as an example of that. The process—the specifications—that Kevin McGowan just mentioned are in response to the consultation. That happens independently of the national plan.

Ultimately, the value of the plan will be in whether, annually, we can point to tangible changes that have improved people’s lives in the BSL community. A plan is only as strong as its implementation.

Yes. These are very timely questions because quite a number of education changes are being proposed or are currently being consulted on that have particular relevance to BSL users, including in the Education (Scotland) Bill, which is at stage 3 next week, on parity of esteem and on support for training facilities. I ask Alison Taylor or Robert Eckhart to come in on that.

I will ask an official to speak about the process, because I was not here to manage that.

On the criticisms, I have been following the committee’s evidence so I have certainly heard the same evidence as the member, some of which he has referenced. I am conscious of some of the commentary, for example, from BDA Scotland about how comprehensive the second plan is compared with the first plan, which included some of the areas where it would have liked to see it go further.

I was seeking to give reassurance that, in the spirit of always seeking to listen to those with lived experience and those who are key partners in representing the community, I do not dismiss their feedback. I am very happy to engage on that and on how we can respond to some of the points that have been made, independently of the plan. Rachel O’Neill made some particularly interesting remarks on education, which we might get on to. I was quite struck by that reflecting some of the other comments that I had heard when engaging with community groups.

On monitoring plans, an action in the BSL national plan focuses on the sharing of best practice, and we are working with listed authorities to develop how they effectively implement and deliver their plans. If every listed authority, as well as the Scottish Government, takes ownership of delivering their element to the best of their ability and seeks excellence and effective implementation, you completely shift the dial in removing the barriers that BSL users face.

There is a challenge with our regulatory role in relation to the 2015 act. It is up to listed authorities to comply with the legislation by publishing local plans in accordance with the act. We consider how we can support them to do that and fill any gaps that are identified. That is maybe the difference between a carrot and a stick. I do not know whether that is what some of the evidence was getting at.

Support is in place. We encourage listed authorities to engage with BDA Scotland in particular. We fund BDA Scotland and we ask listed authorities to seek BDA Scotland’s support and to work with it to engage with BSL users. That is all part of a process that is about encouraging rather than necessarily about regulating, and that might be quite a critical difference.

Does someone want to talk about the process?

I do not have those figures to hand. I completely agree on the importance of data. I am conscious that the impact of domestic abuse on BSL users was referenced in some of your earlier evidence sessions. Data is important, and so is training in the justice system so that examples such as the one that you referenced do not happen. Representation of BSL users in all parts of the justice system is also important.

It is important that we have, first, monitoring of data; secondly, training in the justice system; and thirdly, representation and access for BSL users to all parts of the justice system. Those are three ways in which we try to tackle what is a completely abhorrent issue in society.