Our next item is stage 2 consideration of the British Sign Language (Scotland) Bill. I welcome Mark Griffin, the member in charge of the bill, and his officials; and Dr Alasdair Allan, Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s Languages, and his officials. I remind everyone that officials are not permitted to participate in the formal proceedings. I also welcome Dennis Robertson, who is not a member of the committee but who has lodged some amendments.
Everyone should have a copy of the marshalled list of amendments, which was published on Friday, and the groupings of amendments, setting out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. As usual, the proceedings will be interpreted in BSL.
For the benefit of those who are following today’s proceedings, I will run through the main procedures. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in a group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate that by catching my attention in the usual way.
If the minister and Mark Griffin, as the member in charge, have not already spoken on the group, I will invite them to contribute to the debate, just before I move to the winding-up speech. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up.
Following debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the committee’s agreement to do so. If any committee member objects, the committee immediately moves to the vote on that amendment.
If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say, “Not moved.” Please note that any other MSP may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshalled list.
Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is by a show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. Although Mark Griffin is a member of the committee, as he is the member in charge of the bill, he is not able to vote during these proceedings.
The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section of and schedule to the bill, and so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point.
It is our intention to get through all of the amendments today.
Section 1—British Sign Language National Plan for Scotland
Amendment 1, in the name of Dennis Robertson, is grouped with amendment 38.
I put on record my thanks to Deafblind Scotland for the work that it has done on these amendments. We all owe it a great deal of thanks, as its work in raising awareness of tactile BSL, which many members will not have been aware of previously, has been invaluable.
Tactile BSL is BSL, but it is usually used when someone has a condition such as Usher’s syndrome, which is a condition that people are born with, or when a person who is deaf has lost their sight due to illness or injury.
If you are deaf but lose your vision, but your language has always been BSL, you will continue to use BSL when you are speaking to people within your immediate area. However, the way that you receive communication via BSL is different—it must be tactile. Someone needs to take the person’s hands and communicate in BSL through touch. Occasionally, a person might have to use deafblind manual communication. That is not a preferred method for BSL users, but it is a fall-back position, especially if something must be made clear.
The amendments in this group are designed to make it explicit that, when we refer to BSL, we are referring to both methods. However, subsection (2) in amendment 38 makes an exception, by stating that we do not have to produce our final reports, plans and so on in a tactile BSL format. That is understandable and I hope that members will consider that later.
Tactile BSL is used by few people. It is tiring and frustrating to use. You can imagine that, when a person has sight loss on top of their deafness, that can be quite devastating. There are, therefore, other factors that we must take on board, but perhaps not in relation to these amendments.
I have great pleasure in bringing the amendments to the committee.
I move amendment 1.
I start by thanking Dennis Robertson for lodging the amendments, and I join him in thanking Deafblind Scotland for its contribution not only to the amendments but to our evidence-gathering process, which, as members will recall, made clear that the deafblind community has specific needs that must be reflected in the bill. To be fair to the Scottish Government and the minister, they acknowledged that in their approach to our deliberations.
Other elements of the bill might need to be amended to better reflect the specific needs of the deafblind community, but I welcome and support the amendments.
I, too, thank Dennis Robertson for lodging the amendment, which I support. The reason why I support it is that I recently met members of the public who are deafblind at the offices of Deafblind Scotland, including a constituent who wrote directly to me to ask me to meet him to discuss amendment 1. At the meeting, I heard a solid and cogent argument about why it is necessary to support the amendment. I thank everyone who was there for that meeting and for the clarity with which they made the argument for supporting the amendment. I am quite happy to support it. It adds to the bill and adds clarity for those members of the public who are deafblind that not only BSL but tactile BSL are covered by the bill.
I thank Dennis Robertson for lodging these amendments. Although all people who use BSL should benefit from the bill, as I have been saying, there is a justified concern that deafblind people who use a tactile form of BSL, which Mr Robertson described, might not benefit fully from the bill because of the relatively small numbers involved and the complexity of communicating via tactile BSL.
I have met a number of deafblind people in the course of the discussions on the bill and I accept the arguments of Deafblind Scotland and many of the deafblind people it represents that including a specific reference in the bill to tactile BSL will be helpful and ensure that that group of people is not forgotten.
Together with amendments 8 and 18, in the name of Mark Griffin, on consultation on BSL plans and making them accessible to deafblind people, the amendments in the name of Dennis Robertson will be helpful. For those reasons the Scottish Government is very supportive of them.
I, too, thank Dennis Robertson for lodging the amendments. When we drafted the bill, we imagined that the term BSL would cover all BSL users, but we recognise that extra emphasis should be put on the needs of deafblind BSL users. I was happy to meet and work with Deafblind Scotland to support the introduction of amendments 1 and 38. The inclusion of the words
“tactile form of British Sign Language”
means that no deafblind BSL users should be left out of the bill. I support the amendments.
I welcome the support of the convener, the minister and Mark Griffin. I will put the amendment into context. It was a deafblind person who taught me BSL. I sincerely thank Stephen Joyce from Deafblind Scotland for his patience in going over BSL with me. You can imagine the difficulty, convener. I have no sight and Stephen is a deafblind BSL user, so we had a great deal of BSL interaction. That is why I know that sometimes you need to use deafblind manual to explain points. I managed to get it wrong on several occasions, but Stephen was extremely patient, and I wanted to bring that to the committee’s attention. It was extremely tiring, but it was extremely beneficial. To teach BSL to someone who is blind is an achievement in itself, and I commend the work that Deafblind Scotland does.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 2, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 2A, 4 to 7 and 9.
I am pleased to introduce amendments 2, 4 to 7 and 9, which are important. They seek to reduce the number of plans by bringing public bodies, other than those to be listed separately in a revised schedule 2, within the scope of the national plan. The amendments will give greater clarity about the purpose of the national plan, lengthen the reporting cycle, which will reduce the administrative burden on the public sector, and ensure that the bill will focus on actions rather than administration.
I will go through some of the provisions in amendment 2.
Proposed new section 1(1B) will require the national plan to set out what Scottish ministers will do and what they
“consider that relevant public authorities ... should or could do”
to promote British Sign Language. Under that provision, the national plan will set out the agreed national priorities to be taken forward by national public bodies that are covered by the plan and by public bodies preparing their own plans. I believe that that will strengthen the provisions of the bill as introduced.
The first national plan will be particularly important. As I explained in evidence to the committee at stage 1, we intend to set up a BSL national advisory group to inform the plan’s development. The group will involve a significant proportion of deaf BSL users as well as representatives of the public bodies that are subject to the bill. It will take time to agree a suitable structure for the group and a process for recruiting deaf BSL users to it. Allowing two years after the act comes into force to publish the first national plan, as set out in proposed new section 1(1D), will give us time to engage properly with the deaf community and with public bodies. That will enable us to publish a more considered plan that will take account of the views of deaf BSL users who will benefit from the actions set out in it, as well as the views of the public bodies that will deliver those actions.
11:30Proposed new section 1(1E) provides that national plans will be published every six years, rather than roughly every four years, as would be the case under the bill as introduced. The Scottish Government takes the view that the four-year cycle for the reporting and review process that is set out in the bill is too short. That view is informed by our experience of implementing the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 and its five-year reporting cycle, which some authorities have suggested is too short. I originally suggested a seven-year cycle, but many deaf people who submitted evidence felt that that was too long. Amendment 2 therefore proposes a six-year cycle instead.
Extending the cycle will, I believe, give public bodies longer to implement the actions that are set out in their plans and gather meaningful information on progress before they are asked to feed into the national progress report. As members will have seen from the revised costings that I provided in my recent letter to the committee, requiring public bodies to produce plans every six years, rather than every four years, leads to a significant cost saving. We propose to invest the savings in providing support to help public bodies to better understand and meet the needs of the BSL community that they serve and to boost the capacity of translation and interpreting services.
In my view, amendment 2 introduces a more proportionate approach to the reporting process and creates a less bureaucratic and more action-oriented focus for the bill.
Amendments 4 and 6 ensure that the second and subsequent national plans will “have regard to” any recommendations coming out of the review process.
Amendments 5 and 7 are minor consequential amendments around the consultation provisions. Amendment 9 is a minor consequential provision that relates to the timing of the preparation of national plans.
On amendment 2A, I share Mary Scanlon’s concern about the issues faced by parents with a deaf child—we have discussed those issues in committee before. It is very likely that relevant material will feature in the first national plan but, in my view, the amendment does not fit with the approach that the bill takes. The bill creates a framework for action but deliberately does not specify what should be included in the national plan.
As the member in charge of the bill said during stage 1,
“it will be up to the Government to choose what resources to put into its policy priorities.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 16 December 2014; c 4-5.]
All that I am setting out is the overarching strategy that the Government should promote.
The content of the national plan will be determined through extensive engagement with the BSL community. I have committed to including parents of deaf babies on the national advisory group that will support that process. I do not think that it is appropriate to go further than that at this stage, because writing into legislation what should be included in the national plan pre-empts the important process that I have set out.
As Mary Scanlon will be aware, the British Deaf Association has identified eight areas that it believes should be included in the national plan, of which support in the early years is only one.
If amendment 2A is agreed to, it could open the way to further attempts to legislate to include other priorities. That undermines the collaborative approach to developing the national plan that I have set out.
I thank the committee for its forbearance, but there were some important issues to be detailed.
I move amendment 2.
Indeed, minister—thank you for that.
I call Mary Scanlon to speak to amendment 2A and all the other amendments in the group.
I will not speak to all the amendments, but I will speak to amendment 2A.
As the minister knows, I am looking for a commitment in the national plan. I appreciate that the national advisory group has still to be set up, and that consultation will take place.
As committee members and MSPs in general, we learn a huge amount when we look at a bill, and that has been no different in our scrutiny of this bill. I found the briefing paper from the National Deaf Children’s Society and others interesting. I was particularly struck by their highlighting the fact that 90 per cent of deaf children are born to hearing parents. On one of our committee visits, we heard about the difference that having parents who use BSL makes to a child. We are also considering deaf children’s attainment, and I cannot imagine the difficulties that a child would have if they were not able to communicate with their parents. Indeed, as a parent and a granny, I cannot imagine how difficult it would be not to be able to communicate with your child or grandchild.
The committee has considered BSL support for children, the shortage of teachers and issues that relate to teacher training. We have scrutinised the bill fairly effectively so far. However, we have probably not focused much on support for the family, which is hugely beneficial.
I retire next year, so I will not be here when the national plan is produced. I think that I almost got a commitment from the minister, but I look for a more formal commitment from him that he will do whatever is possible to ensure that BSL support is provided not only for newborn babies but for children and families where appropriate, because that would add much to BSL provision in Scotland.
I move amendment 2A.
I ask the minister to provide a little more detail on the changes to the length of the cycle for the publication of the national plan. We had some debate about that during the stage 1. It was a point of contention for some members, who felt that extending the cycle might make it too long. Although the Government has moved back from seven years to six, which is welcome, I ask the minister to give more detail, if he does not mind.
I accept the minister’s argument about Mary Scanlon’s amendment 2A. The bill does not lay out specific support provisions—we had some discussion about that at stage 1—whereas the amendment does exactly that. Therefore, it is not in keeping with the tone of the rest of the bill, and I understand why the minister said what he said.
My intention was that the timing of national plans would be linked to each session of the Parliament—it would be a four or five-year cycle—so that the Government would produce and scrutinise its own plans and we would not have an incoming Administration dealing with the policy intentions of the previous Government. That is the reason why the bill was drafted as it was, but I can see why the fixed-term, straight six-year cycle is much simpler with regard to issues such as the Parliament being dissolved early.
In considering Administrations implementing and scrutinising their own plans, perhaps we had not thought the approach through to the next level. If local government followed the Scottish parliamentary cycle, it would be out of sync and in the same predicament—an incoming administration could end up scrutinising the performance of a previous one. Therefore, I support the provision in amendment 2 on bringing the cycle into a fixed timeframe rather than basing it on the cycle of parliamentary sessions.
I also understand the arguments for allowing more time for the start of the process. That will be crucial in ensuring that the right people are on the national advisory group to inform the first national plan. I therefore also support the provision on that in amendment 2. I support amendments 2, 4 to 7 and 9.
In relation to Mary Scanlon’s amendment 2A, I agree with her comments on the need for support for hearing parents of deaf children to learn BSL. However, the amendment would take a step away from the intentions of the bill. There are a number of priorities for the BSL community, one of which is the provision of support for parents of deaf children. I am not persuaded by the argument that that one priority should be included in the bill and should take precedence over other priorities. It is right and proper that we allow the national advisory group to be convened and for it to consult and decide on its priorities rather than setting that in stone at this point in the process.
In response to the convener’s point about the timescales and the length of time between the plans and reporting, I would make many of the same arguments that Mark Griffin has made. I add that my anecdotal experience of the four-year plans under the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 is that at times they can possibly lead to an excessive degree of work on planning rather than on implementing plans, although I do not take away from their importance.
On the points that Mrs Scanlon raised about the wider issues for families who have deaf children, as I said, I accept many of the considerations behind amendment 2A. To answer her point about what the Scottish Government is doing in the area, I point out that we recognise the importance of supporting families with a deaf baby, and we recently provided £0.5 million to the National Deaf Children’s Society for its family sign language project. We can engage in many ways to ensure that families in that situation have all the resources that they need to communicate with a deaf baby, toddler or older child who is at school, as Mary Scanlon alluded to, so that they can get the best start in life. That would help to address an issue that is of concern to both Mrs Scanlon and me, which is that of closing the attainment gap that continues to exist for deaf children.
I ask Mary Scanlon not to move amendment 2A, but to note the commitment that I have made to include families of deaf babies on the national advisory group. Like Mr Griffin, I am of the view that such issues are better determined by that group rather than through legislation.
The purpose of amendment 2A was not to set any precedent or priority or to say that one group is more deserving than another; it was to ensure that the issue is on the agenda and that families get support at what is a critical time to help them to communicate with their children.
I note the commitment that the minister has made, and I am delighted with it. I acknowledge that the bill is not the place for us to tell the national advisory group what do and that this is not the place or the time to look at regulations. I absolutely understand that. However, I am pleased that I lodged the amendment, as it has moved things forward. The commitment from the Government, financially and otherwise, to the National Deaf Children’s Society is welcome.
Given all that, I will not move the amendment in my name.
I am afraid that you have already moved it—that was the purpose of your original comments. You will have to seek to withdraw it.
Amendment 2A, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
11:45
Amendment 3, in the name of Mark Griffin, is grouped with amendment 26.
During the development of the bill, we took a decision, on balance, to try to reduce the cost burden on authorities from the translation of documents into BSL. The committee has flagged that up as an important issue, and it was a difficult deliberation at the time as to which way we would go, but I am delighted with the committee’s recommendation and with the Scottish Government’s support for the idea that national plans and authority plans should be accessible to BSL users.
I move amendment 3.
I am sure that I speak on behalf of all members when I say that we are grateful to Mark Griffin for moving amendment 3. The committee felt strongly that the national plan should be published in BSL, so the amendment is welcome.
The Scottish Government fully supports amendments 3 and 26. As members observed during stage 1, it is probably fair to say that it would be ludicrous for the Parliament to pass a bill requiring public bodies to produce BSL plans without requiring them to translate those plans into BSL.
As I said in the Government memorandum, and as I am sure the committee well understands, if plans are presented in written English, they will not be accessible to many deaf BSL users who are the target audience. In the Government memorandum, I suggested that the cost of translating authority plans into BSL should be subsumed by the relevant authority, as the requirement does not substantially exceed local authorities’ current duties under the Equality Act 2010. However, as the amendment requiring the translation of plans represents a new cost arising as a direct result of the bill, I have included it in the revised costings that have been provided to the committee, and it will be considered as part of the new burden. I encourage the committee to support the amendments.
I thank the minister, and I thank members for their strong support for the amendment in the stage 1 report. I intend to press amendment 3.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Amendments 4 to 7 moved—[Dr Alasdair Allan]—and agreed to.
Amendment 8, in the name of Mark Griffin, is grouped with amendment 18.
I lodged the amendments in this group because I wanted to make it absolutely clear that the needs of deafblind people should, wherever possible, be placed on an equal footing with the needs of other BSL users in the operation of the bill. As Dennis Robertson pointed out, those with dual sensory impairment face distinctive challenges, and a one-size-fits-all approach will not quite work with BSL. Ensuring that consultation is accessible to members of the deafblind community as well as to those who are deaf is essential. Amendments 8 and 18 complement the amendments in the name of Dennis Robertson that we have already discussed and they continue the work that I, the Government and members of the committee have undertaken with Deafblind Scotland. I hope that members will support them.
I move amendment 8.
As I said in reference to Dennis Robertson’s amendments, I very much welcome the series of stage 2 amendments that recognise the deafblind community’s needs. I whole-heartedly support Mark Griffin’s amendments in this group.
As I have said, I fully support the point about the importance of engaging BSL communities so that they can directly influence BSL plans and help to ensure that public bodies deliver on the commitments that are set out in those plans. As witnesses have pointed out in evidence, effective engagement is a crucial part of that.
This year, we have invested £390,000 in the deaf sector partnership, which will support the effective implementation of the bill if it is passed. The partnership’s most important function will be to enable public bodies to engage directly with the BSL communities that they serve. That engagement will ensure that the plans focus on the right things. By doing that, they will make a difference to people’s lives.
I welcome the reference in Mr Griffin’s amendments to deafblind people who use BSL. As Deafblind Scotland has argued, it is crucial that the small numbers of deafblind users can benefit from the bill’s provisions. It is important that public bodies take steps to include deafblind people in the consultation on their plans.
It is important that my amendments 8 and 18 are supported, to ensure that no BSL user is locked out from a consultation process that will drive forward a lot of policy that could improve their lives. It is right and proper that deafblind BSL users should be included in such consultations and be given special mention in the bill, so that no one misses out. I press amendment 8.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendment 9 moved—[Dr Alasdair Allan]—and agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2—Special responsibility
Amendment 10, in the name of Dennis Robertson, is in a group on its own.
All ministers have a responsibility to ensure that they take cognisance of deaf BSL users in all their portfolios. Therefore, we do not need to have a lead minister with responsibility for that.
Dr Allan has demonstrated that, as he is with the Gaelic language, he is passionate about ensuring that BSL is given the same recognition as any other language and any other responsibility in his portfolio. Therefore, I suggest that we do not need to have a lead minister, because all ministers should take responsibility.
I move amendment 10.
I echo much of what Dennis Robertson has said. I understand the motivation behind the amendment, and it has put down a useful marker on the importance of the Government promoting BSL. The minister in his evidence to the committee gave fairly strong assurances that that would be the case. It will be up to successive Governments to reflect that. I am a little wary of appointing ministers for each and every task. It will be incumbent on each successive Government to demonstrate how it is living up the letter of and the spirit behind the legislation. On that basis, I support amendment 10.
I agree with Dennis Robertson and Liam McArthur. I am sure that any future Government will do as Liam McArthur has said and ensure that proper attention is paid to the ministerial responsibility for the area. I note in passing that the minister’s title includes “Scotland’s Languages”; I am sure that we agree that BSL is one of Scotland’s languages and therefore fits neatly under the current minister’s portfolio.
I, too, thank Dennis Robertson for lodging amendment 10, which is useful. I agree that it is important for ministers to have clearly defined responsibilities for particular policy areas. The Scottish Government considers that assigning a lead minister for the bill in legislation is not consistent with the collective responsibility of Scottish ministers. All that said, and as has just been mentioned, as a language, BSL will sit within my portfolio as the minister with responsibility for Scotland’s languages. On that basis, I support amendment 10.
Section 2 was included for emphasis and resonance. The intention was not to create a new ministerial post, but to allow the Scottish Government to define ministerial responsibility for BSL.
There may have been a misunderstanding previously. When I initially lodged my proposal for a member’s bill on British Sign Language, it was allocated to the Health and Sport Committee and some BSL users felt that the health ministerial team were responsible for deafness and British Sign Language. The process has shown clearly—and rightly—that the minister for Scotland’s languages is the right point of contact.
Legislating for a particular role might go against the way in which the Government exercises collective responsibility. I fully accept Dr Allan’s commitment to BSL as the lead minister and I support amendment 10.
I do not think that there is any need to make a wind-up speech.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Section 3—Listed authorities’ British Sign Language Plans
Amendment 11, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 12 to 17, 19, 20 and 45.
The amendments are technical, so I will not trouble the committee by listing them one by one. They are necessary as a consequence of other amendments, particularly in relation to the decision to decouple the reporting and review cycle from the Parliamentary cycle. They also reflect the changed approach to reporting on progress that is set out in other amendments.
The amendments will ensure that section 3, which relates to listed authorities’ British Sign Language plans, is consistent with other sections of the bill, as amended.
I move amendment 11.
I appreciate that the amendments are technical. The minister has explained the content and I support the amendments.
Amendment 11 agreed to.
Amendments 12 to 17 moved—[Dr Alasdair Allan]—and agreed to.
Amendment 18 moved—[Mark Griffin]—and agreed to.
Amendments 19 and 20 moved—[Dr Alasdair Allan]—and agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
12:00Section 4—Publication by listed authority
Amendment 21, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 22 to 25 and 27.
The amendments will ensure that section 3 is consistent with other sections of the bill as amended, and that it applies appropriately to authorities that are added to the list in the second or subsequent cycle. They include further amendments on timing, again to ensure consistency with other sections of the bill as amended. They are all consequential to other amendments.
I move amendment 21.
I have no comments, other than to say that I support the amendments.
Amendment 21 agreed to.
Amendments 22 to 25 moved—[Dr Alasdair Allan]—and agreed to.
Amendment 26 moved—[Mark Griffin]—and agreed to.
Amendment 27 moved—[Dr Alasdair Allan]—and agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Section 5—Performance Review
Amendment 28, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 29 to 34.
My amendments to section 5 seek to create a more appropriate and proportionate approach to assessing and reporting on progress in two specific ways. First, they seek to rename the “performance review” a “progress report”. Because of the lack of baseline data and performance indicators for work in the area, a performance review in the traditional sense of the phrase would be difficult to undertake.
Secondly, the amendments seek to remove the requirement to name individual local authorities and to highlight poor performance. On reflection, we do not think that it is appropriate to name and shame individual authorities that have published their own plans, as they are not accountable to Scottish ministers. That point was made strongly by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities with regard to local authorities.
We expect that the assessment of whether a listed authority’s progress is satisfactory will instead be made through a self-assessment process involving feedback from BSL users. Listed authorities will be supported by the deaf sector partnership, which is funded by the Scottish Government, to engage properly with their local BSL community so that the process provides an effective mechanism for holding public authorities to account.
We expect that the progress report will highlight best practice. It will highlight where further development is needed but without identifying individual authorities. Those findings will inform the on-going support that is provided to listed authorities through the deaf sector partnership. We believe that we will make better progress by using a carrot rather than a stick to support continuous improvement across the public sector. The amendments therefore seek to shift the emphasis of the reporting and review process in that way.
The progress report will be laid before Parliament by the Scottish ministers, as required by the bill, and will provide an overview of progress at national and local levels since the publication of the plans. It will describe progress or otherwise against the actions that are set out in the national plan.
In practical terms, amendment 28 gives listed authorities three years between publishing their plans and contributing to the progress report in the second and subsequent cycles, although the period will be two years for the first cycle. The timescale that was set out in the bill as introduced allows just over a year between the publication of authority plans and the performance review, which we do not think is long enough. Extending the cycle for reporting on progress in line with the cycle for publishing reports will give public bodies longer to implement the actions that are set out in their plans and to gather meaningful information on progress before they are asked to feed into the national progress report. Again, that will create a more action-orientated focus for the bill, which, as we know from evidence to the committee at stage 1, is what BSL users would like.
I move amendment 28.
I welcome amendment 28, which reflects the concerns that we heard at stage 1 with regard to the Scottish Government finding itself sitting in judgment on individual councils, which are responsible to their communities.
The approach that seeks to garner best practice and share it as widely as possible is sensible. Each local authority—or public body, for that matter—will start from a different position and will face different challenges, with different opportunities to take forward the promotional work on BSL. That is better reflected in the model that is suggested by the amendments in the group.
It may be for the advisory group, in future, to ask whether that approach is having the effect that it needs to have in spreading best practice more widely. For now, however, the amendments in the group outline a commonsense approach to the legislation, and I certainly support them.
I raised issues in this area at stage 1, and I am pleased to put on record the fact that they have been addressed. My concern was that there is very little baseline data. In an area in which there is little provision and support for BSL, an authority might make tremendous progress, but in another area where practice is excellent, an authority might sit back and say, “There’s not much more that we need to do.”
Requiring a progress report at every level to make support more consistent is wise but, as I said in the stage 1 debate, I prefer the carrot rather than the stick, and I do not think that naming and shaming anyone is a good way to build partnerships or to encourage and incentivise organisations.
I am pleased that a progress report has replaced the performance review, and I welcome and support the amendments.
My priority for the performance review was that it would provide a national overview of progress and allow stakeholders and interested parties to access information on the performance of local and national bodies. The proposed progress report will achieve that.
The amendments will bring the cycle for the production of progress reports into line with the production of the national plans, and I am content with those changes. The move away from the parliamentary session timescale means that the timescale for the publication of progress reports is simplified, and it does away with the need for special provision in the event of early dissolution of the Parliament.
I note that amendment 32 will remove the requirement to identify examples of poor performance among listed authorities. There were concerns about taking an approach that might be viewed as punitive, and the amendments better reflect the relationship between national and local government and to whom exactly the different levels of government are accountable. For example, they are accountable to the electorate rather than a different layer of government.
Amendment 31 will retain the requirement to identify and report on examples of good practice, which is welcome.
Amendment 33 will confirm what is meant by the term “relevant plans”, which is now used in the bill. Amendments 29, 30 and 34 are minor technical or consequential amendments.
I support all the amendments in the group.
For the reasons that Mark Griffin, Liam McArthur and Mary Scanlon have given, I believe that the amendments in the group create a more co-operative, proportionate and practical approach to reporting on progress than the perhaps outdated and burdensome approach that was set out in the bill as introduced. They better reflect the relationship between national and local government in Scotland.
Amendment 28 agreed to.
Amendments 29 to 34 moved—[Dr Alasdair Allan]—and agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Section 6—Special provision where early dissolution of the Parliament
Amendment 35, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 36.
I have already set out why we think that the reporting and review cycle should be extended from four to six years. In my view, that would have the additional benefit of detaching the reporting and review cycle from the parliamentary cycle.
Although I appreciate Mark Griffin’s original reasons for requiring the Scottish ministers to report and then account for progress within the same parliamentary session, that would tie us into a timescale that is not only too short but unnecessarily complex. These amendments are part of an effort to simplify the issues.
I move amendment 35.
I accept that section 6 and schedule 1 are no longer required now that the bill is to be amended to decouple the reporting cycle from the parliamentary session, so I support the amendments.
Amendment 35 agreed to.
Schedule 1—Special provision where early dissolution of the Parliament
Amendment 36 moved—[Dr Alasdair Allan]—and agreed to.
Section 7—Alteration of date of publication of plan or review in exceptional circumstances
Amendment 37, in the name of the minister, is in a group on its own.
Section 7 provides for the alteration of the date of publication of a plan or review in exceptional circumstances. That fits with the provisions in the bill as introduced for timings for plans, but it is no longer needed under our revised approach.
I move amendment 37.
There is no longer the same need to be flexible now that the timescales have been adjusted to allow more time to prepare the plans and progress reports, so I support the amendment.
Amendment 37 agreed to.
Before section 8
Amendment 38 moved—[Dennis Robertson]—and agreed to.
Section 8—“Listed authority” and other expressions
Amendment 39, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 41 to 44, 47 to 57, 63, and 59 to 62.
This is a large group of amendments, and I will take a little while to explain them clearly.
We are proposing a series of amendments to schedule 2, which lists the authorities that will be required to publish their own BSL plans. Some public bodies, such as Audit Scotland, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner and the Scottish Information Commissioner, are being added to the list and so will be required to publish their own plans. However, our amendments also seek to remove some public bodies from schedule 2. That does not mean that they will not be subject to the bill; they will be covered by the national plan—and I will say more about that in a moment.
For example, schedule 2 to the bill as it presently stands requires bodies such as the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Scottish Qualifications Authority to publish their own plans. We want to include those bodies in the national plan, and the amendments in this group therefore seek to remove them from schedule 2.
In addition, schedule 2 to the bill as introduced included some executive agencies of the Scottish Government such as Education Scotland and the Student Awards Agency for Scotland. Those bodies are part of the Scottish Government and will therefore be covered by the national plan. Our amendments seek to remove those bodies and other public bodies with a national remit from schedule 2.
A number of other public bodies that are not currently included in schedule 2 to the bill will also be covered by the national plan—for example, the Care Inspectorate, Children’s Hearings Scotland, Creative Scotland, sportscotland, VisitScotland, the National Library of Scotland, the National Galleries of Scotland and National Museums Scotland.
12:15I would like to say a wee bit more about the national plan. The scope of the national plan will be extended to include public authorities with a national remit that are responsible to the Scottish ministers. That means that the national plan will cover the vast majority of national public bodies, including special national health service boards with a national remit. That will reduce the number of plans being produced, which—as well as reducing the administrative burden on the public sector—will facilitate a more strategic and co-ordinated national approach.
All the national public bodies covered by the national plan will be accountable to the Scottish ministers and it is my view that incorporating them into a single national plan strengthens, rather than dilutes, their accountability.
As a result of our amendments, it is our intention that 147 public bodies will be either covered by the national plan or required to produce their own plan, including nine executive agencies or other organisational units that are part of the Scottish Government—some of which were listed separately in schedule 2 to the bill as introduced—as compared with the 117 public bodies in the bill as it currently stands.
Although the public bodies to be covered by the national plan will not be listed in the bill as amended, I have provided details of them in my 21 May letter to the committee convener, which I hope is helpful. That is now on the public record and confirms the bodies that are to be covered by a single national plan, which will enable us to take a more strategic approach to BSL nationally.
I move amendment 39.
The rationale behind the amendments is very sensible, as is the approach. However, it probably bears repeating that, in taking that approach, we absolutely need to make sure that each of those public authorities has a sense of ownership and responsibility for the contribution that it makes to delivering that national plan. Certainly the approach makes a lot of sense.
I thank the minister for his explanation. I understand that the intention behind the amendments is to bring the national public bodies that are accountable to the Scottish ministers and the others that were originally listed in schedule 2 under a single national plan. I accept that that will enable a more strategic and co-ordinated approach to producing the national plan and will also have the benefit of reducing the workload for many of the bodies. It would cut down on duplication when it comes to consultation and cut down on cost.
However, I reiterate Liam McArthur’s point about national bodies taking ownership of, and responsibility for, their own actions within the national plan. It was my intention that schedule 2 should be a starting point for a discussion about which bodies should be included in the bill. I drew up the original schedule by focusing on the key public-facing bodies in the priority areas of education, health, justice, local government and policing. I am content that the proposed amendments to the schedule increase the number of bodies that are affected by the bill without increasing the costs. I welcome the amendments.
On Mr McArthur’s point, the national plan will certainly be able to pick up on the specific areas of interest to different bodies.
Overall, our amendments to schedule 2 ensure that the bill will have broader reach and greater impact on the lives of deaf BSL users and that the national approach will be more co-ordinated.
Amendment 39 agreed to.
Amendment 40, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 46.
The amendments are minor and have been included as a consequence of other amendments. They ensure that the interpretation section includes terms that have been added to the bill by other amendments. Amendment 46 creates a new section after section 8 that deals with the interpretation of terms used earlier in the bill, namely “authority plan”, “national plan”, and “relevant public authority”.
I move amendment 40.
I support the amendments.
Amendment 40 agreed to.
Amendments 41 to 45 moved—[Dr Alasdair Allan]—and agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
After section 8
Amendment 46 moved—[Dr Alasdair Allan]—and agreed to.
Schedule 2—List of public authorities
Amendments 47 to 57, 63, and 59 to 62 moved—[Dr Alasdair Allan]—and agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
I am glad to say that that ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. I thank the member in charge, the minister and the officials for attending today. I am grateful for their attendance. I also thank Dennis Robertson for his attendance. The bill will now be reprinted as amended.
The Parliament has not yet determined when stage 3 will take place, but members can lodge stage 3 amendments at any time with the legislation team. Members will be informed of the deadline for amendments once it has been determined, and we will publish further details on our website and on our BSL Facebook page.
That concludes the committee’s formal involvement in the bill. I thank everyone who has contributed to our scrutiny of the issues, including the many witnesses who gave evidence to us, Windsor Park school and sensory service in Falkirk and Deaf Action for hosting a visit from us, and the many people who gave their views and comments on the bill via our Facebook group in particular. I thank the BSL interpreters who have supported us throughout the process, and I thank all the people who have been involved in the process.
12:22 Meeting suspended.