Our next item of business is evidence on the financial memorandum to the British Sign Language (Scotland) Bill from Mark Griffin MSP and Joanna Hardy of the Parliament’s non-Government bills unit. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting and invite Mr Griffin to make an opening statement.
Thank you, convener. It is good to be at the Finance Committee.
The bill will impose on the Government the responsibility to produce a national plan on British Sign Language and to promote use of British Sign Language in public life in Scotland. There has been a gap in provision in Scotland when it comes to people who use BSL; it is their main language and they do not have the opportunity to learn any other language. The bill should start to make improvements in recognition of BSL, in the culture of the language and in access to services.
I will be happy to take questions on the financial memorandum.
Thank you very much.
I know that you have not been to the Finance Committee before, so I will tell you what will happen. I will ask you some opening questions, then I will open up the session to colleagues around the table and we will take it from there.
My first question is about the overall cost estimates. Paragraph 11 of the financial memorandum seeks to explain why the cost estimates that it provides
“involve such large margins of uncertainty.”
There are cost variances of several million pounds and there are significant annualised variances. I take it that your view is that what the bill proposes should be funded fully by the Scottish Government.
Yes. At first glance, the estimate of £6 million, which lies at the top of the range, seems to be a large amount of money, but it should be borne in mind that that expenditure will be across 117 public bodies and will be spread over five years. Indeed, under the amendments that the Government has suggested, that would be spread over seven years. I think that the Scottish Government has already committed to providing £2 million of funding, which leaves a gap of £4 million that would need to be made up.
In response to the committee’s call for evidence, some public bodies have said that they would be able to absorb the costs of the bill within their budgets, but it will ultimately be for the Government and ministers to choose whether to provide funding in addition to the £2 million to which they have already committed.
An issue would arise if the Scottish Government was not able or willing fully to fund the bill’s costs. East Lothian Council has said that
“there is a risk of plans having no substance, because local authorities are not in a position to allocate new monies to new activity and do not themselves see that BSL should be championed over other inclusive means of communication.”
How do you respond to those concerns?
That goes to the heart of the reason for the bill. There is postcode-based provision of services across Scotland, so the bill’s aim is for the Government to set out its priorities for BSL through a national plan and for public authorities to draft their own plans and report to Parliament on their progress. That would allow BSL users in all of our constituencies to scrutinise what public bodies are doing.
As I said earlier, for many people, British Sign Language is the only language that they will ever know. It is not like any other minority language, whose speakers have the opportunity to learn English, Gaelic or another language. For most BSL users, it is the only language that they will ever know or learn. There is a responsibility on public bodies to recognise that and to provide the level of service that you or I would expect in English.
Midlothian Council says that the financial memorandum
“assumes a planning process very specifically for BSL rather than incorporating BSL issues into other strategic planning streams associated with inclusion, disability and equality, in particular work associated with the implementation of See Hear.”
A number of other organisations have similar concerns. I understand what you are saying about BSL being unique relative to spoken languages, but what about Midlothian Council’s implied concern that the proposed measures will detract from some of the things that it is already doing—for example, implementation of the see hear strategic framework, which it mentions?
That is that council’s view; I take a different view. I do not see British Sign Language as a disability issue. British Sign Language is a language and a culture in its own right. I do not think that, if people consider it as their language and their culture, we should ask them to define themselves as disabled. You would have a big fight on your hands if you tried to tell a lot of the people who use BSL who I have met over the course of developing the bill that they are disabled, just because they use a different language from most of us around the table. It does not take away from their ability to do anything that we can. I have an issue with British Sign Language being classed as a disability or equalities issue.
I have been clear from the start that the bill is about a language. The language and culture of British Sign Language are unique, in that people cannot learn another language. There are obviously differences with Gaelic, Scots and English. As I said, this is about culture and language, rather than about disability.
Surely there must be some equalities considerations. You are, in effect, looking to give people who use BSL equality of access with other people in Scotland.
I am looking for BSL users to have the same access that you or I would have if we were contacting our local authority about, for example, education services; if a BSL-using parent was wanting to inquire about a service for their child, I would expect them to get the same level of access to information. The equality-of-access issue pops up just because of the unique nature of the language, in that people cannot learn any other language.
You are straying into issues of equality, but I have been trying to keep the focus purely on language and culture, and the added complication that, most of the time, the BSL user has no opportunity to learn any other language.
I have one further area to discuss before I open up the questioning to colleagues around the table. The Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters has suggested that no costs are provided for
“ancillary organisations which may be requested to provide information, expertise and advice to meet the objectives.”
I understand that there are only about 80 interpreters in Scotland, so one could suggest that there is a real shortage of people. How confident are you—assuming that the cost issues are addressed by the Scottish Government and local authorities—that there will be no consequences that could impact on other organisations, and that there will be the resource, by way of people, to deliver the proposed provisions?
The lack of interpreters is one of the big motivations behind the bill. There is a chicken-and-egg situation; if we never address the situation, we will never increase the number of available interpreters. If we do nothing, we could carry on for ever with 80 interpreters or a falling number of them.
We consulted on the bill and SASLI said that it did not expect financial implications to result from it. I will go away and speak to it about its submission, because there is a slight conflict. Although it might be expected to contribute to local authorities or public bodies, consultation on that could well have a resource implication for it. However, there will be increased demand for interpreter services, and there will be an opportunity for organisations that provide interpreter services or that represent BSL users to contract for interpreting and translation work. Therefore, there may well also be an increase in the incomes of such bodies.
The Government has suggested streamlining some of the work around public bodies’ plans. Whether it can be streamlined so that there is a more locality-based consultation or a simpler BSL statement, I have said that I am happy to accept the Government’s amendments to streamline some of the costs. That should reduce some of the burdens, if there will be any, on the other organisations.
Thank you for that. I now open up the session.
I have to confess that I am not hugely familiar with the subject, so some of my questions may be on the simple side of things.
To follow on from what the convener said, if there is a shortage of interpreter services or of people who are able to interpret, would that have a financial impact? If there are not enough people, we will not be able to spend the money, even if it is available. Is there a danger of inflation—that costs could go up if everybody is looking for the services?
The costs for interpreters could go up if there was demand. However, the Government has already started work on a national online translation process. It has that in place for NHS 24; BSL users can dial in to the online translation service. Things are being developed that will reduce some of the translation costs through reducing travelling times, for example.
I go back to my answer to the convener. If we do not do anything, we will be in a chicken-and-egg situation. There are 750 interpreters in Finland, which has a population that is similar to ours. Scotland has 80 interpreters, which is why there is such a big demand for their services. I hope that, if the bill is passed, the promotion of BSL in public life would increase the number of interpreters coming through the system, because the interpreters are already overstretched.
There are 80 interpreters in Scotland. What population do they serve? How many people use only BSL as a language?
It is difficult to say exactly—there is no exact figure. The last census estimated that there were around 13,000 BSL users, but many of the BSL organisations would question that figure simply because the census is carried out in English, which is not the language of some BSL users and so they cannot respond to the census. The figure for people with any level of hearing loss—ranging from mild, to severe, to profound—in Scotland has been put at about 1 million. As I said, our population is similar to that of Finland, which has 750 interpreters.
Does the figure of around 13,000 refer to all people whose only language is BSL, or do they have another language? Could they read English, for example?
The census figures are neither sophisticated nor detailed enough to enable me to answer that accurately. I will go back to the organisations and, if that level of detail is available, I will come back to the committee.
10:15
Thank you. The point was made that the bill does not require that the plans that are to be drawn up are translated into BSL. Are you looking at or taking on board that point?
That was purely to keep the costs of the bill down. In its memorandum, the Government has suggested an amendment to translate the plans into BSL. I am delighted to accept that amendment.
Do we have a cost for that?
The Government has suggested that the cost will range from £1,250 to £3,150 for each authority to translate its plan into BSL. The Government has taken that into account in the headline figure of £6 million.
It is not a huge amount. That is fair enough.
You also mentioned the Government’s suggestion that things could be done locally. Does that mean several local authorities working together?
As I have said, when I met Dr Alasdair Allan, he used the example of how Orkney Council, Orkney NHS Board and other Orkney authorities each respond separately to different consultations and we discussed whether it would be possible to streamline that into a locality-based response. For example, public bodies in the Strathclyde region—or it could be done by health board area—could come together to respond collectively to reduce the burden. I am open to any amendments on that basis.
That is great.
The other question that came up was in relation to the cycle and how often or quickly people need to get the plans and then report on them. The cycle in your legislation is linked to the parliamentary session, but the Government is suggesting a seven-year cycle. I assume that that would reduce the costs slightly. Is that too long a period?
I linked the review to the parliamentary cycle not for any consideration of language planning; that relates purely to the political process, as I considered that it would be beneficial for the Government of the day to introduce its national plan at the start of a parliamentary session and then report on the progress at the end of the session, rather than to have an incoming Government report on the performance of a previous Government’s policy priorities.
I have spoken to the Government. With its experience of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, it has suggested that a four of five-year timetable is a bit tight and that it would be more practical to extend that to seven years. There is a balance between scrutinising a Government on its performance and having an appropriate timetable. However, if the Government advisers have had issues with the Gaelic language act, then I am happy to accept that, as I am other amendments suggested by the Government.
You have suggested that when subsequent plans are produced they will cost 30 per cent less. Presumably that is because bodies will be revising something that is there, which makes some sense. However, the counterargument is that, because expectations will rise and the plans will become more complex, there will be no saving. How do you respond to that argument?
We expect that the first plan to be produced will require the most work. For the most part, any subsequent plans will build on the initial plan and incorporate whatever comes out of the performance review. Therefore, the expectation is that a large amount of the work that will feed into the second, third and fourth plans and so on will have been done in the performance review. That is the basis for the reduction in costs.
Most of the ground has been covered, but I will query a couple of things. Is all of the costing based on the production of the plan?
Yes.
Colleges Scotland’s submission states that the committee
“will want to note that whilst the requirement is to produce a plan only, the publication of such a plan will almost certainly increase public expectation that would require additional funds in future years.”
It is obviously talking about implementation, because if a plan is going to be produced, the expectation out there will be that it will then be implemented. Why did you not factor in implementation of the plan to either the bill or the costings?
I see the bill as enabling and providing a platform for the Government to set out its policy priorities. I could tell you what I think the policy priorities of the BSL community will be. I think that they will include support for a curriculum in BSL in secondary schools and a minimum requirement for BSL teachers with a specific level of qualification. There are a whole range of policy priorities that will improve BSL users’ lives.
However, the bill gives Government a platform to set out its policy priorities and it will be for the Government of the day to decide which areas it chooses to focus on. With that in mind, it is difficult for me to choose a particular area, as that would tie the Government’s hands. If the bill focused on the provision of classes, I think that the price tag associated with that would mean that it would need to be a Government bill rather than a member’s bill, to be honest.
So your expectation is that the cost is associated with the production of the plan, and it will then be for the assorted public bodies to determine the costs of implementation and produce their plans accordingly.
Yes.
Good morning, Mark. Rather than having a question on the financial memorandum, which I should have, I just want to make an observation. The Scottish Government has an ambition for a one-plus-two approach to languages in primary schools, and experiments are happening on that. A primary school that I was in recently has selected BSL as the first additional language for primary 1, and the pupils will start their second additional language in primary 5. Are you aware of that happening in the landscape in Scotland? The Government might already be looking at the financial implications of introducing that one-plus-two approach.
Yes. There are pockets of good work going on. Art galleries and museums in Glasgow have translated massive amounts of information into BSL, and one of the prisons—I think that it is HMP Grampian—has started training all its staff in BSL. There are excellent education facilities such as Dingwall academy, which is a centre for BSL. There are pockets of excellent practice right across the country.
Dingwall academy has made representations on the issue of education. Pupils are given the opportunity to learn BSL as a subject in first and second year. When they go on to the national exams, there is no curriculum or qualification in BSL available to secondary pupils. Because of the pressure for pupils to get qualifications so that they can get a job or go to college or university, most of them end up dropping BSL. That is an issue for the training of the next generation of interpreters and teachers of BSL.
There are pockets of excellent work and I hope that local authority plans will flag that up and give the BSL community in their constituencies reason to ask why, if a service is being provided in Dingwall, they cannot access it in their area in North Lanarkshire, for example.
How long does it take to learn BSL?
There are different levels of qualification from levels 1, 2 and 3 right up. Classes are available at Heriot-Watt University that you could look into, but I do not know exactly how long it would take to reach a particular level.
The costs mainly come from developing and publishing the plan. Is the assumption that one member of staff will be doing that for a year? How were the figures for the costs arrived at?
They are for middle management staff working over a period of months. Joanna Hardy might be able to comment on that.
We based the estimate on a member of middle management staff working full time for six months over the period of the plan. Some of that work would come in at the production of the plan and more would come in at the end at the performance review.
I am sorry; I have not looked at the precise wording in the bill. Are there requirements for what should be in the plan, or is it left fairly general?
The national plan will give direction to public bodies such as local authorities and say what is expected to be in their plan. The direction will come from national Government.
Mark McDonald touched on the costs of implementation. You are saying that that is not pertinent to the financial memorandum. Are you saying that the implementation of the plan will lead to extra costs but that it is not pertinent to the bill? What is behind your assertion that costs are not pertinent to the memorandum?
The memorandum is purely focused on the requirement in the bill that Government should produce a national plan, public bodies should produce their own plan and then, at the end of the cycle, they should report on the progress that they have made on implementing their plans. No policy direction or particular initiative is set out in the bill that we can put a price on. It will be up to national Government and public bodies to decide on the priorities for their individual constituencies. They have to choose what to put in their plan while having a mind to how they would fund it.
I totally support the bill, but it is quite an interesting position from the point of view of the Finance Committee and the financial memorandum. Presumably your expectation is that, following the making of all the plans, there will be more expenditure, or the plans will just be paper plans that do not change anything. Is that a fair assumption?
Certainly. The Government will report to Parliament on the performance review of public bodies that draft a plan but make no effort to implement it, and constituents will be given the opportunity through their MSP to name and shame public bodies that do not live up to their plan’s aspirations.
As I have said, there are pockets of excellent work and there is no reason why that should be restricted to individual areas. Getting a picture of what is going on nationally will help BSL users to challenge their local authorities on why they are not getting a service that is being provided elsewhere.
10:30
Thank you. That concludes the questions from committee members, but I have one or two more to ask before we wind up the evidence session.
The submission that we have received from North Lanarkshire Council points out:
“The Bill does not describe any minimum level of activity beyond the production of a Local Authority Plan.”
However, it goes on to say,
“There will be potential additional costs for implementation”,
which we have just touched on, and it suggests that
“There has been no recognition of this in the FM.”
The council then says:
“In relation to education the training costs for training of teaching staff and teaching resources has not been calculated ... as the impact of the Bill has not been fully explored within the educational context.”
Are you not concerned that, because we have not gone beyond the development of plans, hard-pressed local authorities might say that, with the best will in the world, they can produce a wonderful plan but simply cannot implement its roll-out so that it really means something for people?
That will be the responsibility of local authorities. I cannot see a local authority producing a wonderful plan with a range of outcomes if it has no intention of financially supporting any of those outcomes. That would be bad faith in the extreme on the part of local authorities. When it came to reporting on performance, if an authority had a fantastic national plan but had done nothing to implement it, the new minister for BSL would rightly raise the matter with that authority and would inform Parliament of it.
I understand what you are saying about naming and shaming, but North Lanarkshire Council takes the view that, even with the best will in the world, the resources are not there. It points out that the financial memorandum states that
“figures cannot be put on any additional costs arising in this way because it is not possible to estimate how much additional activity will be generated”
from the local plans. It also says that it is unable to quantify those additional costs, as they are unknown, and that
“to provide 24 hours cover 7 days a week for interpreter service would cost the Council over £250,000 per year”.
There is concern that expectations of the bill could be high but the local authorities’ ability to deliver on the ground might be much less than we would like.
I understand local authorities’ concern that they are not able to put a figure on the activities that they might be expected to carry out, but that is because there is not yet any national plan. There is no detail of what would be in the national plan or what authorities would be expected to have in their own plans—that would be at the direction of the Government. For example, if the Government decided that there should be 24-hour access to all local authorities’ interpreter services and set that out in the national plan, I would expect the Government to set out how it intended to fund those services or how it expected local authorities to meet the cost. It would be up to the Government of the day to fund its policy priorities.
Thank you. Are there any further points that you want to raise with the committee, which we have not touched on?
I do not think so. I thank the committee for its time this morning.
Thank you for answering all our questions.
Does the committee agree to consider its submission to the lead committee in private at our next meeting?
Members indicated agreement.
We will have a five-minute suspension to allow a changeover of witnesses.
10:34 Meeting suspended.