Equal Opportunities Committee, 13 Mar 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 13, 2001

Official Report 200KB pdf

---

Petition

Let us start the public part of the meeting. The item under consideration is petition PE139. I thank the signers for coming along this morning to facilitate the committee. It would be useful if people could speak clearly into their microphones. I call Linda Fabiani.

Is the petition first? I had my agenda the wrong way round.

Sorry.

I come to the petition from two angles. First, I am the disability reporter for the committee. Secondly, I am a member of the Holyrood progress group, so I come with a view towards what will happen when we move to our new Parliament building next parliamentary session.

The issue is hugely important. As far as equal opportunities is concerned, the Parliament should be an institution that is as open as possible. One way in which it could be open is to provide signers—ideally permanently. However, the shortage of signers is a problem that cannot be denied and it is sometimes difficult to book people who can provide that facility.

Having looked at the various options, I consider that option B, which is given in our private paper, is best. Option B is that we note the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body's response and ask that, when the draft policy is available, it be referred formally to the committee so that it can look at it again. I would be happy, in the meantime, to discuss the issue with the Holyrood progress group's disability forum and come back to the committee—at the same time as we receive the draft policy, if we can schedule when that is to take place—with a report on how we can proceed in future.

Thank you. The convener of the cross-party group on deafness, Cathie Craigie, would have liked to be here today, but she must attend a long-standing constituency event. The cross-party group on deafness has been examining the lack of qualified signers.

Although Linda Fabiani recommends option B, we might want to take from option A the suggestion that we write to the cross-party group on deafness, to say that we have considered the matter.

What is happening about the proposal to give MSPs and parliamentary staff an introduction to, or familiarisation with, sign language? The idea of such a programme was punted up, but I am not sure what stage that is at.

The equality strategy is being considered by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Part of that strategy will involve a training programme for MSPs. The matter is with the corporate body and when the strategy is approved, it will be rolled out.

So it is still in the frame?

Indeed.

I think that an e-mail was sent last week, asking people whether they wanted to sign up for various language courses. The e-mail said that consideration was being given to offering British Sign Language courses. I think that, in the not-too-distant future, BSL will be available to MSPs.

I agree with Linda Fabiani and also with what the convener said about writing to cross-party groups. In the Holyrood project, it is clearly important to ensure that the new building is accessible to all, including people with children and people with all sorts of disabilities.

I am sorry that I have arrived late, convener. I hope that I will not repeat anything that has already been said. I think that option B is a good idea. I agree also that we should write to the cross-party group on deafness and speak to Cathie Craigie, its convener. There is also an issue around the availability of signers and interpreters. The problem about interpreters also applies in relation to minority ethnic languages.

Because there has been a funding crisis over the past four or five years, it is difficult to get people to do interpreting work. There has been a move to encourage more people to train to be signers, but that is a fairly long process. Messages need to be delivered about how signing is funded and promoted, to encourage people to take it up. It is not a matter only of ensuring that signers are available; it can be very difficult to ensure that there are sufficient signers around at all.

The issue that is being discussed by the cross-party group is that although there is no lack of commitment on the part of the Parliament to ensure that we are as accessible as possible, there is a lack of signers. It is very difficult. For example, for a meeting such as this, two signers are required and we managed to get two signers at the last minute. I can find out what the cross-party group has been doing on the matter, and I can ask whether it can send a note to members, asking what they are doing. We would support any work that is being done on the matter.

Is it agreed that we accept the recommendation under option B, but that we also take from option A the suggestion that we write to the cross-party group on deafness and, furthermore, that I ask the convener of that group whether she could give the committee information about what that group is doing?

Members indicated agreement.

Again, I thank the signers for coming along and for helping to facilitate the meeting, and I thank the members of the public who have taken an interest.