European Year of Languages (British Sign Language)
We move now to members' business. I ask members who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly. The debate will be on motion S1M-2175, in the name of Sandra White, on the European year of languages and British Sign Language. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. Members who wish to contribute to the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons now.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament believes that in 2001, the European Year of Languages, the Scottish Executive should take forward the lessons of the Millennium Project 2000 which taught the basics of British Sign Language (BSL) and Deaf Awareness to schoolchildren; invites the Scottish Executive to investigate the introduction of BSL to the school curriculum, and further believes that Her Majesty's Government should give official recognition to BSL under the terms of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
Presiding Officer, may we have extra time for the debate, because of the number of members who wish to speak and because the previous debate overran?
I will consult the minister, who might have further engagements. We might just manage an extension, but I will give a ruling towards half-past 5.
Thank you.
I would like to welcome all the interested parties in the gallery and to thank them for travelling here on such a miserable night. I also welcome Cathy Jamieson, the Minister for Education and Young People, who has a personal interest in Kincaidston Primary School in Ayrshire. I would also like to thank the many groups of the deaf community who have been extremely supportive in pushing for the debate, particularly Deaf Connections, the British Deaf Association and the Scottish Council on Deafness, whose support and information has been invaluable.
The debate has been long awaited by many people involved with the deaf community. It is my third attempt to debate the motion; I first lodged the motion in mid-2000. I am delighted that the motion has been taken for debate tonight. It is particularly timely as it is fewer than four weeks before the end of the European year of languages. The motion covers a range of issues on which many people have been campaigning for some considerable time.
My interest in the issues contained in the motion was first stimulated by my involvement in the millennium schools project. It was my great delight to take part in the project when Deaf Connections in Glasgow organised activities with St Brendan's Primary School in Yoker. The millennium schools project aimed to teach the basics of British Sign Language and deaf awareness to primary 7 classes in Glasgow. I was delighted when I heard that the project had been awarded a further three-year grant from the Community Fund and that it was to be extended to secondary schools both in and outside the Glasgow area.
The project sought to instil a greater knowledge, understanding and awareness of deaf people and their language in mainstream schools. As 90 per cent of deaf children are educated in mainstream schools, the introduction of BSL and deaf awareness programmes would enable deaf youngsters to feel more included in activities. That would set a solid foundation for the future, with more hearing people having some knowledge of sign language. It would help make Scotland a more inclusive society for those of us who are deaf. The deaf community would like BSL to be added to the school curriculum so that both deaf and hearing children can learn it at school.
A key issue for the deaf community is the shortage of sign language interpreters, lip-speakers and deaf-blind communicators. As more deaf and hard of hearing people leave school, the demand for communication services has become so great that it is outstripping supply. Deaf people find great difficulty in securing the services of interpreters. In Scotland there are only 37 qualified BSL interpreters. That represents a ratio of only one interpreter to 135 deaf people. Many in the deaf community believe that the recognition of BSL and its introduction to the school curriculum would be a tremendous step forward in alleviating the situation.
The European year of languages has been welcomed as an opportunity to celebrate linguistic diversity and to highlight the benefits of a multicultural, multilingual society. The deaf community has used the opportunity to increase awareness of one of the most significant minority languages—sign language. The British Deaf Association estimates that in Scotland there are about 7,000 people whose first or preferred language is BSL. In the UK as a whole, more people use BSL than use either Gaelic or Welsh. Many deaf people speak English only as a second or third language. Sign language is more accessible to deaf people than English, making it extremely important for BSL to be recognised.
The UK has now signed and ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The charter states that it is a basic human right to use a minority language in private or public life. The deaf community would like information produced by local and central Government to be available in BSL format. Deaf groups such as the BDA have called for recognition of BSL under the charter, as that would ensure for the deaf community fuller access to public services, education, the justice system, broadcasting and cultural life. Recognition would also encourage study and research into BSL and would enhance its position as one of the UK's most widely used indigenous languages.
Last week we had a debate on audiology services, when we were informed that delivery was the responsibility of the health trusts. This week we have a real chance to deliver, as education is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. I hope that the minister will take steps to help create a better future for the deaf community and will make some positive moves to demonstrate that the Scottish Parliament is making progress towards a more inclusive society.
Eight members wish to speak in the debate. If everyone keeps their speech to three or three and a half minutes, I should fit them all in. I am also conscious of the sign language interpreter in the gallery, for whom 45 minutes is a remarkably long shift—let us see whether we can complete the debate within the standard time.
I would like to thank Sandra White for securing today's debate. Over the past couple of years the profile of the deaf community has risen. That is a credit to the Parliament and I hope that today's debate will be one of our successes.
The deaf community has campaigned for a long time for BSL to be recognised officially as a language. Much emphasis is, quite rightly, put on the progress that would be made as a consequence of recognition. It is obvious to anyone who has witnessed any kind of conversation in BSL that it is a language in its own right. Recently, the cross-party group on deafness, along with children from Donaldson's College in Edinburgh, helped to launch deaf awareness week in the chamber. Many of the members who are here this evening came along to that launch. It is fascinating to watch people, especially children, who communicate with every part of their body. It is not just about the hands—the whole of a person's body moves as they put their expressions into their own language. BSL is a language in every way, with its own syntax and structure.
As Sandra White highlighted, we have a critical shortage of sign language interpreters in Scotland to service a community of about 7,000 people. The result is that the resources do not exist to provide proper access to communication services and therefore to all kinds of services that others take for granted, such as visits to doctors and lawyers and, as the Deputy Presiding Officer has pointed out, the public activities of the Parliament.
Associated with that shortage is a gap in higher education courses and funding for training interpreters. As far as I am aware, only one course is available in Scotland, at Heriot-Watt University. It is a part-time course, which costs around £3,000—an individual usually has to fund it from their own pocket. We need to start from the bottom up. According to the BDA, the use of BSL is growing in Scotland. Increasing numbers are taking basic courses—that is to be welcomed. However, as well as continuing that, we need to have a properly funded and recognised higher education course.
I take the opportunity to ask the Executive to maximise the opportunities for deaf children to be educated in the medium of BSL. I recently submitted a motion on that, which also highlighted deaf awareness week. Although we did not have the opportunity to debate the motion in the chamber, I am grateful to my colleagues who gave their support. We need to take action on both those points: increasing the provision of education for deaf children in the medium of BSL and considering the introduction of BSL into the school curriculum. The need is there and adults and children want to learn.
Over the past few years, my interest in deaf issues has grown and my eyes have been opened to the many complex issues that face deaf and hard-of-hearing people in Scotland. As Sandra White said, only last week we debated the need to improve audiology services. We should work for more than official recognition, although that would be an extremely important start. Only Westminster can make that start; recognition by the Scottish Parliament would be merely symbolic. I am pleased that Sandra recognised that in the motion and in her opening remarks. However, the Parliament has debated the issue many times. Questions have been raised almost every month. I join other members today in appealing to the Executive to pursue the issue with the UK Government.
I finish with an invitation. The Scottish Parliament offers a course in BSL to parliamentary staff, but we hope to set one up shortly for members and their researchers. I invite anyone who is interested in learning BSL to respond to the e-mail that has been sent out. I am sure that we can be of benefit to the people out there who might need our services as MSPs.
I thank Sandra White for obtaining time to debate this subject. I welcome the debate because it gives us the opportunity to discuss not only the issue of British Sign Language and its recognition but the issue of languages in the curriculum.
I come to the debate with an open mind. I want us to take steps forward but believe that the only way we can do that is to ask harder questions than we have previously asked. Those questions can probably be answered. Once the answers are obtained, the Parliament will be in a position to begin to make changes. The Millennium Project 2000, which is mentioned in Sandra White's motion, was a worthwhile initiative, and its lessons must be given due consideration. We are able to have such projects in the curriculum. That allows us to explore the initial difficulties of such projects, to note the positive reception of the pupils and teachers involved and to discover ways of overcoming any obstacles.
Before we all agree that BSL should be introduced to the curriculum, we must consider the difficulties that the curriculum already poses for a variety of things that we would like it to include. John Farquhar Munro is present for this debate. I know that he would want there to be more Gaelic teaching. I have a penchant for more Scottish history in the curriculum, and I welcome what Cathy Jamieson was doing yesterday to help that. We have to ask where in the curriculum we should put BSL. That is a question that other members may answer during the debate. Is it to be part of the English language or is to be part of foreign language teaching? I do not consider BSL to be a foreign language. I am sure that those who use British Sign Language do not consider it to be a foreign language. It is their language and part of their culture.
We have to be careful about how we classify BSL. Once we settle that argument, we must consider the guidelines for the five-to-14 curriculum. The guidelines for the S1 and S2 curriculum say:
"Over the two-year period this minimum allocation accounts for 80 per cent of the available time and represents a basic entitlement for every secondary school pupil. The flexible use of the remaining 20 per cent should be based on the needs of pupils and the development priorities of the school."
Perhaps BSL could be fitted into the 20 per cent of curriculum time that is already allocated to language. Alternatively, a school could use the 20 per cent of curriculum time that is free for flexible use to bring in BSL. We must try to isolate the opportunity that is available, rather than giving out glib phrases saying that we support BSL and want it in the curriculum. We must be more detailed.
The motion
"invites the Scottish Executive to investigate the introduction of BSL to the school curriculum".
We are not saying that we will take it on board right now, but that we want its introduction to be investigated.
I quite understand that and I shall take up that point at the end of my speech. I do not want to impugn Ms White's motion by suggesting that she is forcing BSL upon us.
If we put BSL into the 80 per cent of the curriculum for which minimum time is allocated to subject areas, we must be prepared to say which subjects, if any, will have to give up time. We should investigate that and find out how we can promote British Sign Language. We also need to accept that it is now time for a debate on the flexibility of the curriculum. I hope that the Minister for Education and Young People will give us time for such a debate in Parliament. We can then discover more about opportunities for BSL.
This Parliament has committees. Committees, not the Executive, are the ideal vehicle for investigating what needs to be done and what the practical difficulties and costs are. The committees themselves can introduce legislation if that is required. I recommend that, although the Executive should give BSL a favourable wind, we should look to the committees to introduce legislation that will engender cross-party support.
Like the previous speakers, I am delighted to be taking part in this debate and I thank Sandra White for giving us the opportunity to discuss the subject. However, we debated the matter between a year and 18 months ago, and I do not think that the Parliament has moved very far forward since then. That is disappointing in the extreme.
Until a few years ago, I was not terribly aware of the difficulties that were encountered by the profoundly deaf community. That is to my shame and disadvantage. However, when I became an MSP, I was invited to speak to a group from the British Deaf Association in Inverness and was quickly apprised of the daily difficulties that the deaf community encounters. I am sure that many members have had the same experience.
We have a freedom when we speak to a person in a public place, whether that person is a solicitor, a doctor or someone at a train or bus station. One is given an audience and can hear what is said and the other person can understand. That is not the case for the profoundly deaf community; they do not enjoy the same privilege. They are reluctant to present themselves at public places because they are not sure if they will be understood or if responses will be clear, precise and concise. They are therefore concerned, which is a great shame. I was always under the impression that if a person had a hearing impairment, a hearing aid or a loop system in a building would be to their advantage. I was told that such aids are of no advantage and are of little consequence to the profoundly deaf.
Despite our best efforts, BSL is not officially recognised in the UK or in Scotland. Many users of BSL think that they are discriminated against because their language is not officially recognised, and they are right. There are human rights and civil liberties questions. BSL is a language in its own right with its own grammar. It is not based on English—it is international. Different countries have their own national sign languages. BSL is a visual language that is transmitted by facial expressions, lip and hand movements and body movements that have different meanings in different languages. If we want to suggest that it is British, we would have to initiate our own British system of BSL.
The BDA estimates that around 70,000 people in Britain have BSL as their first or preferred language. We will discriminate against them if we do not introduce BSL in Scotland. The motion suggests that BSL should be recognised and introduced into the mainstream education curriculum. That is a credible suggestion and should happen. As I said, we debated the issue in Parliament some months ago, but nothing has happened.
The European year of languages is a joint venture between the Council of Europe and the European Union. They supported the concept that the Europe of the future, like that of the past and present, would be a Europe of linguistic diversity. We should support that. What are we waiting for in Scotland? I do not know. The motion is worthy of support and I am pleased to support it. I ask the Scottish Parliament to lead the way for the rest of the UK. Deaf issues are a fundamental part of the Parliament's equal opportunities agenda. I hope that we can secure all-party support for the recognition of BSL as an official language in the UK and that it will be introduced into the mainstream education curriculum.
I ask the remaining speakers to keep to three and a half minutes, which is the maximum time.
John Farquhar Munro asked:
"What are we waiting for in Scotland?"
That is simple—we are waiting for official recognition of BSL and for more qualified sign interpreters. The shortage is chronic. As John Farquhar Munro mentioned, I secured a debate on the issue months ago. During that debate, Jackie Baillie told me:
"A piece of work is currently being undertaken by the Department for Education and Employment—with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People—on proposals to address the shortage of interpreters … We await that information, to establish what can most usefully be done".—[Official Report, 16 February 2000; Vol 4,
c 1140.]
The cost of the course at Heriot-Watt University has been mentioned. No grants are available, as the course is part time and held at the weekend. We want it to be funded in the normal way, as happens with students who study other subjects. That is what we are waiting for. Heriot-Watt University has demanded that it be done.
A career structure exists for people who learn the language. In Scotland, there are only 37 interpreters and 14 trainees, but Finland has 350 interpreters. When I was chairman of the European Parliament's culture committee, members of that Parliament passed almost unanimously a motion stating that every member state should give official recognition to the sign language of their country. However, only four countries have done so. Of course, Britain is not one of them—they are Sweden, Denmark, Portugal and Finland.
Sign language is a beautiful thing. It can cover the range of philosophical thought. It is ancient and is used by more people than use Welsh and Gaelic put together, as Sandra White pointed out.
We must have more interpreters. They are exhausted. Interpreters in Inverness told me that they wished they did not have the skill, because they cannot say no. They cannot say no when they are asked to attend a funeral or a ceremony or to help with visits to the lawyer, the doctor or the travel agent. Statistics show that one in six deaf people who visit a doctor end up not knowing what advice the doctor gave. Deaf people do not have normal access to leisure or health care.
In Finland, deaf children go to ordinary schools and are accompanied by their own signer. They are part of the community. I have presented prizes at Donaldson's College for the Deaf. One or two of the senior pupils were going on to further studies and I think that in some cases arrangements were made for them to be accompanied.
We are obviously lagging behind, but there is no problem about what we must do. We must get more people to take the official course and obtain the official qualification. That means that we must have a change in the rule about the funding of students on the course. There are plenty willing to do it, particularly those with a deaf relative. Nothing seems to have happened since the debate that I secured 18 months ago. We have had nice words, but that does not help the deaf—they need action now.
I congratulate Sandra White on her motion and I thank her for securing the debate.
This is the second time this year that we have debated the European year of languages in the chamber, which is a very good thing. Members will recall that in September some of us undertook a languages challenge. I said that I would brush up on my French, which I did. The Deputy Presiding Officer showed us how good he was at Russian. As part of that challenge, one of my colleagues in North Ayrshire Council undertook to learn from scratch—and have a conversation in—British Sign Language. That was commendable.
I mentioned that example because I believe that it reinforces the principles of the European year of languages—it signals that languages are for everyone and that they are about more than the spoken word. Languages are about communication, understanding and breaking down barriers between us.
I understand that there are 8.5 million deaf people in the United Kingdom—that is almost twice the population of Scotland. Despite that, knowledge of sign language is often confined to those who have family members who are deaf or who work professionally in the area. I do not think that that is good enough.
Sandra White's proposal that there should be opportunities for children to learn BSL as part of the curriculum is a good one. We should consider how we could introduce that in a flexible way. Young people often learn languages to be able to communicate with their counterparts abroad. We accept that on a daily basis. However, it is equally important that they learn to communicate with those young people around them who are deaf.
I am delighted that the European year of languages has provided a vehicle for the Parliament to discuss BSL. I am happy to support Sandra White's motion and I thank her for lodging it.
I join previous speakers in thanking Sandra White for initiating the debate, which is just in time to be in the European year of languages. She might like to know that my Westminster colleague Malcolm Bruce is particularly interested in the Parliament's debate today. He put a successful motion to the Council of Europe some months ago that sign language should be accepted as a language under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and he is the rapporteur of the working group that was established to consider how sign languages are treated in all countries in Europe. He has asked me to send him a copy of the Official Report of our debate.
The meat of the motion concerns what will be done to teach and use BSL in schools. If that is done, it will ripple out into society. To provide a solid foundation for incorporating BSL into education and other service provision, with all the wider benefits of access and inclusion that that will bring, the initial step is for the UK Government to add official recognition of BSL to its ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
Sign languages were excluded from the languages that the charter initially covered because it was argued that sign language was not a real language and that the charter's aim was to protect historic languages. Both those arguments are easily refuted. References to the use of sign language go back to St Augustine in the first century. Linguistic analysis of BSL and other national sign languages establishes without doubt that they are as complex and sophisticated as any spoken language and have their own vocabulary, grammar and syntax.
No official figures exist for the number of BSL users in the UK, but it is estimated that BSL is the first or preferred language of between 50,000 and 70,000 people. That is a significant minority. As Sandra White said, more people use BSL than use Welsh, but Welsh-medium education can be provided.
The European Parliament called on member states to recognise their respective national sign languages in 1988 and 1998. Its calls have fallen on deaf ears, if members will pardon the expression. As Winnie Ewing said, only four countries—Denmark, Finland, Portugal and Sweden—have recognised their sign languages. It is long past time that Britain followed suit.
Although important, recognition is only an initial step. We need a cross-border change in attitude. We need to shift the perception of BSL as a special needs language to that of BSL as a straight first language or as a mainstream modern language choice.
I will end my speech with a quotation:
"Often individuals and groups are treated unjustly and suppressed by means of language. People who are deprived of linguistic human rights may thereby be prevented from enjoying other human rights, including fair political representation, a fair trial, access to education, access to information and freedom of speech, and maintenance of their cultural heritage."
I do not want any group of people in Scotland to be excluded in that way. I commend Sandra White's motion and urge the Scottish Executive to proceed as the motion suggests and to lend its weight to the campaign to have BSL recognised by the UK Government.
Like others, I welcome the debate. I am pleased that the European year of languages has given us an opportunity to dispel some of the myths about sign language, to raise awareness of BSL and to press for changes in attitude and for acceptance.
We heard Dr Ewing and Nora Radcliffe talk about the European Parliament's attempts to persuade every member state to recognise its national sign language as the official language of deaf people. I echo that Parliament's calls for the UK Government to recognise BSL under the Council of Europe's European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The UK Government's refusal to accede in that respect, despite a recommendation from the Disability Rights Commission, is insupportable.
In his recent report "Language and Literacy Policy in Scotland", Professor Joseph Lo Bianco, who is a noted expert in his field, confirms:
"BSL users are deprived of many social rights that their fellow Scottish citizens take for granted. The stigmatisation of signing results in considerable social, legal, educational and economic disadvantage and inequity. By present day values, the policy that we find in the practices of some educational institutions and many social agencies, in relation to signing, is characterised by prejudice and ignorance."
Like others, I am especially concerned by the impact of all this on generations of deaf children who have underachieved because of their struggle to understand spoken language and because of being denied the opportunity to acquire BSL. Perhaps a comprehensive policy on language needs, with the promotion of bilingualism as the norm, would help to overcome some of the past prejudice and negativity.
Although I have spent much of the past 12 months raising awareness and campaigning on behalf of Scots and Gaelic in the European year of languages, I have also been investigating the BSL situation. Many members might not be aware that earlier this year, members of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee—including Brian Monteith—decided to undertake an inquiry into Scotland's languages, focusing on the role of educational and cultural policy and practice in supporting and developing all Scotland's languages. I was asked to undertake that inquiry on behalf of the committee and am pleased to tell members that there was an excellent response to the call for written evidence on the issue. A first draft of the report is being prepared for submission to the committee some time in the new year. However, it became apparent early on in my work on the inquiry that we needed to include BSL, because not to do so would have rendered any report on a languages policy for Scotland grossly deficient. I ask the Scottish Executive to take note of that.
I congratulate Sandra White and indeed all the members who have participated in the debate. It is clear that members have a considerable breadth of knowledge on this issue and that the debate has been very worth while. To those in the gallery with a particular interest in the issue, I add my welcome to Sandra White's. I give my biggest congratulations of all to the sign language interpreter in the gallery, who has been doing an excellent job throughout the debate for what has now been a long time.
We all want a just and inclusive society in Scotland that enables all our citizens to achieve their full potential. The Scottish Executive recognises that deaf people's lack of access to information and services that hearing people take for granted contributes to their sense—indeed, the reality—of isolation and social exclusion. Our commitment to finding ways of making a practical difference to people's lives is one of the fundamental aspects of Scottish ministers' overall commitment to social inclusion and equality. In education, that commitment is recognised in our national priorities, which I will touch on a little later.
First, like other members, I want to mention the millennium project, which we would all agree has been extremely worth while. The aims of the initiative were to improve the quality of life for deaf people by raising awareness, reducing stigma and improving the general public's communication skills. It is impressive that 56 primary schools in the Glasgow City Council area volunteered to participate in the programme, which provides 10 hours of instruction in BSL to primary 7 pupils.
Deaf Connections and Glasgow City Council are to be congratulated on the initiative and on attracting funding to support the project. I understand that that funding is now to be extended to allow the project to run for three years. The project will also be extended throughout the west of Scotland and into secondary schools. I congratulate the organisers on the initiative and the steps that they are taking to roll the project out into other parts of Scotland.
I return to the issue of BSL in the school curriculum. Members will be aware of the national priorities in education, which outline the aims for a successful education system. I will not rehearse them all this evening. They focus on five key areas, one of which is inclusion and equality. The area of inclusion and equality in education is the most relevant to the debate and, as I said, it is a core element of the policy that Scottish ministers are trying to develop on inclusion and equality in general.
The promotion of equality will help every pupil to benefit from education. Particular regard must be paid to pupils with disabilities and special educational needs as well as to Gaelic and other lesser-used languages. Local authorities and their schools are aware that they hold the key to delivering an education that implements the national priorities in full and are best placed to take into consideration the individual needs and wishes of pupils and parents. Decisions on how to implement the priorities rightly lie with schools and local authorities.
However, very recently, schools have been encouraged by Scottish ministers, through a Scottish Executive circular, to consider greater flexibility and more innovation in the curriculum. The intention is to enable schools to provide a more individualised education and to support pupils in achieving their full potential. There has been no better time for schools to make decisions on curriculum content, in line with their priorities, within the framework of the national priorities. I would be pleased to see a greater use of BSL in our schools. The key is for schools to recognise the benefit to their pupils and, in my view, the decision is best made by teachers, head teachers and local authorities, although all of us can encourage that to happen.
Following a debate on BSL that was initiated by Winnie Ewing last year, the Executive established a BSL and linguistic access working group, which fully involves BSL users and organisations such as the British Deaf Association, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters. The group is exploring what needs to be done to make a real and practical difference to the lives of people who are deaf, especially those who use BSL. The presence of Cathy Jamieson at the debate underscores our commitment to the issue and we look forward to seeing the outcome of that work as soon as possible.
However, the group is not considering the issue of official recognition of BSL because, as colleagues are aware, that issue is not devolved but is reserved to the UK Government. The Executive's equality strategy contained a commitment to commission a study on the development of a national framework of guidance on the provision of translation and interpreting services. That is intended to consider minority ethnic languages as well as the communication needs of disabled people, including BSL users. The outcome will be a framework of guidance on the provision of translation, interpreting and communication support services throughout the public sector. We hope to tackle some of the concerns that Winnie Ewing has again identified this evening.
In closing, it is important to mention the European year of languages. The main objective of the year is to make European citizens aware that all languages—not just the widely known languages—are important and equally deserving of interest.
A Scottish committee has worked hard to promote and support activities and events that were organised as part of the European year of languages. The interests of the deaf community were represented on the committee by the Scottish Deaf Association. Many local and national events have taken place over the year and have resulted in a renewed interest in languages. I understand that a significant event is being arranged that will not only look back at what has been achieved during the year but, more important, look forward at ways of sustaining those achievements. I hope that BSL and the needs of deaf people will play an important role in that.
I am conscious of the time—for obvious reasons, I have tried to speak more slowly than I would otherwise have done—so I think that I will close on that issue. I hope that we debate this issue in the Scottish Parliament again. We have done so on more than one occasion now, but it is an issue that is worthy of further debate and all of us would like there to be further progress.
Meeting closed at 17:46.