Official Report 1060KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20059, in the name of Karen Adam, on behalf of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, on the committee’s British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 inquiry.
15:08
I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on behalf of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on our recent report on the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015. A decade has passed since the bill was enacted, in what marked a significant milestone in promoting the use and understanding of BSL across Scotland. The committee agreed that this was an opportune moment to consider the impact of the 2015 act and to identify where further improvements could be made.
As most people in the chamber know—and as I will now sign—I am what is called a CODA, which is the child of a deaf adult. My father is deaf and I grew up around deaf people and in and around their community, so I know and understand how important it is for deaf people to have inclusive language—first language—to be able to live inclusively in their society. We welcomed the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 when it became law.
As a result of the 2015 act, the Scottish Government and listed public authorities are required to publish national and local plans every six years. The second national plan, which was published in November 2023, set out a range of actions to tackle barriers that BSL users face, with the aim of helping to make Scotland the best place in the world for them to live, work, visit and learn. That is an aspiration with which the committee fully agrees. From the outset, we sought to approach our inquiry in a constructive manner and to make informed recommendations on areas where further concrete actions could benefit BSL users across Scotland. I thank the Deputy First Minister for her written response to our report, and I was pleased to see that the Scottish Government had accepted, or partially accepted, the vast majority of our recommendations.
The committee took evidence from organisations representing deaf people, academics and others working to minimise barriers. We also held informal engagement sessions with deaf and deafblind people with first-hand experience of using BSL, to hear about the challenges that they can face. Those discussions were invaluable in shaping the committee’s scrutiny, and I would like to place on the record the committee’s sincere gratitude to all who assisted us.
It is important to note that the 2015 act covers deafblind users of tactile BSL, in addition to those signers with whom many of us will be more familiar. Deafblind stakeholders explained how they often feel marginalised as a smaller community, of which there is less understanding among public and professionals alike. They therefore called for tactile BSL to be routinely included and placed on an equal footing to BSL, and not just treated as an afterthought.
Stakeholders widely acknowledged the 2015 act’s positive impact in raising awareness, increasing visibility of BSL and empowering deaf communities. Initiatives such as Contact Scotland BSL, a 24/7 video interpreting service, were praised as being transformative. Examples of improved service access include better interpreter support, deaf awareness training and inclusive recruitment practices. The committee strongly welcomed the positive feedback that was received with regard to empowering BSL users and increasing visibility of the language, but was equally mindful that significant challenges remain and that more needs to be done to address them. For example, the shortage of qualified interpreters in rural areas remains a significant barrier.
I turn to the substance of the committee’s report. We covered a wide range of key policy areas. I intend to focus on the three that received the most feedback from stakeholders: education, health and justice. I look forward to listening to contributions from other members in the chamber, who I am sure might reflect on other policy areas.
I will briefly discuss our conclusions on the local and national plans that public bodies are required to publish under the 2015 act. The first national plan was widely praised for the collaborative work that went into it, although concerns were also raised about inconsistent implementation, lack of enforceability and insufficient funding. However, feedback on the second national plan was more mixed. Many stakeholders felt that it lacked measurable goals, timelines and accountability. Some expressed disappointment that their recommendations had been watered down or omitted, and they called for clearer targets and better resource allocation. The committee regretted that the collaborative spirit of the first plan had not been fully carried forward, and it recommended greater transparency and stakeholder engagement in future planning.
In respect of local plans for public bodies covering areas including health, education and justice, the committee notes the need for local flexibility to address specific needs and the importance of raising local ambitions on BSL. We welcomed positive examples of meaningful engagement with BSL users and collaborative working with relevant partners, but we noted that, unfortunately, not all listed authorities adopted that approach. We also heard from the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland that, three months after the statutory deadline of 6 May 2024, only 72 per cent of listed authorities had published plans in English, with only 62 per cent having published them in BSL. The committee agrees with stakeholders such as Deaf Links, which described that data as “extremely disappointing.”
I therefore welcome confirmation that funding will be made available to the ALLIANCE to deliver a BSL network to strengthen monitoring, data collection and accountability. Nonetheless, that is not the BSL board that the committee recommended, and in summing up, I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s reflections on how we can help to ensure democratic accountability and how it will compare with the BSL board under the UK act.
One of the most important policy areas for BSL users is education, with a particular focus on early years provision. We heard that some deaf children start school or nursery with no knowledge of the language, and that is unacceptable. Deaf Links described the poor experiences that many deaf adults have had as children. It told us:
“They do not want another generation suffering in the way that they have suffered: not being able to get a job or an education; being treated like a second-class citizen; not being able to access the hearing world in any way, shape or form; and having their life chances reduced because they are deaf and use BSL.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 3 June 2025; c 13.]
For many deaf people, BSL is not an additional language but their only language, which is a crucial difference.
Although investment in Gaelic schools is absolutely rightly celebrated, parity of esteem has not been extended to BSL, despite the fact that deaf children simply cannot choose another language in order to get on in society. It is therefore welcome that the Scottish Government is working with partners to update the existing qualifications guidance for teachers of children with sensory impairments. The committee looks forward to considering the results of the recent consultation on proposed revisions to the guidance when available, as well as the outcomes on the Scottish Government’s review of the curriculum.
Looking back on the legislation as someone who was involved in it at the Government end, I think that Karen Adam touches on an important point, which is the importance of BSL as a language and all the human dignity that that implies. I realise that the act is about more than symbolism, but does she agree, as I am sure she will, about the impact that it made on that community to know that, symbolically, the country had recognised their language for what it is, which is a language?
I absolutely agree with Alasdair Allan. That has been part of the understanding that we have been trying to get across to people that BSL is not just a support for people with a disability or a hearing impairment; it is a language with a whole culture embedded in it, and that is how it needs to be treated.
While welcoming the work on guidance for teachers, I reiterate the need for parity with Gaelic-medium education.
I will turn briefly to healthcare and justice. It is clear that improvements have been made in respect of the provision of interpreters for pre-arranged appointments, but BSL users told us of the barriers that they face when contacting emergency services. The committee recognised that communication barriers can exacerbate what are often already stressful and traumatic situations. It is therefore pleasing to learn that the police, fire and ambulance services are working with partners on an app to help deaf people communicate with first responders in emergencies.
Another aspect of the justice system that our report considered in detail relates to the experience of deaf survivors of domestic abuse. We heard powerful first-hand testimony from a BSL user who had experienced such abuse. Although I do not have time to discuss that in any detail, I am sure that other members of the committee will do so later in the debate, and I look forward to their contributions.
I conclude by reiterating my thanks to all those who contributed to our inquiry and to the Deputy First Minister for her response. The response is encouraging, in so far as the door is clearly open for further improvements to be made. It is my sincere hope that our recommendations can contribute to helping to make Scotland the best place in the world for BSL users to live, work, visit and learn.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the findings and recommendations in the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s 4th Report, 2025 (Session 6), Report on British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 (SP Paper 872).
15:19
It is important to have this debate to reflect on the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s report, and to mark the 10-year anniversary of the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015, which we have been doing over the past few weeks. I welcome our guests in the gallery—it is wonderful to have you here.
BSL is one of Scotland’s languages and is used by many people every day. I am proud that Scotland has been a leader in BSL not just in recent years but over the past few centuries. I thank the many MSPs who have contributed to that progress, particularly Mark Griffin for his tireless work in lodging the bill that became the 2015 act; Karen Adam, the convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee; and the rest of the committee’s members. The cross-party group on deafness also does critically important work in advocating for BSL users and the deaf and deafblind communities in Scotland. More importantly, I thank the BSL community for the role that it has played in educating people about BSL and wider aspects of deaf culture. As a community, it has continued to campaign for the full realisation and delivery of the act and for greater understanding and recognition of BSL as a language.
When engaging with the community, I have seen at first hand the difference that the act has made and what more can be done to tackle the remaining barriers. If the act raises expectations about what equity should look like, it also reveals the gaps in current provision. Although it is good to have support from committee members, MSPs and the wider BSL community, constructive challenge as we look ahead is even more important as we work to deliver the actions that are outlined in the current BSL national plan.
Will the Deputy First Minister take an intervention?
I would love a challenge from Martin Whitfield.
I have no challenge. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that part of the committee’s report suggests that the momentum behind BSL has been lost, particularly after the first national plan, and that there has been a level of disappointment with the second national plan? Does she agree that we need to grasp the momentum that existed when the 2015 act was passed, to put BSL where it belongs as a language in Scotland and a first language for so many people?
I certainly think that the committee’s report and its scrutiny have given BSL added impetus. To be blunt, I do not think that we can ever have enough momentum to carry us through, so I am happy to accept Martin Whitfield’s request for added impetus and more momentum.
There are a number of recommendations in the report that can focus our minds. As Karen Adam said, the Scottish Government has accepted the vast majority of the recommendations. The only ones that we did not accept are either because they are not for us, or because they need a bit more detailed work, but there are very few of those. None of my comments should be misrepresented, as so much work has been done, particularly in recent years.
The British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 is flagship legislation that everyone should be proud of. It places a duty on the Government and on listed authorities to promote and increase the use and understanding of BSL, which is key to bringing about the change that we want to see. The BSL plans are the vehicles for that promotion. Two plans have been published in the past 10 years, sitting alongside local BSL plans produced by listed authorities. The current national BSL plan concludes in 2029. At the heart of it is a clear focus on the accessibility of public services and tackling the systemic barriers that BSL users face in their daily lives. The 10 priority themes in the plan are areas that the deaf and deafblind communities have told us are important to them—education, health, justice and culture; all the same themes that were highlighted in evidence taken by the committee. Those are wide-ranging sectors that cover all aspects of society. As I said to the committee this week, often, somebody’s experience in one part of Scotland might differ from a person’s experience in another part of Scotland, which is why local BSL plans could arguably be more important for some communities. We have been clear that our six-year plan is not static; it is not something that we write and then leave. It is an iterative process that can respond to new and emerging challenges, and we have agreed to learn from and build on the actions that are in it.
The committee’s in-depth report is excellent. It took evidence from those with lived experience and reflected on the impact that the act has had. The report rightly recognises that the act is something that empowers people, increases the visibility and use of BSL, and continues to improve access to services for BSL users. However, the report also shows us more about the continued barriers and challenges that the community faces.
There are 44 recommendations. We have assessed each recommendation against two factors. First, the extent to which it aligns with the priority areas and actions in the national plan, and, secondly, its overall deliverability, including resource and cost implications.
We have accepted, either in part or in full, 40 of the recommendations. We have agreed to consider three recommendations further because they need more detailed analysis. People agreeing to things without doing the analysis up front is the bane of my life, because it is one thing to say that one is going to do something and it is quite another to make sure that one delivers on that. It is important that we do that detailed analysis first.
There is one recommendation that we have declined, and that is because it is for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and not the Scottish Government.
The Deputy First Minister has said that the quality of provision differs across Scotland, so can she explain why she does not support the establishment of a national oversight board?
I think that I mentioned in committee that we are certainly interested in exploring that further. For me, the key is not whether I think that it is a good idea—I have seen how that model, in a slightly different guise, operates in relation to Gaelic, for example, with Bòrd na Gàidhlig—but what the community thinks. If there is widespread support from BSL users, the Government is not going to stand in the way and is not averse to the establishment of such a board. However, for us, it is critically important that we identify whether that is an approach that is of interest to the BSL community. I have tasked the relevant team of my officials with initiating that informal consultation and those conversations with BSL users. I think that I confirmed at committee that I would be keen that we build up the initial detailed work that could then be taken forward by the new Government after the election, which could implement the measure if it has widespread support.
We recognise that, to deliver on our ambition, it is important that we work together to deliver collective action to strengthen outcomes for BSL users. One point that came through the committee’s scrutiny concerned local experience and whether there is adequate monitoring and reporting of that varying level of access at a local level. That is why we have established the listed authority network, which was delivered on our behalf by the ALLIANCE. That is an example of the creation of a space in which to share good practice among listed authorities, to share resources and to identify solutions to challenges around the implementation of local BSL plans. The network will have its first meeting with listed authorities on 15 December, and I very much look forward to seeing the work that comes out of it. Of course, that complements the work of the British Deaf Association Scotland, which we fund to work with listed authorities to foster community connections and share information on how best to engage with BSL users.
Since the national plan was published, we have launched the new Contact Scotland BSL service, which will include a pilot of video remote interpreting for the first time; we have provided £375,000 to develop and launch the SignPort app, which will make booking interpreters easier; we have established the BSL justice advisory board to bring together justice sector representatives and the BSL community, which touches on a theme that was raised by a number of committee members; and we have continued to fund BSL organisations through the equality and human rights fund.
I am keen to take the committee’s report and move at pace to implement and deliver some of the recommendations that are perhaps easier to deliver than others, as well as exploring some of the other recommendations that require that element of consultation or detailed analysis work. The conversations that I have had with BSL users this year have been inspirational and have also shaped my thinking on the Scottish Government’s actions in the national plan. The BSL users I have met have reflected on their educational journeys and the improvements that could have been put in place to better support them, and they have highlighted the importance to them of various initiatives.
Someone who worked tirelessly to shape the 2015 act asked why deaf and deafblind people have to continue to always fight for their rights. That point struck me, and that is why the Scottish Government remains committed to the actions in our BSL national plan, taking on board Martin Whitfield’s call for greater momentum, working on a cross-party basis and to delivering as many of the committee’s recommendations as quickly as possible.
15:30
I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives and also to speak as a member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. I thank the committee and its clerks for putting together the report, and I also thank everyone who provided evidence to the committee as part of our inquiry, which we began early this year.
According to the latest Scottish census, there are just over 117,000 BSL users in Scotland, which amounts to 2 per cent of the population. In 2015, the Scottish Parliament passed the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015, which has increased BSL visibility, improved access to services for BSL users and delivered greater empowerment of the deaf community.
However, as the evidence sessions and the report that we are debating today have made clear, some challenges remain. I will focus on two areas: first, the experience of deaf children when it comes to education; and secondly, issues relating to access to justice, particularly for deaf women who experience domestic abuse.
Deaf children face many barriers to things that their hearing peers take for granted. For instance, they often arrive at school without any well-developed language. That is unacceptable, which is why I am pleased that the committee agrees that deaf children should be able to learn their native language of BSL as early as possible. In the committee’s private sessions, we heard from deaf pupils and their parents, who said that, in many cases, pupils placed in mainstream schools faced difficulties because there were not enough BSL specialists. Teachers were not properly equipped to deal with those pupils’ needs. One of the pupils we spoke to said that it was extremely difficult to keep up with the work and, therefore, she failed her exams.
Many deaf pupils wish to study in mainstream schools, but the status quo is simply not acceptable. Too many deaf children are leaving school without the language and support that they need and are thus being set up to fail in later life. That is not just a future risk—it is happening now, and the consequences are lifelong. That is why I hope that the Scottish Government takes important steps to invest in deaf education, such as by increasing the number of qualified teachers.
I turn to the issue of deaf survivors of domestic abuse. Deaf women are more likely to experience domestic abuse than hearing women. I was shocked to hear in evidence to the committee that deaf women often assume that domestic abuse is a normal behaviour.
Such sentiments were also expressed at an event that I attended a couple of weeks ago, which was sponsored by East Dunbartonshire Women’s Aid and was entitled, “Empowering deaf women to report domestic abuse”. We were told that deaf women do not know the meaning of words such as “coercion” and “consent”. We were told that there are only three BSL-trained domestic abuse advocates in Scotland, all of whom are based in Dundee. I was told by representatives of East Dunbartonshire Women’s Aid that funding remains a major issue for many women’s aid organisations, which makes it extremely challenging to recruit independent domestic abuse advocates who are skilled in sign language interactions. The barriers are even bigger for deaf women in rural areas, who are forced to travel for hours to access such support.
Those women have also been let down by the justice system. While putting together my Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill, I met a survivor who had slurred speech. When the police arrived at her home, her abuser told authorities that she was drunk, so she was not taken seriously. The police and women’s aid organisations do not always have interpreters, as many interpreters do not feel comfortable taking on such cases.
I clearly remember Lucy Clark, a deaf advocate and survivor of domestic abuse, telling the committee that finding an interpreter is always at the forefront of deaf women’s minds. Even when there is an interpreter, many deaf survivors feel more comfortable speaking to someone else whose first language is BSL. However, in order to have a better picture of the extent of the problem, we need proper data. That is why my bill would place a duty on public authorities and third sector organisations to collect data such as disability status. I am pleased that that element of my bill received strong support during the consultation process as well as during the evidence that was given to the Parliament’s Criminal Justice Committee.
On Tuesday, I asked the Deputy First Minister whether she believed that better data collection would help us to better understand the full extent of the problem. I was pleased that she agreed, and it is now incumbent on the Scottish Government and MSPs of all parties to support my bill.
It is important to remember that Scotland’s deaf community is one of the most marginalised communities in our country. I hope that Parliament comes together in welcoming the report and agreeing to its recommendations. Although I was pleased to hear some warm words from the Deputy First Minister in her opening speech, I hope that they are followed by some concrete actions to make the lives of deaf people a little bit easier.
15:36
I offer my thanks to the committee for all the important work that it carried out before publishing the report. On behalf of Scottish Labour, I welcome the report’s findings and, of course, the opportunity to speak today and contribute to the discussion on how the committee’s report can be used to build on the 2015 act and the national plan.
I welcome the 2015 act’s positive impacts on BSL users, including increased representation and visibility of BSL, as we have talked about. The 2015 act has clearly been a momentous step forward in empowering users, strengthening provision and supporting BSL users to speak up for their rights. I note the points made about the language of BSL, and I thank Karen Adam for her response on important points about language and culture.
Developments over the past decade should be welcomed as we take the next step in considering what further improvements can be made in the short and long term to support BSL users. As was made clear from the committee’s inquiry, despite examples of positive work, much more is required to improve user experience, and I welcome the fact that the Government has recognised that.
One of the main themes in the report is the concern about gaps in the implementation and enforceability of the 2015 act, which is an important issue that we should explore. Following the ALLIANCE’s analysis of the second round of BSL plans from all listed local authorities, it was disappointing to hear that only 72 per cent of authorities published plans, and only 62 per cent met their statutory duty that requires that the plans be published in BSL. That is a failing by the local authorities—the step that they should be taking is quite clear.
I understand that the Scottish Government does not have a regulatory function under the 2015 act, but we should have serious concerns about the fact that we have passed legislation that is not being complied with or properly monitored. We must have a discussion in the Parliament about how we can help with that important matter.
I hope that the Scottish Government can set out what further action it will take to ensure that any legislation, including the statutory duty placed on listed local authorities, is complied with and that consideration is given to how best to support authorities to fulfil legislative requirements. As a Parliament, we should think about how we can support local authorities. I am sure that the action plans that the Deputy First Minister set out will help with that.
People who live in rural areas face a particular disadvantage when it comes to accessing services, due to a shortage of interpreters. In those communities, getting an interpreter can often involve travel over really long distances as there might not be suitably qualified people in the local area. Pam Gosal made the point that, in certain circumstances, BSL users often want to have some relationship with the person they are speaking to.
I recognise the challenges that local authorities face, particularly in rural areas. However, living in remote and rural communities should never be a barrier to accessing the care and services that people need; everybody should have equal access to those services across Scotland. We need to do much more work to make sure that people are trained in providing them.
We know that living in a remote and rural area can also increase feelings of isolation and loneliness. Will the Government outline any work that is being done to support the key roles of groups and facilities such as deaf clubs, which aim to bring communities together, and to ensure that all people feel supported and included? I know that it can be difficult in my area to secure premises, to get people together—because of issues with transport—and to make sure that people know that such facilities are available.
I would like to address many areas of the committee’s report, including those on the challenges around early years provision and equal access to education. Others have mentioned—and constituents have spoken to me about—how difficult it is to enter early years provision and then move into primary and then secondary education.
Is it not at those transitional periods—when children from the BSL user community are going into school and nursery for the first time, going to high school and going from the broad general education into higher education with assessments—that far more work needs to be done and a far better understanding from the education community of the differentiated needs is required?
I thank Martin Whitfield for that intervention. I was going to make that point.
Sorry.
No, it was a very welcome intervention. Many families talk about supporting their loved ones, about them becoming settled in their preschool and then needing to move, and about having to go through the transition again, so it is so important that we address that issue. There is much more to say, as others have mentioned.
I hope that the Government places an emphasis on this issue and that it is committed to tackling the barriers for young BSL users and their wider families. This is a really important piece of work, so I look forward to a cross-party response to the committee’s work, which Kate Forbes spoke about.
15:43
I speak in today’s debate as a member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. I thank the clerks for their assistance in the production of the report and all those who submitted their views on the subject. I welcome our guests in the public gallery.
Ten years on from the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015, the committee decided to hold a short inquiry to consider the actions that have been taken by the Scottish Government and the public authorities that are listed in the act to tackle the barriers that BSL users face. We focused on two things in particular: first, whether the act, the current BSL plan and listed authority plans are improving the lives of BSL users; and, secondly, what changes could be made in the short and long terms to improve the lives of BSL users.
The 2015 act was a landmark piece of legislation for this country. By enshrining British Sign Language in primary legislation, it acknowledged deaf citizens as a distinct language community. The committee welcomed the positive feedback that was received on the impact that the act has had in improving the daily lives of BSL users. I am pleased that it was noted that it has helped to increase the language’s visibility and to empower deaf BSL users to access services and participate in society using their preferred language.
However, there are some challenges, and a number of key themes emerged during the evidence sessions. For the sake of time, I will touch on only two of those.
Justice was a key policy area to arise in the discussions, particularly for deaf people with experience of domestic abuse. As we approach the end of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, it is important to touch on that part of the report in particular. I express my sincere thanks to Lucy, a deaf domestic abuse survivor, who provided important testimony on the barriers that BSL users can face when engaging with the police and courts.
Progress was noted under the access to justice actions in the national plan, but, in her evidence, Professor Napier, chair of intercultural communication and associate principal of research culture at Heriot-Watt University, said that several issues that would improve access for BSL users in the legal system had not been addressed. Professor Napier noted that research in the USA estimated that deaf women are two to three times more likely to experience domestic abuse than hearing women. The cause of that is
“potential perpetrators using their hearing status as part of the power dynamic”.—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 3 June 2025; c 58.]
The committee agrees with our witnesses that deaf women in particular should have better access to education and information about their rights and the law and that deaf-specific service providers would help to achieve that. Therefore, the committee invited the Scottish Government to consider what further steps could be taken in that regard. I welcome the fact that, in her response, the Deputy First Minister noted that the Scottish Government continues
“to engage with Deaf Links and the Sign Loud team at Heriot Watt University and University of Edinburgh, a project focused on experiences of domestic abuse and communication barriers, to consider deliverables that will make a difference to Deaf women within the new Equally Safe Delivery Plan.”
The committee agrees that consideration should be given to how emergency services should be alerted to the fact that a person is deaf before attending an emergency call to enable interpretation to be provided, even if that is initially done online. I welcome the fact that the Deputy First Minister’s response notes:
“The Scottish Ambulance Service ... are currently working with BDA Scotland to look at what facilities they currently have in place for BSL patients and service users and how they can improve and develop in this area”.
On healthcare, particularly mental health services, some further concerns were raised that warranted further discussion. For example, the committee invited the Scottish Government to respond to concerns that were raised by BDA Scotland and the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland—the ALLIANCE—about the need for a robust approach to ensuring that older deaf BSL users have access to appropriate services and care packages. It also invited a response on the ALLIANCE’s comments about the likelihood of the number of deafblind people increasing and its calls for an increase in the number of social workers for the deaf.
I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government published an equalities impact assessment alongside the mental health and wellbeing workforce action plan to help to identify and form actions that are needed to address inequalities in the mental health and wellbeing workforce. That specifically included action on promoting BSL resources.
I am pleased that the Scottish Government’s “British Sign Language (BSL): national plan 2023 to 2029” represents its continuing commitment to making Scotland the best place in the world for BSL users to live, work, visit and learn. I am also pleased that, overall, the Scottish Government has accepted in full the vast majority of our recommendations. It is clear that the BSL community should be at the heart of our decision-making process to ensure that we get things right. It is vital that we work together with the community to tackle the barriers, improve their lives and deliver the 2015 act’s objectives.
15:48
I welcome this debate. For me, it is a debate about post-legislative scrutiny, which we have not seen much of in the Parliament. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee took the time to do such scrutiny of the 2015 act. I thank the members of the committee and their clerks for putting together the report. I also thank everyone who provided evidence to the committee—many charities and organisations, sometimes small organisations, that work in our communities. I also pay tribute to Mark Griffin for his long-standing campaigning on BSL and to the convener, Karen Adam, for her and the committee’s work.
As Pam Gosal mentioned in her opening speech, according to the latest Scottish census, there are just over 117,000 BSL users in Scotland. That is about 2 per cent of our population, so delivering on the 2015 act matters.
In 2015, the Scottish Parliament passed the British Sign Language (Scotland) Bill, which has helped to deliver many improvements. We must acknowledge that; it is fair that we do. The committee has found that the act has increased awareness of BSL as a language, with respondents to the committee’s call for views agreeing that the act has increased the visibility and recognition of BSL and that it has helped to raise public awareness. However, for me, as with everything in politics and everything that we do in the Parliament, it is about outcomes. We must challenge ourselves, and the committee report certainly does that.
The committee found that responses were not completely positive. Several responses suggested that there was a lack of enforceability with the act, as has been mentioned in the debate, and some responses mentioned a postcode lottery, which we so often talk about, when it comes to delivering on the act in local government and in our health boards. The committee received mixed responses on the second national plan—I hope that ministers have taken that into account—in relation to not only measurable goals and timelines but clear accountability mechanisms, which need to be improved. One respondent said that there had been
“little in the way of measurable progress across the piece”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 3 June 2025; c 10.]
in relation to the plan.
As a member of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, I want to concentrate my comments on education. It is not surprising that education aspects received the most feedback during the committee’s consultation. Issues that were raised include early years provision, mainstreaming, support around transitions, qualifications and the fluency of teachers in BSL. The committee recommended that the Scottish Government consider what action could be taken to increase the number of deaf BSL users being qualified to perform teaching roles, which is really important.
What has struck me is the work of other members during this parliamentary session—for example, Pam Duncan-Glancy’s bill on transitions and the key principles behind it. Although the bill has not been taken forward in this session, a lot of the key issues that it covers need to be picked up in the next session on the back of the committee’s recommendations.
Is it not becoming apparent over this parliamentary session, in particular, that there are real challenges in Scotland for our young people at transitional stages, not only in their own communities but in the community as a whole? As Miles Briggs said, that will need to be looked at—not by us, sadly, but in the next session.
I absolutely agree. Some really good frameworks have been developed, especially for care-experienced young people in our colleges and universities. I do not see why the same principles of care and support provision cannot be extended—some colleges are doing that, and we need that approach to be rolled out. I hope that, in the next parliamentary session, the education committee will take into account the findings in the report.
We will also need to return to the recommendations on teacher-led learning of BSL. In my time as an MSP, I have made a number of visits to schools where children were learning BSL. That has often been because a teacher has had the ability to provide such a lesson, which the kids love, or because there was a deaf child in the classroom and they wanted the child to be included in all lessons. We sometimes overcomplicate frameworks—teachers might already be delivering, and we need to be mindful of that.
Martin Whitfield touched on momentum, and Carol Mochan mentioned the postcode lottery around implementation. It is important that we consider that.
We have limited time, so I want to touch on mental health, because that has been my greatest concern during the time that I have served as an MSP. As we have touched on, there are huge challenges with the delivery of BSL in our health service. We have to be honest about that. I have had many pieces of casework in which individuals trying to access general practitioner services have not been provided with a BSL interpreter.
The ability to deliver BSL interpretation does not seem to have improved in some health board areas. I know from the committee report that there was general consensus among witnesses that interpreter provision had improved for planned appointments in most health boards, but the situation remained unsatisfactory in most accident and emergency departments. We must do more, and we must consider how that can be delivered. We need to embrace technology more, which was touched on in the report, but health boards often do their own thing in that regard. The national approach to the delivery of some of these outcomes needs to be revisited.
The Scottish Conservatives welcome the progress that has been made in Scotland since the passing of the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015, but we are concerned about the number of issues—especially in relation to education and health—that are making it difficult for deaf people to engage in and be active members of our society and to access services so that they can realise their potential.
I hope that the Scottish Government will take on board the committee’s recommendations. I also hope that all the Parliament’s committees will learn from the report. We are all members of different committees, and I hope that some of the learning from the inquiry will be applied in the work that the Parliament is doing now and will do in the future.
15:55
I thank the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee for its work on the inquiry and the report. Some valuable points have been raised, and I look forward to seeing what impact the report has. Miles Briggs was right to say that we need to do more post-legislative scrutiny, because that can have a strong impact by enabling us to make better law in the future.
The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee has a great deal of responsibility, and its work programme has been very reactive to what is going on and to areas where work is needed. The time that has been given to the inquiry—in taking evidence, working on the report and securing parliamentary time for the debate—demonstrates how seriously the issues that were raised are being taken.
Karen Adam, as convener of the committee and in general, is a very strong advocate for BSL and deaf rights. She always speaks up for them, while ensuring that lived experience is central in the conversation. I have often gone to her to ask questions, including when I had responsibility for equalities as a Government minister. I have learned a lot from her in the past four years, and I am sure that many other members are in the same position. I know that the inquiry meant a lot to her, and I think that that passion and care have come through in the detail that the committee has presented to Parliament.
I was struck by one issue in particular. Last week, Karen Adam welcomed to Parliament deaf mothers who are survivors of domestic abuse; the Deputy First Minister also attended that event. Deaf women’s experiences of domestic abuse are highlighted in the committee’s report, and it is notable that the issue has been mentioned in the debate by two other members of the committee. That is not an area of concern that I have heard discussed elsewhere, so it is particularly important that it was given space in the committee’s report.
As well as ensuring that domestic abuse survivors are able to engage with the justice system in the first place, the report addresses the concerns that were raised about deaf survivors being lumped in with disabled survivors in statistics, rather than their distinct situation being recognised. That issue deserves the attention that it has been given in the report.
Some of my longest-running and most difficult casework has involved BSL users. That has been the case not because of those constituents or their situation, but because of the scale of the challenges that they face, which is so great that I know that I am limited in trying to get them the change that they need within a parliamentary session. However, they are not usually asking for slight policy changes that might improve things for some people at some point. They are often asking for help or access that would allow them to live their lives on the most basic level—to attend a hospital appointment, arrange social care packages or go to school. In its “Healthcare” section, the committee’s report outlines how serious their need can be in a healthcare context. It recommends that work needs to be done on escalation when a caller to emergency services is deaf or when a deaf person needs to access mental health appointments.
The report also highlights the lack of BSL users in services such as audiology. That is a concern across the board. I have heard from people whose education, employment and social lives are on complete hold because they are waiting for care or interpretation services. There are teenagers who are stuck in limbo during their formative years—years that they will never get back. The committee’s report goes into great detail on early years intervention and points out that deaf children may not be able to access childcare with BSL provision, which means that they arrive at nursery and primary school without any language.
BSL users with mobility issues, neurodivergence or learning disabilities often find it even harder to make things work for them. The fact that deafblindness is becoming more common, which was outlined in the ALLIANCE’s evidence to the committee, is a particular concern. Older deaf people are experiencing dual sensory loss, which leads to them feeling isolated, especially when they live in rural areas.
As a Highlands and Islands MSP, I am concerned by that pattern and I recognise that any service improvement for deaf people and BSL users must mean improvement for those living anywhere in Scotland, including in rural and island areas, not just towns and cities.
BSL users have explained to me and my office that they have even struggled to take part in consultation exercises that were set up to get the evidence that only they can provide because no deafblind support or tactile BSL was available, because people were expected to be able to read English, which is different from BSL English, or because consultation forms were not made available in accessible formats from the beginning.
Most of those issues come back to the point that we need more interpreters and more people working in public services who have BSL, including deaf BSL users. Acceleration of BSL education will also be needed to meet the demand for interpreters.
Ultimately, the report is a reflection of the need to embed a human rights approach to Scotland’s public services. The ability of deaf people to participate fully and to access public services in their first language is a non-negotiable part of a rights-based society.
I want to be very clear to BSL users in the Highlands and Islands that I am here to help, as I have just signed. I am happy to arrange interpreter services for surgeries, to work around the availability of those interpreters and to ensure that my office is as accessible as possible for anyone. Even if it takes a long time, I am here to support BSL users and to make the case for better support and access. I will continue to work with them, with Karen Adam and with others to highlight the areas of greatest concern for BSL users and argue for positive change.
16:01
I am pleased to contribute to this afternoon’s debate.
Ten years ago, the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 became an important step towards promoting British Sign Language in Scotland and improving the lives of all who depend on BSL. I therefore welcome the inquiry into the 2015 act by the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. I know that BSL users face challenges across many different aspects of society, and it is important that the British Sign Language national plan delivers on the proposals that came from the 2015 act.
The testimony that was received during the committee’s inquiry makes it clear that progress has indeed been made on the issue, and that is to be commended. However, that testimony also made it clear that individuals still face many barriers, for example in relation to access to education, health or employment.
It is unsurprising that education was one of the biggest policy areas that the inquiry looked at, as deaf children still face challenges at every stage of our education system. The committee heard evidence that, although the number of BSL interpreters has increased, they cannot be a replacement for teachers who are native BSL users.
Deaf Links highlighted that there has been
“a dearth of appropriately trained Deaf BSL tutors in Scotland”
for the past 30 years. That is having an impact on the development of BSL users. As the ALLIANCE has stated and as many members have highlighted in the debate, that can have a lifelong impact on individuals.
Does the member agree that, although that obviously affects individual BSL users, parents and family members also find it stressful that their loved one does not have the ability to communicate in their own language outwith the home?
Yes, it has a knock-on effect within the family unit, and it is vitally important that individuals are given the opportunity. If that opportunity does not exist, there will be a lack of communication and a lack of cohesion in the family unit, and it can sometimes cause disturbance and distraction.
Another issue relates to teachers of the deaf being qualified to BSL level 3. It is vital that we have those qualified teachers working in the classroom.
It is important that the Scottish Government addresses those issues by establishing a pipeline of qualified interpreters, BSL teachers and classroom support services.
However, many of the issues begin long before a child enters formal education. As we have heard, there are also numerous problems when deaf children are progressing through early years education. Deaf children have limited opportunities to learn BSL in their early years, and witnesses highlighted to the committee that some children are beginning nursery without any meaningful language skills. It is tragic that some individuals are going into that environment without those skills and finding themselves at a disadvantage.
Deaf support workers, including specialist support workers for supported living, play a key part in addressing that challenge. Those workers carry out important work in engaging with deaf children from a very early age, giving them a positive attitude and supporting them on their path.
If the SNP fails to address those challenges in early years education, it will only create further challenges for young deaf people in their experience of education further down the road. As the committee highlighted, we cannot have a situation in which some deaf children are starting nursery or school with next to no knowledge of their native language.
The committee’s report also highlights that deaf people face particular challenges in rural settings; we have heard about that today from some members who represent rural communities, where BSL services are harder to access. Rural councils often lack deaf clubs and specialist opportunities, and they may not have the resources to identify and support deaf individuals. The Scottish Government must listen to the committee’s recommendations on that issue in order to close the opportunity gap between deaf people in rural communities and those living in the central belt.
While the Scottish Government appears to have accepted the need for positive change, we have to ensure that it remains focused on the recommendations to ensure that there is a shift towards delivering what is required. For example, with regard to the shortage of interpreters, we still have no clear timescales and no workforce strategy that reflects the seriousness of the challenges. As I said, in order to support individuals, we must address isolation and lack of access in rural areas by ensuring access to deaf clubs and improving digital provision.
All those things play a part, and it is vitally important that we look across all the recommendations. We heard from public bodies about how they can be supported to promote BSL effectively. There may be good intentions from the Government, but we need to ensure that what follows is about more than just good will.
In dealing with this issue, one goal should be to ensure that the deaf generation of today does not have to struggle as past deaf generations did. Deaf individuals speak about feeling like second-class citizens, struggling to find meaningful employment and feeling that they are unable to fulfil their true potential. We also heard today about difficulties faced in health services and how deaf people can be affected as a result.
In conclusion, the SNP Government should take the committee’s report as an important reminder of those issues and ensure that the 2015 act can finally live up to its full potential so that individuals are given the respect and the opportunities that they need. They want to see from us a recognition of what they have achieved so far, and of what we should be achieving on their behalf.
16:08
I am pleased to speak in the debate as a member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, and I thank the committee clerks and other members. I was not a member of the committee when it took evidence in its inquiry. However, I was at its meeting on 10 December, which was a reminder of not only why the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 remains one of the Parliament’s most important pieces of equalities legislation, but why the implementation process must continue to be sharpened.
I also thank Karen Adam for her work on the committee, and for—as has been mentioned—her work on the issue over a number of years and her passion for that work.
I start with the fundamentals: BSL is not just a communication tool—it is a language of Scotland, it is recognised in law, and it is part of our national cultural identity. The 2015 act is about language rights, not optional extras, and the rights that it establishes must be lived in practice and not left sitting on paper.
We heard powerful evidence from deaf organisations and BSL users, and their message was consistent. When the 2015 act works, it transforms access, confidence and participation. When it does not work, it is because systems have not shifted fast enough, leadership has not been clear enough, or delivery has been too uneven across public bodies. One of the challenges is ensuring access across all the different parts of Scotland.
That inconsistency is at the heart of the challenge. We have good practice in pockets—for example, public bodies that take their duties seriously, embed BSL into planning and work directly with deaf communities—but we also have areas where progress has been slow, reactive or reliant on one or two committed individuals. Rights cannot depend on the enthusiasm of a few. They need structure, accountability and resource.
I want to highlight three themes that came through strongly in the committee’s inquiry, and the first is leadership and accountability. Public bodies have legal duties under the 2015 act, but leadership determines whether those duties become realities. Too often, BSL is treated as an add-on and delivered through communications teams instead of being rooted in strategic planning. Where senior leaders take responsibility, we see measurable progress. Where they do not, we see drift.
I support the committee’s position that future BSL plans must include clear performance indicators—I asked the Deputy First Minister about that issue at committee this week—and that compliance must not be a tick-box exercise. We all have a part to play in ensuring that compliance is embedded. We need mechanisms that will ensure that, if Parliament sets a legal obligation, it will be met. That means early intervention when bodies are falling behind and greater transparency for BSL users on what progress is—and is not—being made.
The second theme that I will talk about is access to essential public services. The evidence that we heard from deaf individuals makes the stakes very clear. If someone cannot access a GP appointment, understand justice processes, communicate with their child’s school or engage with social security systems, their rights are compromised. There must not be a postcode lottery of BSL access. Some national health service boards have made real advances, particularly on digital access and interpreter pathways, but others are struggling with inconsistency and workforce pressures. That tells me that the system needs clearer expectations and firmer direction. Deaf communities should not have to navigate the gaps that we know exist.
We also heard concerns about education, especially in relation to BSL in early years and school settings. If we are serious about equality of opportunity, we must treat early access to language and communication as non-negotiable.
The third theme is the BSL workforce. That issue sits behind every other point that is raised. The 2015 act cannot deliver on its promise without a strong, sustainable, well-supported interpreting and translation workforce. The committee heard about long waits, overstretched interpreters and the pressure that is placed on BSL tutors and trainers. We need a workforce pipeline that reflects the scale of the act’s ambition. That includes training capacity, career progression, fair pay and national co-ordination. We simply cannot base a rights-based system on precarious labour, and deaf BSL users must be at the centre, shaping what good access looks like.
The committee’s job is not to point fingers; it is to ensure that the 2015 act does what this Parliament intended. However, scrutiny requires honesty, and the honest assessment is that progress has been made, but it is too uneven; that rights exist, but too many people still have to fight to have them respected; and that the system has created plans, but plans alone cannot guarantee delivery.
We have a responsibility as a committee and as a Parliament to push the system towards consistency, ambition and accountability. Let us not forget that the 2015 act remains world leading. Scotland was the first nation in the UK to recognise BSL in law. However, leadership means staying ahead and not looking back.
I want Scotland to be a country where BSL users never have to explain, justify or negotiate their right to equal access; where public bodies do not wait for reminders or complaints before acting; and where deaf communities genuinely shape policy, not as consultees but as partners. That was the spirit behind the act, and it must guide the next stage of implementation.
The committee will continue to scrutinise progress closely. Our role is to ensure that the lived experience of BSL users matches the promises that have been made in the chamber because, ultimately, equality is measured not by legislation alone but by the lives that people are able to lead.
We move to the closing speeches.
16:13
The opportunity to speak in this debate is special because we have an opportunity to acknowledge genuine progress and the delivery of support to, and recognition of, a powerful and important community, which is Scotland’s deaf and hearing-impaired community.
Like others, I thank the committee and especially all those who contributed evidence for what I genuinely believe to be an important report. I also thank the BSL interpreters who have appeared on screens in the chamber today. I know that they are there all the time when we are broadcasting, but it is very nice to see them on the screens in the chamber so that we non-BSL users can also see the access that is available.
The committee’s report highlights some very important areas, and I will touch on a number of them. I will start with my little pet subject of post-legislative scrutiny, which was powerfully mentioned by Miles Briggs. The work that the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee has done on its report is probably the best example of post-legislative scrutiny that I have had the privilege to see this session. It was not required by legislation or demanded by the Parliament. I hope that I do not embarrass the committee convener by saying this, but those who sat on the committee and the power of the convener herself brought about an incredibly powerful piece of post-legislative scrutiny.
Depending on which side of the chamber they sit on, members either fear the concept of returning to legislation—as they see it as Government bashing—or see post-legislative scrutiny as an opportunity to do that. The committee’s report represents an incredibly balanced and powerful use of post-legislative scrutiny. As has been picked up in a number of speeches, and as was picked up by the Deputy First Minister in response to my intervention, the committee has presented the Parliament with an opportunity to make things better.
We are not starting the process at stage 1—we are starting a long way into the journey—but it is still a journey. We should take that powerful message from today’s debate and from the committee’s work—and also from those who contributed to the work of the committee. They have clearly shown where things have worked well. As Paul McLennan said, the act was “world leading” legislation when it came out.
We are talking about a language that we have put on the statute book as a language of Scotland. Those people for whom BSL is a “first language”, to use the convener’s proper description, have a right to access their human rights through their first language. We have not just a duty but an obligation to ensure that that can happen.
There have been a number of very powerful speeches from across the chamber. I will pick up first on Pam Gosal’s contribution, on Marie McNair’s enormously powerful speech and on Emma Roddick’s contribution, among others, regarding the evidence that was heard about the risk among the deaf and deaf/hearing community—in that women in particular suffer from the risk of domestic abuse. That was so well articulated by Pam Gosal as well as other members. That is hard to read in a report, but it is right that that appears in the committee’s report, so that those who read it and those who choose to make choices on behalf of others realise people’s lived experience. That was very powerful.
I will also pick up on the point about education. We have heard an enormous amount of evidence in the debate about the importance of BSL in the journey through childhood and about the challenges—the challenges at transition or at entry to nursery, and the challenge of maintaining ability and sometimes interest, in the case of a young person who cannot access anything that is happening in the classroom. Those challenges should not rest on our BSL communities; they should rest on our educational community and our local authorities, and they should rest on the Parliament and the Scottish Government, which should do better, frankly.
Absolutely—it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that inclusion. Martin Whitfield has just mentioned the Parliament, and he spoke earlier about the interpreters who interpret our debates, but I would note that they do not do them all; it is only specific debates that are chosen. My dad came to speak to me about that point. He said, “Actually, I don’t get to see things on transport or on the budget. It’s always about BSL or disability things.” We could do better in the Scottish Parliament, too, and translate everything as standard. The service today is wonderful.
I applaud Karen Adam on that point—or actually her father. People want access to their human rights, and this is their Parliament so they should be able to access everything that happens in here. We recognise Gaelic and BSL. To appallingly misquote a former MP of East Lothian, if we cannot come up with a system whereby the Parliament is accessible to everyone, what we are actually doing is closing the Parliament off to members of the Scottish community, which is wrong. I am very grateful for the member’s intervention.
I will turn back to education and the challenge that our BSL and deaf community suffers from. On a number of occasions, we have heard about the challenge—the numbers of teachers who are BSL qualified, or even BSL competent within that, and the support that is available. We have spoken about the need for a pipeline of interpreters and teachers.
I remember the 1+2 foreign language policy and the joy that I heard when Glasgow picked up BSL as one of the languages that it wanted to teach its children. I go back to Miles Briggs’s comment about watching children in a classroom learning BSL. The fun of being able to swear at the teacher, particularly a teacher who does not know BSL—even if it is just by using the alphabet—has amused a significant number of children who I had the pleasure of teaching. We have heard about the joy that young people have in discovering something new and being able to communicate with fellow young people, even if, on occasion, that can be quite mischievous.
The committee heard evidence about the increase in numbers and the fact that we need a work plan for how we are going to develop the pipeline of BSL interpreters and teachers. I know that the Scottish Government is starting work on that, and it would be interesting to hear how it sees that process being rolled out, above and beyond the challenge for young people in Scotland to speak other languages. Given that, along with Gaelic, BSL is a language of Scotland, they have a right to speak it. It is a significant community’s first language, and we need to address that.
We can deliver for this community, but it will require the Scottish Government to listen to the voices of BSL users, experts and the deaf community as a whole. It is also an obligation on the Parliament, and I will pick up the challenge that the Deputy First Minister was concerned that I would throw at her. It rests on the Parliament as a whole to create and drive the momentum for change that this community rightly demands—and which, frankly, Scotland deserves—in order to be a better place.
I call Tess White to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. You have a generous six minutes.
16:22
I thank the committee clerks and support staff and the organisations and individuals who gave evidence to the committee. As our convener, Karen Adam, said, we all want to express our sincere gratitude to all those who gave evidence. It was very impactful for me to have Karen Adam as our convener, because she is a role model for the deaf community. She shared with the committee, including in private sessions, information that I did not know, such as about the word “CODA”. I watched the film “CODA”, which was very impactful. The inquiry raised my interest and understanding of the importance of BSL, so I would like to thank our convener. Her personal life experience made the whole committee experience enriching.
As Martin Whitfield said, it is really important that we have a Parliament that is accessible to everyone, so I am delighted to see people in the gallery who had an important input to our committee. The evidence was powerful and impactful, and it resonated deeply. I also thank the Deputy First Minister, who cares deeply about this subject and the importance of language to communicating, to being understood and to reducing the sense of isolation.
Each MSP who has spoken today recognises that some progress has been made in Scotland. I share the Deputy First Minister’s aspiration. I think that she said that Scotland has been a leader. I would say that Scotland definitely will be a leader if all the committee’s recommendations are implemented.
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes, of course.
It is not a cheeky intervention. To reflect on the period, let us say, before devolution and over the past few centuries, and as I shared in committee, I am struck by the history of the BSL community in Scotland and how BSL users have pioneered many global solutions over the past 300 years. I am happy not to take any credit, but I still credit Scots as being leaders in the area.
I would like to come back on that. It was very interesting to hear the Deputy First Minister share with the committee that Scotland was the world leader for the deaf community centuries ago but it lost its way. I was looking at Mark Griffin’s evidence from when he first introduced the bill, and he compared Scotland with Finland to show how Scotland had fallen behind Finland on the number of teachers and tutors for the deaf community.
I hope that the committee report and the way in which the Deputy First Minister has engaged with the issue ensures that that work continues. She said that it is really for the next session of Parliament, too, so I hope that, in her handover, she makes sure that it does.
One issue that has been identified in the debate by several members—Marie McNair raised it very powerfully—is the issue of access to the legal system for deaf women. I thought that women who are deaf were twice as likely to experience domestic abuse, but Marie McNair said that they are two to three times more likely, which is even more alarming.
Dr Pam Gosal highlighted the issue of deaf survivors of domestic abuse, and she cited the evidence from committee that deaf women often assume that domestic abuse is normal behaviour, which is absolutely shocking. When we heard that powerful evidence at committee, we were all taken aback. That issue has not yet been mentioned in any of the speeches in the debate. The national plan has also been silent on the issue. I hope that Government officials will take that away from the debate and that, under the leadership of the Deputy First Minister, we have it in the plan moving forward.
It was harrowing to hear what Dr Gosal said at committee about meeting a survivor who had slurred speech while putting together her Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill. Dr Gosal shared with us today that, when the police arrived at the survivor’s home, the abuser told authorities that she was drunk, so she was not taken seriously. That is absolutely horrific. When we heard that in committee, it was almost unbelievable. The more we hear about women who experience domestic abuse and the fabric of lies that the domestic abuser makes and shares with the police, the more shocking it is.
That is absolutely beyond belief, and I suppose that it does not come to us until we hear it in black and white. Was there any evidence on how Police Scotland or other organisations hope to combat the issue?
I know that Dr Gosal met Chief Constable Jo Farrell this week and mentioned her bill, so it is now very firmly and squarely on the table as a result of that committee work. In addition to the issue that Carol Mochan raises, there was powerful input from a deaf advocate and survivor of domestic abuse, who told the committee that finding an interpreter is always at the front of a deaf woman’s mind. Can members imagine how bad it is, when someone has been abused and the police are coming to the door, to have to deal with those feelings of isolation, loneliness, threat and fear? That came across very powerfully. Even when there is an interpreter, many deaf survivors feel more comfortable speaking to someone whose first language is British Sign Language.
We have explored in the debate the lack of national oversight, which is an issue that needs to be addressed. I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister for taking my intervention on that and for saying that the issue is very much on the radar.
As Karen Adam said, the Scottish Government’s second national plan received mixed responses at committee. However, despite the Deputy First Minister’s insistence that the plan is clear and ambitious, in reality it faces a number of issues, particularly with its lack of focus and measurable goals. Alexander Stewart cited Deaflink, which said that there has been a
“dearth of appropriately trained Deaf BSL Tutors in Scotland”,
which is having a huge impact on the development of BSL users.
When my committee members asked me whether I was going to raise the issue with the Deputy First Minister, I said, “Too right I am.” I asked the DFM and her officials how many deaf BSL teachers there were and whether the position had improved from 10 or even five years ago, but neither the Deputy First Minister nor her officials had the figures to hand, which is a case in point. Data capture is important: we cannot manage what we do not measure. The committee asked the Scottish Government to consider a national BSL centre for excellence.
I realise the time, Presiding Officer, so I will come to my final comments.
Unless there is sufficient national oversight, issues around a shortage of qualified interpreters, deaf BSL teachers, limited resources and a lack of enforceability will not improve. In conclusion, although the 2015 act has brought significant benefits, the committee recognises that there are substantial challenges and that, as our convener said, substantial opportunities still remain.
I call the Deputy First Minister, Kate Forbes, to close on behalf of the Scottish Government.
16:32
I thank colleagues for the debate so far. I will start with the difference that the committee’s debate and its report will make and the actions that the Scottish Government will take as a direct result of the points that have been raised by colleagues in the report as well as in the debate.
The first action is our commitment to funding a BSL network to enable listed authorities to share best practice and provide support to improve local BSL plans. I mentioned that in my opening speech, but it is in direct response to the points that have been made about monitoring, reporting and the postcode lottery, which have come through quite clearly in my engagement. Experiences in the heart of Dundee or Edinburgh, for example, differ markedly from experiences in more rural areas, which Carol Mochan referenced. In some areas, there is a need to improve a service that already exists, but other areas may still be looking for the service to exist.
Secondly, we will explore and cost a national BSL tutor course for Scotland in engagement with education and BSL partnerships, to look at how it would fit with the existing provision. I am very interested in that approach. I spoke at committee about the fact that there are a number of different initiatives. That has come across in the debate: Martin Whitfield spoke about tutors and teachers, and we have just heard from Tess White about teachers. I have heard consistently that, although teachers are important in schools, there is also a need for tutors outside the school setting, to enhance young people’s learning and attainment, and that we need to look at something that could be provided nationally.
Thirdly, we will explore engaging with education professionals to develop new guidance to support BSL users to become registered teachers. I take squarely on the chin Tess White’s point about the number of teachers, but, irrespective of the specific number, I accept that there are not enough teachers. We need far more BSL teachers. There are different routes and a number of different initiatives for someone who wants to become a teacher, so we will ensure that the guidance is as clear as possible, and we will change what BSL stakeholders want to be changed in it.
Does the Deputy First Minister recognise the subjective point of view of friends of mine that the teaching of BSL through online videos is not adequate, particularly when we are talking about access for young, developing people? Does she agree that face-to-face contact is important in terms of the cultural, spiritual and emotional development of someone’s use of a language?
Absolutely. At the moment, BSL users can become registered teachers through one of the 46 active initial teacher education courses that currently exist. I am told that support is provided on a case-by-case basis for ITE students using BSL, but that provision needs to be appropriate, and the BSL users need to be able to access the right kind of support if they are going to train to become BSL teachers. That approach needs to be taken forward through careful engagement with all the relevant professionals and organisations, including the General Teaching Council for Scotland, ITE course providers, deans of education, local authorities and Education Scotland.
A point that was made in the committee’s report concerned placements for trainee teachers in specialist deaf teaching provision or other places that expose trainee teachers to BSL. That has a lot of merit.
Fourthly, we are promoting Contact Scotland BSL, which supports video-relay interpreting, and the SignPort app, which will address digital exclusion and rural access. A number of colleagues took great interest in the new contract for Contact Scotland BSL. I am pleased that it was successfully relaunched on 1 December. There was extensive work in the run-up to that, to draw awareness to the changes. SignPort sits alongside that, making it easier to book interpreters.
Next, we are undertaking a review of additional support for learning, and we are revising guidance on appropriate qualifications for teachers of the deaf. That is in response to a point that has been made by the committee and others in relation to the provision of teachers who do not have sufficient fluency in BSL. For example, I was told about a maths student who was given an interpreter who had only a level 1 qualification and therefore could not help. Similarly, in primary and secondary schools, a BSL teacher might be trained to only a low level and therefore cannot teach the children at the right level.
Does the Deputy First Minister think that having a target for deaf BSL teachers, as we do for GPs, would be the right thing to do?
I am open to that. We know how many deaf children there are, so it makes sense to say that we know how many children need access to BSL teachers—that is, every one of those deaf children. However, I would caveat that by saying that there are very understandable requests for BSL education for children who do not need BSL for themselves but who, if they could use BSL, would be able to communicate with other young people and reduce their isolation and loneliness. Sometimes, when we have a target, we think that we have succeeded when we hit the target, but a general increase in the numbers is also important. However, I will certainly take that point away.
That leads me to the last action that I was going to talk about, which concerns opportunities for pupils to learn BSL within the current programme of curriculum qualifications and assessment.
I realise that I am over time—although I was encouraged to speak for a generous period—but I want to turn to the very serious issues in and around domestic abuse.
I want to ask for another action. It has been welcome that the former Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport has also been in the chamber for this debate, but a lot of the points that have been raised around access to health services point towards a lack of help to navigate our health services. Given that the Government has made good progress on the cancer strategy and the single point of contact service to help cancer patients to navigate health services, is the Government looking at designing something similar for those deaf patients who continually tell us that they are not able to access interpreter services within our health services?
The short answer is yes. I am sorry for repeating, to an extent, what I said to the committee, but I think that there are two answers to that question. One is a very integrated approach within the health service for deaf BSL users. Staff training is the responsibility of a public sector employer. We expect public sector employers, such as health boards, to undertake their own impact assessments and ensure that they operate in line with their public sector equality duties, so that there is safe, effective, inclusive and high-quality care provision.
Separate to that is the wider question about enabling a BSL user to book an interpreter and have the comfort that that is being done. That is part of the reason for developing SignPort, which is a really easy and simple app that ensures that people can book an interpreter. There are two parts to that: first, ensuring that there are enough interpreters—full stop; secondly, ensuring that all public sector employers take responsibility for that provision.
Mr Briggs mentioned Maree Todd, who is sitting beside me. She formerly had responsibility for BSL, so she brings that experience and background to her new role.
A lot of mention has been made of domestic abuse and the justice system. Marie McNair talked about the fact that deaf women are two to three times more likely to experience domestic abuse. That comes through in the work of the Sign LOUD programme, whose event, which Karen Adam hosted, I attended last week. I have very much committed to the Sign LOUD team that I will take on board the recommendations that it has put forward, which are specifically about supporting deaf women, reducing domestic abuse and ensuring that there is adequate support.
The point that struck me—these things sometimes stay with us, and I could not get over it—was the overreliance on children to act as interpreters in a case of domestic abuse. We are exposing children to these horrendous experiences because of a lack of adequate interpreters. The obvious impact on the women is shocking, but the idea that a five, six or seven-year-old would be expected to fulfil the role that should otherwise be provided by the state—of acting as an interpreter to recount the experiences that their mothers were subjected to—goes far beyond anything that is remotely acceptable in Scotland in 2025. On that point alone, I committed very firmly to the Sign LOUD team—which comprises researchers from Heriot-Watt University and the University of Edinburgh, as well as various experts on domestic abuse and deaf communities—that I will take on board their recommendations and respond seriously, certainly before the election.
I call Maggie Chapman to wind up the debate on behalf of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. You have a very generous eight minutes, Ms Chapman.
16:43
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. Like the convener, I pay tribute to the work of my colleagues and of our clerks, researchers and engagement professionals, and especially to all those who gave evidence to our committee, either formally or informally.
One of the key strengths of the inquiry was the consensual way in which the committee conducted our work, and it is pleasing to see that positive spirit in the chamber again this afternoon. Although there are clearly some differences in approach and focus, I welcome today’s broad consensus on the need to make Scotland the best place in the world for BSL users to live, work, visit and learn.
Given the level of focus on the educational needs and priorities of deaf people, it is fitting that this debate is taking place only a stone’s throw away from the site of the first school for deaf children in Britain, which opened its doors more than 250 years ago in the area now known as Dumbiedykes. Its founder, Thomas Braidwood, was also a pioneer of the development of standardised hand gestures, which evolved over time into the language used today. I pay tribute to all those who have contributed to the development and promotion of the language since then.
I will turn to contributions made by members. We have heard from several members something that the committee heard very clearly: the 2015 act has brought welcome improvements for deaf people in Scotland, including increased visibility of BSL, stronger recognition of their rights and better access to certain public services. The creation of Contact Scotland BSL, as the Deputy First Minister highlighted, is rightly seen as a major step forward, and many local authorities and health boards are working constructively and collaboratively with deaf communities. As the DFM stressed, that engagement was crucial to the ambition of the first national action plan. As Marie McNair said, deaf people must be at the heart of any plans that affect their lives.
Those positives sit alongside some stark and unacceptable gaps. A decade after the 2015 act was passed, far too many BSL users still face daily obstacles in accessing healthcare, education, justice services, employment and much more. Marie McNair, Pam Gosal and Emma Roddick spoke about the importance of ensuring that BSL users have access to justice. They highlighted the specific evidence that we heard of how our criminal justice system does not serve deaf survivors of domestic abuse well at all. Emergency responders are not equipped to support deaf people effectively, interpreters are not available when needed and the systems do not recognise the specific and particular needs of BSL users.
Because of failures in our education system, some deaf people do not have a clear understanding of consent and of their human rights, especially around domestic abuse, or that support might be available to them if they face domestic abuse, which, as we have heard, a disproportionate number of them experience.
Miles Briggs, Alexander Stewart and others summarised the many issues that BSL users face in education—from not having access to their own, and only, language throughout nursery and school, to the lack of support at moments of transition and the lack of structured pathways for deaf people to become BSL teachers, classroom assistants, social workers and many other types of professional. Why should deaf people not have access to as wide a range of skills, training and employment opportunities as hearing people do?
Emma Roddick, Alexander Stewart and others clearly articulated the complexities that BSL users must navigate just to access basic healthcare. The knock-on consequences of that are detrimental to many other aspects of their lives and the lives of those who love them and try to support them.
Separately to this inquiry, our committee has done work on rural inequalities, and there is clearly overlap between that and this inquiry. As Pam Gosal and Emma Roddick highlighted, geography is too often a barrier to participation in society or to accessing vital services such as healthcare.
The barriers that have been discussed this afternoon arise not from individual failings but from structures, systems and choices that leave deaf and deafblind people feeling overlooked and undervalued. Those failings amount to breaches of the basic human rights of deaf and deafblind people.
As Carol Mochan and Miles Briggs indicated, there is concern that although the intent behind the second national plan is welcome, the plan itself is disappointing, with commitments being diluted or removed entirely. Ms Mochan stressed the importance of enforceability and ambition, and that local plans must be key to ensuring that those concerns are addressed effectively so as to avoid deaf and deafblind people facing a postcode lottery.
Paul McLennan spoke of the importance of partnership working and the need to ensure that deaf people themselves are always at the heart of all discussions about strategies that affect them or services that they will use. As I have said, that engagement and partnership working must include deafblind people—not as an afterthought, but as an integral part of national and local planning.
I am grateful to Martin Whitfield and others for recognising the importance of the post-legislative scrutiny that the inquiry included. My thanks also go to our committee convener—and my friend—Karen Adam, for her leadership on the inquiry. Our inquiry has shown that the ambitions of the 2015 act are still absolutely the right ones, but that ambition alone will not break down structural barriers; we must match those ambitions with political will, sustained resourcing, and a human rights approach that centres the lived experience of deaf and deafblind people. Scotland can and must be a country where BSL users can realise their rights and their full potential and live without the obstacles that too many still face today. Perhaps giving BSL parity of esteem with Gaelic and creating a national board, rather than just a network, will help with that.
As we reflect on this inquiry and this afternoon’s debate, I want to return to the fundamental human rights principles that underpinned the 2015 act. The evidence that our committee heard was powerful and often deeply moving. It reaffirmed that BSL is not simply a method of communication; it is a culture, a community and, for many deaf people, their only language. When people are denied access to their own language, they are denied far more than words; they are denied opportunity, wellbeing and the possibility of participating fully in society. That is a profound human rights issue that we must treat with the seriousness that it deserves.
As we come to the end of what has been a very positive debate, I also want to reflect on the positivity of the Deputy First Minister’s appearance before the committee earlier this week, in which she responded to the committee’s report. However, that positivity must be matched by action. We will be strongly recommending that our successor committee follows up on our inquiry and ensures that that positive narrative is more than just a narrative and turns into genuine action.
There is so much more that I could say, given the wide range of policy areas covered by our report and by this debate. However, as we approach the end of the debate, I will close by thanking committee members once again for their dedicated work on the inquiry and for everybody’s contributions and attention this afternoon.
That concludes the debate on the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s inquiry on the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015.
Previous
Grangemouth (Just Transition)