British Sign Language
We move to the members' business debate on sign language. On this occasion in particular, I ask members who are leaving to do so quickly and quietly, because it should be noted that for this debate I have agreed that signers for the deaf should be situated in the public galleries and on the floor of the chamber. We may wish to welcome those who are assisting in our debate. [Applause.]
I must remind visitors to the public gallery that they are not allowed to applaud. Even in sign language, they must be silent. The signers are in place, and I have much pleasure in asking Dr Ewing to open the debate.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that the British Sign Language is used as an essential communication tool by a substantial number of people in Scotland and has a strong historic tradition; recognises the pressure on interpreters who are in constant demand particularly in rural areas; notes that the British Deaf Association is seeking review of the recognition, rights and support applied to the language; expresses the hope that the Scottish Executive will assist the process by taking actions to implement the European Parliament's recognition of Sign Language as an official language in each of the member states, and recognises the importance and necessity of British Sign Language by integrating signing into the plenary sessions of the Parliament.
I thank all concerned for the opportunity to have the debate, and members for their cross- party support for the motion, which is now my motion conjoined with Cathie Craigie's. I also thank these brilliant signers, who are rare birds— there are only 32 in Scotland.
Today, we in this Parliament are brought face to face with hundreds of visitors from our deaf community, with the clamant needs of the deaf— the Cinderella of the disabled. Many children are born deaf, and 90 per cent of them are born to hearing parents. This statistic is not clear, because we take it as a proportion of the UK figure, but in Scotland we have between 5,000 and 7,000 people who were born profoundly deaf. They have never heard a human voice. They have never heard a note of music. They have never heard the birds singing.
The British Deaf Association has a just aim. It wants access on equal terms to all walks of life: health, education, culture and social activity. Those people want the right to achieve their full potential, the right to self-esteem, and the right to dignity for their deaf identity. I submit that that is a
fundamental human right.
My motion, as I said, is conjoined, and it calls for the recognition of British Sign Language—BSL— which is the natural first language of the deaf in this country. BSL is an ancient and indigenous language. It is centuries old, and dates back to the Venerable Bede. In the United Kingdom, the number of people who use BSL is higher than the numbers who speak Welsh and Gaelic added together. It is a living, evolving language, with its own grammar and its own humour. It is capable of expressing the full range of philosophical thought. It is as complex and sophisticated as any spoken language.
To sign is natural for deaf children. It should be their first language, with English their second. Sign language was banned in Italy in 1880, with enormous effects internationally for the concept of signing. Oral speech for the deaf was encouraged. That is achievable, but not for all. Sign language, however, is natural to all.
If the learning of signing is followed by the learning of the spoken language, the deaf are helped to become literate and to develop their full potential. We must have a bilingual and bicultural approach. The deaf live in a hearing world, and they walk on hearing streets.
We are now beginning actively to encourage mainstream education for deaf children, but that can cause isolation for a deaf child if back-up is not available in their classrooms every day.
Yesterday, the parents of a deaf child who is sitting standard grade wrote to me. I believe that they are in the gallery. They wrote that the Scottish Qualifications Authority refuses to let their daughter sign her answers, so she may fail, not for a lack of knowledge, but because of her poor written skills, which are in a state of evolution.
Today, I received a letter from Highland Council that pointed out how many deaf children from the Highlands, because of a lack of special services there, have to leave home at a very early age to go to residential schools.
My friend Jack Ashley, who went deaf overnight, explained to me that if he had been born deaf, he would not have had the skills necessary to become an MP, but because he went deaf as an adult, he had the extensive vocabulary that deaf people all want to acquire. When conversing with me, Jack used to complain that my Scottish accent made it difficult for him to lip-read.
Teachers of the deaf require no qualifications in signing. The minister should address that, because it seems quite extraordinary to all the deaf people I have spoken to.
The deaf are just as interested in politics, current affairs and literature as any hearing people. When
I was MP for Hamilton, I visited the deaf school, and the children then paid a visit to the House of Commons. I toured the palace with them, pointing out any famous faces that I saw. Jim Wallace was not there at that time, I think.
I was still at school.
I pointed out one face. "That's Enoch Powell," said I. A teacher asked the deaf children, "What's Enoch Powell famous for?" A teenage girl immediately replied, "He doesn't like black people." The child was totally up to the minute.
There is some recognition in legislation of deaf people's needs. The Broadcasting Act 1996 provides for signing for a percentage—a very small percentage—of certain programmes. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which does not cover education, covers access enablement, but much more has to be done. Deaf people have explained to me that there are many grey areas in legislation.
The Welsh Assembly has already called for BSL to receive official recognition. In the European Parliament, when I chaired the culture and education committee, we initiated a resolution that called for member states to recognise sign language in each state. Of course, the sign languages are all different. It was passed, almost unanimously, in 1988, but only four European Union states have given that recognition— Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Portugal. Thirteen other countries, including Uganda, have given that recognition. Surely if Uganda can do it, the Scottish Parliament could fight to ensure that we do it.
Under the umbrella of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which obliges a state to protect such languages and to ensure access, the route to recognition would be simple. Scandinavia is miles ahead; in her speech, Cathie Craigie intends to give some examples of that.
Let all of us ensure that, in our new democracy, no deaf or hearing person is ever left behind and that no deaf person is ever the subject of social exclusion.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the motion. However, I ask that, in view of the large number of members and—more important—the many members of the public who have shown an interest, the Presiding Officer considers extending the time allocated to tonight's debate, to allow those members who wish to contribute to do so.
I will come back to the member on that at the end of her speech.
Thank you.
The interest from across Scotland and the number of people in the public gallery today demonstrate the need for elected representatives and communities to work together. I think that the fact that the Parliament is debating a joint motion from Dr Ewing and me highlights the need for co-operation on this issue.
The Scottish Parliament should lead by example; I am extremely pleased that today's debate is being signed. In a small way, it shows, to more than 100,000 users, our commitment to the use and to the future of BSL. I strongly believe that we have an opportunity here, not only through today's debate. With Scotland watching what we do next, the debate will be crucial to the cause of raising deaf awareness.
The Scottish Parliament, as a new body, has a superb opportunity to increase its own accessibility to the deaf community. It is hoped that training— for members and staff who wish to take that opportunity—will be provided soon. Regular signing in the chamber would be a public recognition of BSL. There is a real need to promote BSL and to increase the public's awareness of its existence and its importance to so many people. The Scottish Parliament should lead the way on that.
As Winnie Ewing has said, many people have misconceptions about BSL; they see it as a kind of gesture translation of English and not as a different language. It is commonly thought that sign language is international—some sort of Esperanto. We know that that is not true, but our job is to increase the public's understanding.
For those who support BSL—as we can see today, there are many of them—there are numerous barriers to complete inclusion into hearing society. The problem of misconception, due partly to BSL's lack of recognition, is only one such barrier to inclusion and access, which leads to many other barriers.
Recognition of BSL as an official language would be a big first step to increasing access for our deaf community. The use of BSL has proliferated; more than 100,000 people in Scotland use it, which is a third more than the number of people who speak Gaelic. I agree with the recognition given to Gaelic and the resources targeted at Gaelic speakers, but I think that the same recognition should be given to BSL users.
Other things are needed. There are around 6,000 people in Scotland whose first language is BSL. Although the language is not derived from
English, the vast majority of information and communication methods are, so much of what hearing people take for granted is severely restricted for BSL users. In fact, accessing everything, including—as Winnie pointed out— politics, is much harder for the deaf community and is often a struggle.
We need to examine ways of improving access for BSL users. I agree with the "Sensing Progress" report that new technology needs to be fully exploited to support BSL users as well as deaf people who use other forms of communication such as lip-reading and lip-speaking.
The Scottish Parliament can set an example in terms of the availability and accessibility of information. Publications and consultation documents could be made available in BSL. The Parliament should be proud of the website. It is a resource that could be exploited further by doing small things such as using more moving pictures and having videos of signed debates.
Private companies, public organisations and the Scottish Executive also need to address communication problems and I encourage them to do so. Access for the deaf community at all levels—especially on television—must be improved. For example, many of our news and current affairs programmes are broadcast without signing or subtitles. Why? I recognise that the scope of the matter is wide, in terms not only of BSL and the rights of the deaf community, but of those people in Scotland who are deaf-blind and who find themselves caught between two stools. Unfortunately, there are many issues that will not be properly addressed in the short time that we have today.
I would like to suggest a way in which we in Scotland can take those issues forward. There is a massive shortage of BSL interpreters in Scotland and throughout the UK. SENSE Scotland says that there are only 32 such interpreters in Scotland, as Winnie Ewing mentioned. Demand completely outstrips supply. That is understandable when one thinks that 6,000 people use BSL as their daily language. We are in dire need of more qualified interpreters. The time is right to address that need.
Finland is one of only four European Union member states that recognise their native sign languages. That country was in a similar situation to the one that Scotland is in—there was a similar number of users of sign language and a similar population. Finland now has a properly constructed training programme, which is funded by the state-controlled lottery, and there are 1,500 fully trained interpreters. Finland was able to achieve that in five to seven years.
In Scotland, what little structure there is for interpreting courses is ad hoc. The only course
that I know of is a part-time one that is run at weekends by Heriot-Watt University. The course fees are £3,000. We should look at evaluating that course and giving it professional standing. The establishment of a well-structured, properly funded training programme for signers and interpreters and increased recognition of the problems would go a long way towards meeting the demand for more trained and qualified interpreters.
If a company promised to create 1,500 jobs over five years, there would be a media event and the company would rightly be welcomed with open arms. The jobs are out there—the work needs to be done. We need the vision to recognise that and to create a proper, full-time professional structure that will motivate and encourage people to take that opportunity, which will be of great benefit to the attempt to achieve a more inclusive Scotland.
I have chopped out half of what I wanted to say, Presiding Officer, so, to conclude, I would like to say that in a perfect world I would call for all parliamentary business—plenary and committee meetings—to be signed. I recognise, however, that that would add to the burden on signers, as there are currently not enough of them.
A massive boost to BSL and its users would be gained if important debates and debates of special interest to BSL users and the deaf community were signed. The status of BSL would be boosted if question time—the most high-profile part of Parliament's business and the most accessible through television—was signed. I ask that the parties' business managers and the Parliamentary Bureau take that suggestion on board. The time is right and we should grasp the opportunity to raise deaf awareness, to create jobs and greater job opportunities and to make the everyday things that hearing people take for granted an easier experience for those who are deaf.
I look forward to hearing what Jackie Baillie has to say in reply to the debate. I call on the Executive to establish a working group, similar to the one that was so successful in Finland, to take the issue forward and to examine how access and opportunity for all those in the deaf community can be widened. I hope that this debate is the start of a long-standing commitment to our deaf community by the Scottish Parliament.
Cathie Craigie asked that the debate be extended. I am minded to accept a motion along such lines, if a member will move one. Before any member does so, and so that we do not completely exhaust our signers, I will say that the motion should be to extend the debate for no more than 10 minutes.
Motion moved,
That the debate be extended by 10 minutes.—[Dr Winnie Ewing.]
Motion agreed to.
Dr Winnie Ewing is to be strongly congratulated on raising this extremely important issue, on which she has the support of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, the British Deaf Association and the Edinburgh and East of Scotland Deaf Society.
As Dr Ewing and Cathie Craigie said, there is only a small number—some 32—of registered sign language interpreters in Scotland. They have to provide services for about 7,000 deaf sign language users. That is roughly one sign language interpreter for far more than 200 people—quite clearly, that is not enough. We are a modern, inclusive Parliament and it is right that we should invite the Scottish Executive and Her Majesty's Government to support two calls.
First, we should recognise BSL under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, so as to ensure equal access to public services and information for BSL users. Everyone knows that the recognition of BSL as an official language in Scotland would encourage the training of more sign language interpreters and thereby help the Scottish deaf community.
Secondly, it is reasonable for us to call on the Government and the Scottish Executive to establish a BSL task force to review policy and legislation, with a view to identifying new proposals for legislation to ensure linguistic rights and access to all aspects of life for deaf people.
Our countrymen and countrywomen who are deaf should be given every opportunity to realise their full potential. Fuller access to BSL will help to achieve that extremely worthy aspiration.
I am glad to support Dr Winnie Ewing tonight.
I wish to reiterate earlier comments by welcoming our guests. I am delighted at the number of MSPs who have waited behind to hear the debate—that shows that they still have a lot of compassion and interest in our deaf community.
As I knew nothing about the deaf community's difficulties and problems, I went to speak to a group from the British Deaf Association in Inverness some months ago. Although I was apprehensive about going, it was one of the most enlightening events that I have ever attended.
I quickly became aware of the problems that deaf people daily encounter in situations that we take for granted. For example, one can go to the
doctor, the solicitor, the Benefits Agency or the local authority's offices and understand what is being said and what the response is. However, if one is a member of the profoundly deaf community, it is not quite so easy. Many people visit agencies and offices not knowing if they are being understood or even if they are getting a fair hearing. They come away disappointed. Much has to be done to address that.
Another, simple problem was pointed out to me. If one is a member of the travelling public and hears a Tannoy announcement at the airport, the bus station or the railway station that the train, bus or flight is delayed, one understands the position. Members of the deaf community do not have that facility and that creates anxiety and stress for them when they are about their business.
Some months ago, I asked a parliamentary question about support for BSL. I discovered that not much had been done and that not much financial support was being given. This Parliament should consider that issue seriously, because much has to be done.
The BSL struggle echoes the struggles facing tutors of lip-reading when they try to secure funding, albeit in rather different circumstances.
It is surprising that the Welsh Assembly, which debated this matter back in September, is ahead of the Scottish Parliament. Incidentally, I believe that the signer for the Welsh Assembly stood on the floor of that chamber, as is happening here today—although, even this morning, that arrangement was not going to be approved. I am glad that sense has prevailed. The Welsh Assembly decided that it might incorporate some sort of videoconferencing to make communication with the deaf community a bit easier.
A report that has been produced this very day by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People indicates some of the problems that are associated with the lack of support for the deaf community. More than a fifth of deaf patients leave their doctor unsure of what is wrong with them, which is a cause for concern. Twelve per cent of deaf people avoid going to the doctor because they are not confident enough to do so.
Official recognition of BSL will not solve the problem, but it will refocus the issue and put pressure on people in all sorts of ways to provide adequate facilities for profoundly deaf people. The most basic of human rights is the right to communicate in one's own language.
I was interested to find out that there are 17 countries in the world where the national sign language has official recognition. The European Union first passed a resolution 12 years ago requesting that sign language be recognised. Only four countries have complied with that resolution:
Denmark, Portugal, Finland and Sweden. The second resolution requesting that countries recognise sign language was passed in 1998. What are we waiting for? Let this Scottish Parliament lead the way. Deaf issues are a fundamental part of the Parliament's equal opportunities agenda, and I hope that we can secure all-party support for the recognition of BSL as an official language in the United Kingdom, in support of those who live and work in our profoundly deaf community.
I take this opportunity to thank Winnie Ewing for raising this issue. As far back as August and September last year, she spoke about lodging a motion such as this one, and I am pleased that it is being debated and has all-party support.
Last November I attended an all-party meeting in Glasgow—I believe that Robert Brown was also there—at which more than 70 members of the public were present. I took along the text of the motion that Winnie had lodged, which was very warmly received. I found the meeting a complete eye-opener, as I had not had much experience of deaf people and the problems that they face. The meeting was very vibrant, very noisy and very informative. I thank Tony Forry for organising it.
I want to give the Parliament a flavour of the meeting and of the interesting and searching questions that were put to the panel, of which I was a member. We were asked whether we thought that the Scottish Parliament should recognise BSL as a language in its own right and whether we believed that a law should be made to protect BSL. It was also made clear to us that there was growing discontent in the deaf community about the services that are available to deaf people—a point that previous speakers have touched on.
It is becoming clear not only to me but to other members of the public that the sign language interpreting service that is provided by social work departments varies according to where people live. The people who attended the meeting asked me what I, as a member of the Scottish Parliament, could do to address such problems. By having this debate today, we are addressing them. I am sure that, with all-party support, they can be overcome.
Earlier, we had a debate on the draft Census (Scotland) Order 2000 and whether it should include a question on the Scots language. During the debate, a number of interesting facts emerged. I will cite two points that I picked up on: the recognition by Europe of Scots as a language; and the lack of translators to enable a wider audience
to participate. Are those facts not relevant to the debate that we are having now, and are not deaf people asking for many of the same things? People who are deaf do not want to be treated any differently; they do not want preferential treatment. What they want is recognition of themselves and their language.
It was a humbling experience to sit at the back of the chamber during this afternoon's debate on the Scots language, in which a number of references were made to equal opportunities. As many people will know, I am a bit of a communications freak—I like to have my pager, my mobile phone and e-mail. If I sit quietly at the back of the chamber, with my phone in silent mode, I can even send messages back to my office, as long as I am not caught out. However, in a face-to-face encounter with many of the people in the public gallery today, I would be struggling. As MSPs, all of us must take that on board.
One of my constituents—Mrs Barton in Mauchline—brought this matter to my attention just after the election. She wrote to me, urging me to lodge a motion in Parliament to raise awareness of the problems that people with hearing impairments face and to get the Parliament to do something about it. I lodged a motion that sought to get the Parliament to examine the provision of deaf awareness classes to people in local communities at no cost. One of my concerns, as a representative of a community that suffers a great deal of deprivation, is that although many people would be willing to go along to a class to find out more and would even take on learning sign language, the option is not available to them because of cost.
When I worked in social work, I was aware of the difficulties caused by the lack of people who are able to interpret. I worked with a family in which both parents suffered from hearing impairments and used sign language, but whose child was not deaf. The child was used as an interpreter, sometimes on inappropriate occasions, to deal with family business with which a young child, frankly, should not have to deal.
There are a number of issues. The Parliament, I hope, wants—or should want—to have more opportunity to provide signing so that more people can participate fully. Unless we are able to do that, the Parliament cannot claim genuinely to be taking equal opportunities on board.
Finally, people must follow my Ayrshire accent and the speed at which I speak. We all ought to be aware that when we are ranting on in the
Parliament, people who use lip-reading techniques are watching us on television and will have difficulty following us. Some of us need to take that on board.
I thank Cathie Craigie and Winnie Ewing for securing this debate. It has been a privilege to speak this afternoon. I hope that now we will take some action.
I add my welcome to the visitors in the gallery. My comments will echo the experiences of a number of people. I have had a little contact with this issue, as I have a friend in Glasgow who runs the society for the deaf in Glasgow and the west of Scotland, which is now called Deaf Connections. He has given me some insight into the problems. I confess, however, that I find it difficult to put myself in the position of a profoundly deaf person. The nearest I can get is by attending a disco or an event with loud music. As I begin to lose my hearing, what is going on around me becomes a bit of a mystery. Most of us would find it difficult to imagine having that difficulty permanently.
The key issues and themes are empowerment, communication and human rights. It is a matter of human rights that people should be able to communicate with other people, play their part in society and, as John Munro mentioned, be able to go about their normal business—go to the doctor, the social work department, or travel on the bus or train. Communication is key to that human right.
The other point I want to make is about the profusion—if I may put it like that—of deaf communities. There is not one deaf community. There are people with different sorts of problems. There are those who are born profoundly deaf, for whom the debate on BSL is most an issue, but there are those who lose their hearing through accident or the advance of age.
I would like to touch on the issue of lip-reading. Although it is a different issue from sign language, it is equally relevant to this debate that tutors of lip-reading struggle to find funding for their work.
The support that is given to the Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters has been mentioned. I worked out that the grants for training and core funding total around £45,000. An additional £28,000 was granted last year—£8,000 this year—to SENSE and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People towards training people in British Sign Language. That does not seem a great deal of money even in these cash-strapped days. The Scottish Parliament should address that.
My final point is that recognition of the language
as an official language in Scotland and throughout Europe is not itself a solution to the problems, but it is a beginning. As John Farquhar Munro said, it focuses our attention on the issue and will lead to greater pressure on the authorities to produce the additional funding and support. The wider recognition of the language among the general public is necessary to make progress on this issue. Winnie Ewing and Cathy Craigie are to be congratulated on bringing this debate to the Parliament today.
I echo the comments that have already been made and commend Winnie Ewing and Cathy Craigie for bringing this matter to the Scottish Parliament for consideration.
The Executive recognises the depth of feeling that surrounds the status of BSL among its users. We are committed to supporting comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people. I understand that David Blunkett referred to BSL in his recent letter to the Disability Rights Commission concerning its remit and priorities. I also understand that Margaret Hodge, the minister with responsibility for disabled people, will contact the commission to examine the status of BSL.
As many people here will be aware, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires employers and service providers to make reasonable adjustments to ensure that disabled people are not disadvantaged at work or elsewhere. The provision of interpreters is an example, according to the act, of such an adjustment.
The final report of the disability rights task force was published in December. It recognised specifically the needs of deaf people who communicate through BSL, and the need for BSL users to be supported by suitably qualified interpreters. The report contains recommendations in devolved areas. We will look to involve all sectors of society—but disabled people in particular—in our consideration of the report as it affects Scottish interests. We are keen to hear from all those who have an interest in equality for disabled people, particularly regarding the recommendations in devolved areas. The Executive will discuss, with disability groups, the best way in which to facilitate that process.
The Scottish Executive is keeping in touch with the Department for Education and Employment, to ensure that its consideration of the issues is informed by concerns that are aired in Scotland, and that it takes account of distinct Scottish circumstances.
So, what is currently happening? The Scottish
Executive provides grant aid of more than £100,000 per year to several organisations that represent deaf people. Additionally, there is approximately £32,000 for training and development of BSL interpreters. Over and above that, the social work services inspectorate report, "Sensing Progress", which was published in 1998, recommended ways to improve communication with deaf people and those who are hard of hearing.
Following on from that, the Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters has been commissioned to develop a training strategy— initially for social work staff—in BSL and in other forms of communication.
Is the problem not partly that the present course for the intensive degree of skill is part-time and therefore does not attract statutory funding, so it is too expensive for the average person? Local authorities, big banks and building societies do not seem to be pulling their weight on this issue. I do not think that what Jackie Baillie has said so far will solve the problem, unless there is a full-time university course.
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. That goes directly to the valid point Dr Ewing made. We await that information, to establish what can most usefully be done to move forward on some of these issues. Research has also been commissioned to identify the distribution and level of demand and the specialist skills of interpreters in England, Scotland and Wales. The draft report is expected in the spring and will highlight variations in the number of interpreters available in different areas.
We are aware of—and commend—the work of the many voluntary organisations, including the British Deaf Association, which works to promote deaf people as equal partners in society and campaigns for official recognition of BSL.
The European Parliament passed a resolution on sign languages for deaf people at the end of last year. It—and an earlier resolution—calls on the European Commission to make a proposal to the Council of Ministers on official recognition of sign language used by deaf people in member states. That is an issue of interest to many member states, including ours. The Commission is still to make a response, which we await with considerable interest and impatience.
I welcome the presence of BSL interpreters today. I understand that they are provided by the Edinburgh and East of Scotland Deaf Society. I
am sure that deaf and hearing-impaired people will also appreciate it.
We should also be aware of other provisions made in the Parliament for people who are hard of hearing, including the T-loop system in the chamber and infrared systems in some of the committee rooms.
Ultimately, it is a matter not for the Executive but for the Parliament to consider how best to take forward its provision for deaf people and whether signing should be integrated into meetings of the Parliament.
I am sure that the Deputy Presiding Officer will take this matter forward. From an equality perspective and the perspective of the Executive, I would encourage the Parliament seriously to consider this issue. The Scottish Executive is committed to equality of opportunity for all and that, of course, includes equality for people with disabilities.
We are in the process of consulting on the development of an equality strategy for the Executive. I encourage people to respond. In support of our commitment to equality for those who are deaf and hard of hearing we will continue to review and develop services, such as training and provision for BSL interpreters in Scotland.
Will Jackie Baillie give way?
I am winding up now.
We all want a just and inclusive society in Scotland, which—as Winnie Ewing said earlier— enables all our citizens to achieve their full potential. The Executive recognises that lack of access to information and services that hearing people take for granted contributes to a feeling of isolation and social exclusion. I give an undertaking that we will examine the issues that have been raised today, particularly interpreting, which makes a practical difference to people's lives and is fundamental in terms of the Executive's commitment to social inclusion and equality.
In closing this meeting, I would like to say thank you to all members of the public who stayed for this debate and to the MSPs, and a particular thank you to our interpreters. [Applause.]
Meeting closed at 17:45.