Chamber and committees

On that point, we took a lot of evidence from people with lived experience, including BSL users and deafblind people. If somebody is not seeing any actions or tangible outcomes from what they have been consulted on, and they are coming up against the same issues time and again, that is where consultation fatigue kicks in. If somebody has been consulted, they are happy enough to keep going when they see that their input has actually contributed to some kind of change. When we see that consultation fatigue, it is important to note that there may just not have been enough change to empower those people, so they might not want to feed back.

We will now have questions from Tess White, please.

I will bring in Maggie Chapman to ask her questions.

Good morning, and welcome to the 29th meeting in 2025 of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. We have no apologies this morning, and we welcome back Paul O’Kane as a member of the committee. I thank Rhoda Grant for her time and input during her short tenure as a committee member.

Under agenda item 1, I ask the committee to agree to take in private agenda item 3, which is consideration of a draft report on the committee’s pre-budget scrutiny for 2026-27. Do members agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. I am pleased to hear that there will be that consideration. I think that you said in your opening statement that BSL may be embedded in the languages curriculum—is that the one-plus-two languages programme? That is excellent to hear, because a lot of the isolation of deaf children in mainstream schools is because their peers cannot communicate with them. When we think about additional needs support provision, although deaf children can have more than one additional support need, it is more often than not just a language difference—that is it. Although I know that it is multifaceted, I think that focusing on that will make an enormous difference.

I want to put across some of the lived experience that we heard, Deputy First Minister. A young student told us that they were going to sit a higher exam, but the person they had in to support them was an interpreter who was only at level 1 or 2 BSL. If you can imagine, it is like sitting higher maths and the person who is supporting you only has primary school level mathematics. That was not the fault of the child or their ability. That is completely down to the lack of language provision. When we talk about what we can do to close the attainment gap, looking at those types of issues is important.

That is why we look at the Gaelic language model as something that is so fantastic and something that we are incredibly proud of. It is something that we should be aspiring to as well because, as we know, language is not just about education. It is also about the culture that is wrapped around language, which is so vital to a person’s wellbeing.

Thank you. We will now move on to questions, and I will start off. What was the overall response from the Scottish Government to the recommendations in the report?

Agenda item 2 is an evidence session following publication of the committee’s report on the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015, which was published on 26 September. I refer members to papers 1 and 2.

I welcome to the meeting Kate Forbes, Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Gaelic. She is accompanied by officials from the Scottish Government: Kevin McGowan, unit head, equality division; Kit Wyeth, interim deputy director, inclusion, attainment and wellbeing division; and Lucinda Fass, additional support for learning policy officer. You are all very welcome this morning. I invite the Deputy First Minister to make an opening statement.

That brings us to the close of this session.

I thank the Deputy First Minister and her officials for joining us today and for giving us a bit of hope. I notice that the door is cracked open and there are considerations of having a similar language model to Gaelic. I am sure that I, and others, will be pushing at that door. It would not just give hope to a lot of deaf people and support the deaf community; if we look at the economic case—particularly with educational attainment and employment—Scotland as a whole would benefit, so I am pleased to hear about it.

I want to end on a note of the lived experience of one wee deaf boy in Scotland, who told his teacher that he did not want to learn sign language because when he grew up he was going to be hearing. He did not have any deaf role models around him, because of the isolation in the mainstream in school. For me, that has stuck out as an experience. I think that we should be looking to build on the recommendations for people like that wee boy.

Thank you all for your time. We will now go into private session.

We will move on to questions from Maggie Chapman, please.

Thank you.

Item 2 is our annual evidence session with the Scottish Human Rights Commission following the publication of its annual report for 2024-25. I refer members to papers 1 and 2.

I welcome to the meeting Professor Angela O’Hagan, chair of the commission, and Jan Savage, its executive director. I invite Angela O’Hagan to make a brief opening statement.