Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 27 June 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1065 contributions

|

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]

British Sign Language Inquiry

Meeting date: 17 June 2025

Paul O'Kane

Good morning. I think that it is fair to say that there have been mixed views on the second national BSL plan. For example, many users have said that it lacks focus, measurable goals, timelines and accountability. It would be useful to hear your broad views on the second national BSL plan and how it assists with the development of local plans.

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]

British Sign Language Inquiry

Meeting date: 17 June 2025

Paul O'Kane

That is why I asked the question. The evidence that we heard was from people who use BSL. The contention was that the users of the language must be at the heart of the process. It is useful to hear that the cabinet secretary is open to that suggestion. I am sure that the committee will want to reflect on that as part of its work.

I will hand back to the convener. I hope that those questions were substantive enough.

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]

British Sign Language Inquiry

Meeting date: 17 June 2025

Paul O'Kane

I think that it is fair to say that, in the evidence that we have heard so far, the views on the second BSL national plan have been mixed. We heard commentary not only on some of its positives but on people’s concerns, particularly the lack of focus, measurable goals, timelines and accountability. We also heard criticism that the plan was watered down, despite the evidence that was given during its preparation. Will the Deputy First Minister respond to those criticisms that the draft version was watered down?

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]

British Sign Language Inquiry

Meeting date: 17 June 2025

Paul O'Kane

We heard some useful evidence on that point last week, from people with lived experience. It is useful to hear that reinforced in the evidence today.

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]

British Sign Language Inquiry

Meeting date: 17 June 2025

Paul O'Kane

There are two points in what you have just said. One is that you do not recognise that the draft plan have been watered down; however, you do recognise that such criticism has been made of it.

Rachel O’Neill from Moray house school of sport and education at the University of Edinburgh was consulted on the plan, and her research with Dr Rob Wilks of University of the West of England in Bristol was incorporated into the draft version. Their view was that recommendations had been watered down or removed, and they were disappointed with that. It would be useful for the committee to understand why that decision was taken in the final draft and why people feel that things have been watered down.

On your last point on progress being measured in tangible outcomes, a lot of the criticism is to do with there not being measurable things in the plan. There is not a sense that we will measure targets. I appreciate that you are saying today that that will be the case, but is it your view that there should be measurable outcomes?

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]

British Sign Language Inquiry

Meeting date: 17 June 2025

Paul O'Kane

What was your involvement in the preparation of the national plan? What influence do you feel that you had?

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]

British Sign Language Inquiry

Meeting date: 17 June 2025

Paul O'Kane

We have heard evidence from various quarters that it feels as if the national plan has been watered down and does not have the impetus that people desired in the consultation. Do you recognise that view?

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]

British Sign Language Inquiry

Meeting date: 17 June 2025

Paul O'Kane

That is useful, because there is concern about a lack of central oversight of all of that. In our session with the previous panel, we had a discussion about the lack of a formal oversight body. I appreciate what the Deputy First Minister has said about the legislative constraints in that regard, and I do not want to pit BSL against Gaelic, because I am supportive of the Gaelic language, too—which we will have a wide-ranging discussion about in the chamber this afternoon—but, earlier this morning, we were told that Bòrd na Gàidhlig has a very clear role and that it often acts as the central oversight organisation. The fact that we do not have a similar body for BSL was a matter of concern for the witnesses who gave that evidence.

The Deputy First Minister has said that she is open to having a conversation about that or to a potential recommendation, but I wonder whether she might like to reflect on that comparison.

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]

British Sign Language Inquiry

Meeting date: 17 June 2025

Paul O'Kane

Dr Adam, you said that the Government does not have an expert group on BSL to advise it on the plan. Is it your view that the status that Bòrd na Gàidhlig has as the national body for Gaelic should be replicated for BSL in Scotland? Is that what you are pointing to?

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]

British Sign Language Inquiry

Meeting date: 17 June 2025

Paul O'Kane

I appreciate the Deputy First Minister’s comments about taking a carrot-and-stick approach in encouraging people to engage in best practice. However, the DFM is very committed to delivering overarching Government policy. What scope is there to revisit the idea that there should be measurable goals, timelines and accountability?

I appreciate what Mr McGowan has just said about taking stock at the end of that three-year period, but is the Deputy First Minister committed to having more tangible timescales on what needs to be done during that time?