Chamber and committees

I think that I have understood the question, but please stop me if I have not.

A couple of weeks ago, when I was in Inverness, I engaged with representatives of the BSL community in the Highlands, who were talking about the different idioms, accents and words that are used within Scotland, such as in the Highlands versus Edinburgh or Glasgow. I was very struck by the rich heritage that you refer to. It is also an argument for taking a decentralised approach in supporting the different communities. One lady referenced the fact that she had moved to the Highlands and had to pick up all the new terminology.

My second point, which I alluded to earlier, is that I have been struck by the pivotal role that Scotland has played in BSL provision for 200 or 250 years. The point was put to me that, because Scotland had some of the first educational facilities for deaf children and young people, they went on to achieve remarkably brilliant things. Scotland was a real pioneer in developing other facilities and provision. We should not take that for granted. We should be very proud of it and build on it. However, the message that came through is that education is critical. That goes to the points that Tess White and Pam Gosal have made, in particular. Education is the lifeline for young people. If we get the first intervention right, it sets them up to be able to achieve whatever they want to achieve, which is why it is so important.

On how we celebrate that heritage, there are a number of heritage sites, particularly in Edinburgh, that showcase the history. Maybe we could work with some of them on that. An example is Deaf Action, whose premises include an old church. It has a wonderful exhibition that showcases the history, with wonderful pictures on the wall and so on. Bringing that to a new audience could be quite special.

I do not know whether my colleagues have any other ideas on how we can showcase and celebrate that heritage.

Thanks, convener, and thanks to the committee for having us here and for taking the time to do an inquiry into the BSL (Scotland) Act 2015.

At the outset, I want to say how much I look forward to seeing the committee’s recommendations off the back of the evidence that you have taken, because this is an issue of such importance that it calls for the best participation of the Parliament and the consideration of the lived experience of those who have given evidence to you over the course of the past few weeks.

As the committee knows—I assume that this is partly why you are taking the evidence—this year is an important year for BSL in Scotland, because it marks the 10th anniversary of the passing of the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015, which, of course, offers an important opportunity to reflect on what progress has been made and on what further action is required to improve the lives of BSL users.

As I have engaged with BSL users over the past few weeks, I am conscious of their feedback and reflections on areas where they think that progress has been made and areas where they think that the Government can go further. I am keen to work on a cross-party basis on those latter areas in order to do that. That work builds on Scotland’s national heritage, because Scotland holds a significant place in the rich culture and history of British Sign Language.

I am delighted to have responsibility for BSL under the languages portfolio that I hold. Particular thanks go to the convener for her on-going contribution and her role as a member of the cross-party group on deafness, as well as her on-going advocacy for the BSL community—not least in rating my progress in using BSL, which is slower than I would like.

At the heart of the BSL national plan for 2023 to 2029 is a focus on accessibility and tackling the systemic barriers that are faced by BSL users in their daily lives, whether that is in the realms of education, health, justice or culture. The 10 priority themes in the plan are areas that the community have told us are important to them. To successfully deliver on that plan, we have spent the first year building the infrastructure to deliver for BSL users in Scotland. Crucial to that has been the formation of the implementation advisory group, which is made up of key organisations that represent BSL users in Scotland. I want to thank the group for its continued support as it works with us to provide accountability on the actions in the plan.

In addition to that, my officials have been building connections across Government and across devolved nations to support and monitor actions in the plan to share knowledge, lived experience and best practice in order to ensure that BSL users are factored into all policy decisions. As we progress with the second year of the plan, we will be focused on delivery across Government, and officials are continuing to check on the progress of actions to provide support and connections to the community for policy teams, and looking for opportunities to strengthen work.

Finally, I acknowledge the role that listed authorities and their local plans play in realising the ambitions of the BSL national plan. Although it is important that I am here with accountability for progress on the plan, it is also important to note that it is not only Government that is responsible for delivery; it is also for other listed authorities to do so.

I look forward to hearing the committee’s questions. I am sure that there will be things for us to take away, and I have here an able panel of officials covering several areas who will respond on areas that precede my time in this role.

On the progress that there has been, the points that you made around promotion and accountability are important. For the approach to be effective, we need to see implementation and delivery right across people’s experiences. Within each of the spheres that I listed—education, justice, healthcare and so on—we can point to progress that has been made, but we can also point to areas where BSL users still identify gaps. For example, on education, I know that the committee has heard evidence around the need to ensure that there is a depth of BSL fluency in schools and that there are enough opportunities for BSL users to become teachers—there is a live consultation on that issue. I have also heard how effective a specialist BSL social worker has been in certain areas, and I have heard people say that they, too, would like to be able to access specialist BSL social workers. That is something that we need to work on with local authorities, as they are primarily responsible for social work.

Those are examples where one person’s experience of high-quality, excellent provision might be another person’s experience of aspiring to receive the same. It is in relation to that consistency of provision across Scotland that we can see both the strength of the progress in Scotland, because it speaks to delivery, and the areas in which we need to do more, because there are still gaps in provision.

We will agree to take that point away. I have extensive experience now around the structures of how Gaelic language is managed. The two are different, but it shows us that there is an alternative route. It is to do, as Kevin McGowan said, with the original statutory responsibilities on Government either being a regulator or not being a regulator.

The committee is identifying the area of tracking and monitoring. I think that what you are talking about is compelling, as well, in relation to making sure that progress is made. That is something we would need to consult on carefully with local authorities and with BSL users.

There is a requirement for local plans to be published, and under the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015, we have a duty to publish a national plan to outline what we will do during the period to promote and facilitate the promotion and understanding of BSL in Scotland. As is required by the 2015 act, we consult the deaf community when we draft the plan, and we continue to work with key partners that represent the deaf and deafblind communities in Scotland on the implementation advisory group to provide accountability. As Kevin McGowan said earlier, we have a duty to publish a progress report at the halfway point. That is the requirement on us.

Under the 2015 act, listed authorities have a responsibility to ensure that local plans are published and implemented. We recognise the role that councils and their employees play in communities across Scotland, and we believe that it is important that the local plans reflect the requirements that we hear about through local consultation and local engagement, from which we gain an understanding at local level of what citizens want to see in their local areas.

I have said a little about what happens next, which is about the sharing of best practice and so on, but we want to support listed authorities. We are always looking at ways to fill any gaps in advice and guidance and so on, but we want to make it crystal clear that all of us—all partners—share a responsibility for the implementation of their duties. I stress that because of the tension that exists between firm control being exerted from the centre to direct and dictate what happens in every local area and its being understood that every listed authority and every layer of government has its own duties.

From having engaged, two weeks ago, with the deliberative process in the Highland Council area, I know that the issues that BSL users in the Highland Council area are talking about are remarkably different from those that I heard BSL users in the middle of Edinburgh talk about. That illustrates why I am apprehensive about the Government playing an overly directive role from the centre that misses the distinctive local nuances.

That was a long answer to a short question.

Before I answer, if this is your final question, Ms White, I commit to coming back to the committee—at a time of your choosing, convener—once the consultation has closed on the teacher qualification issue, to summarise precisely what we will do next on some of the criticisms that have been made around the number of teachers with BSL at a suitable level for teaching young BSL users.

The points that are made about young BSL users seem to all come back to two points. One is about the number of suitably trained teachers in BSL to ensure that every young person has access to a teacher.

The second point is about ensuring that teachers are at a level that means that the young person will be competent in BSL, because, if you are not able to train them in BSL at a young age, they will miss out on opportunities for the rest of their life. From my engagement with young BSL users, I have heard that they must have a teacher but that it cannot just be any teacher—the teacher has to be trained to a suitably high level.

That is the answer: having enough teachers who are trained to a suitably high level so that every young person has access. I would like to come back to the committee, convener, once the consultation is closed, so that we can tell you precisely what we will do to ensure that that happens.

I would like to because, if I do not come back before the end of the year, we will not have long before the end of the parliamentary session. Alison, when does the consultation close?

That is a very interesting comparison. What the committee will get from me is an openness to radical ideas about how to accelerate progress; it will also get from me a strong desire only to take action that the community asks us to take. One can sometimes go ahead and build well-meaning infrastructure that is not in the best interests of, or has not been demanded by, the community, because a more decentralised approach is more effective.

I am open to suggestion. We have some very effective partner organisations. For example, I mentioned BDA Scotland, which is an effective representative organisation, but which also has a role to play in advising, guiding and supporting listed authorities and others, including us, on how to take action.

I am neither shutting down Paul O’Kane’s idea nor saying, “Let’s do it,” because we need to engage in careful consultation on everything that we do, and we need to understand what structures would be most effective.

I do not know whether my team has more to say about that.

The way that you characterise the evidence that you have heard on Contact Scotland BSL is consistent with the evidence that we have heard, which is that some users are very satisfied and happy with the service, but there are others—some of whom I have heard directly from—who feel that there are areas in which the service could be significantly improved.

We know that the total number of people who use that service currently is not the full number of BSL users who need to use a service. In other words, we have a responsibility to take on board both the positive feedback and some of the more negative feedback. That is why we have been in active consultation with the community and are currently engaged in live procurement of a new service.

I want to stress two points. First, I regret hugely any alarm that was caused by the communication of that new procurement round, and the fears that that gave rise to. Since then, we have made efforts around consultation—I have certainly attended a number of different groups to hear directly from BSL users—and the fact that we are now in a live procurement process is very encouraging.

The second thing that I want to stress is that there will be no break in provision. That is the commitment that we gave to the community, and we stand by it. On the timing, we are hopeful that there will be a new service in place as quickly as possible once the procurement process completes, and there will certainly be no break in services for BSL users as we transition to a new contract.

If there are any other details that you would like to know about that process, I am happy to ask a colleague to come in.

I am always keen to see tangible evidence of delivery, particularly when it relates to people’s lives and the barriers that they face. It is difficult not to be inspired and moved in equal measure when engaging with the BSL community about the barriers that they face and the opportunities there are to support the removal of those barriers.

There is a statutory element to all this; there are legal implications. There is a statutory requirement for listed authorities to meet their obligations under the act. The point that I was making about regulation is that local authorities have a responsibility to ensure that they comply with the legislation and publish their plans in line with statutory deadlines and deliver on those plans. There is no regulatory role for the Scottish Government under the act in that respect, but there is the backstop of what the legislation requires of listed authorities.

I am very happy to reflect, particularly if this comes out of the committee’s evidence, on what further steps can be taken to ensure that local delivery. We have a duty to deliver. You hold us accountable for what we do or do not deliver—and rightly so. When it comes to the national plan, the same will go for other listed authorities, and it is about all the public sector taking ownership for how to remove those barriers. If there is a tool, an instrument or a means by which we can make that happen more effectively, I am very open to considering that.