Seòmar agus comataidhean

July—that is what I was thinking. Perhaps I can come back in early autumn.

I think that the way to identify the answer to that question is probably to consult the community about ideas on where it would like to see progress. On language policy, it is always fascinating that politicians generally crave targets, outcomes and outputs, and rightly so, but that often misses the wealth of heritage, history, community and culture, which are harder to squeeze into obvious outcomes. We see that with other languages as well.

I wonder whether there is a question to pose to the community, both from the committee’s perspective when you think about your recommendations and in relation to the Government’s decisions on which actions to prioritise.

There are two specific routes for monitoring. First, there is our own progress report, which is produced halfway through the lifespan of the plan. We will work with the implementation advisory group on the national plan to ensure that that reflects the experiences of BSL users. The progress report will set that out in black and white. That will be available for the committee to scrutinise so that it can be clear about what progress has or has not been made.

The other form of monitoring relates to the engagement that takes place across all the listed authorities for the sharing of best practice. As I said earlier, we fund BDA Scotland to support those listed authorities as they develop and implement their plans. It is an on-going iterative process.

From listening to the committee, I get the strong impression that it is keen for us to explore a third alternative to those two forms of monitoring. I am certainly open to doing that, because we want to understand how to ensure that best practice is followed across all the different listed authorities. We are also aware of the ALLIANCE’s recent report on local plans. We engage regularly with it as part of the implementation advisory group.

I am very open to anything that the committee believes that we can do to improve monitoring, while stressing the point that monitoring can sometimes morph into direction. There are reasons why, in this particular subject area, direction from the centre is not always the most effective way of progressing matters, especially when national targets are created that may distort what a local area wants to prioritise.

On the points from the BDA around accountability, implementation, and inconsistency, the point about inconsistency reflects—fairly, I think—my comments at the outset in relation to the convener’s first question. In some areas there is high-quality, excellent provision—there is a very positive response to that—and in other areas, they say, “We want what they’ve got”. The point is about having that consistency across the country, so I take on board the criticism about the inconsistency.

In terms of accountability and tracking the spend, we invest considerably in organisations that work with and represent deaf BSL users and deafblind people in Scotland; we have referenced some of them already—BDA Scotland, the Scottish Ethnic Minority Deaf Charity and Deafblind Scotland—and then separately we are investing funding in improving services. I do not know whether the committee has been sighted on some of the work that we have done through the Scottish Government CivTech programme on improving accessibility to BSL interpreters. That can all be closely monitored and evaluated.

There is a difference between Gaelic and BSL—and this may not be a difference that the committee is willing to tolerate and the feedback might be, “No, we want to see you change this”. There is a difference because of the responsibility on listed authorities. For example, having specialist BSL social workers is a responsibility of local authorities, so it is for local authorities to monitor. Tracking the spend becomes more challenging when there are areas of responsibility on local authorities. I would say that the difference with Gaelic is that it is managed on a more national level rather than on a more local level.

There may be points to consider there around whether the Scottish Government should take responsibility for more funding from the centre that then becomes specialist funding, which would be different from how things have been approached so far, which is about more mainstreaming; local authorities get their pot of funding and then they determine how that is spent. That is a difference and perhaps leads to the challenge around tracking the money because it is happening at a local and national level.

The one point of challenge I would make is that sometimes the temptation is to say, “Bring it back to the centre,” so we bring it back and then we get into the difficulty I referenced earlier where you then have the Scottish Government determining that every part of Scotland should get an allocated pot for this service and that service, which may mean that some local authority areas find themselves focusing on a particular priority that may not be the top priority.

For example, in the Highland Council area, their argument would be that even though they have the training provision for BSL, their big challenge is recruitment. Another area may have exhausted the funding for training and need more funding for the training because there is an ample supply of people who are interested. None of those issues are insurmountable—we can overcome them all—and the committee’s challenge is helpful in that regard.

Kevin, do you have anything to add on the point around accountability and tracking spend?

Our responsibility is to improve the quality of life for BSL users, especially deaf and deafblind BSL users. In terms of that parity of esteem, we work with key partners who represent the deaf and the deafblind communities in Scotland. That is part of the work of the implementation advisory group, whose members are the ones who ultimately provide accountability on the actions in the plan and provide their experience to help strengthen its delivery. The point is that it is not just me telling the committee where I believe that progress has or has not been made, because we have the implementation advisory group, and key partners who represent deafblind communities are involved with it, and they are the ones who advise us whether progress has been made.

I think that your question was whether there is parity of esteem between all BSL users, and I stress that the partners who represent deafblind and deaf communities are represented on the implementation advisory group.

Kevin McGowan or Andrew Godfrey-Meers might want to say more on that.

Thank you very much for sharing that. I know that you will be very aware of all the work that we are doing around domestic abuse and the funding that is available there. Of course, that also needs to take into account BSL users.

Let me consider the question in the wider context of BSL users’ experiences in the justice system. We are working on an amendment to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill to remove the legislative barrier that prevents people with certain physical disabilities from serving as jurors. We think that we need to make more progress in and around BSL users’ experiences of participating in the justice system. That is not only about supporting them as survivors, but also about supporting them to participate in every aspect of the justice system. You and I know that it is often the case that, if we do not have representation from a community in every aspect of the justice system, we are less likely to see progress.

We also think that it is important to roll out different forms of support. Different types of communication supporters will be allowed to be present in the deliberation room at a later stage under the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. We also have the BSL justice advisory group, which was established in February 2020. It brings together a number of organisations to provide expertise and guidance to justice and legal agencies, and it meets quarterly to discuss and monitor implementation of solutions for BSL users.

I am happy to go into more detail about the equally safe strategy and so on. Funding is available for organisations, but the question is about more than just domestic abuse and the experience of survivors; it is also about how we adapt the entirety of the justice system to take BSL users into account. The more representation you have, the easier it becomes for survivors who are experiencing the justice system.

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.