Seòmar agus comataidhean

I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on behalf of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on our recent report on the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015. A decade has passed since the bill was enacted, in what marked a significant milestone in promoting the use and understanding of BSL across Scotland. The committee agreed that this was an opportune moment to consider the impact of the 2015 act and to identify where further improvements could be made.

As most people in the chamber know—and as I will now sign—I am what is called a CODA, which is the child of a deaf adult. My father is deaf and I grew up around deaf people and in and around their community, so I know and understand how important it is for deaf people to have inclusive language—first language—to be able to live inclusively in their society. We welcomed the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 when it became law.

As a result of the 2015 act, the Scottish Government and listed public authorities are required to publish national and local plans every six years. The second national plan, which was published in November 2023, set out a range of actions to tackle barriers that BSL users face, with the aim of helping to make Scotland the best place in the world for them to live, work, visit and learn. That is an aspiration with which the committee fully agrees. From the outset, we sought to approach our inquiry in a constructive manner and to make informed recommendations on areas where further concrete actions could benefit BSL users across Scotland. I thank the Deputy First Minister for her written response to our report, and I was pleased to see that the Scottish Government had accepted, or partially accepted, the vast majority of our recommendations.

The committee took evidence from organisations representing deaf people, academics and others working to minimise barriers. We also held informal engagement sessions with deaf and deafblind people with first-hand experience of using BSL, to hear about the challenges that they can face. Those discussions were invaluable in shaping the committee’s scrutiny, and I would like to place on the record the committee’s sincere gratitude to all who assisted us.

It is important to note that the 2015 act covers deafblind users of tactile BSL, in addition to those signers with whom many of us will be more familiar. Deafblind stakeholders explained how they often feel marginalised as a smaller community, of which there is less understanding among public and professionals alike. They therefore called for tactile BSL to be routinely included and placed on an equal footing to BSL, and not just treated as an afterthought.

Stakeholders widely acknowledged the 2015 act’s positive impact in raising awareness, increasing visibility of BSL and empowering deaf communities. Initiatives such as Contact Scotland BSL, a 24/7 video interpreting service, were praised as being transformative. Examples of improved service access include better interpreter support, deaf awareness training and inclusive recruitment practices. The committee strongly welcomed the positive feedback that was received with regard to empowering BSL users and increasing visibility of the language, but was equally mindful that significant challenges remain and that more needs to be done to address them. For example, the shortage of qualified interpreters in rural areas remains a significant barrier.

I turn to the substance of the committee’s report. We covered a wide range of key policy areas. I intend to focus on the three that received the most feedback from stakeholders: education, health and justice. I look forward to listening to contributions from other members in the chamber, who I am sure might reflect on other policy areas.

I will briefly discuss our conclusions on the local and national plans that public bodies are required to publish under the 2015 act. The first national plan was widely praised for the collaborative work that went into it, although concerns were also raised about inconsistent implementation, lack of enforceability and insufficient funding. However, feedback on the second national plan was more mixed. Many stakeholders felt that it lacked measurable goals, timelines and accountability. Some expressed disappointment that their recommendations had been watered down or omitted, and they called for clearer targets and better resource allocation. The committee regretted that the collaborative spirit of the first plan had not been fully carried forward, and it recommended greater transparency and stakeholder engagement in future planning.

In respect of local plans for public bodies covering areas including health, education and justice, the committee notes the need for local flexibility to address specific needs and the importance of raising local ambitions on BSL. We welcomed positive examples of meaningful engagement with BSL users and collaborative working with relevant partners, but we noted that, unfortunately, not all listed authorities adopted that approach. We also heard from the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland that, three months after the statutory deadline of 6 May 2024, only 72 per cent of listed authorities had published plans in English, with only 62 per cent having published them in BSL. The committee agrees with stakeholders such as Deaf Links, which described that data as “extremely disappointing.”

I therefore welcome confirmation that funding will be made available to the ALLIANCE to deliver a BSL network to strengthen monitoring, data collection and accountability. Nonetheless, that is not the BSL board that the committee recommended, and in summing up, I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s reflections on how we can help to ensure democratic accountability and how it will compare with the BSL board under the UK act.

One of the most important policy areas for BSL users is education, with a particular focus on early years provision. We heard that some deaf children start school or nursery with no knowledge of the language, and that is unacceptable. Deaf Links described the poor experiences that many deaf adults have had as children. It told us:

“They do not want another generation suffering in the way that they have suffered: not being able to get a job or an education; being treated like a second-class citizen; not being able to access the hearing world in any way, shape or form; and having their life chances reduced because they are deaf and use BSL.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 3 June 2025; c 13.]

For many deaf people, BSL is not an additional language but their only language, which is a crucial difference.

Although investment in Gaelic schools is absolutely rightly celebrated, parity of esteem has not been extended to BSL, despite the fact that deaf children simply cannot choose another language in order to get on in society. It is therefore welcome that the Scottish Government is working with partners to update the existing qualifications guidance for teachers of children with sensory impairments. The committee looks forward to considering the results of the recent consultation on proposed revisions to the guidance when available, as well as the outcomes on the Scottish Government’s review of the curriculum.

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of the energy profits levy on energy jobs and the energy supply chain in the north-east. (S6O-05287)

I absolutely agree with Alasdair Allan. That has been part of the understanding that we have been trying to get across to people that BSL is not just a support for people with a disability or a hearing impairment; it is a language with a whole culture embedded in it, and that is how it needs to be treated.

While welcoming the work on guidance for teachers, I reiterate the need for parity with Gaelic-medium education.

I will turn briefly to healthcare and justice. It is clear that improvements have been made in respect of the provision of interpreters for pre-arranged appointments, but BSL users told us of the barriers that they face when contacting emergency services. The committee recognised that communication barriers can exacerbate what are often already stressful and traumatic situations. It is therefore pleasing to learn that the police, fire and ambulance services are working with partners on an app to help deaf people communicate with first responders in emergencies.

Another aspect of the justice system that our report considered in detail relates to the experience of deaf survivors of domestic abuse. We heard powerful first-hand testimony from a BSL user who had experienced such abuse. Although I do not have time to discuss that in any detail, I am sure that other members of the committee will do so later in the debate, and I look forward to their contributions.

I conclude by reiterating my thanks to all those who contributed to our inquiry and to the Deputy First Minister for her response. The response is encouraging, in so far as the door is clearly open for further improvements to be made. It is my sincere hope that our recommendations can contribute to helping to make Scotland the best place in the world for BSL users to live, work, visit and learn.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the findings and recommendations in the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s 4th Report, 2025 (Session 6), Report on British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 (SP Paper 872).

The energy profits levy threatens jobs and investment in the north-east, particularly in my constituency of Banffshire and Buchan Coast, yet Scotland produces a vast surplus of low-cost energy. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it should be unthinkable for an energy-rich Scotland to have anything other than energy-rich Scots, and that Westminster UK Government control is what stands in the way of that?

Absolutely—it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that inclusion. Martin Whitfield has just mentioned the Parliament, and he spoke earlier about the interpreters who interpret our debates, but I would note that they do not do them all; it is only specific debates that are chosen. My dad came to speak to me about that point. He said, “Actually, I don’t get to see things on transport or on the budget. It’s always about BSL or disability things.” We could do better in the Scottish Parliament, too, and translate everything as standard. The service today is wonderful.

On that note, does the cabinet secretary share my concern that industry modelling has consistently shown that the biggest threat to oil and gas jobs remains the Tories’ energy profits levy, which is now continued by Labour?

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.