 Fy nôr yn i g résidio iddo, sut rydw i'n gweithio cwellithau ar gyfer gyf esperio gan Phu storms? Rydyn ni'n gweithio fod ar gyfer cymdeinigau, dyf ceisio cyfrifetodau a'r cyfrifetodau? Felly mae gennym am i gael wneud ei wallaeth o'r cyfrifetodau. Fy yw'r cyfrifetodau gysylltu am ynddo, rydyn ni'n gweithio'r Llysmeth fydd yn tredu ei bod yn eolaf i'i gyrhwng. Welcome to the committee to James Dornan, who is replacing Chick Brody, who is unable to be here this morning as well. Liam McArthur is apparently on his way, but he is missing at the moment because his plane is late, so hopefully he will join us as soon as he lands in Edinburgh. Today, at item 1, we continue our evidence-taking on the British Sign Language Scotland bill. I thank everyone who has submitted evidence to us on the BSL bill. We have received numerous BSL videos and written submissions, and our Facebook group now has over 1,900 members. I thank the clerks and others who have been working on that to support the committee's endeavours in examining the bill. I welcome our first panel today. We have Alan Drew, who is a member of the Scottish Deaf Youth Association, Heather Gray from the National Deaf Children's Society, Alvarol Hepner from the British Deaf Association Scotland, Frankie McLean, who is a social care manager at Deaf Action, and Nicola Mitchell, who is a BSL tutor. Welcome to all of you this morning. Before we get started formally, we have three large panels of witnesses this morning. We have a lot of work to get through this morning. I am going to move straight to questions from the committee members about the bill. If you wish to contribute to any question or have a point to make, please just indicate, just nod or wave, and I will pick it up. I will ask you to come in. Other than that, I will start the question now with question 1, which will be from Siobhan McMahon. Good morning. The first question should be nice and easy to see whether you believe that legislation is necessary to promote BSL and what specific outcomes you think the bill could bring with it. I think the bill will bring about it the opportunity to really promote the culture of BSL in Scotland and really ensure that it has the status of a language in Scotland too. I believe that the legislation will have a significant impact on shining the light on this very important language. We do not see ourselves as disabled. I realise that there is a whole variety of disabilities out there, but we do not consider ourselves as disabled. I think people are confused about what is covered under the Equalities Act and so on. Many people will not consider deaf people as disabled and therefore covered by that act. I think it is very difficult when you are fitting linguistic issues into legislation that is designed for disability. I think that this model of legislation is a better one that will promote the use of BSL. I think that that will be a better opportunity for us to gain access to the services that we need. At the moment, the Equalities Act is there, but it does not seem to be successful in respect of deaf people who use BSL. We are still going off to hospital appointments and not having access to communication support and that is evidence that that legislation is not successful at the moment and therefore I think that is why we need this particular bill. Really, we just want our language, our culture, our heritage and our identity recognised in the same way that Welsh Gallic is, in the same way that other spoken languages are. We want our language to be protected and preserved and for the risk to its demise to be reduced so the BSL bill will protect our language into the future. We will show that we belong here, that we have a spiritual home in Scotland. That is why legislation is important to promote and preserve the language. BSL, of course, as you become very well aware, is a language. The British Deaf Association published this dictionary many years ago, providing definitive evidence that this is a full language that needs to be recognised and accepted as a language alongside the other languages of Scotland. It is part of our everyday lives and it needs to be part of the way that we access services. Deaf people are hugely frustrated and depressed because of the barriers and the problems that we face in respect of linguistic access to what is going on and deaf people just want improved quality of life, improved access to the services that we need. I understand the points that you make about the language and how it is important to recognise that as such. However, the bill stops short of setting clear rights for BSL users or duties on public authorities. Do you think that that is a limitation to the bill? Many people have said in their responses to the committee that they see the bill as a stepping stone. Do you feel that? Do you think that that is enough at the moment with this bill? I think realistically we would love to have more. I think we are all agreed on that. We have had years of problems but we would like to grab the opportunity that has been presented to us. I think it is a first step. It is a lot better than what we have at present. I know that there are authorities who are quite concerned and anxious about this. I think that this would be a really good first step to get something on the statute books, a useful first step. I think we can look at the bill as something that opens the door, if you like, for deaf people and our language. Like Frankie said, it is a very first step. This is a pioneering piece of legislation in terms of the United Kingdom. We welcome it with open arms. We are ready to roll up our sleeves and do the hard work to build on the national plan, as it stated, or statements of intent, as has already been mentioned, so that the authorities can clear plans about work plans and what is going to work for us. We are prepared to wait for quality. I think that is important. The community has a very, very positive attitude to this and we do want to move forward. I would like to just agree with what Avril and Frankie have just said. I think it is really important. It will be an important step to the improvement of services and it will be gradual. Things will build from this. Other organisations may become involved. Hopefully businesses as well will follow suit. It is the 21st century. It is time for us to move forward. I would agree. I think what is going to be important is that the national plan has a very clear vision and can be linked to outcomes. That is going to be vital. The scene is set by the national plan and that we have the right mechanisms in place in relation to monitoring and reviewing those local plans. Importantly, the national plan sets out a really, really clear vision to help us to achieve what we need to with this bill. I agree very much a stepping stone and very welcomed by all of us. Is the bill anything more than symbolic in its nature? It does not provide any more resources. It does not change anything particularly. It does not provide any more interpreters or translators. Is it nothing more than a symbol? I think in terms of interpreting, it will hopefully enhance the need for quality interpreters and more interpreters. Universities and colleges need to make sure that their services are accessible. I think that is right. It could be symbolic but I think it is a powerful symbol and that is why we are all here. We are here. We are using BSL face to face with you. You had however many contributions to your Facebook page. I think that is evidence that it is a very powerful symbol. Is it merely symbolic? I think that what it offers is perhaps a framework, a skeleton on which we can then put the flesh on and develop as time goes on. The national plan will hopefully cascade down to those local authorities. You have to have a framework. You have to have a structure within to put these ideals, aspirations and eventually service expectations. The fact that it is about our language and the recognition of our language and that is the focus of it rather than our disability or linguistic rights, that is a pretty good symbolic start. Can I ask one further follow-up question before I bring in the next member of the committee? You mentioned at the start about the Equality Act 2010. You seem to be suggesting that that was not sufficient to meet the kind of objectives that you are hoping that the BSL bill will meet. Can you maybe expand on that a little bit, why the Equality Act is insufficient to meet the objectives that you hope that the BSL bill will? I have a social work background and personal experience as well. I see horror stories every day occurring with deaf people, people who are going into hospital, who are waiting for hours or months even without really knowing what is going on in terms of their treatment, people who have problems accessing college courses and who withdraw from college education because there is no provision for them. The experiences that you take for granted on an everyday basis are problematic for deaf people. Some deaf people, for example, have got into debt because of lack of understanding of some of the information that has been sent to them in written English. They see letters in English. They ignore them because they don't understand them. They then get into debt. Their situations become more and more problematic. They end up in crisis before any help is asked for. Because of data protection, it is very hard for them to interact with financial services and institutions through a third party, like through an interpreter or through another representative who wants to act on their behalf. The Equalities Act is not dealing with this. People and organisations find ways of working around the Equalities Act. Also, the Equalities Act talks about reasonable adjustment. It is very hard to define what that actually means. A lot of organisations will say that those adjustments that might be reasonable for deaf people are too expensive, particularly when it comes to language issues. The adjustments that deaf people need are deemed not reasonable. This is really a loophole in that legislation. If I want to go to a solicitor, who has to pay for the interpreter? I do. Legal aid won't cover. They cover the first appointment, the costs of, but not the interpreting costs. If I want to buy a house, I need to interact with a lawyer. Legal aid doesn't cover that. What do I do when I want to buy a house, for example? Those are just some very quick examples. I could go on for hours and give you some real horror stories of experiences that deaf people have had. Before I bring in Nicola and Avril, I just want to pursue this for one second. I know that we will get into some of the detail of this in a moment, but you just gave a number of examples about people getting into debt or trying to buy a house, for example, and how the Equalities Act doesn't help with any of these day-to-day situations. How do you believe that the BSL Bill will help with those everyday situations? What way will the BSL Bill prevent somebody from getting into debt, for example? Awareness of the language needs of deaf people and to make sure that information is accessible in that language. The recognition that BSL is a language because people really don't understand what BSL is all about. They maybe don't think of it and consider it as a proper language. It's just people waving their hands around. So they don't consider linguistic issues when they think about BSL. Having this legislation would identify it as a language would recognise that the issues for BSL users are to do with language and linguistic access. Also, to celebrate the richness of that language, at the moment deaf people, organisations can ignore that. I think we want to access life through using our own language. I think that legislation that encourages a change of attitude towards the language and identifies it as a language is necessary. Nicola Annan-Alville. I just like to agree with what Frankie says through my own personal experience. Going to the bank and sitting down with a financial adviser and dealing with transactions to do with my house had similar problems just accessing the fundamental information. People were saying, you need to come back in two weeks. That's when we can do something. I need access to that information right now. I often felt that there were a lot of barriers and it was very difficult for me in those areas of my life. Similarly, in visiting the tax office website, trying to deal with written language informing people of my own language needs, that lack of awareness, the lack of fundamental awareness, means that you just often give up. Deaf people end up having to go and do things face to face, taking more time and not having real equality of access. I think, like Frankie says, that attitude and cultural shifts brought about by a promotional bill may well help. Really, when you talk about the Equality Act, you say it does work for some people, but it clearly isn't working for the sign language using deaf community. Frankie mentioned reasonable adjustment earlier on that whereby services can provide, you just write things down on a bit of paper rather than providing an interpreter, which resorts back to English, which doesn't give us the full access via our preferred language. A bill like this can state that provision of services in BSL is something that deaf people should have. We've talked about reasonable adjustment, not working. The British Deaf Association in 2014 did carry out a wide-ranging survey, which I have here, into the legal status of British Sign Language and ISL, the clear result of that. The proof is here, I'm happy to supply this to the committee if you want, is that the Equality Act is not working for sign language using deaf people. If you also look at page 7 of this report in the last paragraph, we talk about the very important area of education for deaf children. When you ask MSPs and MPs whether deaf children will receive their education in sign language, the overwhelming response is, well, of course that's the case. The Grimes report in 2009 says something quite contrary. 8 per cent of teachers of the deaf can sign. 8 per cent? That means 92 per cent can't. So how are these children accessing their education? How are they setting up the foundations for their wellbeing in their future? We need an act that states that children should be educated in the language, in the culture that they belong to, giving them full access to information. So we need a separate act, an act that has British Sign Language in its title. That may well lead to future access and future provision for the deaf community. I want to bring in some of the committee now because I know there's a number of questions that members have. Can I start with Colin? Some organisations have expressed concern that the bill uses up scarce resources. If I can quote from COSLA, they state that there's a risk it will become simply an inexpensive bureaucratic exercise. Can I ask the panel, if they had a choice, would they be spending the resources on developing plans or would they rather have the resources spent in another way more effectively supporting BSL users? It's just a very open question. When we're talking about spending, we need to think about at the moment the government is spending an awful lot on deaf people. Most deaf people don't work. They try to find work, but they don't. So they're on benefits. So they're not actively contributing to our economy. They're excluded from that. So an investment now as a result of this bill will save money in the long term in terms of services to deaf people. If people are able to interact and contribute to the economy more, then there will be other costs that will be saved later on. For example, mental health and in education. If we don't do anything now, there will be increased costs later on as a result. But if we invest in trying to ensure that deaf people are active members of society, are able to share their experiences, their knowledge with other members of society, then we will all benefit. It's timely. It comes alongside the national sensory impairment strategy as well. It comes at a time when we've got a focus on the attainment gap for deaf learners. I think as Frankie says, it's a stepping stone. It really allows us to have a focus on children and young people and on a whole range of issues for deaf people in Scotland that will help support better outcomes for people and an investment in the future. So I think the timing of the bill is very good in relation to other areas of focus but I think in particular this focus that we now have on the attainment gap that exists for deaf children and on some of the issues that have been raised in the recent CRIDE survey which has been picked up upon earlier around about qualifications for teachers of the deaf consistency of support for deaf learners in Scotland too. I think that issue around about timing and the plans being absolutely right in terms of the kind of issues that they're capturing and a real focus on improving the outcomes for deaf children and ultimately for deaf adults. Austin, the expenditure as you have. As has been said, this could be a strategic investment for the long term to save public money. If we give deaf people the quality start in life then they will, like Frankie said, contribute. There's a lot of misdirected and unstrategic spending on the deaf community that's going on at the moment. Now what we would like to see is a cross-department, cross-party joint working together so that we actually target and strategise because we see an awful lot of duplication and repetition of services. For example, across the NHS and the other public services with the advancement of technology and the increasing of online services, this isn't done in a centralised way that could easily work in Scotland where we join the dots between these services so that we have a full comprehensive cohesive picture giving us value for money for each pound we spend. I agree wholeheartedly with Frankie that an investment now will make all of us, not the deaf community but the whole of Scotland, better off in the future. A point that Arwell made in relation to the current spending for BSL. Arwell seemed to be indicating that it wasn't being spent perhaps as wisely as it should be. Perhaps you could add a little bit to that. Okay, for example, with the NHS services across Scotland, they very much have their own individual localised plans of how they're going to meet deaf people's needs. And if they actually joined up, for example, with interpreting services on the access via technology, if it was done in a centralised way rather than all these pots of money being drained locally, if we planned these things properly in the first place, I'm sure you would agree with me that we would have an economy of scale. It would just make sense. Does that answer your question? I understand where Arwell's coming from. Can I just add to that? The number of BSL users in different areas varies widely. In some areas there will be a large number of deaf people in others. They will be very few and far between. Having a centralised system will be far more cost effective, I'm sure. Can I just add? It's occurred to me that another example that might illustrate is that when you look at deaf children in schools across Scotland, there is an awful lot of expenditure on itinerant and visiting teachers of the deaf that can't sign very well, as I've already said, communication support workers that aren't trained very well and giving ineffectual support. If we strategically employed deaf people to support our deaf students, it would be a lot cheaper and cost effective and give much better outcomes, which is far more important. As I explained earlier, a lot of the so-called professionals working in this area don't have the sign language skills necessary to meet the needs of these deaf students, so what we would like to see is really able to exploit the potential of the deaf community and our skills and experiences to bring up our children in the way that they deserve. Can I just ask Alan, given his representing here, younger people today, who has a view on this? Young deaf people often live very isolated lives in terms of their family, their social life, their education. They find it difficult to get good employment outcomes, they're underemployed, they can't get promotion. I can't emphasise many areas of improvement. As I've said, job interviews can be incredibly difficult for deaf people to navigate very well, but often employers and educational establishments have an attitude that is extremely unhelpful to deaf people. A bill like this that states the language rights of deaf people will go a long way to improving that. In the panel, what they understand by the term promotion of BSL, what specific things should that entail? What should be included in that promotion? When you look at promotion of BSL, what it means to me is, first of all, it has been said earlier that it proves that it is a language, so education establishments and employers hopefully will have an attitudinal shift. A cultural shift is the first key step. Promotion can also mean much more of an acceptance of the access needs of deaf people throughout our society. My experience, it's not only deaf people who might benefit, but hearing people too. Hearing people are usually fascinated when they're exposed to BSL and very keen to learn more, but they have a limited choice in where they can go and learn that and often they're disappointed because things aren't accessible in their locality. I think the potential for having BSL on the curriculum, for example, would improve the awareness of hearing people. It would improve their language skills. They could become bilingual as well in English and BSL. That would mean that there would be far more interaction between deaf and hearing people. It would be really useful. It could be fun for hearing people. It would involve a lot more interaction and involvement within the wider society for deaf people and I think promotion of BSL would certainly involve promoting the learning of it with hearing people. I think, like I've already said, the dictionary a couple of decades ago recognised our language as having its own grammar, syntax and structure, putting it on an absolute equal footing with any other language. We all agreed that this is a recognised language. It's not just gestures or mimes. For me, promotion means, I think, while Frankie's already mentioned a national curriculum, it would be terrific to recognise the benefits that sign language can confer. For somebody to grow up bilingual, their career opportunities, not only in that language, of course they could work as a social worker or an interpreter within the language group. We'd have the cost effectiveness of that, but bilingualism is good anyway. In terms of deaf people having partners, family members, I don't know if you know that 95% plus deaf children are born to hearing families. If we promote this language within the wider community, when people have deaf children, they're going to be able to communicate at least fundamentally with them. The quality of life that it would promote, that's what I think of when I think of promotion. We keep going back to this, but changing attitudes, gaining acceptance, respecting our language on a par with other spoken languages, that's a really important principle. It means that deaf Scottish people will feel that they truly belong in their own country. Could you be very brief, because we've got a lot to get through, Heather? It's a dimensioning wall academy in the 1 plus 2 initiative there, where students are learning BSL as a second language and perhaps that being an opportunity, certainly a great example of good practice. Thank you very much, Colin Ewing. The number of comments suggested there could be some unintended consequences of the bill, and primarily it could have a detrimental effect on the available resources to support people with other communication needs. Would you agree with that? Could other communication needs for deaf people be negatively affected by the BSL bill, and if so, in what ways? I think at the moment BSL should be an option for anyone who chooses to use it, but it's really not an option because of lack of resources, lack of support and so on. BSL is often an option for families with deaf children that they don't take up, and as Avril said, the vast majority of deaf children are born into hearing families. Hearing families who don't know how to communicate with their child, who don't know where to go and learn BSL and maybe not advised to do that. Deafness obviously covers a whole broad range of individuals who will communicate in different ways. Not all will use sign language, some will lip read and speak, for example, and that's fine. I'm thinking about how many of those would actually welcome the opportunity to learn BSL if it was available to them. I'm confident that a lot more people would actually access BSL tuition if they were able to do so, because hearing loss can have a profound effect on the lives of individuals, can really impact on their ability to communicate and so on, can cause a great deal of frustration and often depression. Often single parents, for example, who lose their hearing, will have hugely problematic issues communicating with their children. It can involve a lot of stress. People can really struggle in their individual circumstances. Having BSL as an option that is accessible for more people to learn would actually benefit a lot of hard of hearing people as well. It would give them another choice that could help them access services and life. It could be very positive for other people. Can I answer up for a second? Mr Donan's question wasn't so much about the response that Mr McLean just gave and the benefits. I think that many of us recognise the benefits if it was widely available. The question is directly about the impact on resources. If the resource allocation for deaf community within a council or other communication needs is limited if it's a fixed pot of money, I'm paraphrasing here, but the question is effectively about what would the impact be on that pot of money if some of it had to be used because of legislation, for example for the plans and the promotion, etc. I'm not confident at the moment that extra money would be provided to do this, that the money would remain the same, but some of the money would then have to be allocated for promotion, etc. What would the impact be on BSL users then? I'm paraphrasing the question. I was actually going to come back in and make exactly the point that you've made, convener. Sorry. Don't know whether Frankie would maybe respond directly to that point. Well, I think, sorry, I was emphasising the positives and I know that there are concerns about this. The honest answer is we don't know, but I think when I consider the spending that is happening at the moment in relation to deaf people, I think that there would be a lot of savings. For example, there isn't much spending on lip-reading classes at the moment, so the spending is the other way around. There is more spending on BSL users than there are on the other groups of deaf people. Sorry, interpret is my sake. Frankie's last point was that he believes that the current suite of services that are available, if you look at it right now, there's much more spending on the other forms of communication than BSL. That's the status quo at the moment. At the moment, other communication methods, we're not totally sure what the spending is on them, but I actually don't think that there is that much spending on them anyway. I'd like to say that a BSL bill would make the BSL needs more visible because I feel that they're not visible enough within that spectrum of needs and services to meet those needs. I don't think that there would be any negative effects at all, to be honest. I think that what we have to bear in mind is that BSL is a language. All the other communication needs that you're talking about are science-supported English, that's not a language. It's an artificial communication system. Macaton that's available, I don't know if you're aware of that, that's for people who have got special needs. On top of additional disabilities, perhaps. There shouldn't really be any negative unintended effects. If we consider the amount of funding that's being given to cochlear implantation over the last few decades, if we can spend money in that direction, we can certainly, via a bill, point people and direct them to spending in this way, there should not be any negative effects at all. We're talking about a language issue here, as distinct from... The other services are for people who don't use that language, so I think that there are two separate issues, and it would be good for us to focus on the language side of things. We talked about the See Here strategy and what's going ahead. We're obviously very supportive of having a very wide and open attitude to the spectrum of deafness in the services, but I have a very strong belief that a BSL bill would have no negative unintended consequences. Can I just say that we are, as an organisation, seeing quite significant cuts in sensory services right across Scotland, and I think that we do actually need to be aware that there is some potential for financial resources to be diverted away from additional support required, for example, for deaf children in the classroom, particularly around about communications support workers, radio aids, improved acoustics. So I do think seeing the situation right across Scotland just now and seeing the constraints and budgets, that we do actually need to be cautious around about that. Come back to you then on that, Heather. Have you got any suggestions about how we can mitigate those circumstances? Some funding attached to the bill. One response. I mean, I do believe that the bill will require funding and resourcing, given the fact that we know there to be inconsistencies across Scotland and we know there to be gaps in services just now. I think services are working incredibly hard just now to build capacity and to use resources as effectively as possible, but we are seeing significant cuts to budgets and real pressures on councils just now, so my concern would be unless there's financial resources attached to the bill, it may well be difficult to fulfil the obligation. Do you think the bill should include specific reference to the needs of deaf-blind BSL users, and if so, in what way? It should, because deaf-blind people are deaf primarily and then they will lose their vision later in life. They are people who rely on BSL. At the moment, deaf-blind communication might involve a hands-on, tactile form of BSL. That is BSL anyway, so basically what we're talking about is BSL. It's just a different form of BSL. I'm not a linguistic academic, so maybe other people can tell me if I'm wrong there. Like Frankie said, deaf-blind people are a distinct group within our community, and have their own extra needs. I think what's important is to just make sure that they are included. If we're talking about including the deaf community within the wider society, then we also need to consider how the deaf-blind minority within the deaf community is part of that picture. Thank you. Liz Smith. Good morning. Obviously, as the bill stands just now, there is a proposal that there should be one minister who has a specific responsibility for BSL, and the Scottish Government has come back and said that all ministers should have responsibility because of the collective role that their portfolios have. Can I just ask you whether you do feel that there should be a specific minister with responsibility, and if so, what additional benefit that could bring? What I would like to see is a minister being given primary responsibility to oversee that whole picture, to take the lead on British Sign Language flowing from an act of Parliament. We'd like to have our cake and eat it, I suppose. We'd like cross-department and cross-party support for this so that there is a synergy between the head and the heart and the actual services that are then provided. We'd like that strong overview and leadership so that somebody is accountable for it, but that they would then delegate those responsibilities across all departments. This would benefit all parts of that equation because there would be a clear roadmap, a clear strategy of who's responsible for what, but that oversight we feel is a very important aspect. It would also be cost-effective. I mean, don't forget that we're talking, hopefully, about having a national advisory group that would work in very strong cooperation with all government departments to ensure that we take the right path in ensuring a better future. I'm sure you've been looking in-depth at all the paperwork in relation to this bill. You probably have a much more in-depth knowledge about it than other ministers here. I think it would be really invaluable to have somebody who has a cruise an in-depth knowledge about BSL and about the processes and the needs involved. Follow-up on this point, because if there is an advisory body, a national advisory body, and there is also a minister with responsibility, could you be clear about what each of the roles would be? How would the minister's role differ from that of the national advisory group? I think there are a lot of issues that need to be discussed, and that the advisory group would be the place for those discussions to take place, to benefit from individuals' experiences and so on. But the minister is the person who needs to kind of take that overview, summarise the thoughts of the advisory group, present them to Parliament. The advisory group is where the discussions can happen and feed into the process, and that will be done through the minister. Just be clear about that answer. If it is the responsibility of the minister to set the priorities, would it be your expectation that these priorities come from the national advisory body? I think so. What I would like to stress, we have talked about the minister taking the lead in terms of Parliament and legislation. The advisory group, what we would like to see, is that group really represented, in a majority, 75 per cent or more of experts within the field to have a connection with the community with what's going on, so that we provide the link between the plans, the bridge, if you like, between the plans and feed-in to the strategy from the actual needs of the community. If you ensure that there is that 75 per cent of vast majority of Scottish deaf BSL users in that group, obviously organisations like COSLA and the others need to be part of those lengthy discussions, but if you look at formulating a national plan and supporting authorities to do that plan, members of that group could provide that very vital link between the national Parliament and all those services that are being rolled out across the country. I hope that that's clear, is it? Can I just finish on the point? There must be an expectation on other portfolios in government that this has an impact, whether it runs across education, it runs across health, it runs across social responsibility. I'm just slightly nervous about one minister having that responsibility. I think that's the point that the Scottish Government's making. Would you see any way forward of trying to ensure that there is a collective responsibility on this? I'm not sure I'm really going to answer that, but if we look at the Gaelic model and just consider whether or how effective that is in relation to this, and then maybe, either if it's effective, follow the same model and if it's not do something different. Just think to what Frankie just said. If we spread the responsibility around, then it spread perhaps too thin. We would like to see some sort of accountability, a shared responsibility, if you like. There's one minister that takes the lead, because it is a promotional bill, and they take the lead over the other departments, but the advisory group provides that vital link to local authorities and services. Like Frankie said, we can look at the spoken language models and see if they will apply and if they will work to the British Sign Language situation. Can I ask about a particular issue that was raised in effect by the Scottish Government? The Scottish Government suggested that the requirement for listed authorities to publish a plan should be replaced with a requirement to publish a BSL statement. I just wondered whether the panel felt that a statement would be a better way of driving improvement and measuring progress than a plan. I think that it's important that it is plans and that those plans have momentum and that there's accountability for those plans and that we can see progress towards the bill. I think that there's a bit of a fear if it's a statement that it could be a tick box exercise. I think that it's important that it is plans and that there are accountabilities around that and that there is measurable outcomes in terms of the progress to achieving the aspirations of this bill. The Government's view in terms of the bill at the moment, certainly, as it's laid out, was that there should be a national plan and that effectively each authority plan, if you like, would be a statement and the statement would be how they would achieve the outcomes as laid out in the national plan, how they would drive forward their responsibilities towards the outcomes in the national plan. Is there a problem with that model? Is there any issues with that model? There is accountability and keeping the momentum, going behind those local plans and how accountable the local plans are and people are to delivering against those. I think that what's going to be critical is that the national plan and the national advisory group are very explicit in the responsibilities for reporting back. I think that there's a danger that it becomes an exercise where we don't see progress. It needs to have some momentum behind it. It needs to have some accountability in terms of deliverables. I'm trying to understand, let me progress a little bit more and understand why you feel... ..a statement as opposed to a plan. I'm trying to understand why you think that a statement would be worse than a plan. A statement would be a tick box exercise but a plan wouldn't be a tick box exercise because it could equally be a tick box exercise if you want to make it like that. Surely if a local body has to publish a statement detailing how it will achieve the outcomes in the national plan, as long as the national plan has that detail and it's surely a statement from that local authority, for example, saying, this is how we intend to do this, how we intend to achieve or how we intend to make progress towards the outcomes in the national plan. That's not a tick box exercise but, in fact, it's quite a focused way of achieving the outcomes as laid out in the national plan. Yes. I think providing it's about there is a reporting mechanism back and there is a sense that within that statement there's intent and action that can be measurable and that people can see a tangible improvement. I think that's the critical part. I think there's been a number of examples where there has been statements but no intent and no movement behind them. So I think the important factor being that there's actually the intent in terms of how the local plans would be delivered is really important and the role of the national advisory council or committee or whatever it is that it's created in having some kind of accountability and monitoring of that. I just want to be absolutely clear on this point that I'll come to other members of the panel in one moment that the important point is the principle, if you like, here, is that you have the intent and the monitoring and the progress and the publication of outcomes. It's all of that kind of detail that you're concerned about and whether it's a statement or whether it's a plan is, in a sense, slightly less important is the fact that it has to have yes, there's some solidity behind it in accountability. I think having the national task group is critical to that and having the momentum behind that as well so that there's accountability. Okay, thank you. I believe Frankie and I think Avril as well wanted to contribute here. Frankie and then Avril, yeah. Key to success of this bill is that public bodies should really think about, consider what the issues are for them for the services that they offer and these will be individual to the different listed authorities. They really need to carefully consider what is involved for them. They will have the national plan and they can think about how they can achieve those issues off the national plan but that won't, in a statement, indicate that they're really exploring the issues as they experience them in their particular field and I think it's really important that each authority really considers very carefully about their particular circumstance and what is required in that situation so it's got to be contextually relevant. It's not about ticking the boxes off the national plan that can work to a certain extent but I think it will be far more effective if they have individual authority plans. I think that the local authorities plans should be really focused around action points whereas the national plan will obviously make what we hope are statements of intent which have some sort of force behind them so that the public authorities understand that they need to do these needs analysis and follow what's outlined in the statement of intent. The British Deaf Association has our BSL charter which already mentions a great deal of those things. Pages 24 to 26 cover a pretty similar content and context about a statement of intent that encourages police authorities, councils, health authorities to sign up and support, make a pledge if you like. There are five central pledges within the charter as an example to work together in this strategic way to make sure that the needs of the community are covered so when we talk about a statement we really want to see a statement of intent and the last word intent is the most important one I feel because it actually strengthens the statement and takes something that exists in philosophy and puts it into practice. Thank you very much, Gordon. We've just heard how important it is to have plans in place. However, we heard from some of the written evidence that information and what should be included in a BSL plan is currently quite vague and we've also heard from COSLA that there was a lack of clarity. So what are the panel's view on what should be included in both national and authority plans in order that they can be effective? There are five key areas that I could summarise these into. I think the Facebook comments have highlighted this as well as the other evidence. The area of education is key. Following that health, social care, particularly for elderly deaf people suffering from dementia and other conditions, that's an identified gap in services to promote leisure, cultural, artistic inclusion of deaf people as a fourth and the fifth area that's equally important is employment. So to go back to education, we've mentioned this issue before, deaf children's access to their own education in their own language so that they acquire a holistic well-being that gives them a sound foundation for their future. We've talked about interpreters in health services, but we have growing mental health issues and we don't have councillors that are competent. The employment opportunities for deaf people, as I'm sure you appreciate, are woefully inadequate and behind the general population. So I think those are the five key areas that I would like to highlight. I totally agree with what Avril's just said. I'd just like to add in their early years and early intervention. So support for families who have deaf babies, making sure that they get the right support in those early years to facilitate growth, development and healthy lives thereafter. Sorry Heather, yes. Just to reinforce that point about the early years and family sign, for example. We don't in Scotland have a national programme for family sign, which is really vital in terms of really supporting those 90 per cent of parents who are hearing who have a deaf child and really promote a means of communication in the early years. We know how significant and important the early years are. So just to really reinforce that point about early years being critical in the plans in terms of action. Thank you very much. You've mentioned five or six key areas that you feel should be included in national and authority plans. But should there be more detail on the content of plans included in the bill? See, a lot more detail, a lot more flesh on the bones. But as you've already said, maybe not in the face of the bill. This is more belonging in the national plan, providing that link between the legislation and the practice, like we've said. Adding in early interventions, Frankie said, would give us six key areas. As long as there was a clear link between those areas and prioritisation, obviously we have to think of this as a long-term iterative process. The world changes, new issues will come up. We need to be flexible and adaptable. I would like to ask about the performance review that is proposed. The bill proposes that each parliamentary session Scottish ministers should undertake a performance review and that provides an account of measures taken and outcomes attained. I've read the British Deaf Association Scotland's evidence that says that if there is a performance review and a chosen evaluation approach, it should not be a simple tick box exercise. It should be both a formative and a summative evaluation component. But when you talk to COSLA, COSLA then has come back and said that local authorities have to report to the Scottish Government on this that could be quite difficult. They actually don't like that. They think that it should possibly go down the idea of community planning partnerships. What do we think? If we went down the COSLA route of the community planning partnerships, how could we get a national picture of where things lie with the reviews and the outcomes in BSL? That's a good question. If you have a wide performance review that focuses on two areas, you've talked about the difference between formative regular iterative reviews that can provide quick fixes and solutions to issues identified and a summative assessment that takes a longer view on achievements and improvements. I think you're quite right. It's important that the review comes from the community itself. You need to tap into that local knowledge about what's happening on the ground, so the answer is both. The local performance review should feed into a national picture. To give you perhaps an example, the BDA, we have a project, a participation project that we're working on now, where we consult and review our services to the community, and that could provide a model for how this may work between authorities and councils and a larger context. The COSLA response has said that it's done on a local basis, and of course we would put an and in there, not an or. This is very important that we get those local contributions so we understand what's happening, and that it feeds in and gives us a national picture. If I'm saying this correctly, Avril, then possibly you're saying that we do have to stick with the idea of a national review, but obviously feed in at the community planning level as well. Yes, that's correct. I think that you would look at both of them. The local stuff would be very much the everyday access, following on on the grounds, and for that to be regular would make it effective. That's the community partnership model that you talk about, where we've got this collaborative data collection that provides for those reviews. What's mentioned is that if an authority isn't actually performing correctly with the national picture, the idea that they're talking about is of naming and shaming authorities. Do you think that this is enough or that there would have to be more to deal with the whole situation if the national picture came back and said that there were areas that weren't actually delivering? That's a tough question, because yes, I think that sanctions might make people more proactive, but it might also lead to them setting very insubstantial targets in the first place. Because if they're worried about sanctions, then they'll just kind of make things easier to achieve. So I think that it's a kind of balancing act maybe. I think that's something that will need to be incorporated into the reviewing process. I think it would be good for authorities to be allowed to aim high and fail, but to be supported in that. If they continually fail, then that's when sanctions might need to be brought in. But I think, you know, it's a bit of a carrot and stick act at the moment, I think. You know, I think that you need to tread quite gently to begin with maybe. Naming and shaming is, that's probably the only sanction there is. So that's probably eventually, if things continually go down, a route of non compliance. Yes, I think so. I think that maybe, if you could somehow look at, as Faki said, how often failure happens and what support has been given though when inadequacies have been identified. So the focus is on resolving. You're looking at a positive way forward identified, and only, I think, when a clear, you know, authorities are clearly ignoring or disregarding those, could there be some sort of sanction. But in terms of the bill itself, being a promotional bill and whether it's got the strength to do that, I'm not entirely sure, but I think that the key is that we've got to be supportive in the first, second, third and, you know, so many instances. Because, you know, ultimately, you know, let me say, sanctions will be limited, so it would have to be seen as a last resort. I mean, we could also look at the best practice model, a best performance model, so authorities or organisations that are not doing so well can look to those that are succeeding. That's very much a constructive, collaborative way of celebrating success and using that as blueprints for how other authorities and organisations can improve. We're really struggling for time, Frankie, so you'll be very quick. I think examples of good practice exist currently, but what we'd like is some consistency across the nation. And I don't think it would be difficult to model and share those examples of good practice. I've got a question which follows on from what Frankie's just said just to finish off today, and it's really, so you can maybe come in on this. The Scottish Government has actually suggested that the BSL national advisory group could undertake collective consultation on authority plans. Now, this is, I think, to avoid local groups or small groups being swamped by requests to undertake reviews of local plans. I just wondered what your view was of a collective consultation process driven from the centre, if you like, rather than more localised consultation by lots of different groups with the danger, of course, certain groups being swamped with requests for reviews, etc. Alan? Local consultation is good, but you have got to consider how many authorities, and there is the potential of people being over-surveyed and things being missed. But this collective consultation certainly has some advantages perhaps picking up the gaps, but I think rather than either or, it's an and situation. A collective consultation seems, in theory, like a good idea. Avril? First of all, the Facebook initiative that the Scottish Parliament took is an excellent example of being open and outward-facing, being consultative in a very cost-effective way. You know how many contributions you've had, so we'd like to congratulate you on that and say that this should be an on-going part of a consultation process with the deaf community. Local consultations can, of course, happen, but rather than making them too onerous, what you can do is tap into the expertise of organisations such as the British Deaf Association. We've already got our participation survey going on. We're doing this outreach work in the community. There's evidence and work available that can feed into the process. There isn't a need to reinvent the wheel constantly, and there are really good cost-effective ways for the government to basically leverage the expertise from our organisations and from technologies such as Facebook so that we do allow that vital local knowledge to be fed up into these plans. You know, it doesn't need to be expensive, it doesn't need to be time-consuming or onerous. If we're strategic about it, I think we can have our cake and eat it. One final question which I want to just, it should be a very quick answer, really. The timescale suggested by the bill, and I think this is complicated, so I want to read it out properly. The bill proposes that the national plan should be produced no later than six months after the start of each parliamentary session and that authority plans should be published no later than six months after the national plan but for the first set of plans the relevant period should be 12 months. That to me is a complicated way to do it, and I think the government agrees. They've suggested a five or a seven year cycle for plans which is more in line with the Gallic Language Act. I just wondered what your view on that was. Pera. That sounds very complicated, I think if we've got something that works for Gallic then we should be adopting that for BSL. And the rest of the panel agree with that? If it works use it. Avril. It's not a yes or no answer I'm afraid but I'll be brief. I mean we'd like to see very much as much achieved in the first session as possible I suppose but because five or seven year plans are concerned of course is that when you think of the education of deaf children this is five or seven years in their lives so all their opportunities are lost over a long time period like that so it very much depends on which part of the strategy and the service provision we're looking at. Okay, that's very helpful can't it? We've gone a little bit over time I should say but that's been very informative and very welcome can I thank you all for your contributions this morning I'm sent the committee got a lot out of this first panel session so thank you very very much I'm going to suspend now for five minutes to allow us to change over witnesses, thank you. Can I welcome now our second panel this morning? We have Katie Heatherington from NHS Health Scotland Nigel Firth from NHS Grampian, Lorraine Vallance who's a member of the Scottish University's disability services group Robert Nicol from COSLA and Maria Dick who's from 4th Valley Sensory Centre and is also representing COSLA as well I'm just going to run straight into the questions from committee members to the second panel this morning and again I'll begin with the department man. Thank you, convener. We heard in the first panel this morning that the users felt that BSL was necessary to be putting legislation, do you agree with that? Primary legislation is one option from discussing with the NHS Grampian disability groups they came up with a range of options which I'm happy to put forward. Primary legislation yes is one option a voluntary code of conduct or guidance would be a second option and perhaps a third option would be reinterpreting or adding to existing legislation. As I'm sure you know the general duty section F of the disability discrimination act 2005 has a number of elements within it such as a legal duty to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people and very significantly section F takes steps to meet disabled people's needs even if this requires more favourable treatment and again the equality act 2010 also contains elements within it which could be used. The consensus view of our disability groups in Grampian and indeed on Orkney as well was that perhaps reinterpreting existing legislation using the equality and human rights commission for Scotland as the primary enforcement body might be a sensible first step and if that was not sufficient perhaps then primary legislation should be considered. Does anyone else have any views before? I think I'd probably agree with that. There's a variety of ways for promoting anything and I think clearly primary legislation is one but there are other mechanisms out there. I'm going to be adding another one to that and that's through government policy as well which can be developed in a collaborative way already have the severe strategy and we'll discuss that a little bit more but another policy that was discussed in the first panel was one plus two languages so clearly there are a variety of ways that policy and practice and government policy can be shaped to promote a particular subject so it's not necessarily that primary legislation is the only route to deliver what was clearly felt from the first panel was something strongly felt. OK. Your answer, sorry. To echo that from Health Scotland's perspective we very much support the thinking behind the bill in terms of promoting BSL and from our perspective in order to tackle health inequalities and promote equity of access to health services it's very much something that we want to see all our public bodies doing but we do believe that there are levers within the current equality legislation particularly the human rights framework which we maybe want to talk a little bit more about in terms of the right to health and a human rights based approach that public authorities could take and we think probably potentially by looking at how we can use those levers better we might achieve the outcomes that the BSL bill is intending to achieve. In the answers that you were given you tended to focus all the panel members tended to focus on disability and not necessarily rely on major opportunities from panel 1 I think it was Frankie McLean who said that deaf people don't see themselves as disabled and yet every answer that we've been getting back is about the disability discrimination act how you see a disabled person how they can focus so if that is the way that you wish to see the bill do you think that that's a problem and the outset? I recognise completely where the BSL community are coming from in terms of being recognised as a language issue and not as a disability issue and that's where I think potentially the human rights framework might provide that leverage in achieving that the non-discrimination is part of the human rights based approach and in terms of realising people's rights it does include on the grounds of language so it might be something that we can look at a little bit more in terms of the human rights framework in terms of what we have across I Can't Speak on behalf of all of NHS Scotland but I know that for instance NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde do have a BSL plan in place in action that flows from that and other boards will have similar plans in place already I quoted the DDA 2005 because that is relevant legislation to feel to what we're discussing there is no doubt that people who are profoundly deaf are at a great disadvantage this is a very very vulnerable community or group of communities I think it is important that every effort is made to expand opportunities and address issues and it's really how do you go about that and there are ways other than primary legislation the difficulty of the disability label but I think we worry about the existing support provision that is guaranteed under the equality act and that's where our concerns lie that might not be there under another act, another bill sorry, I missed that it might not be available under the bill okay, I think if we talk about being a vulnerable group I would suggest that that's because that we're not listening to what the community want and so redefine what is best for the community rather than hearing what they're telling us is best for them we heard the evidence and we've seen our written submissions and in the facebook submissions that the equality act, the human rights act isn't standing up at the minute particularly in the health service there's been the examples but we're given other examples this morning but in the health service where provision should be made and obviously you spoke about the human rights framework and the equality act but that isn't being implemented in the way it should be and a lot of people have seen in written submissions have said you could implement that right that you would have to go to lawyers for a formal process and frankly they're not enabled to do so with the barriers that they're already facing therefore do you not see this bill as promoting language would help with the equality act and human rights act and act with that rather than against that and be an add-on to that generalisation to say that the needs of the profoundly deaf communities are not being addressed by NHS in Scotland generally I think you have to look at the work sorry, sorry you added generally to what I said therefore that's a problem where we go so it would be absolutely if I'd said that but that's not what I said I stand corrected it is important to look at what public bodies are doing at an individual level some public bodies are exemplary in their provision perhaps others are less so in Grampian we take advice from the local deaf communities we have involvement events the agenda that we set is their agenda we're not imposing an agenda we are asking what can we do to make our services more accessible to you what will make life simpler and that is the agenda that we are following Richard Moore's so you didn't address that do you think the BSL bill will add to the quality act and human rights framework yes I think it would but there are other options as well understand that but that was my question I think it's concerning about the examples of people experiencing poor access to NHS services we would hope that that is not the case throughout Scotland and unfortunately there have been cases where that has happened I suppose in our thinking can we make sure that public bodies including the NHS is following the quality act requirements better to make sure that the needs of BSL users are being addressed and should we focus more on that rather than developing new plans around BSL our position is that we are we'd like to see the quality act and the human rights act being used better by public bodies and we're not just not sure whether the requirement to do an additional plan would strengthen that or not in terms of NHS Health Scotland we're a national board and we provide a lot of information health information we have recently been reviewing our inclusive communications policy and I've been doing a health inequalities impact assessment on that policy and we constantly review that to get for BSL translations and hope to be responsive to that and that's something that we keep under review and I've listened with interest this morning to the panel's discussion and certainly we'll feed that back both to our own organisation and to the broader NHS equality and diversity network That's what you were saying and it doesn't seem an unreasonable proposition I don't think any of us are in the business have wanted to legislate simply for the sake of it but as Siobhan was indicating we've got an equality act from 2010 a DDA from 2005 and a human rights framework that has been in existence for as long as this parliament and while there are undoubtedly exemplars in the health service in education in the ranges of public services across the country clearly the message is that that's patchy and I think that what we're getting back from the deaf community is a frustration that despite those legislative levers which let's face it are significantly more substantive than this bill but despite that we're seeing this patchiness and that what this bill perhaps offers an opportunity to do is identify and symbolise the importance that we attach to BSL and that those levers through the equality act through the human rights framework we can start to see consistent approach to improving access for the deaf and hard of hearing community is that not an unreasonable or is that not a reasonable proposition for them to make I don't think it's unreasonable and welcome the opportunity to have to hear the arguments and the discussion around that I think it would just be we would want to flag up a concern if we've got existing legislation for some of these issues in terms of equity of access to NHS services and that's currently not working with additional legislation focused particularly around BSL with that work in practice as well The challenge for us has been almost to manage expectations in that what this bill will do but what it won't do I think is something that we've been wrestling with or it would appear that the levers for making progress here aren't through the delivery of plans but that gives it a status that can then be enforced by preying and aid the equality act the human rights framework and the DDA What you are very eloquently expounding is perhaps highlighting an enforcement and monitoring issue in that I would agree that there is consistency and there is a need to ensure consistency and to enforce the regulations and the law and legislation which is already in place and I would agree that perhaps yes the BSL bill would give a much higher profile to the role of BSL but there would still need to be some stepping up of regulatory mechanisms otherwise the BSL bill could be brought in as the BSL act but not take the debate and the needs of the profoundly deaf communities any further forward Colin I'd like to ask the panel really the same question I asked the previous panel some of the people giving evidence some of the groups giving evidence indicated a concern that the bill could use up scarce resources and indeed Coslaw stated that there is a risk that it would become an expensive bureaucratic exercise we are using resources here on developing plans is that the best use of resources or could these same resources be used to better support BSL users I can start and other people can come in I think what you heard from the first panel was clearly a desire for more services more support translation services direct support and access for BSL users I think what the bill does is create a mechanism for establishing plans what it doesn't do is create a mechanism for establishing additional services for people and I think that's an issue as we see it clearly as Mr Carthaw is outlining there's a need for managing expectation about what this bill actually does and there's a balancing act balancing act there but our concern is that if you look at certainly the financial memorandum and the spice briefing the upper end of the cost granted that's for everything and there's about £6 million that's not an insubstantial amount of money and whether that would be better spent in other ways to invest invest in front line services so clearly there's a concern for us yes there's maybe a need for promotions and giving BSL a status that perhaps it hasn't had in the past but that doesn't in itself necessarily lead to the actual services that would make people's lives different so Colin James has got a supplementary drumming are you still I've got more to ask but yes on this particular point okay James just regarding Mr Nicholl's comment I thought it was pretty clear from the first panel that they thought that the bill was a very very strong symbol about how to move forward with BSL you're right that everybody would like more resources for different services and they did make that point but nobody at any point said that they thought that that money should be better spent with more services than they did on the bill what we are outlining is the fact is that is the money that's been invested in the spell truly the best way of getting money for communities and BSL users and I suppose all we are outlining is an alternative question the point I'm making is that the panel said that they felt it was well I don't want to put words in the mouth to the panel members but you asked us a question you asked Cosner a question as to whether we think that but they also talked about the services that you would have to spend money on translation services but the bill does not deliver translation services the bill allows plans to be developed if you are saying that translation services are what you would want to invest your money in then clearly that's not covered by the bill can I just jump in here to make a point the Gallic language much the criticism of the BSL bill I think probably is repeating the criticism that was made of the Gallic language bill when it was first proposed yet we have seen now Gallic language plan in place I see even in my local train station that Gallic language signs have appeared there seems to have been exactly what was predicted a change in the mood in the attitude towards Gallic so people think about it more and they think about what they should do in terms of when they're changing signage or when they're doing other things or when they're producing material they think about Gallic now isn't really that what we're talking about here the evidence about what the BSL bill if it became an act would do is exactly what has begun to happen with Gallic that's an entirely appropriate thing and we're not arguing for the promotional aspects of that I suppose all we're saying at a time of scarce resources you have to be absolutely certain that that is indeed what you want to do and I think there is a counterpoint to that and all we're doing is to make that point clearly it's for the committee to make a judgment on all of these issues thank you just moving on from that one what does the panel understand by the term promotion of BSL what specific things should that entail a basic is to ensure that we have in all areas of Scotland sufficient numbers of properly qualified BSL interpreters speaking for the north east of Scotland NHS Orkney has one qualified BSL interpreter in Grampian we have four one of whom has been not available to us due to maternity leave now there are occasions maybe every five or six weeks when we have to rearrange an outpatient appointment simply because a deaf person wishes to attend but we don't have a BSL interpreter available to us a concern of my colleagues and members of deaf communities in Grampian is that we do not have sufficient BSL interpreters and as opposed to promoting BSL it is important to promote BSL but you need to have BSL interpreters available you can promote a service but if you don't have the wherewithal to meet the demand from that service it's a very serious issue so it's a case of promoting yes but also ensuring that you have the sufficient BSL interpreters the resources available to meet demand and at the moment there are issues there probably just add around promoting it having listened to the committee the panel earlier this morning it's about promoting BSL as a language in its own right and that's certainly something at Health Scotland that we would be doing anyway as part of our work in terms of promoting inclusive communications around the publications that we produce so when we review our policy around that ensuring that BSL and our staff are aware that BSL is a language and that they are sufficiently trained in understanding around that and I think without wanting to speak on behalf of other NHS boards that's something that they would do in terms of promoting BSL as a language just moving on from we have to interrupt you again I think Gordon's got a very small supplementary on this point I get the impression rightly wrong where there's a wee bit of resistance to any more legislation coming through so what I'd be keen to understand given the views of the first panel is what action is your organisation currently taking to promote BSL and how effective is that current promotion? I can speak for our local area rather than the national picture we promote BSL web clips on the Falkirk Council website so if there are particular things happening in the council and it wouldn't be only on social worker health on social worker education it would be across the council business we would have a web clip that the bin times are changing or the colours are changing or new bins are being issued but those basic information which is quite important we offer translation slots I know that in the previous panel they talked about letters and not being able to have them interpreted into their language we have an afternoon a week where people can come and bring letters and have them explained and I suppose at a more national level we have locally online interpreting but the Scottish Government are rolling their NHS 24 pilot of online interpreting that's being rolled out to all public bodies from the 22nd of March so that's something that will actually promote access to BSL to all of our service users within grantion we work closely with north-east sensory services we work closely with Aberdeen Action on Disability we have involvement events we do everything possible to make it clear to members of the different deaf communities that BSL interpretation is available and I think that that's very important within our own staff we do introduction to BSL training every year and we have staff level 1 and level 2 not to replace the professional BSL interpreters but to act as communicators people who can greet members of the deaf communities when they come to outpatient clinics and help to give reassurance and support I think that in grantion and certainly on Auckland as well our local deaf communities have the availability of BSL interpretation services and we make them freely available We hurry at what first BSL degree now and we also offer we have students studying with us at both masters and PhD level we encourage people to apply for courses and they will be supported and we will be looking to further look at access to services how easily students can access services that promotion of BSL is somewhat dependent on availability of BSL interpreters and that certainly the interpretation of the word promotion is really about access to services and additional services is that how the panel sees it making sure that members of the local deaf communities are aware that BSL interpreters are readily available in accessing healthcare and making sure that all members of the communities know that it's available to them it is provided by NHS Grampian and NHS Orkney and it's there and it's readily available and that is not the cash limited budget whatever we need to spend to ensure that when healthcare is provided members of the deaf communities have effected two way communication that is what we provide interpretation of promoting well I would be happy to hear what you would suggest as an alternative to that definition what the panel thinks about promoting the promotion that was talked about earlier about Gallic language and trying to build public awareness and knowledge about BSL as a language and I think that goes on top of how do you access local services what's available to you that's been sort of outlined already so there's two aspects of that perhaps the bill might help with the awareness of the language I think that we've put a note of caution is around what it does to signpost towards services and raising expectations but additional services that might fall on from that local promotion so the two aspects of it we can clearly see that it could be helpful for one and it could even be helpful for the other but only if you manage expectations about what you're actually going to be delivering in terms of local services OK, thanks Colin James There's been a number of comments suggested that there could be some unintended consequences for other languages or forms of communication used by the deaf community mainly around a detrimental effect on the available resources to support people with other communications need Do you have a view on whether these other forms of communication used by deaf people could be negatively affected by the BSL bill and in what ways In our area we have a contract and it's across communication support so the contract we have is for 10 hours of interpreting and that would cover BSL hands-on signing, deaf blind manual lip speaking, note taking if I suppose one of the concerns I would have is if we have to then take BSL out of that or that's dealt with differently the economies of scale may not be as is and it could become more costly for us rather than less costly That was a possibility for the bill that had to be separated would it not just be that you would have to monitor what you were I suppose that's for me the bit that's not totally clear in the bill because the bill is very very clear that it's BSL and it's about BSL and so I'm not clear about what that will mean for those other communication support needs of which we have many and certainly in terms of our population there would be a greater majority in the other group requiring the sort of note taking support or communication aids which would be Sorry can I just clarify that are you saying that the BSL plays a minority role in terms of the services that you give because the panel I'm correct me if I'm wrong here but the suggestion from the panel was that the BSL was the largest part of those services The service that I manage is across sensory impairment so within that BSL the numbers would be the smallest the percentage of time allocated would be higher but the numbers of the population would be lower because it's across sensory impairment Okay thank you for that Did anybody else get any comments? Similar concerns at the moment we're probably in the unique position that we have access to funding called disabled students allowance and that provides any support that a deaf student would need and includes note takers and things like equipment, video cameras so it covers a range of support and just this focus on BSL alone raises concerns for us in that area So you would need some kind of security around the fact that the resources aren't going to be diverted from the other services? These resources are directed at the individual it's their money, it's their funding and they can use it in the best way for their own communication We would meet with a disabled student early on a deaf student early on find out exactly what their needs are and then we can apply that funding to cover all of their needs not just BSL Does anybody else have any comments? It's obviously very very important for people with acquired profound hearing loss lip reading is also very important and in terms of using BSL especially amongst the younger users of BSL the 3G and 4G mobile phone technology is very important because I have seen on a regular basis younger BSL users holding the phone and skyping our face timing and signing to each other and it was suggested that I put forward the idea that perhaps some Scottish Government support for members of deaf communities who wanted to use these facilities perhaps some financial support towards smartphones, androids to make sure that these tools which can be quite expensive are readily available Okay Can I just take you on So there's no other comments than that Right, can I just take you on to another question about whether the bill should include specific reference to the needs of deaf-blind BSL users and if so, in what way? There's a wide variation and certainly the last panel said that people who are deaf-blind come from a BSL background My experiences that many of them are visually impaired first and blind and then become deaf and so their first language would be English and therefore I think care would need to be taken and it would need to be spelled out as to what part of the deaf-blind community you were referring to Don't see it as being a straight forward Not a straight forward Okay, thank you Anybody else? Blind communicator in Grampian We had one deaf-blind communicator who has retired and made it clear that they no longer wish to provide services so when we require a deaf-blind communicator we have to bring them up from the central belt which obviously involves a great deal of planning Need for some move on highlighting the importance of deaf-blind communicators? Absolutely and a need for additional training and possibly through this bill through this bill or whatever other mechanism the committee considered appropriate Okay, thank you very much Sean Just on that point if that is the case and obviously you have to go out with the health board then how are you meeting the needs through the DDA and equality act as you spoke of in the first question? By bringing up a deaf-blind communicator on the central belt That take for the user and their appointment and the health service and if it's an emergency It can take several days It depends on the availability of the deaf-blind communicator So, the point is if it's an emergency if you're in a health situation as you can imagine and everyone's stressed having to wait several days for an interpreter Nobody waits days for emergency treatment So, you would just go without the interpreter in that case now? In those circumstances it would be a clinical decision obviously but in those circumstances there can be assistance from family members but our preferred option if there is time and it is circumstances dictate our preferred option is to bring a deaf-blind communicator to Grampian Okay Do you highlight the problem with the equality of access that we've heard from the first panel and from many who have contributed to the committee's work so far on this bill? I think what it highlights is a need for I personally would like to see the degree courses which operate to train BSL interpreters I would like to see them fully funded and I would like to see the individuals undertaking these courses salaried and then perhaps once they had completed their training a guaranteed minimum income for three years because most tend to be self-employed a guaranteed minimum level of income for three years we need to get more people coming forward to be trained as BSL interpreters we need to have more people coming forward to be trained as deaf-blind communicators Are you saying that you currently have a vacancy or vacancies for both interpreters and BSL and deaf-blind? No, we do not employ deaf-blind communicators we do not employ BSL interpreters of the ones we access in Grampian three are freelance and we have a service level agreement with them each of the three individuals the fourth person is for north-east sensory services and we access them through north-east sensory services so there are four in Grampian and that's how we make sure we have access to those four Okay, but on the deaf-blind BSL and Secretary are you currently advertising pursuing trying to find somebody in the area? We have tried to find somebody we know that that individual is not available and that's why we bring someone up a deaf-blind communicator Sorry, maybe my question wasn't clear I understand that the person that you've been using in the past is currently unavailable I get that What are you doing to pursue a replacement for that person locally in the Grampian area? Right, there isn't a replacement in the Grampian area we have asked all of the various agencies far and wide there is no-one in Grampian who can fulfil that role There is nobody in the entire Grampian area Is it qualified and trained deaf-blind communicator? Thank you, Liam Thank you Before turning to the issue of ministerial responsibilities there is a comment made by Maria about the use of English and the development of and then loss of hearing I think that you referred to publications that are produced and I think that you were talking about note-taking support It strikes me that we're talking about BSL as a verbal language What predominantly is the written language of most users of BSL In Scotland Is it English? BSL is a visual language It's not a written language In terms of service delivery for us it comes within the communication support and just incidentally following on from some of the difficulties that they have in Grampian in terms of getting deaf-blind communicators our greatest difficulty in the Falkirk area is that there's a huge dearth of lip speakers Those people would be coming from an English background having lost their hearing but that's a area that isn't a course in Scotland at the current time and that's an area that's much more difficult for us Moving on to the issue of ministerial responsibilities the bill talks about having a minister a dedicated minister responsible for BSL Scottish Government have expressed some anxieties around that pointing to a collective responsibility albeit that the responsibility for the national plan would fall within a particular portfolio and therefore under a specific minister Just be interested in the panel's views about whether or not a dedicated minister would be a positive or a necessary requirement under the bill and if so what the responsibilities of that minister specifically ought to be beyond the development of the national plan The only time we've got a strong view on that I can see Government's point of view in terms of collective responsibility across portfolios we do at the moment to have a minister with responsibility for languages so there is that potential logical home for BSL within his portfolio potentially but we don't have a strong view as to whether there should be clearly a responsibility given to one minister or not clearly what goes in the national plan I think there will be some discussion on that later on is of an interest to us but the actual ministerial responsibility I think that's for Government to decide albeit we do have a language minister at the moment We have a strong view on that position The Government's also proposed the idea of a national advisory group or national advisory body made up obviously of ministers Cosla and also representatives of the deaf community I think the latter have indicated a general support for that but stressed the importance of ensuring that the group as a whole is a majority from within the deaf community Again, are there any comments that you would make about the desirability, the effectiveness that such a group could perform and indeed the balance of membership Sorry I think the relationship between the advisory group and the national plan is an important one and clearly it would be helpful if we were to have a national plan that is developed in a consultative way with everybody involved within the BSL community but also service providers as well Our strong preference is to develop anything on a joint basis and to do that as joined up as possible The actual membership of the advisory group would clearly need to represent everyone who is involved so it's not without its challenges in terms of operation on that but if you are to have a national plan then at least there's a logic to actually having an advisory group to advise us on that albeit we've got some issues about what would be potentially in the national plan and how that might relate to local plans within the proposed legislation In a risk we need to be alive to that as you say the group doesn't get so big is almost to be unmanageable and is there perhaps a case for saying that you have a national advisory group that has the potential and the scope to assign bits of work and input to others we may not necessarily sit on the group on a standing basis is that a model that might work? That sort of model works well within governments having a subgroup or whatever you'd want to call it and that's pretty tried and tested by a civil service practice I don't think that's a difficult thing Just to be clear there wouldn't be a resistance to the proposition from the BSL community that whatever the configuration and whatever the size they would have a majority as service users on that group Others can speak for themselves I think we need to know what the exact remit of the group is and what it's actually there to do I think once you've got that you'd have to follow the function of the group clearly it has to be a representative of all the interests around the table and I think we'd make a judgement on that once we've actually seen all the detail I don't think we can go further than that at this time Although in the sense of those from service providers we'll all have official titles and jobs functions that provide a persuasive case as to why they should be on the group I suspect for service users it may be a bit of a grey area and therefore unless we accept the principle that actually there should be that inbuilt majority of service users there is a risk that justification for membership is easier to be made on the service provided on the service user side Is that a fair concern? I can accept that lining argument I suppose all I'm saying is that the third group of people to be around that table there is a discussion to be had about the principle of that and we don't have a strong position on whether there should be a majority of BSL users on the committee or not I think what we have a stronger view on is how potentially the national structures that might be set up how those might relate to local structures and what the through-flow of information is between those the actual national group if it's to be set up is exactly what the function of that group would do but your lining reasoning I would accept but you'd need to look at everything in the round once you actually got the detail I don't know whether you are in for the first panel you may have heard but I did ask them I'm going to ask you about the Scottish Government's view or suggestion that listed authorities instead of publishing plans should publish their idea being that the statement would set out how each authority plan to make progress towards priorities identified in the national plan I just want to put the panel's view of always of this question of a plan versus a statement provided it fulfilled the primary function which would be to give BSL the appropriate recognition and provision that it requires across Scotland, across the bodies it would be to suggest for the committee to decide which would be the best option and that the vehicle might be the equality outcomes which all public bodies in Scotland were required to produce under the equality act 2010 specific duties Scotland regulations 2012 and they are coming up for updating in April of this year so there are a number of vehicles but I would suggest it would be for the committee to decide which vehicle they consider to be most appropriate to take this forward Kate? I think a statement could be symbolic in the way that the BSL community want to see their language recognised and also it could set out what an authority plans to do to make sure it meets the needs of BSL users there's previous types of statements that public bodies have developed such as an equal pay statement which sets out what organisations are going to do to close the pay gap so it could follow something like that or it could be much more worked up in terms of a statement which might actually have some outcomes attached to it so I think there's various ways that that could work Point of view is important what will be contained within the document if you want to call it that so I think it's important that what it is that we're actually we're actually saying that we are committing to whether that's within a public statement or agreeing around a plan a statement would suggest probably an intent to deliver something a plan might suggest that there's something a little bit more detail lying behind that so the language might be as important and I can understand why previous speakers would err towards a plan rather than a statement really the heart of the matter what is it that's contained within it and I think that's where our questions lie Any comment on this, Florian? Dins is needed on what would be contained before you could decide whether a plan or a statement was the best way to go Okay, thank you for that Gordon It's not on that point of what should actually be contained within the plans I'm going to ask the same questions that I asked in the earlier panel We've heard from the written evidence and Cosly themselves said that there was a lack of clarity around the expected content of the national plan and we heard from another written submission that it was quite vague The first panel highlighted six key areas for them and they wanted specified a certain level of service and measurable outcomes What I'm keen to understand from the second panel is what do you think should be included in both national and the authority plans in order that the plans can be as effective as possible That's the fundamental question I don't think that I would have an answer for that If you look at what the previous panel talked about education, health, social care leisure employment in early years all big areas you're talking probably the largest there's probably not many public services not covered by that The issue for us is what happens what do you mean about take education an area that I know something about compared to the other areas what additional services are being unlocked by the national plan or indeed the local plan for education that are not being delivered now not just in terms of money but staff time and being able to get suitably trained and qualified people So it's really the thing Is this a rearticulation of what's already out there albeit with a greater prioritisation and maybe promotion or is this about unlocking new resources to go into new service delivery That's really the question for us and if it's the latter one you're looking at quite a different sort of piece of legislation that we'd inevitably have to have further funding to allow it to be delivered properly Nobody else want to comment on that? No Just for the help of others it would be around the equity of access which I would suggest is covered already through NHS boards equality outcomes and their plans around interpretation and communication support for patients Right There has been a suggestion that the preparation of plans and use that yourself Mr Nicol will divert funds from other areas that currently support the BSL community Is there an estimate of what the additional cost would be for your organisation? Have you calculated how much the potential additional cost would be? The only work that we've done is effectively to look at the financial memorandum so we haven't done any additional costs I suppose what we're saying is if you are and it would appear to be that it's round about £6 million of additional costs Government estimate that they spend around £2 million or plan to spend £2 million already over 2016-2020 in BSL so that would be an additional cost of £4 million There's a question as to where that additional cost comes from whether that's met within existing budgets and that clearly would put pressure on something and you'd have to make a choice whether that comes from outside this sort of sensory impairment budget or whether it's within that would have to be a choice it would have to be weighed up but clearly there's a concern for us if there isn't additional funding and there is some additional responsibilities to statutory compliance to then that could divert resources from elsewhere OK, thanks so much George Good morning I've asked a similar question to the last panel but the bill obviously about performance review it's all about seeing how we actually best practice, share best practice ensure that we deliver on everything that we're wanting to do Each parliamentary session the Scottish ministers should undertake a performance review of authority plans and that includes an account of measures taken and outcomes attained Many of the organisations involved thought the performance review was a good mechanism for holding public authorities account but COSLA actually felt that it was confused the accountability relationships that exist within local government Robert, can you tell me why that to me then? Local government is not accountable to the Scottish Government I think that's to the heart of this but clearly what we're arguing about is if there is to be enhanced accountability for service delivery that should be with local communities and we heard a little bit of that this morning as well What we're not saying is that there isn't a need for potentially for national planning and co-operation nationally clearly we have the ability to translate national priorities into what happens locally we have single outcomes agreements there are mechanisms for translating national sense of direction into what happens locally but I think that what we're concerned about is the language round about performance review who is performing reviewing the local plans who makes a judgement as to whether a plan is fit for purpose or not we have a range of services covered potentially within this education we already have scrutiny structures for education of which independent scrutiny is brought to bear on service delivery we have other forms of performance appraisal internally within authorities as well as external through and such like so what additional things are we actually creating here for the specific purpose of this piece of legislation so the question for us is where is the most appropriate accountability to lie I think arguably if there is to be an enhanced accountability between BSL users it should be at the local level and not necessarily at the national level albeit as I've said there are mechanisms that can be to something like that but the best of both worlds the actual BSL performance review is the basis of which is for the Parliament to hold Scottish ministers to account and for ministers to hold listed authorities of which local authorities would be one of them to account as well so basically we're giving everyone the opportunity, the bill would give everyone the opportunity to be opening democratic I just find it difficult I haven't been a former counciller myself I know how community planning partnerships work and one of the concerns that the British Deaf Association Scotland had was that they wanted to make sure that it was not just a simple box ticking exercise that we actually shared as I said earlier on today shared best practice and how would we possibly if we kept everything at a local level how could we get a national picture of how things were going because we're all accountable in order to make sure that we can make this bill actually make a difference there's a difference in my view between getting a national picture and ensuring a direct line of accountability for delivery and then making a judgement as to whether somebody's succeeded or not in terms of the service delivery clearly there are ways in which we can get a national picture about certain aspects of whatever strategy you would want to implement and you can use how to report on that. I think where our concern lies is this notion of performance appraisal effectively about how a national organisation such as Scottish Government would performance appraise a local organisation like local government for something that the local authority would have closest to the community closest to the services that they deliver and effectively you're almost getting a second guessing situation as to who actually knows best and that is a concern for us and all we're doing is flagging up the fact that we see that as a concern. Ken, one of the things that the British Deaf Association for Scotland says that this whole idea of a national performance review would give a sense of collective shared mission to achieve the goals of the plans with the community it serves authorities would thus become accountable to the BSL community to ensure engagement involvement dialogue and continuous improvement is that not something we should all be embracing when we're going down this route and looking at ways to break down the barrier so that we can all work to deliver this? We've been arguing for against enhanced local accountability so that local people whether they're BSL users or other have another sensory payment or something like that can access services and they can have a complete part in their local processes we're not arguing for that all we're arguing is it we see a concern between the nature relationship between the national organisations which Scottish Government is one of them but the national body as well that could be established and how that relates to local decision making and then who makes a judgment later on as to whether something's happened there's a feeling that performance hasn't been as successful as we'd like and then who makes a judgment on that and then what happens after that so that's the concern we're flagging up Robert, I'm just trying to get my head round us because basically even if you heard the first panel earlier on today they were even talking about the limited sanctions that are in the bill are just effectively you know, don't do it again kind of thing do better, must do better so they were even talking about they wouldn't even go to that extent we would try and find if there was an issue find a, go into an area and try and work together to actually make sure it's working so is it not Robert, with the best of all the world are we not, it's been a wee bit paranoid about the situation here you know it's... I wouldn't say I'm empowered all I'm saying is a organisation that represents local authorities we are effectively stressing the importance of local accountability where we think if there is to be a sanction it should be a sanction by the local community on the local authority through the mechanisms that already exist and could be established I think we would have a big concern as to whether there is a sanction taken by a national organisation on a local authority and then making a judgement that that is indeed the correct thing to do I mean that's a very consistent thing for COSLA to argue so it's not a... it doesn't necessarily apply to this and doesn't apply in other areas it's a consistent thing where there needs to be that real strong connection is at the local level between communities and those who service deliver services on the behalf I've got a final question sorry it's a different situation within health because health boards are already subject to very thorough annual reviews and the annual review process I could see no possible reason why the needs of the local deaf communities and the BSL requirements could not become an integral part of that annual review process in addition as part of the review process the minister and team undertaking the review also meet with local people so it will be quite possible to include local BSL users in the formal meetings process so that the needs could be assessed and whether they will be met however I wouldn't see that process as replacing the routine ongoing involvement with the local deaf communities to find out how well services are being met and to ascertain their needs I think that would continue but the annual review would be a good opportunity for external scrutiny as to how well those needs are being met You have duties under the equality mainstreaming so I wouldn't see a difficulty with expanding this to include what benefits we had brought into this area So it could be covered under the current structure that you have in place Okay, thank you I've just got one final question which is about the timescales Obviously the bill I won't read it out again but it's about every parliamentary session six months after, but 12 months after the first one etc What is your view on the timescales proposed in the bill publication of the national plan I think our view was it was probably quite complex as it was set out and I think there's an additional complexity of fitting in with local elections and things like that as well which are a slightly different timescale from parliamentary elections so I think if there was a way of simplifying that along the lines of I think you suggested through the Gallic language then that would be something we would want to look at I accept the point that was given about wanting to see progress and I can understand that but it does seem quite complex the way it's outlining the bill Okay, any other views on the timescale? Nope Okay, thank you very much for coming along this morning We appreciate you taking the time to be here with us and to help us examine the BSL bill I'm going to spend briefly so we can allow the next panel to come Can I welcome our final panel this morning Our third panel today is Carly Brownlee from the Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters Clark Denmark Professor Rob Dunbar Chair of Celtic Languages, Literature, History and Antiquities at the University of Edinburgh Professor Graham Turner Chair of Translation and Interpreting Studies at Herriot-Watt University Welcome to you all this morning Just for everybody's information Professor Dunbar will be responding in Gallic to committee questions Simultaneous English interpretation will be provided through the headsets which I assume everybody has around the table while BSL interpretation will also be provided Can I say to anybody in the gallery who is going to use a headset for the Gallic to English translation that they should set their headphones to channel 1 for the interpretation Okay, if we're all ready I'm just going to begin so I'll start with Shabon McVan The first question is whether legislation is necessary to promote BSL and what specific outcomes and improvements you consider the bill will deliver Professor Turner I'm only going to be signing for a couple of sentences I did want to let you know that I am a BSL user myself but in respect to your first and preferred language being English I will switch back to using English Sometimes deaf community refers to people like me in a slightly light-hearted way of saying that we're hard of signing So out of respect to both sides of that equation I'm going to switch from British Sign Language and go back to my first language which is indeed English So thank you for allowing me to do that and thanks for the question I mean I think we've perhaps heard enough already today to know that there is a pretty strong view that the existing legislation is not meeting the aspirations and the needs of the deaf community I would say and did say in written evidence that this isn't a new issue this is a long standing issue deaf community has been saying in the UK and indeed in other countries since at least 1880 that access to education in sign language is an absolute necessity for the community and that lots of other aspects of society follow from that conference in 1880 that banned the use of sign language in deaf education set a tone for social provision across the board we've had disability legislation of many different kinds since the Second World War in particular we've had understanding that British Sign Language is a real and proper language since the 1970s in the UK and still here we are discussing the issues and the problems that the community faces and as colleagues have said already today the Facebook evidence from the community has shown very very clearly that despite some of the other evidence you've heard that provision is in place and existing legislation can serve needs etc it isn't working and so something a little bit different is required so the bill I think serves that purpose by adding a clarity of focus around British Sign Language as a language it's not a disability issue it's not a deaf communication issue it's simply a linguistic minority issue and the bill gives us the opportunity to deal with it in those kind of terms Can we also want to contribute to that? Yes, Clark To what Graham has said this has been a very long wait for the deaf community Edinburgh should be very proud the very first deaf school in the world was established here in 1760 so you think well hang on 1760 that was when signing was used British Sign Language is not a new modern phenomena and the research bears this out they were educated the children back then in sign language and obviously with a name to integrate into society in English as well but the best way for deaf people to access English is through British Sign Language so we have over 180 years of history here in this city this country has the potential to do this the BDD as it was then with 150 year history had two very clear aims the production, the preservation of British Sign Language and also the insistence of British Sign Language in the education and there's been countless maneuvers since then to change all that now we don't have anything clear since 1889 about clear service provision in the area of education now Graham mentioned the Milan Conference in 1880 banning sign language as one of its resolutions and that's had a huge knock on effect the Royal Commission in Britain was very much swayed by those arguments and that's led to so many of the problems that we see not only in education but what comes from education throughout deaf people's lives you could almost take it's almost had the point of view of British Sign Language being an inconvenience and yet despite all the barriers the prejudice and the oppression it's shown itself to be a strong, vibrant language that survives and it survives for a reason there were members of that second panel that said oh we've got this provision and that provision like Graham said it's clearly not working the contributions of the first panel I think illustrate the failures and I've got to congratulate the Scottish Parliament for at least opening this dialogue and taking the lead in the UK the deaf community is delighted by this move Caroline I'd like to support both of those comments and I'm here to represent Sassley the Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters and looking at the second panel they seem to look at us as a disability issue we want to remove that view altogether really BSL is a language it's a culture it's an identity an expressive way of expressing ourselves for people who grow up deaf also for us to access information through the use of sign language we don't rely on sound at all we use a visual language so this new law will encourage us to see encourage all to see and not BSL as a tool but part of our lives not an additional thing that's added on to our lives it's part of us and I think the bill will really help with that and take a lead on that as the panel have said we did hear evidence in panel 2 that suggested that if we were only to implement the equality act or do a bit more in the human rights framework that we would achieve the same outcomes as the primary legislation do you agree with that view and if not, why not? I mean, I think the I think the of course the other legislation that has been talked about today is not about to disappear it will still exist and so the notion here is that the BSL bill will work in tandem with existing legislation and help to ensure that existing legislation maintains a clear focus on BSL alongside other issues that it deals with earlier on today we were talking about the numbers of BSL users the numbers of lip speakers required and so on and there are as the census showed 12,500 approximately BSL users within Scotland but nobody in this room can tell you how many of those are deaf BSL users nobody knows so we're starting from a very poor basis in terms of knowing what provision is required for the BSL using community in that context it becomes very easy for the requirements to support that community to be backgrounded because we know about other communities we know about the numbers of people with visual impairment we know for example about the numbers of people who are using Macaton in Scotland and so on British Sign Language users who are themselves deaf those statistics are not available to anybody so it becomes very easy for the BSL issues to be clouded and lost and pushed to the back of the queue in effect but the bill as proposed I think is very much designed to bring those to the foreground when appropriate alongside the other issues which existing legislation should be able to handle Be he'n dwi'r och bec yn y chwyd rysnabech yn y haes rŵn a'n os oes o'ch tablwf swn y chhorwm a he'n gynnwch hynny ac yswn y chhorwm gael y cychlech mae'r ffordd i'n un yswn yw a mae gwynt ych chi gyfel bylw ac ysach steichdiad erbyn y bydd y jettymoch a ffo chael yw'ch glawrst yn y gael ac yw'ch lech chi'n y gael ac ych chi'n gael gyda chi'n ffordd i'n oes ych chi'n ffordd i'n cyntio'r ysgael ac ych chi'n ffordd i'n ffordd i'n gael ac ych chi'n ffordd i'n gael ac ych chi'n ffordd i'n gael ac yswch chi'n y morchwch yn mynd gaelic ac yswch eiminen ac yswch chi'n ffordd i'n ffordd i'n gael ac yw'ch lech chi'n y gael ac yswch chi'n gael yw'ch lech chi canan, sain i wrecton, gyma coltoch rysyechio eich gaelic mae'r gwrlys bryha a chaniedgir o'ch mynd chonwltri a ha sechanan aniau, fein aniau a chi'n allu di cwltir cwltir a hadoen biaisdoch a agus chi'n allu di canan a ha chastro biaisdoch rysyegaleg nhw a agus saliw sion a ha'n byl y nerechgyn ele a agus caest coennoch elech cwrwch a feiminen a agus codiwch morfio'n chach na canansio a feimoch er baroch a agus am ysmyng yn gyfel ymbyl ysiau a at horsgwch gan eich hoes na'ch ganoddiadus dyfu'n popoloch ac cwrwm polisiwn a ha'n cwrsnyddio y chwyd i chi le gus swyu hwg lwch clech chi a horsgwch erioest a dwi'n deunio ym morth chi'n allu a'r dyfu'n canan a'n gwrsnyddio ymbylch yn canansio. I would like to agree that there is other legislation in place already. But they mentioned things like reasonable adjustments. And how do you define what a reasonable adjustment is? Who decides what is reasonable? Is it us or the people providing the services? Who makes that decision? So I feel that this BSL bill I really support it because it will depend not depend on reasonable adjustments but real achievements and outcomes. For example, are there occasions when we've gone to hospital if the doctor asks you can you lipreads? That's happened to us. If someone says yes, they say that's great. That's the reasonable adjustment made. But that's not meeting our needs and I feel that the BSL Act would stop that make sure that BSL is provided for people that want it through the use of an interpreter. Or, through other kinds of information or other ways. I fully support what the other panel members have just said. We do have existing legislation not only the Equality Act and the Disability Discrimination Act before it and there are other pieces of legislation but they are piecemeal. There is not one clear statement of intent if you like about how deaf people who use British Sign Language access services and that's the stumbling block. We've already fallen over the stumbling block I mean what we have in terms of foreign language provision in this country doesn't far exceeds what we have in British Sign Language which is a British language when you try you know the leaflets that get translated throughout the different authorities and service providers if we provide equality that way I mean from the deaf British Sign Language community's point of view we certainly don't have it and when you look other countries such as the old colonies like Australia and New Zealand they actually have this recognition in their legislation and here back in the so-called mother country we don't so we have these old colonies of ours being more progressive more pioneering than we are it's been a long way but it is going to be worth it we can see what's on the horizon we can see the attitude that the committee has and that the parliament has we want to see it enshrined in legislation the house and the wherefores and the wise done in collaboration and co-operation with the community I want to bring in James Dornan at this point just to answer the question I've got a question about unintended consequences of the bill there was a number of comments that suggested that there could be some unintended consequences that would create a detrimental effect on the available resources to support people with other communications need primarily roundabout resources do you have a view on that could other forms of communication be negatively affected by the BSL bill and if so in what way I think all of the responses that people have given earlier in the day have indicated that there is a very clear understanding and appreciation and recognition that resources are limited and they will always be limited and the bill as it's framed on that any particular level or quantity or some of resources become available it simply says from the available resources may we please ensure that there is a focus when necessary on BSL and the other thing that I think is absolutely critical is that the community is saying to you and I think Avril articulated it very clearly earlier on today that it is a willing partner in working closely with government and with COSLA and other relevant authorities to manage those expectations and use the resources appropriately it's not asking for a lion's share resources it's not asking for anything disproportionate simply to make sure that what's available is used effectively and is used in ways that the community believes will be of benefit I think perhaps I could use a further example to go back to the Gaelic comparison which I think is vital within this context that the Gaelic Parliament has already recognised that Gaelic is part of the rich cultural heritage of this country and we should do likewise with British Sign Language they are comparable in this way now there's been quite a lot of resources given to Gaelic quite rightly in terms of television other services, provisions and programs and one could just say look it's only fair now we don't expect things tomorrow we understand that this is a process I mean the deaf community has waited like I said this long so I guess from our point of view in Scotland of course there will be extra resources required but let's think about this positively and cooperatively more strategically so that you have true partnership between community, government and service providers the legislation that exists this new bill isn't going to put very onerous financial responsibilities just give clarity and focus in a centralised way so that the systems that we have already in place are better coordinated and the money and the resources that we have are better spent and focused I don't think it will have a detrimental effect on other provisions I think it will be positive actually for them because as we raise awareness of deafness generally it will have a positive effect on other forms of deafness for example lips reading communication and so on I think it will generally raise awareness and really benefit other members of the deaf communities Can I just make one quick addition before we move to Professor Dunbar Thank you The British government in 2003 considered this issue of British Sign Language they decided not to enshrine it in legislation at that time they did give it a recognition and we were delighted at the time but nothing has actually happened there was a small pool of money and this kind of a very tokenistic recognition and there was a great deal of disappointment in the community stemming from that so we're sitting here 12 years later where if you're talking about a government expenditure and you compare it it's been about 5 million across the whole of the UK since then it's not been well done not well coordinated and that's because there was no community in that and no real commitment so I don't know if you're probably aware by now there's the spit the dummy campaign which has been set up as a reaction to the fact that I think it was a decade after the legislation that nothing had really been happened but what the definition has been given is these little tokenistic sweeteners to pacify them and to really to shut us up in a sense and I would hate to see a replication of that here where a small amount of money is given kind of directly but doesn't have a big effect we have stated we are willing to work with government and services to make more cost effective centralised smart strategic ways of meeting our needs President Ball Y tabluf Sanna Cynedda haf mi fyw hws a gyda Sanna Cynedda haf sy'n unis cyllid i dachan ar y chys y gyd yn asyn y cwyddiw a gysgwch gynna hargymwch yn nwy gach Twrws parlymydd sy'n tost ystiach y Llygin yn er canyn yn y waroch b'i argymwch yn anwy chosgysiwn, chosgysiwn y waroch a'i gysgwyddiwch bwau'n yn cosgysiwn sy'n er sefydru fysi'n eylem ysgyngiwch ar yn Cynedda a gysgwyddiwch ar y nalopau gyfel be cyn chosgysiwn yn lwyb dachan yn ys ac ysach i'r ddolomach a'r sawn y saliwf bwau eich dri'r iaith a'r sawn y saliwf dachrw ryef serfysiwn rhaen, treinig rhaen asti'r canyn yn siwn a'ch haru'n iaith han y cosgysiwn sy'n ddolch sies a'r gysgwch waroch i'r siwn nid yw'r fys bwyny'n poblwch ffas cylleg ydi fi tost serfysiwn siachet ar y canyn eylem a hynny'n yn fwaroch mae'r eishemtlid a'wn yn Toronto bal yma fre'i a mae'n chi'n niwch gyda dachan yn ys ac iddyn asio'n dda'r bwau i'r polisiyn yw canyn yn eylem sy'n balig yma ymygatio a hwn yn Toronto ynddraestel, tor, canyn yn gambrin ac a'r baroch is baroch dyw ni'n un yn bwyny'n poblwch caet'r serfysiwn ymyg canyn o'ch mae'r chrabstarec rydych yn y gwrwch chi'n siach chormyn a gys am ysbun sy'n leisbarha sy'n ffas nesclectu'ri dachan yn ys a gys ymyg canyn ys ar y nalopau a gwnau fi dupliwch y cosgysiwn gach wedi a chys yn brin er serfysiwn y baroch a coi os tech yn canyn o'ch ele Can I just pick up Professor Dabar in his statement there as an aside I represent the Parliament in Brussels on the committee of the regions I spend quite a lot of time in Brussels using headphones and translation services one of the big arguments every time I go there is about the vast cost of translation no point has it seemed to have reduced in any way whatsoever in fact one of the arguments in these times of austerity is about the amount of money that's spent as part of the budget on translation services interpretation are you really saying that realistically this could be kept to a minimal cost and effectively would reduce over time cos that's not what I see when I go to Brussels Diolch i ddiolch i ddi anon brusial han y cosgysiwn chi o'r ddi eiterhaen gycheg achgyn yn un i orbiwch eiterhaen gycheg anon y meddoch caran ys ond lwch yn the Parliament i orbiwch a llwch gychymau ac ysbol sy'n rhywbeth y diolch i ddiolch i ddiolch mae'r ysbolwm a dyw ni'n brin yn cosgysiwn y farrwch cael hanlwip ffolwm trwy'n y gallu ac mae'n byw meddwl caet e'r ffolwm trwy'n y gallu anon ddwy at y diolch diolch diolch a chanio sy'n brin er cosg ar y gych e'r gallu ac cosg ar y gych er ffolwm sy'n ddiolch trwy'n chan yn el a hae sy'n ffordd mae'r herfys yn el mae'r ysbolwm trwy'n rwy'n herfys slantio neu'r fysg cwyddi cynghfeymoch e'r herfys yn trochan yn el a'r ffaen sy'n yn un herfys ac trochan yn el a cosgysiwn yn lwyb y fi'n treinig diwngu ac yn ysgillun ysbolwm trwy'n siwr a chaniel sy'n amlwym ni'n golygu ddatgan i gynnalu mésiwr syddau y Rhondda ac mae chi'n ynchydigo'n digon alspadu byddai syddau arddirio mwyloch y prif musteeddynom a oesio shaft amcynderu a ymchwiliaf ysgrugi a'r gyfosig cost of interpreting and I think one of the beauties of the bill as it's as it's specified is that it does refers or encourages to think both about access to services which might for example mean use of interpreters but also about promotion of the language and it's that on the promotion side that we can do an awful lot more than we have been doing which will mean that the cost of interpreting don't have to escalate and the rationale for that is the one that the deaf community has consistently articulated generation after generation and that is rather than using interpreters we would wish to have services provided to us directly in BSL preferably by other people who are members of the signing community themselves so if promotion begins with educating families in using sign language so that deaf children have the best possible start from the home with their families then those deaf children have the best chance to grow up to be highly competent skilled professionals like Clark and Carly and Avril and you've you've you've heard and seen the quality of the evidence that they've given you and so I think it's very clear that it's perfectly possible to imagine a deaf community that is making that kind of contribution to Scottish society across the board. It starts with the promotion and the access issues will need to be maintained but they will stay in their place. I'll bring back in Siobhan and interrupt you Siobhan. No, thank you. First I'll finish with James, James had to leave and so the question that he was asking other panel members were whether the bill should include specific reference to the needs of deaf blind BSL users and if so in what way do you have an opinion on that? I think it's obviously a very important issue. I have many friends and colleagues that are in fact deaf blind. Now we want to be very clear when we use the expression deaf blind there's difference between deaf blind and blind deaf because we talk about deaf blind people as belonging to our community and have lost their sight and blind deaf people are those that were referred to by the second panel of growing up with English and then losing their hearing and those two groups are very distinct in fact almost opposite needs because you can imagine somebody who grows up with perfectly good sight and loses their sight for a number of different health reasons the most prevalent in our community being usher syndrome about six percent of the deaf community have this retinitis pigmentosa placidephanous syndrome so that's a substantial number so they already use sign language and then encounter these difficulties later and need tactile hands-on and a number of different communication issues it's essential that the bill addresses them as equals equal participants in all of this. Sassley also has a group of deaf blind interpreters and we feel very strongly that that's part of our community people who can communicate using hands-on signing and manual they're an equal part of our community and we work in partnership with them as well. On the first before we move to James it was simply Carly you spoke in your evidence about how the second panel spoke about disability and the disabled rather than seen this as a language issue which Professor Dunbar spoke about the culture aspects of it and just wondering do you think this bill will go along way to putting BSL as a language rather than seen as a disability issue? I believe it really will change attitudes of people generally who know very little about BSL in society. At the moment people learning BSL are perhaps meeting a deaf person for the very first time they're being able to learn the language and they don't have that mind view they think of as a disability first so I believe that once BSL becomes much more widespread and people learn the language earlier and younger at a younger age it will influence the attitudes of people and people will see BSL as a language rather than just a way of communicating and not just a disability tool. It's something very separate for us. I mean our hearing peers help us they can sign but in general society we feel it's very separate. If I could just add to what Carly said. We've heard this morning you heard earlier this morning you know that the deaf community doesn't accept this disability label and sees herself as a linguistic minority or community but you can actually there doesn't need to be an either or in there. I mean clearly we're not going to say we're not disabled we understand that we can't hear and that provides barriers in terms of how we access community access society but it's the secondary issue to us the bill recognizes that we put our language identity and culture first we reckon we accept our disability in society but it's important that it's that the what the bill does is puts the language first and that is right that recognizes our linguistic minority identity that's why a lot of evidence and submissions on Facebook from deaf people people who really recognize it that's important for us okay thank you I'm going to have to ask committee members and panellists to try and be brief if at all possible Colin I'd like to explore the effectiveness of the Gaelic language act and promoting Gaelic and are there any useful lessons learned that could be included in the BSL bill? Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. a'r gaelig agos anodd i'r cwrurwrst na canan syni ymwret i'ch. A am ysbyn nhw'n cwtio'ch gyfel mae'r chisun a'r sefharol me'n ceo hein a tro hein ichyn a'r gaelig tro hanasyn ha'r gaelig nasaig syni'ch. A'r gaelig sy'n sallu sy'n haf ffysig barwch gyfnio gyfel y canan eon, gyfel y gabrin, a'r leisio'n haf barwch aniau anon ala byd gyfel coesniog iawn, gyfel coesniog iawn, ymwych gartiau iawn, a'r gyfel coesniog iawn be oaf. A'r ysbyn sy'n gyfel nyrwt yn sy'n nas cwtio'ch. A chachrych byg yn iach cwtio'n gylio'r ychwr e'r sherfyswn a'r trafion e'n gaelig. Yn am y falso, rywdbech cws cwtio'n gachwr e'r hefyd ar hyngychwg, a asgyn blianol a gyswyd mor siwn, rywddon ha'r cwtio'r moch gyntechwl gwas i'n yw'r necan yn ardych ychydig. A chach am ysbyn sy'n gyddoch gyf byg barwch cwtio'n edd sherfyswn, yn ganddlu y gaelig yn gaelig y cwtio'n moch. A'r sy'n ffordd yn cwtio'n hewn prifychus. A gysam ysbyn sy'n edrych ond i'n eisiau hwyl, sy'n ddiw, a gysaswn i'n eisiau ysgrifty, ha'r sy'n gyfach cwtio'n moch. A'r sy'n ymwneud yn y rywddon y garstu'ch aniau a'r tych sy'n mynd o'ch hoi osniach, mynd o'ch hwlder a'r mynd o'ch anan gyma'r cwtio'r moch. A ffolwm e'n sy'n anan, ydaw'i gwneud e'ch gafel o'ch anan ac llwch chi'n sicu cwtio'ch a gysnw'r sy'n sherefyswn. Cymru hei, Jackie, neu'r sherefyswn ysgawr o'r sachet. A gysaswn gysor i'ch cwtio'r moch i'n hoi osniach sy'n hoi osniach. I'm sure you're all very familiar with the Martin Luther King Speech, we have a dream and i'll tell you now, like every other human being we have dreams in this regard. In terms of what professor Dunbar was talking about services and what's going on in television and so on and so forth, there is actually some British Sign Language provision in television and there are some aspects of cultural programming such as C-here is not the name of a television programme, not the report, by the way, there's two different C-heres. That's actually been going since 1981, one of the longest standing community programmes in the world in existence where other programmes come and go. This flagship of the BBC has been widely recognised as an essential service. So we pay the same television licence as everybody else, so it's quite right that we expect, perhaps not equity of service, It's only half an hour a week and only for 20 weeks a year, but it's vital because it's the cultural expression of deaf people. It allows us to identify with, you know, the cultural institutions and artefacts, celebrate our life, our language, our culture, not be sad, not be hidden in the corner and depressed as disabled people, to celebrate and enjoy our deaf heart or theatre or poems, all That's true that all those things we can contribute and add to the multicultural life in Britain. 1989, again to congratulate the BBC, they set up a programming to allow people to learn sign language you know so instead of looking at these courses you know we know that people in Britain struggle to learn French and German everywhere but within a company and book and a programme they had a very popular programme a ond mae'n meddwl ychydig. Mae'n meddwl, mae'n meddwl. Mae'n meddwl, mae'n meddwl, mae'n meddwl i'r language o'r dysgu. Mae'n meddwl yn ei ffrindio argynig, sylwg, ac yn ffrindio'r hollod, ac mae'n meddwl i'r bwysigio ar gyfer y programme, ac yn y pwysigio, yn y gwybodig ac mae'n meddwl i'r sŵl i ddechrau, ac mae'n meddwl i'r sŵl i'r ysgrifennu Brytystai Language Tutor i'r ffrindio'r pwysigio. yw'r llwyddiadau cyllidol. Yn ymgyrch, y cyllidol, Prinses Diana, erbyn y gwirionedd a'r ambasitor o'r Llangu Brytifol o'r Sgolwyr o'r Patrion o'r Sgolwyr. Mae'r Llangu Brytifol oherwydd mae'r profiwyr oherwydd mae'n gwirionedd o'r Llangu Brytifol oherwydd mae'n gwirionedd o'r Sgolwyr o'r Llangu Brytifol oherwydd mae'n gwirionedd o'r Sgolwyr. Mae'n ddod i'n cael ei wneud i'r cymaint o'r cymaint. Mae'n fawr o'r Llangu Brytifol oherwydd mae'n gwybod i'ch ddweud. Fe ddim yn gallu meddwl i'r llwiau, a pethau'n gwneud i heb gwael i bryd i ddweud. Mae'n ddod i'r cymaint i'ch ddweud. Mae'n ddiddordeb cyfnodol i'ch ddweud. Mae'n ddiddordeb cymaint i'ch ddweud. Mae'n ddiddordeb cymaint i'ch ddweud, mae'n ddiddordeb cymaint i'ch ddweud. Mae'n ddiddordeb cymaint i'ch ddweud. A'r hyn ffordd o'r hyn sy'n mynd i'r unrhyw ymgyngor ynglynig? Felly, o'r pethau hyn fydd yn gweithio'r glas ar y Llywodraeth, mae'r defnyddio ar y llwyddoedd yn bach, yn ffysg ymwyllus, ac mae'n gweithio ar y Llywodraeth yn wneud 5% mewn teuluoedd mewn mewn ychydig, mae'n gweithio'r cyhoedd, oedd yw 94 hwnnw, o'r hyn o'r hyn i'n wneud yn gweithio'n cael ei gynwedd yn rhai. Do you know when those programmes are broadcast? Two o'clock, three o'clock, four o'clock in the morning. Not highly visible. Not celebrating their language. Not putting it out there. Unless you're a deaf insomniac, you're not going to be taking advantage of that. The education issue is the most important. Obviously, we'd love to see it. I have a dream of a BSL channel. Yeah, it might not be a reality, but I'd like to get up at seven o'clock in the morning, just like my hearing counterparts, and access what's going on in the world. Home affairs, foreign affairs, get my access directly through sign language. And then, you know, go to work at nine o'clock and I'd like my kids to be able to access children's programming or educational programming to have that suite of services available in a very cost-effective way. Allowing, you know, leisure programmes as well. Chat shows. Of course, we want that kind of equity. We have those kinds of needs. But the cultural life of deaf people is to be celebrated. It is a dream, but it's actually an achievable dream over time. I really am going to have to move on, because we've got enough questions to get through, and virtually no time at all, Gordon. I want to ask you about the content of BSL plans, similar to the questions that I asked to the two previous panels. So, what should be included in both national and authority plans in order that the plans can be effective? And should there be some detail on the content of plans included in the bill? To take the second question first. I think that the way the bill is constructed is entirely appropriate, because we don't want to prejudge what the climate might be, what resources might be available, what the priorities might be for successive governments. And so, the bill has constructed sets of framework, gives us an opportunity to take the priorities of the day, and that's as it should be. So, I don't think there's any strong lobby asking for more detail of the plans to be put into the face of the bill. The key thing I think about the nature of the planning process is that it is a participatory process. And I was delighted to see the One Scotland work programme for the Scottish Government, referring quite clearly to Government paragraph 238. We want to draw more people more deeply into the way that decisions that matter to them are taken. We want Scotland to be an open and truly engaging country where the creativity and wisdom of all its people help to shape our future. That's exactly what the deaf community is asking you for. And so, a planning process that affords the BSL using community, the opportunity to make that kind of contribution, to engage in civic activism in exactly the kind of way that the programme is anticipated to achieve, is precisely what the community is talking about. And I think all of this puts some of the discussion earlier in the day in a very different light. As soon as we start talking about comparison between BSL and Gallic, we're a long, long way away from asking questions about disability and resources around disability. Nobody, for example, asks, can we afford to support Gallic because Macaton users will be disadvantaged? And I think that gives us a clear idea about being in different territory altogether as soon as we start seeing BSL users as a linguistic minority. And I would say then that we're also encouraged to recognise that we're not talking about deaf people's needs. Don't do this because deaf people need you to do it. Do it because Scotland wants it, because Scotland will be a better nation for it. Yn oes o'ch ambylwch gan bwchor, dyfu ni'n pobl o'ch fi'n siir yw'r wechgan, ac ysgol y flwch clach chi na caen yn. Ac ysgol ysgol ysgol ysgol ysgol ysgol ysgol ysgol ysgol, ac ysgol ysgol ysgol ysgol eli! A dyfu ni'n ddyliadodd y debyg Lentyniwch, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, a'i gympredigio'r yng Nghymru. Amser, ond sydd wedi gweld yng nghymru gyda ni o gwaith eich Lentyniwch, gyngor gyma chwtlo. Cwliwch cael yn bylad ffioch ynghylch yn y plaeniciwn naf'r synt y ffio ysg향 ast na plaeniciwn ech bwyny'n pobl o'ch. Ac ysgol ysgol ysgol ysgol i'n parbu'i eich o'ch gychbors na gallu網agur y chrywach o'r cwmho mwy bwysbyn descenedigol a bwysbyn y cwmho ac eisiau yn un o'r bwysbyn a'r cyllidau pobwy o'ch cyllidau pethau rhat. Ac mae'n gyrhau ar neud oedd o'r cyllidau, yn dweud mi gydag ar gyfer cyllidau cwmho ac mae'n gwyślio a'u cysg naill o'r cwmho ac mae, mae'n gwyml o'r cwmhio, oes i osio'r sôn fel mald, ac rydw i'n siwn i chi yn astur i ganach hien ond yn efoch, ac am ysbyn rydyn ni'n ddaf rhywm sy'n coerlau ac ysbyn rydyn ni'n glynyddu'r glynyddu'r grwm yma, ac am ysbyn rydyn ni'n gyfer sy'n arbarwch chi'n cwyddemol, ac rydyn ni'n cael ei un o etyr plan ac i chi'n naes yn hyna i chi ddaf. i'w ddylo'r ddweud o'r pethol, ac yn rhe fourth rwyf y dweud olufoedd. Fy enw i'w eu obfodraeth adon, gyda chi'n gallu dyfu y ffordd gyda'ch ddweud o'r diwyll gwirio roedd mewn ddweud o'r diwyll gwirio? As in addition, the idea of a national advisory group made up of ministers, local authorities, and other service providers and service users. Within the BSL community there's a firm view that the majority of that group should be made up of service users. It would be helpful if you have your views on the makeup of that, the desirability of such a group. Sassly wedi gŵi yma ydy'r ddiddordebeth yn ei gweld ddadebeth neu ddechrau canolegol i ddechrau byddai'r gynnig ond. Fe wnaethm i rwy'r gynlleniad oedd yialoedd o'r sgolenedig yn ei gweld i'r ddadebeth wedi'i gynnig i ddechrau gweld erioed. Rwy'n gael i ddadebeth o'r sgolenedig, a gallwn ei ddweud yn siaradau. is called out. It includes people from the regions that can express the different needs within the advisory group, and the leaders' ministers should be there. They should be someone who can take their work forward—there and can then cascade it down to different ministers from leadership departments. It should also have a strong understanding of BSL within their work—it should not be an afterthought. The minister should be taking the lead on that and then cascading it down to others. We do not want it to be a afterthought for that minister. We want that the minister the proactive in making sure that things actually happen as a result of the act. Feedback from the advisory board is really, really important in that whole process. Gareth Orrhani. Please welcome the fact that that expression of the regional diversity being explicitly set out. In terms of the ministerial responsibility I think one of the ideas from the previous panel was that we have a Minister for Languages at the moment including the Gallic Is this something that you would see comfortably sitting within that remit, or does it need to be more explicitly drawn out? First of all, I strongly support what Carly says about recognising the regional diversity of this country. Your question is should it be one single minister or should it be cross-department responsibility? I think you've already identified that if there isn't one single minister and you put it across all the departments, the level of expertise, knowledge and background between those departments is going to vary wildly, so that one department may well be addressing the needs very well and others very much not doing that case. So you can see the pitfalls and the potential failures in that system, whereas if you have one department or a minister ultimately accountable being supported with a clear remit by an advisory group with expertise, we would see that as the best way of working. I think the conversations that have been happening in the lead-up to the bill have been broadly very clear that the community is quite relaxed about the Scottish Government's position that there is a shared responsibility. That's the way it needs to be. Equally, as you say, it will be slightly absurd having recognised that there is a particular linguistic minority if the minister who is responsible for languages didn't have some kind of role or position in championing the language, if you like. The only other thing I would say about the advisory panel, and of course there will be a lot of conversation to be had if the bill is successful about the exact composition of that panel and so on, that I don't think needs to be decided today or in the immediate future. But I would just say that, of course, we will pick you up if I may on the terminology talking about deaf people being part of that panel as service users. Their contribution to that panel is a great deal broader than as service users. If we think of deaf people as service users only, then we are fixating on the access issues and losing the focus on promotion and the contribution that the community can make to society in Scotland. I took my reprimand in the story, which is intended. Well, it's not usual, but it's the kind of you to do. Can I just go back to Professor Dumbardo? Obviously, you are well aware of the process that was undertaken when we went through the Gallic Language Bill and then the introduction of the act. From that experience, can you give us some information and background knowledge about how the introduction of plans were introduced, how the development of those plans was a particularly onerous process on bodies to produce plans, and also in relation to what we've just discussed about ministerial responsibility, national advisory boards, etc. I just wondered if you could give us some background with your experience in the Gallic issue. Po siwch mil i'r cestr minister le uloch y sôn nabilu y sôn y canan, a ha'r minister yri fi ac i ni efo nhw i chi ydi ac er ffeicud sy'n nhw i diwg, ond i chi yddo ar parlymau tragus rhiwltus na halape'n y sôn, na Gallic, yn isht na'r minister le dlesnes y sôn canan yn halape. A chan mysmin dryn gwella'r cwytwmoch gybi dlesnes e'ch cwyt i chyn. Minister i'r Choryganoch t'w fy sydd ei wlddeis. A ha'r si'n cwytwmoch. Chanyns gyfel y gallic er fi, a gysgwysiau'ch negallic er fi gyma ffost y nôch, le syd yn Minister i'r HEf i Ac i ni e, Minister i'r dyra oedde, Alastro Alan, a gymaeolwch er eich anan, a gymaeolwch er cestwn yn chi'n ystod i mian a'r ffeym yn lwch lawrfysgnau gaelig a'r gaelin yn enw. Ac ysbun jy'n y hagiwn sicrhwg yw'r polisi ac yw'r cweringrif polisi chi'n ystod i'ch gaelig. Yn gyma ffeolmol yw polisi chi'n ystod i cael yn ynhelu, cael yn ynsoeini a'r cael yn ynhelu. Ysbryd yn hama am ysbun jy'n gyfer sy'n er wybu cwtrmoch gan y gaelig gyro minister a asyriotus ac ar o glasnus a er o yn dwyloch sŵl y chwmal er gyroechyn. Y hwf yn ymplan eich angen yma ysbun jy'n gyfer y dyfi Saddiwchol, a bors dy galig er ffegwp yng Nghyddlw Llyw Llyw Llyw Buynion Popoloch, ac ysbryd yn cael ei gaelig i'r bwyny'n popoloch plan eich angen ychydig cael ei gaelig a'r borth torst coelau a'r tach dy fwyny'n popoloch ac ysbryd yn gyfer sy'n gyfer sy'n gyfwp ymloch. Leismanach by borth dy fwyny'n gwblwch coltoch rwy borth ffyn fyl y haesio, a mysmynd ryn gynghwm ffeim rhywltus mysmynd rydw i'ch cymryd heidiach gyda'r conwltryg y chwmal rwy bwyny'n popoloch ac cwyddiwch ychydig ac ysbryd coelau horsigau. A mysmynd ryn gyfel coel y borth negalau gyda'r ffyl mal a gwrs gwrs cwyddiwch yn y cechyfyn gywtio er eich cwyddiwch dy fwyny'n popoloch. A dy dyn nhw'n lwytych yw leisnyol ysahach gyda'n eich yr yfroses a'r saliwf yn tach gyhad e'r ffyn fwyny'n rydw i'l teisach cwyddiwch ffyn y borth. A mysmynd ryn gyfel sy'n coelau ac yscytdiwch ar y horsigau'r dwyny'n popoloch gyda'r cwyddiwch yn y fwyny'n lwytych gyda'r cechyfyn a chynydd gyda'r stoch gyda'r dwyliotus yn eich arferchgyn y leisnyol yw leisnyol yw leisnyol. Felly, dweud nodi ar y cyfloedd, mae'r oedd yn g climbolion o'i archfliadau gyda ar gyfer yr oedd y Pethau thrumfadfa ar gyfer y cyfloedd, mae'n gyflugio'r cyfloedd honno'u cyfloedd ar gyfer y cyfloedd o arnynnerau cyflugiau cyflugiau. Fe gydag gweithio, mae'n gwybliau i ddweud am y cyfle maes i gilynyddol o'r cyfle i gwybliau i'r cyffredinogi ac yn y cyfrifffredigol o plan hyfn Storellwyddon? What are the panel's views on that suggestion? The first term is? On the suggestion of statements? No, no, no, on collective consultation. As I've indicated, there is a spirit abroad in the country as a whole of consultation. I think that it was shown very clearly, and the country as a whole is very proud of the 85 percent turnout in the referendum last year. Ac ydw i'n meddwl y cynghoroedd am yr ysgrifennaf amser, ac rwy'n edrych yn ystod yn legunio'r gweithio. Mae'r g fuig yng Nghymru yn cael ei gael. Rydym ni'n golygu'r arfennill fod yn welo'r ddechrau llawd a gwybod'r risoedd yng nghylchau. Rwy'n edrych yng Nghymru yn cyflogion. Rwyf wedi byw'r ffordd o'r cyflogio'r sefydliadau o'r hoffi am gyllidol yn fawr oherwydd hwn. the way that attempts to do so have been unsuccessful on, where or another. So it is an incremental process. It is a process of continuous improvement and a process where the community is very keen to engage and participate. I think back perhaps the key thing to bear in mind is that contrary to some of the evidence that we heard earlier today, I invite you to review the evidence that is being submitted and ask you whether you find very muchetaan seth in there in which deaf people themselves describe the services available to them as exemplary. We heard earlier on that the exemplary services where out there. Do deaf people tell you that they are exemplary? I don't think so often. There is a process of continuous improvement that the community is looking for but it enters into that an emotional and a spirit of partnership. It might be true, Professor Turner, what you say about exemplary services, but my experience is that not many people will come to me about exemplary services as an MSP across the board, so that might not be the case that we get that end of the spectrum. Just one final question to the panel, and it's fairly straightforward to ask the others whether they believe there are advantages in moving to either 5 or a 7-year cycle for the national plan, as opposed to the one that's currently laid out in the Bill. Yn dryst y bwni'n popoloch a ffôl o'ch planau galwch ychydigelau, ffemioedd ym planau yw'r ychydig yw hulwc o'ch gwbliannau, ac os am ysbyn yn gyfer sy'n reiswn y gylio'r rhai unig gys ym planau i allyfwg, ac os nôr sy'n rhai unig gys ym planau ychydigiaeth, ac os am ysbyn yn gyfer y cwrtwmoch gyfieith unig y gylio'r rhawn. Y gharwch mwy o'r rydyn a ha' chi'n allu rhai les ychydig ganan, byddai'r rydyn ca'r tontiaeth hwn, a'n allu ffwrst y cwysgag yn y rydyn y chwrwng rieff, gysgipol y gysgwffwrst ychydig, a'r cwysgach gych ar y gharwch yw'r treini, yw ffôlwm, ac yw unig. Gys am ysbyn sy'n gynghwyl y cwrtwmoch, un i'r holl gan y bwyny'n poploch yn y grif yn y chwrwng rieff, ac ychydig am am ysbyn sy'n mafys yn ham roi atu, a dwyltoch lik yllai'r rydyn, a tytwm ffwrn ffwrst mae'r cymbieg. A gys am ysbyn sy'n gynghwyl gyda'r ysbyn yn cwrwst le tamal a ha'r roi atu. A gys am ysbyn sy'n gynghwyl coig blynynna, soch be cynnes coig blynynna, reiswn y gylio'r, fyrwch sy'n un i'r gylio'r gan y bwyny'n y grif yn y chwrwng rieff, ac ysbyn sy'n gynghwyl gynghwyl gynghwyl gynghwyl gynghwyl. I agree with Professor Dunbar, but also I think we have to get the view of deaf people for too long we've been sidelines, we've been marginalised and we haven't been involved in the process for so long for parliamentary issues, council issues and so on, so I think we need to give deaf people time to make that adjustment in their own mindset a cultural change if you like, an attitudinal change, so maybe extending that time would be beneficial. To do it in phases, a phasied approach rather than rushing things through because that might lead to the whole process breaking down, so I would recommend a more measured approach for sure. I'd just like to re-emphasise what Khali said, it's a fair point to be made. Is it five or seven years and an appropriate time frame, it's difficult to say at this point in time. I think the Gaelic experience is instructive and informative. Wrth gwrs, ond mae'n gweithio eu bod yn 5 yng Nghymru, mae'n gweithio'r cyfnodol yn gweithio. Felly yn gyfnodol yn ddyfodol y cyfnodol. Ond yn fwy o bryd, mae yna'n rhedeg i gael i amser o'r cyfnodol sydd ymwneud. Mae'n rhedeg i gael i'r wyf, ond mae'n gweithio'r cyfnodol yn fwy o'r cyfnodol. Mae'n fwy o'r cyfnodol yn ddifol. Mae'n gweithio'r cyfnodol yn y fwy o'r cyfeirio'n gyda'r cyfnodol. Ie, mae'n amser i gael unrhyw gyrfaenidol, mae'n gael unrhyw gyrfaenidol yn ei wneud. Mae'n angen i gwneud y pethau. Rwy'n fath o'r idea chi, oedd yn ffaisiol y proses yw'n rhan fydd yn ymddangos. Felly mae'n angen i gael unrhyw gyrfaenidol i gael unrhyw gyrfaenidol, yn eu bod yn ymddangos, yw'n gwneud i ddweud i ddweud yn y pethau o gyllidebeth o'r unrhyw. It's about what's workable. We're prepared, as the difficulty, to work with you, and to be a lot more complex and not see it as a black and white issue, a lot more grey in there that's to be discussed. Thank you, the final, very much for coming along. I was going to say this morning, but it's now this afternoon. Thank you very much for your time and for your evidence in this morning. We've obviously got a lot of things to consider when we're looking at the bill. For everyone's information, our next consideration of the BSL bill will be on 17 March, when we will take evidence from the Scottish Government and from the member in charge of the bill, Mark Griffin. That's 17 March for the next evidence session on the BSL bill. I will close the meeting.