Parliament Workbench
Data: Official Report to 12 Nov 2026

Official Report · Committee

Continued Petitions

School Curriculum (British Sign Language) (PE1777)

Wednesday 16 December 2020 Public Petitions Committee About 10:30 Petitions 7 contributions · 5 speakers

Speakers

Choose an MSP to read only their contributions

The record

7 contributions
Johann Lamont Lab The Convener · Glasgow
link

Petition PE1777, which was lodged by Scott Macmillan, calls on the Scottish Government to introduce British Sign Language into the curriculum for excellence. The petition was last considered in October 2020. Since that meeting, we have received submissions from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the petitioner.

In his submission, the Deputy First Minister explains that it is for schools and local authorities to determine which languages are offered to pupils under the one-plus-two approach, depending on their local circumstances and the needs of their learners and communities. The Scottish Government is unable to intervene and set requirements about the choices that schools make, and it therefore cannot require schools and local authorities to teach BSL as a first language, or L2, rather than a second language, or L3. The Deputy First Minister also highlights the increase in the number of local authorities reporting that they delivered BSL in 2019.

The petitioner accepts that the Scottish Government cannot intervene in what schools and local authorities decide to teach in schools but states that more support is required to allow schools and local authorities to teach BSL, should they wish to do so.

The petition is interesting. I feel that the Scottish Government is pushing back rather than thinking about what enabler role it might have in encouraging the use of BSL. There is a comment in the papers that it cannot be done at secondary school because there is no qualification. If that is the case, why are we not asking the Scottish Qualifications Authority to provide a qualification? I feel that there are barriers that are not barriers at all.

The petition has effectively raised awareness, but there is a question about how much further we can take it at this point. In future, there might be a petition that will ask how we get to the point at which the language is treated sufficiently seriously that there is a qualification for it, rather than the lack of a qualification being used as an explanation for why it cannot be supported.

My feeling is that we need to close the petition at this point, but I have no doubt that there will be opportunities for the issue of BSL and its significance as a language and in enabling communication to be reflected more seriously.

David Torrance SNP Kirkcaldy
link

I thank the petitioner, Scott Macmillan, for lodging the petition, which highlights the need for different languages to be taught. BSL is used by a wide section of our community.

The Deputy First Minister’s submission is detailed. British Sign Language is currently taught as part of the curriculum for excellence and the Scottish Government is unable to intervene in decisions by local authorities on what schools should teach.

I think that we need to close the petition under rule 15. 7 of standing orders. Like you, convener, I wonder why there is no qualification for BSL. We have to ask that question. If the petitioner is not happy, he should bring back the petition in the new session of Parliament specifically on that question, to see if we can get a qualification.

Tom Mason Con North East Scotland
link

I am in a dilemma. There are issues that need to be expanded and continued, but I am not sure that we can necessarily make anything happen. I am drawn to the question of why a bursary for learning science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects cannot be extended to include BSL. Getting more knowledge and use of the language as a general activity is useful, but I do not know whether we can do that through the petition. Closing it is the only solution at this stage, but the petitioner could come back on a very specific point about what can be improved.

One problem that I find with many petitions is that they are too broad brush and therefore we cannot make much progress. If we close it at this stage and encourage the petitioner to come back with clear specifics as to what can be achieved, we will have achieved something.

Johann Lamont Lab The Convener · Glasgow
link

I take your point. However, in my view, the petitioner has been asking for specific action and the explanation of the barriers that has come out of that would allow the petition to be more focused. The very fact that the petition exists has allowed us to get to that next stage, which is useful.

Gail Ross SNP Caithness, Sutherland and Ross
link

That is absolutely spot on—I agree. The committee has probably taken the petition as far as we can. There is nothing to prevent the petitioner from coming back and asking the Scottish Qualifications Authority to consult on introducing a new qualification. I know that that is dependent on the number of learners and teachers and the demand, which can be looked into.

It is an interesting petition and I thank the petitioner. We have to close it, but it has opened up an avenue for him to come back with a more specific ask.

Maurice Corry Con West Scotland
link

I fully endorse what my colleagues have said and what you said, convener, in relation to the qualification and the SQA.

At this stage, we should close the petition under rule 15. 7 of standing orders. I agree that the petitioner should come back in future specifically on the point about a qualification, bearing in mind the need for research on uptake, teacher availability in schools and so on. I recommend that approach.

Johann Lamont Lab The Convener · Glasgow
link

We are agreed. We recognise that the petition has illuminated a lot of important issues and that the Government’s response has brought an opportunity for a way forward for the petition.

We should be ensuring that people can learn to communicate in a language that is important to them. There is a broader question about the ability to give people the skills to communicate. A whole range of issues come out of that.

We have at least progressed an understanding of the question. We are agreeing to close the petition as indicated but, in the new session of Parliament, the petitioner might choose to bring a petition back in that regard. There are certainly opportunities to further pursue the important aims of the petition.

We will close the petition. I thank the petitioner very much for taking the time to engage with us. We have found it very useful.

In this meeting

Everything on 16 Dec 2020 →
  1. 09:30 Decision on Taking Business in Private Procedure · 1
  2. 09:30 Continued Petitions Petitions · 54
  3. 10:15 Continued Petitions Petitions · 7
  4. 10:30 Continued Petitions Petitions · 10
  5. 10:30 Continued Petitions Petitions · 7
  6. 10:30 Continued Petitions Petitions · 10
  7. 10:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 6
  8. 10:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 10
  9. 10:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 15
  10. 11:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 7
  11. 11:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 6
  12. 12:00 Continued Petitions Petitions · 6
  13. 12:00 New Petitions Petitions · 10
  14. 12:30 New Petitions Petitions · 8
  15. 12:30 New Petitions Petitions · 6
  16. 12:45 New Petitions Petitions · 8

The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.