British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 Inquiry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking back on the legislation as someone who was involved in it at the Government end, I think that Karen Adam touches on an important point, which is the importance of BSL as a language and all the human dignity that that implies. I realise that the act is about more than symbolism, but does she agree, as I am sure she will, about the impact that it made on that community to know that, symbolically, the country had recognised their language for what it is, which is a language?

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

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

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

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

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

I move,

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

It is important to have this debate to reflect on the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s report, and to mark the 10-year anniversary of the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015, which we have been doing over the past few weeks. I welcome our guests in the gallery—it is wonderful to have you here.

BSL is one of Scotland’s languages and is used by many people every day. I am proud that Scotland has been a leader in BSL not just in recent years but over the past few centuries. I thank the many MSPs who have contributed to that progress, particularly Mark Griffin for his tireless work in lodging the bill that became the 2015 act; Karen Adam, the convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee; and the rest of the committee’s members. The cross-party group on deafness also does critically important work in advocating for BSL users and the deaf and deafblind communities in Scotland. More importantly, I thank the BSL community for the role that it has played in educating people about BSL and wider aspects of deaf culture. As a community, it has continued to campaign for the full realisation and delivery of the act and for greater understanding and recognition of BSL as a language.

When engaging with the community, I have seen at first hand the difference that the act has made and what more can be done to tackle the remaining barriers. If the act raises expectations about what equity should look like, it also reveals the gaps in current provision. Although it is good to have support from committee members, MSPs and the wider BSL community, constructive challenge as we look ahead is even more important as we work to deliver the actions that are outlined in the current BSL national plan.

I would love a challenge from Martin Whitfield.

I certainly think that the committee’s report and its scrutiny have given BSL added impetus. To be blunt, I do not think that we can ever have enough momentum to carry us through, so I am happy to accept Martin Whitfield’s request for added impetus and more momentum.

There are a number of recommendations in the report that can focus our minds. As Karen Adam said, the Scottish Government has accepted the vast majority of the recommendations. The only ones that we did not accept are either because they are not for us, or because they need a bit more detailed work, but there are very few of those. None of my comments should be misrepresented, as so much work has been done, particularly in recent years.

The British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 is flagship legislation that everyone should be proud of. It places a duty on the Government and on listed authorities to promote and increase the use and understanding of BSL, which is key to bringing about the change that we want to see. The BSL plans are the vehicles for that promotion. Two plans have been published in the past 10 years, sitting alongside local BSL plans produced by listed authorities. The current national BSL plan concludes in 2029. At the heart of it is a clear focus on the accessibility of public services and tackling the systemic barriers that BSL users face in their daily lives. The 10 priority themes in the plan are areas that the deaf and deafblind communities have told us are important to them—education, health, justice and culture; all the same themes that were highlighted in evidence taken by the committee. Those are wide-ranging sectors that cover all aspects of society. As I said to the committee this week, often, somebody’s experience in one part of Scotland might differ from a person’s experience in another part of Scotland, which is why local BSL plans could arguably be more important for some communities. We have been clear that our six-year plan is not static; it is not something that we write and then leave. It is an iterative process that can respond to new and emerging challenges, and we have agreed to learn from and build on the actions that are in it.

The committee’s in-depth report is excellent. It took evidence from those with lived experience and reflected on the impact that the act has had. The report rightly recognises that the act is something that empowers people, increases the visibility and use of BSL, and continues to improve access to services for BSL users. However, the report also shows us more about the continued barriers and challenges that the community faces.

There are 44 recommendations. We have assessed each recommendation against two factors. First, the extent to which it aligns with the priority areas and actions in the national plan, and, secondly, its overall deliverability, including resource and cost implications.

We have accepted, either in part or in full, 40 of the recommendations. We have agreed to consider three recommendations further because they need more detailed analysis. People agreeing to things without doing the analysis up front is the bane of my life, because it is one thing to say that one is going to do something and it is quite another to make sure that one delivers on that. It is important that we do that detailed analysis first.

There is one recommendation that we have declined, and that is because it is for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and not the Scottish Government.

I think that I mentioned in committee that we are certainly interested in exploring that further. For me, the key is not whether I think that it is a good idea—I have seen how that model, in a slightly different guise, operates in relation to Gaelic, for example, with Bòrd na Gàidhlig—but what the community thinks. If there is widespread support from BSL users, the Government is not going to stand in the way and is not averse to the establishment of such a board. However, for us, it is critically important that we identify whether that is an approach that is of interest to the BSL community. I have tasked the relevant team of my officials with initiating that informal consultation and those conversations with BSL users. I think that I confirmed at committee that I would be keen that we build up the initial detailed work that could then be taken forward by the new Government after the election, which could implement the measure if it has widespread support.

We recognise that, to deliver on our ambition, it is important that we work together to deliver collective action to strengthen outcomes for BSL users. One point that came through the committee’s scrutiny concerned local experience and whether there is adequate monitoring and reporting of that varying level of access at a local level. That is why we have established the listed authority network, which was delivered on our behalf by the ALLIANCE. That is an example of the creation of a space in which to share good practice among listed authorities, to share resources and to identify solutions to challenges around the implementation of local BSL plans. The network will have its first meeting with listed authorities on 15 December, and I very much look forward to seeing the work that comes out of it. Of course, that complements the work of the British Deaf Association Scotland, which we fund to work with listed authorities to foster community connections and share information on how best to engage with BSL users.

Since the national plan was published, we have launched the new Contact Scotland BSL service, which will include a pilot of video remote interpreting for the first time; we have provided £375,000 to develop and launch the SignPort app, which will make booking interpreters easier; we have established the BSL justice advisory board to bring together justice sector representatives and the BSL community, which touches on a theme that was raised by a number of committee members; and we have continued to fund BSL organisations through the equality and human rights fund.

I am keen to take the committee’s report and move at pace to implement and deliver some of the recommendations that are perhaps easier to deliver than others, as well as exploring some of the other recommendations that require that element of consultation or detailed analysis work. The conversations that I have had with BSL users this year have been inspirational and have also shaped my thinking on the Scottish Government’s actions in the national plan. The BSL users I have met have reflected on their educational journeys and the improvements that could have been put in place to better support them, and they have highlighted the importance to them of various initiatives.

Someone who worked tirelessly to shape the 2015 act asked why deaf and deafblind people have to continue to always fight for their rights. That point struck me, and that is why the Scottish Government remains committed to the actions in our BSL national plan, taking on board Martin Whitfield’s call for greater momentum, working on a cross-party basis and to delivering as many of the committee’s recommendations as quickly as possible.

I speak in today’s debate as a member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. I thank the clerks for their assistance in the production of the report and all those who submitted their views on the subject. I welcome our guests in the public gallery.

Ten years on from the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015, the committee decided to hold a short inquiry to consider the actions that have been taken by the Scottish Government and the public authorities that are listed in the act to tackle the barriers that BSL users face. We focused on two things in particular: first, whether the act, the current BSL plan and listed authority plans are improving the lives of BSL users; and, secondly, what changes could be made in the short and long terms to improve the lives of BSL users.

The 2015 act was a landmark piece of legislation for this country. By enshrining British Sign Language in primary legislation, it acknowledged deaf citizens as a distinct language community. The committee welcomed the positive feedback that was received on the impact that the act has had in improving the daily lives of BSL users. I am pleased that it was noted that it has helped to increase the language’s visibility and to empower deaf BSL users to access services and participate in society using their preferred language.

However, there are some challenges, and a number of key themes emerged during the evidence sessions. For the sake of time, I will touch on only two of those.

Justice was a key policy area to arise in the discussions, particularly for deaf people with experience of domestic abuse. As we approach the end of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, it is important to touch on that part of the report in particular. I express my sincere thanks to Lucy, a deaf domestic abuse survivor, who provided important testimony on the barriers that BSL users can face when engaging with the police and courts.

Progress was noted under the access to justice actions in the national plan, but, in her evidence, Professor Napier, chair of intercultural communication and associate principal of research culture at Heriot-Watt University, said that several issues that would improve access for BSL users in the legal system had not been addressed. Professor Napier noted that research in the USA estimated that deaf women are two to three times more likely to experience domestic abuse than hearing women. The cause of that is

“potential perpetrators using their hearing status as part of the power dynamic”.—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 3 June 2025; c 58.]

The committee agrees with our witnesses that deaf women in particular should have better access to education and information about their rights and the law and that deaf-specific service providers would help to achieve that. Therefore, the committee invited the Scottish Government to consider what further steps could be taken in that regard. I welcome the fact that, in her response, the Deputy First Minister noted that the Scottish Government continues

“to engage with Deaf Links and the Sign Loud team at Heriot Watt University and University of Edinburgh, a project focused on experiences of domestic abuse and communication barriers, to consider deliverables that will make a difference to Deaf women within the new Equally Safe Delivery Plan.”

The committee agrees that consideration should be given to how emergency services should be alerted to the fact that a person is deaf before attending an emergency call to enable interpretation to be provided, even if that is initially done online. I welcome the fact that the Deputy First Minister’s response notes:

“The Scottish Ambulance Service ... are currently working with BDA Scotland to look at what facilities they currently have in place for BSL patients and service users and how they can improve and develop in this area”.

On healthcare, particularly mental health services, some further concerns were raised that warranted further discussion. For example, the committee invited the Scottish Government to respond to concerns that were raised by BDA Scotland and the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland—the ALLIANCE—about the need for a robust approach to ensuring that older deaf BSL users have access to appropriate services and care packages. It also invited a response on the ALLIANCE’s comments about the likelihood of the number of deafblind people increasing and its calls for an increase in the number of social workers for the deaf.

I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government published an equalities impact assessment alongside the mental health and wellbeing workforce action plan to help to identify and form actions that are needed to address inequalities in the mental health and wellbeing workforce. That specifically included action on promoting BSL resources.

I am pleased that the Scottish Government’s “British Sign Language (BSL): national plan 2023 to 2029” represents its continuing commitment to making Scotland the best place in the world for BSL users to live, work, visit and learn. I am also pleased that, overall, the Scottish Government has accepted in full the vast majority of our recommendations. It is clear that the BSL community should be at the heart of our decision-making process to ensure that we get things right. It is vital that we work together with the community to tackle the barriers, improve their lives and deliver the 2015 act’s objectives.

I thank the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee for its work on the inquiry and the report. Some valuable points have been raised, and I look forward to seeing what impact the report has. Miles Briggs was right to say that we need to do more post-legislative scrutiny, because that can have a strong impact by enabling us to make better law in the future.

The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee has a great deal of responsibility, and its work programme has been very reactive to what is going on and to areas where work is needed. The time that has been given to the inquiry—in taking evidence, working on the report and securing parliamentary time for the debate—demonstrates how seriously the issues that were raised are being taken.

Karen Adam, as convener of the committee and in general, is a very strong advocate for BSL and deaf rights. She always speaks up for them, while ensuring that lived experience is central in the conversation. I have often gone to her to ask questions, including when I had responsibility for equalities as a Government minister. I have learned a lot from her in the past four years, and I am sure that many other members are in the same position. I know that the inquiry meant a lot to her, and I think that that passion and care have come through in the detail that the committee has presented to Parliament.

I was struck by one issue in particular. Last week, Karen Adam welcomed to Parliament deaf mothers who are survivors of domestic abuse; the Deputy First Minister also attended that event. Deaf women’s experiences of domestic abuse are highlighted in the committee’s report, and it is notable that the issue has been mentioned in the debate by two other members of the committee. That is not an area of concern that I have heard discussed elsewhere, so it is particularly important that it was given space in the committee’s report.

As well as ensuring that domestic abuse survivors are able to engage with the justice system in the first place, the report addresses the concerns that were raised about deaf survivors being lumped in with disabled survivors in statistics, rather than their distinct situation being recognised. That issue deserves the attention that it has been given in the report.

Some of my longest-running and most difficult casework has involved BSL users. That has been the case not because of those constituents or their situation, but because of the scale of the challenges that they face, which is so great that I know that I am limited in trying to get them the change that they need within a parliamentary session. However, they are not usually asking for slight policy changes that might improve things for some people at some point. They are often asking for help or access that would allow them to live their lives on the most basic level—to attend a hospital appointment, arrange social care packages or go to school. In its “Healthcare” section, the committee’s report outlines how serious their need can be in a healthcare context. It recommends that work needs to be done on escalation when a caller to emergency services is deaf or when a deaf person needs to access mental health appointments.

The report also highlights the lack of BSL users in services such as audiology. That is a concern across the board. I have heard from people whose education, employment and social lives are on complete hold because they are waiting for care or interpretation services. There are teenagers who are stuck in limbo during their formative years—years that they will never get back. The committee’s report goes into great detail on early years intervention and points out that deaf children may not be able to access childcare with BSL provision, which means that they arrive at nursery and primary school without any language.

BSL users with mobility issues, neurodivergence or learning disabilities often find it even harder to make things work for them. The fact that deafblindness is becoming more common, which was outlined in the ALLIANCE’s evidence to the committee, is a particular concern. Older deaf people are experiencing dual sensory loss, which leads to them feeling isolated, especially when they live in rural areas.

As a Highlands and Islands MSP, I am concerned by that pattern and I recognise that any service improvement for deaf people and BSL users must mean improvement for those living anywhere in Scotland, including in rural and island areas, not just towns and cities.

BSL users have explained to me and my office that they have even struggled to take part in consultation exercises that were set up to get the evidence that only they can provide because no deafblind support or tactile BSL was available, because people were expected to be able to read English, which is different from BSL English, or because consultation forms were not made available in accessible formats from the beginning.

Most of those issues come back to the point that we need more interpreters and more people working in public services who have BSL, including deaf BSL users. Acceleration of BSL education will also be needed to meet the demand for interpreters.

Ultimately, the report is a reflection of the need to embed a human rights approach to Scotland’s public services. The ability of deaf people to participate fully and to access public services in their first language is a non-negotiable part of a rights-based society.

I want to be very clear to BSL users in the Highlands and Islands that I am here to help, as I have just signed. I am happy to arrange interpreter services for surgeries, to work around the availability of those interpreters and to ensure that my office is as accessible as possible for anyone. Even if it takes a long time, I am here to support BSL users and to make the case for better support and access. I will continue to work with them, with Karen Adam and with others to highlight the areas of greatest concern for BSL users and argue for positive change.

I am pleased to speak in the debate as a member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, and I thank the committee clerks and other members. I was not a member of the committee when it took evidence in its inquiry. However, I was at its meeting on 10 December, which was a reminder of not only why the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 remains one of the Parliament’s most important pieces of equalities legislation, but why the implementation process must continue to be sharpened.

I also thank Karen Adam for her work on the committee, and for—as has been mentioned—her work on the issue over a number of years and her passion for that work.

I start with the fundamentals: BSL is not just a communication tool—it is a language of Scotland, it is recognised in law, and it is part of our national cultural identity. The 2015 act is about language rights, not optional extras, and the rights that it establishes must be lived in practice and not left sitting on paper.

We heard powerful evidence from deaf organisations and BSL users, and their message was consistent. When the 2015 act works, it transforms access, confidence and participation. When it does not work, it is because systems have not shifted fast enough, leadership has not been clear enough, or delivery has been too uneven across public bodies. One of the challenges is ensuring access across all the different parts of Scotland.

That inconsistency is at the heart of the challenge. We have good practice in pockets—for example, public bodies that take their duties seriously, embed BSL into planning and work directly with deaf communities—but we also have areas where progress has been slow, reactive or reliant on one or two committed individuals. Rights cannot depend on the enthusiasm of a few. They need structure, accountability and resource.

I want to highlight three themes that came through strongly in the committee’s inquiry, and the first is leadership and accountability. Public bodies have legal duties under the 2015 act, but leadership determines whether those duties become realities. Too often, BSL is treated as an add-on and delivered through communications teams instead of being rooted in strategic planning. Where senior leaders take responsibility, we see measurable progress. Where they do not, we see drift.

I support the committee’s position that future BSL plans must include clear performance indicators—I asked the Deputy First Minister about that issue at committee this week—and that compliance must not be a tick-box exercise. We all have a part to play in ensuring that compliance is embedded. We need mechanisms that will ensure that, if Parliament sets a legal obligation, it will be met. That means early intervention when bodies are falling behind and greater transparency for BSL users on what progress is—and is not—being made.

The second theme that I will talk about is access to essential public services. The evidence that we heard from deaf individuals makes the stakes very clear. If someone cannot access a GP appointment, understand justice processes, communicate with their child’s school or engage with social security systems, their rights are compromised. There must not be a postcode lottery of BSL access. Some national health service boards have made real advances, particularly on digital access and interpreter pathways, but others are struggling with inconsistency and workforce pressures. That tells me that the system needs clearer expectations and firmer direction. Deaf communities should not have to navigate the gaps that we know exist.

We also heard concerns about education, especially in relation to BSL in early years and school settings. If we are serious about equality of opportunity, we must treat early access to language and communication as non-negotiable.

The third theme is the BSL workforce. That issue sits behind every other point that is raised. The 2015 act cannot deliver on its promise without a strong, sustainable, well-supported interpreting and translation workforce. The committee heard about long waits, overstretched interpreters and the pressure that is placed on BSL tutors and trainers. We need a workforce pipeline that reflects the scale of the act’s ambition. That includes training capacity, career progression, fair pay and national co-ordination. We simply cannot base a rights-based system on precarious labour, and deaf BSL users must be at the centre, shaping what good access looks like.

The committee’s job is not to point fingers; it is to ensure that the 2015 act does what this Parliament intended. However, scrutiny requires honesty, and the honest assessment is that progress has been made, but it is too uneven; that rights exist, but too many people still have to fight to have them respected; and that the system has created plans, but plans alone cannot guarantee delivery.

We have a responsibility as a committee and as a Parliament to push the system towards consistency, ambition and accountability. Let us not forget that the 2015 act remains world leading. Scotland was the first nation in the UK to recognise BSL in law. However, leadership means staying ahead and not looking back.

I want Scotland to be a country where BSL users never have to explain, justify or negotiate their right to equal access; where public bodies do not wait for reminders or complaints before acting; and where deaf communities genuinely shape policy, not as consultees but as partners. That was the spirit behind the act, and it must guide the next stage of implementation.

The committee will continue to scrutinise progress closely. Our role is to ensure that the lived experience of BSL users matches the promises that have been made in the chamber because, ultimately, equality is measured not by legislation alone but by the lives that people are able to lead.

We move to the closing speeches.

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

I call Tess White to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. You have a generous six minutes.

Will the member take an intervention?

It is not a cheeky intervention. To reflect on the period, let us say, before devolution and over the past few centuries, and as I shared in committee, I am struck by the history of the BSL community in Scotland and how BSL users have pioneered many global solutions over the past 300 years. I am happy not to take any credit, but I still credit Scots as being leaders in the area.

I call the Deputy First Minister, Kate Forbes, to close on behalf of the Scottish Government.

I thank colleagues for the debate so far. I will start with the difference that the committee’s debate and its report will make and the actions that the Scottish Government will take as a direct result of the points that have been raised by colleagues in the report as well as in the debate.

The first action is our commitment to funding a BSL network to enable listed authorities to share best practice and provide support to improve local BSL plans. I mentioned that in my opening speech, but it is in direct response to the points that have been made about monitoring, reporting and the postcode lottery, which have come through quite clearly in my engagement. Experiences in the heart of Dundee or Edinburgh, for example, differ markedly from experiences in more rural areas, which Carol Mochan referenced. In some areas, there is a need to improve a service that already exists, but other areas may still be looking for the service to exist.

Secondly, we will explore and cost a national BSL tutor course for Scotland in engagement with education and BSL partnerships, to look at how it would fit with the existing provision. I am very interested in that approach. I spoke at committee about the fact that there are a number of different initiatives. That has come across in the debate: Martin Whitfield spoke about tutors and teachers, and we have just heard from Tess White about teachers. I have heard consistently that, although teachers are important in schools, there is also a need for tutors outside the school setting, to enhance young people’s learning and attainment, and that we need to look at something that could be provided nationally.

Thirdly, we will explore engaging with education professionals to develop new guidance to support BSL users to become registered teachers. I take squarely on the chin Tess White’s point about the number of teachers, but, irrespective of the specific number, I accept that there are not enough teachers. We need far more BSL teachers. There are different routes and a number of different initiatives for someone who wants to become a teacher, so we will ensure that the guidance is as clear as possible, and we will change what BSL stakeholders want to be changed in it.

Absolutely. At the moment, BSL users can become registered teachers through one of the 46 active initial teacher education courses that currently exist. I am told that support is provided on a case-by-case basis for ITE students using BSL, but that provision needs to be appropriate, and the BSL users need to be able to access the right kind of support if they are going to train to become BSL teachers. That approach needs to be taken forward through careful engagement with all the relevant professionals and organisations, including the General Teaching Council for Scotland, ITE course providers, deans of education, local authorities and Education Scotland.

A point that was made in the committee’s report concerned placements for trainee teachers in specialist deaf teaching provision or other places that expose trainee teachers to BSL. That has a lot of merit.

Fourthly, we are promoting Contact Scotland BSL, which supports video-relay interpreting, and the SignPort app, which will address digital exclusion and rural access. A number of colleagues took great interest in the new contract for Contact Scotland BSL. I am pleased that it was successfully relaunched on 1 December. There was extensive work in the run-up to that, to draw awareness to the changes. SignPort sits alongside that, making it easier to book interpreters.

Next, we are undertaking a review of additional support for learning, and we are revising guidance on appropriate qualifications for teachers of the deaf. That is in response to a point that has been made by the committee and others in relation to the provision of teachers who do not have sufficient fluency in BSL. For example, I was told about a maths student who was given an interpreter who had only a level 1 qualification and therefore could not help. Similarly, in primary and secondary schools, a BSL teacher might be trained to only a low level and therefore cannot teach the children at the right level.

I am open to that. We know how many deaf children there are, so it makes sense to say that we know how many children need access to BSL teachers—that is, every one of those deaf children. However, I would caveat that by saying that there are very understandable requests for BSL education for children who do not need BSL for themselves but who, if they could use BSL, would be able to communicate with other young people and reduce their isolation and loneliness. Sometimes, when we have a target, we think that we have succeeded when we hit the target, but a general increase in the numbers is also important. However, I will certainly take that point away.

That leads me to the last action that I was going to talk about, which concerns opportunities for pupils to learn BSL within the current programme of curriculum qualifications and assessment.

I realise that I am over time—although I was encouraged to speak for a generous period—but I want to turn to the very serious issues in and around domestic abuse.

The short answer is yes. I am sorry for repeating, to an extent, what I said to the committee, but I think that there are two answers to that question. One is a very integrated approach within the health service for deaf BSL users. Staff training is the responsibility of a public sector employer. We expect public sector employers, such as health boards, to undertake their own impact assessments and ensure that they operate in line with their public sector equality duties, so that there is safe, effective, inclusive and high-quality care provision.

Separate to that is the wider question about enabling a BSL user to book an interpreter and have the comfort that that is being done. That is part of the reason for developing SignPort, which is a really easy and simple app that ensures that people can book an interpreter. There are two parts to that: first, ensuring that there are enough interpreters—full stop; secondly, ensuring that all public sector employers take responsibility for that provision.

Mr Briggs mentioned Maree Todd, who is sitting beside me. She formerly had responsibility for BSL, so she brings that experience and background to her new role.

A lot of mention has been made of domestic abuse and the justice system. Marie McNair talked about the fact that deaf women are two to three times more likely to experience domestic abuse. That comes through in the work of the Sign LOUD programme, whose event, which Karen Adam hosted, I attended last week. I have very much committed to the Sign LOUD team that I will take on board the recommendations that it has put forward, which are specifically about supporting deaf women, reducing domestic abuse and ensuring that there is adequate support.

The point that struck me—these things sometimes stay with us, and I could not get over it—was the overreliance on children to act as interpreters in a case of domestic abuse. We are exposing children to these horrendous experiences because of a lack of adequate interpreters. The obvious impact on the women is shocking, but the idea that a five, six or seven-year-old would be expected to fulfil the role that should otherwise be provided by the state—of acting as an interpreter to recount the experiences that their mothers were subjected to—goes far beyond anything that is remotely acceptable in Scotland in 2025. On that point alone, I committed very firmly to the Sign LOUD team—which comprises researchers from Heriot-Watt University and the University of Edinburgh, as well as various experts on domestic abuse and deaf communities—that I will take on board their recommendations and respond seriously, certainly before the election.