Hansard

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.