Summary of consultation responses

Question 9 – Financial implications

Question 9
What financial implications do you envisage the proposed Bill would have for you or your organisation?
What (if any) other significant financial implications are likely to arise?
The responses to this question varied with some respondents expressing the view that the proposed Bill’s provisions might present a source of income, others indicating that it could have financial implications, and others feeling that it would have minimal or no impact.
Comments from organisations which foresaw a financial impact included—

• 
  “There are potentially massive financial implications”. (East Lothian Council)
  

• 
  The Church of Scotland noted the implications if more staff “were required to have increased knowledge and skills in the practice of BSL”.
  

• 
  NHS Grampian and NHS Orkney pointed out that “… more staff would require to be trained in-house as BSL communicators, with attendant costs. An estimate is £3,500 of fees for one employee to reach Level Three and become a communicator. There would also be a cost of allowing staff time off during the working day to attend training and carry out BSL communicator work when required”.
  

• 
  NHS Ayrshire and Arran felt that, unless funding for implementation of the proposed Bill was ring-fenced, the cost of implementation would mean identifying efficiency savings and this should not be at the expense of existing services.
  

• 
  The National Deaf Children’s Society was concerned that resources might be diverted from other additional support required by deaf children in the classroom. It suggested that guidance should make clear the status of legislation promoting the use of a language as “not something that can be conflated with provisions under the Additional Support for Learning Acts 2004 and 2006 and the Equality Act 2010”.
  

Thirteen organisations felt there would be no financial implications, and six of these indicated that the proposed Bill might have a positive financial effect, given the services they provided: the British Deaf Association (Scotland) in particular noted that: “this could be a potential source of unrestricted income”. A number of individual respondents echoed this view, suggesting that, while there might be initial costs, this should be weighed against long-term benefits, for example, frontline staff being able to assist deaf people and deaf people being encouraged to use more services.

Action on Hearing Loss referred to the Financial Memorandum for the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill – the cost of preparing a Gaelic language plan for public authorities was estimated at £10,000; implementing core functions in a plan at £0 – £150,000 per authority per year; the staff and operating costs of the Board at £355,000 per year⁵. It was suggested that BSL plans would be narrower in scope and the number of BSL users estimated to be much lower than those who speak Gaelic, so implementation costs should be at the lower end of this wide range.

Question 10 – Impact on equality and diversity

Question 10
Do you believe if this proposed Bill becomes law, it will have a positive or negative impact on equality and diversity within your organisation?

If you believe it will have a negative impact, how can this be minimised or avoided?

There was a mixed response to this question, with some respondents feeling that the proposed Bill would have a positive impact on equality and diversity, some believing that it might have a negative effect in terms of those who used other forms of communication, and others expressing the view it would have a neutral impact as they already followed best practice.

The following provides a flavour of the responses to this question—

• 
  Thirty-three of the SABH respondents who answered this question felt that the proposed Bill would have a positive impact on equality and diversity.
  

• 
  The Scottish Council on Deafness believed that the proposed Bill would have a neutral impact as it already worked using good practice for Deaf BSL users. Similarly, the SCCYP did not foresee any equality impacts, as BSL as a preferred means of communication was offered as a matter of course at all of its events and for publications.
  

• 
  NHS Grampian and NHS Orkney was of the view that: “The only negative might be a feeling by other disability communities that they too require primary legislation to take forward their particular agenda”.
  

• 
  East Lothian Council commented that there would be positive effects for BSL users and anticipated negative effects for people who had other communication needs through concentrating resources disproportionately.
  

• 
  Similarly, Capability Scotland endorsed the positive impact on BSL users but was concerned that there might be a negative impact if the Bill resulted in a disproportionate share of attention and resources being invested in BSL to the disadvantage of people who do use other alternative methods of communication.
  

• 
  Renfrewshire Council thought that the proposed Bill should consider the need to include a wide range of people such as those who are profoundly deaf and did speak, but who did not always use BSL – for example, Cochlear implanted people – it was felt that this would help to ensure an inclusive approach and reduce the potential of unintentional discrimination.
  

Question 11 – Any other comments or suggestions

Question 11

Do you have any other comments on or suggestions relevant to the proposal?

A number of respondents provided additional comments and suggestions, including the following—

Monitoring and evaluation

• 
  There should be provision in the proposed Bill for the Advisory Board to be involved in monitoring and evaluation of national and local action plans. (SCoD)
  

• 
  To help service planning and delivery, there should be a Register of Deaf People similar to that of Register of Blind people. (NHS Ayrshire & Arran)
  

Other forms of communication

A number of respondents highlighted that there was a need to raise awareness of other means of communication which could be substituted for speech or writing other than BSL, including accessible written material, use of note pad and pencil, BSL information pre-recorded on web sites, and video BSL signing. NHS Grampian and NHS Orkney also suggested that an “equally important step is to empower and fund Deaf people to be more pro-active in their communication skills” and provided examples of lip-reading for people with Acquired Profound Hearing Loss and Texting, 3G mobile phone technology and computers.

Similarly, Capability Scotland referred to Signalong and Makaton, for example, which were widely used means of communication for people with hearing impairments, particularly those with learning disabilities and/or limited mobility. It was believed that: “There is an urgent need to raise awareness and promote use of these alternative methods of communication as well as BSL”.
Deafblindness

Some organisations and individuals raised issues specifically in relation to deafblindness—

• 
  One respondent who attended a Scottish Advisory Group on Deafblindness meeting on the proposed Bill commented that: “All people who use alternative communication methods should be included in the proposed Bill, e.g. hands on signing, deafblind manual, clear speech, visual frame signing, Braille, Moon, Note takers, screen readers, lip readers, in other words, any form of linguistic access BSL users who lose the ability to see must be included.” Another representative commented that: “There is little detail in how deafblind people might benefit from this bill contained in this proposal. More information is needed; if we include deafblind people in the bill, we must ensure they benefit”.
  

• 
  Deafblind Scotland expressed concern that, as a marginalised group, deafblind people might become even more so and that it was important to stress that provision being made for either of the single sensory impairments, while welcomed, did not necessarily automatically benefit those who had a dual sensory impairment. This might mean requiring public bodies to ensure that special arrangements were made to include deafblind people in all public bodies’ plans and activities.
  

Legislative competence

In relation to the matter of legislative competence, SCCYP noted that the Scotland Act 1998 “gave the Scottish Parliament power to encourage equal opportunities, particularly observing equal opportunities requirements. This is defined as: ‘the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination … on grounds of disability, age, sexual orientation, … language or social origin’ … It is important to state that BSL is a language in its own right … and should be recognised as such. At present, Deaf BSL users have to rely on disability discrimination legislation to secure access to information and services in their own language”.

Engaging with the political process

Action on Hearing Loss reported that, from a consultation exercise on the proposed Bill, many participants at event had been unaware of how to engage with the political process – “You have explained the process but I don’t think that information is widely disseminated to the Deaf community.” “How do we even give feedback to our MSPs? It is difficult, so we don’t bother”.

SECTION 4 – COMMENTARY BY MARK GRIFFIN MSP

I would like to record my thanks to the Non-Government Bills Unit (NGBU) for all the assistance they have provided in getting my proposed British Sign Language (BSL) (Scotland) Bill to this stage. I would also like to thank members of the Cross Party Group on Deafness (CPGD) and the BSL Bill Sub-Group, made up of members of the CPGD, for all of their advice, support and expertise.

It is a great honour to have brought forward the British Sign Language (BSL) (Scotland) Bill and I am heartened by the number of people who responded to the consultation and would like to thank everyone who took the time to do so. I was particularly pleased at the number of public authorities and charities who viewed the plans favourably. I am also incredibly grateful to the 172 individuals who made their views clear.

The number of people who responded, and the degree of favourability for the plans, is welcomed, and I certainly wish to continue with the proposal, moving forward to the next stage in the legislative process. It is important however that the plans are effectively scrutinised and I welcome those respondents that cited concerns about aspects of the proposal. I recognise that some have expressed concern that the Bill, although having a positive impact on breaking down communication barriers for BSL users, could lead to unintentional discrimination towards those who use other methods to communicate. I think it is important to recognise that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to draft a single piece of legislation for all minority languages, or other methods of communication. I have concern that some of the respondents seem to indicate that the onus be placed on BSL users to learn to lip read, and that more awareness should be undertaken to ensure that BSL users have access to a notepad and pencil and written material. It is important to recognise that BSL is the first language of many Deaf people in Scotland, and we should not make it more difficult for people to communicate in their first language.

It cannot be denied that D/deaf people in Scotland face many communication barriers, and I am under no illusion that my proposal will act as a magic wand, resolving all of these problems right away. However, I do believe that it will begin the process of creating a more inclusive Scotland, a Scotland where our D/deaf population has the same opportunities and access to information as the hearing population.

The next stage will involve lodging a final proposal with the Parliamentary authorities, something I hope to do in the immediate future.

Mark Griffin MSP

Annexe A – Respondents, numbered as received

Organisations

1	National Association of Tertiary Education for Deaf people (NATED)
2	Scottish Council on Deafness
3	Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People (SCCYP)
4	NHS Grampian and NHS Orkney
5	Action on Hearing Loss
6	National Deaf Children’s Society (NDCS)
7	Sense Scotland
8	NHS Ayrshire and Arran
9	North East Sensory Services
10	British Deaf Association (Scotland)
11	East Lothian Council
12	East Renfrewshire Council (Corporate Equality Unit)
13	Scottish Advisory Group on Deafblindness
14	Angus Council
15	NHS Education for Scotland (NES)
16	Inverclyde Council (Community Health and Care Partnership)
17	Hearing Dogs for Deaf People
18	Self Directed Support Scotland (SDSS)
19	Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters
20	Donaldson’s School
21	Hayfield Support Services with Deaf People
22	Deaf Action
23	Deafblind Scotland
24	Action Deafness
25	Caithness Deaf Care
26	Renfrewshire Council
27	Orkney Equality Forum
28	Capability Scotland
29	Aberdeenshire Council Sensory Support Service
30	Tayside Deaf Hub (Dundee Deaf Sports and Social Club)
31	Tayside Deaf Hub (Tayside Deaf Forum)
32	Tayside Deaf Hub (Deaf Links)
33	Deaf Services Lanarkshire
34	Deaf Connections
35	Inclusion Scotland
36	Deaf Ex-Mainstreamers Group (DEX)
37	Scottish Youth Parliament
38	Scottish Borders Council
39	Midlothian Council
40	Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance (SIAA)
41	Glasgow City Council
42	Church of Scotland
43	ACPOS (Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland)
44	Dumfries & Galloway Society for the Deaf
45	Signature Scotland
46	STUC
47	South Lanarkshire Council
48	Hearing Link (Scotland) – (confidential/not for publication)
49	Moray Council

Individual Respondents

1	David Thompson
2	Nadia Krupova
3	Marie Elliot
4	Caroline Currie
5	Tessa Padden
6	Gordon B Veitch
7	Lesley Boyd
8	Fiona Stewart
9	Iain Cameron
10	Andy Irvine
11	Barbara A Brown
12	Brenda Mackay
13	Colin McTaggart
14	Tasnim Sharif
15	Jude Caldwell
16	Lisa Li
17	Rachel Amey
18	Mark Wheatley
19	Irene Wilson
20	Rebecca Russell
21	Sally Doering
22	David and Jennifer Johnston
23	Janice McCusker
24	Nicola McInally
25	Marion Fletcher
26	Erelund Tulloch
27	Helen Mooney
28	Derek Todd
29	Maryam Imran
30	Sue Mowat
31	Soumaya Lomas
32	Scott Ellerington
33	Silvana Lennon
34	Laura Stewart
35	Shelagh Douglas
36	John Whitfield
37	Kaz Langlands
38	John A Hay
39	Stephen J Butler
40	Vincent Stewart
41	Arthur Verney
42	M Anne Waugh
43	Paul McCusker
44	Margaret Moyse
45	Linda Duncan
46	Helen Martin
47	Rachel Mapson
48	Margaret Bradshaw
49	Gill Wood
50	Niamh Cochrane
51	Kyra Pollitt
52	Shirley Wright
53	Danielle Morgan
54	Tess Hutchinson
55	David Wilson
56	Sara Lomas
57	Samuel Rojas
58	Audrey Dawson
59	Rodney Dawson
60	Rachel Evans
61	Leonard Mellis
62	Denise Lightbody
63	Margo C M Currie
64	Evonne Herd
65	J Richards
66	Paul Belmonte
67	Ben Matthews
68	Joan Forrest
69	Anne Handsley
70	John Denerley
71	Peter S Hay
72	Pamela Bogan
73	Kay Clark
74	Alastair Kelly
75	Juliette K Begg
76	Margaret Kinsman
77	Alan Drew
78	Evelyn Shaw
79	Doreen Mair
80	Lisa Davidson
81	Charlotte Wilson
82	Brian McCann
83	Ross Grant
84	Lesley King
85	Graham H Turner
86	Catherine Finestone
87	Mark MacQueen
88	Anthony J Forry
89	Lorna McNae
90	Janis Sugden
91	Abigail Apps
92	Dr Deborah Innes
93	Anne Bain
94	Edward Foley
95	Ella Leith
96	Anonymous
97	Maire McCormack
98	Matteo Cerri McCormack
99	Brian Shannan
100	Margaret Kydd
101	Karalyn Church
102	Carla Marchbank
103	Simon Crabb
104	Mary McDevitt
105	Alison Pell
106	Jacqueline Rogers
107	Hamish Rosie
108	Suzanne Victoria Frew
109	Joanne Lironi
110	Amy Cheskin
111	Irene Lochrin
112	Jamie Church
113	Hilary Kearney
114	Linda Richards
115	Hilary McColl
116	Ben Newton Wylie-Black
117	Rachel O’Neill
118	Martha Carnegie
119	Carrie Neilson
120	Neil Mullin
121	Grant Ferguson
122	L K Young
123	Susan Gibson
124	Joseph Sheridan
125	Dr Audrey M Cameron
126	Robert M Duncan
127	Donald M Richards
128	Shaurna Dickson
129	Nicola Young
130	Tamara Young
131	Judy Byrne
132	Mike and Morag Davis
133	Mike Crockart MP
134	Sign And Be Heard (containing 39 individual anonymous responses)

The member also received a petition with 937 signatories.