Summary of consultation responses

PRIVATE PAPER FOR MEMBER AND NGBU OFFICIALS ONLY

BRITISH SIGN LANGUAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL – MARK GRIFFIN MSP

SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES

This document summarises and analyses the responses to a consultation exercise carried out on the above proposal.

The background to the proposal is set out in section 1, while section 2 gives an overview of the results. A detailed analysis of the responses to the consultation questions is given in section 3. These three sections have been prepared by the Scottish Parliament’s Non-Government Bills Unit (NGBU). Section 4 has been prepared by Mark Griffin MSP and includes his commentary on the results of the consultation.
Where respondents have requested that certain information be treated as confidential, or that the response remain anonymous, these requests have been respected in this summary.
In some places, the summary includes quantitative data about responses, including numbers and proportions of respondents who have indicated support for, or opposition to, the proposal (or particular aspects of it). In interpreting this data, it should be borne in mind that respondents are self-selecting and it should not be assumed that their individual or collective views are representative of wider stakeholder or public opinion. The principal aim of the document is to identify the main points made by respondents, giving weight in particular to those supported by arguments and evidence and those from respondents with relevant experience and expertise. A consultation is not an opinion poll, and the best arguments may not be those that obtain majority support.
Copies of the individual responses are available on the following website http://www.markgriffinmsp.org.uk/content/bsl-bill/. Responses have been numbered for ease of reference, and the relevant number is included in brackets after the name of the respondent.
A list of respondents is set out in the Annexes

• 
  Annexe A – numbered as received
  
• 
  Annexe B – in alphabetical order.
  

CONTENTS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 3

SECTION 2: OVERVIEW OF RESPONSES 4

SECTION 3 – ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION QUESTIONS 7

Question 1 – General aim of the proposed Bill 7

Question 2 – The need for legislation 9

Question 3 – Benefits and challenges 12

Question 4 – Specific action to promote BSL 14

Question 5 – Improving awareness of the case for access to free BSL classes for deaf children and their families 15

Question 6 - Designated Scottish Minister 17

Question 7 – Advisory Board 19

Question 8 – Relevant public authorities BSL action plans 21

Question 9 – Financial implications 22

Question 10 – Impact on equality and diversity 23

Question 11 – Any other comments or suggestions 24

Annexe B – Respondents, alphabetical order 33

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Mark Griffin’s draft proposal, lodged on 27 July 2012, is for a Bill to:

Promote the use of British Sign Language (BSL) by requiring the Scottish Ministers and relevant public authorities to prepare and publish BSL plans.

The proposal was accompanied by a consultation document, prepared with the assistance of NGBU. This document was published on the Parliament’s website, from where it remains accessible:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/29731.aspx.

The consultation period ran from 27 July to 31 October 2012, and was subsequently extended by the member to 7 November 2012.

The consultation period was marked by an official launch on Monday 30 July in the Scottish Parliament. This was advertised in the national and local press. All public authorities in Scotland were lettered or emailed, with a copy of the consultation document enclosed. A number of charities – in particular charities with a link to Deafness, disabilities and equality – were informed also. In addition to the publicity in local and national newspapers, Deaf organisations represented on the Cross Party Group on Deafness, publicized the Bill on their respective websites and in newsletters.
The consultation exercise was run by Mark Griffin’s parliamentary office.
The consultation process is part of the procedure that MSPs must follow in order to obtain the right to introduce a Member’s Bill. Further information about the procedure can be found in the Parliament’s standing orders (see Rule 9.14) and in the Guidance on Public Bills, both of which are available on the Parliament’s website:

• 
  Standing orders (Chapter 9): http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/26514.aspx
  
• 
  Guidance (Part 3): http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/25690.aspx
  

SECTION 2: OVERVIEW OF RESPONSES

In total, 222 responses were received. This total was made up of 49 responses from organisations¹, 172 from individuals (including 39 anonymous responses enclosed with the submission from “Sign and Be Heard” (SABH)², and one petition³ with 937 signatures. It should be noted that 76 of the individual responses contained wording in similar terms.⁴

The responses can be categorised as follows:

• 
  14 (6%) from public sector bodies and organisations (including 3 health boards/related bodies and 11 local authorities);
  
• 
  20 (9%) from representative/membership bodies (including voluntary sector organisations, campaign groups, a trades union body, a police association and support service providers);
  
• 
  11 (5%) from charities;
  
• 
  3 (1%) from organisations representing children and young people’s interests;
  
• 
  1 from an education provider;
  
• 
  1 petition (with 937 expressions of support);
  
• 
  171 (77%) from private individuals (members of the public)
  
• 
  1 MP (as an individual).
  

Twenty-four of the responses from organisations had some connection with deaf, deafblind or hard of hearing people through, for example, being representative or membership organisations, providing support, training or other services, or having a campaigning role. (The use of upper or lower case in “Deaf/deaf” is consistent with the use by the respondent where comments have been attributed.)

One anonymous individual response (in addition to those submitted under cover of SABH) and one confidential response were also received.
There was a substantial overall majority of support from respondents for the aims of the proposed Bill to promote the use of BSL and raise awareness of the language. There was also majority agreement that legislation was required and was the appropriate mechanism to meet those aims.
A minority view was that legislation was not required if deafness was considered to be a protected characteristic in terms of the Equality Act 2010, and that there was already legislative drive for BSL to be promoted through the disability provisions of that Act. However, it was countered that “other people whose first language is a spoken language other than English do not have to declare themselves “disabled” in order to access services and information in their language” (Scottish Council on Deafness). A number of other alternatives to legislation (such as the development of a national strategy, were also suggested.
In terms of whether there was a case for specific action to promote BSL as opposed to other minority languages, those supporting the case argued, amongst other things, that BSL was a language under threat and that BSL users might not have access to a spoken language. Against this, others argued that, by legislating for a specific group, attention and resources might be directed away from other disadvantaged groups, languages or forms of communication, or that there might be an equally pressing need to promote other means of communication.
A strong theme was that the general aims of the proposed Bill should be extended to include the promotion of the cultural aspects of BSL and an analogy was drawn with treatment of Gaelic since the implementation of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005.
Possible indirect benefits of increased awareness were also highlighted, such as improved access for BSL users to services and information, as well as improved consistency across public bodies. In terms of the proposed Bill increasing awareness of the case for access to free BSL classes for deaf children and their families, there was broad agreement that this would be the case and strong arguments for the provision of this service were also detailed.
In terms of basing the proposed Bill largely on the model of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 by including a strategy for promoting the use of a language, most respondents felt that there should be a specific Scottish Minister designated with that responsibility and that, most appropriately, it should be the Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s Languages under the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, although a number also felt that it should fall to all Ministers who had responsibility to ensure that such work was integral to all Government departments in line with the public sector equality duty.
There was general support for the establishment of an Advisory Board to advise the designated Minister(s) and strong arguments were made for the majority of membership being BSL users, although others argued for the benefits of a broader membership or for the inclusion of other forms of communications or equality groups on such a Board.