I am pleased to introduce amendments 2, 4 to 7 and 9, which are important. They seek to reduce the number of plans by bringing public bodies, other than those to be listed separately in a revised schedule 2, within the scope of the national plan. The amendments will give greater clarity about the purpose of the national plan, lengthen the reporting cycle, which will reduce the administrative burden on the public sector, and ensure that the bill will focus on actions rather than administration.
I will go through some of the provisions in amendment 2.
Proposed new section 1(1B) will require the national plan to set out what Scottish ministers will do and what they
“consider that relevant public authorities ... should or could do”
to promote British Sign Language. Under that provision, the national plan will set out the agreed national priorities to be taken forward by national public bodies that are covered by the plan and by public bodies preparing their own plans. I believe that that will strengthen the provisions of the bill as introduced.
The first national plan will be particularly important. As I explained in evidence to the committee at stage 1, we intend to set up a BSL national advisory group to inform the plan’s development. The group will involve a significant proportion of deaf BSL users as well as representatives of the public bodies that are subject to the bill. It will take time to agree a suitable structure for the group and a process for recruiting deaf BSL users to it. Allowing two years after the act comes into force to publish the first national plan, as set out in proposed new section 1(1D), will give us time to engage properly with the deaf community and with public bodies. That will enable us to publish a more considered plan that will take account of the views of deaf BSL users who will benefit from the actions set out in it, as well as the views of the public bodies that will deliver those actions.
11:30
Proposed new section 1(1E) provides that national plans will be published every six years, rather than roughly every four years, as would be the case under the bill as introduced. The Scottish Government takes the view that the four-year cycle for the reporting and review process that is set out in the bill is too short. That view is informed by our experience of implementing the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 and its five-year reporting cycle, which some authorities have suggested is too short. I originally suggested a seven-year cycle, but many deaf people who submitted evidence felt that that was too long. Amendment 2 therefore proposes a six-year cycle instead.
Extending the cycle will, I believe, give public bodies longer to implement the actions that are set out in their plans and gather meaningful information on progress before they are asked to feed into the national progress report. As members will have seen from the revised costings that I provided in my recent letter to the committee, requiring public bodies to produce plans every six years, rather than every four years, leads to a significant cost saving. We propose to invest the savings in providing support to help public bodies to better understand and meet the needs of the BSL community that they serve and to boost the capacity of translation and interpreting services.
In my view, amendment 2 introduces a more proportionate approach to the reporting process and creates a less bureaucratic and more action-oriented focus for the bill.
Amendments 4 and 6 ensure that the second and subsequent national plans will “have regard to” any recommendations coming out of the review process.
Amendments 5 and 7 are minor consequential amendments around the consultation provisions. Amendment 9 is a minor consequential provision that relates to the timing of the preparation of national plans.
On amendment 2A, I share Mary Scanlon’s concern about the issues faced by parents with a deaf child—we have discussed those issues in committee before. It is very likely that relevant material will feature in the first national plan but, in my view, the amendment does not fit with the approach that the bill takes. The bill creates a framework for action but deliberately does not specify what should be included in the national plan.
As the member in charge of the bill said during stage 1,
“it will be up to the Government to choose what resources to put into its policy priorities.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 16 December 2014; c 4-5.]
All that I am setting out is the overarching strategy that the Government should promote.
The content of the national plan will be determined through extensive engagement with the BSL community. I have committed to including parents of deaf babies on the national advisory group that will support that process. I do not think that it is appropriate to go further than that at this stage, because writing into legislation what should be included in the national plan pre-empts the important process that I have set out.
As Mary Scanlon will be aware, the British Deaf Association has identified eight areas that it believes should be included in the national plan, of which support in the early years is only one.
If amendment 2A is agreed to, it could open the way to further attempts to legislate to include other priorities. That undermines the collaborative approach to developing the national plan that I have set out.
I thank the committee for its forbearance, but there were some important issues to be detailed.
I move amendment 2.