National Assembly for Wales

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Equality and Social Justice Committee. We have apologies from two Members: Mick Antoniw and Julie Morgan. We have no substitute, so there will just be the four Members with us today. Are there any declarations of interest? No. I see none.  

We are proceeding with our scrutiny of the draft British Sign Language (Wales) Bill. So, in addition to our usual simultaneous translation from Welsh to English, we're also delighted to have British Sign Language interpreters with us for all three public sessions today. That means that we will need to take very short two-minute breaks every 30 minutes to enable one signer to be relieved by another. So, if you're watching this live, please stay with us for all three very important sessions on the British Sign Language Bill. They literally will be two-minute breaks.

So, for our first public session today, I'm very pleased to welcome Polly Winn from the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, who's in the room with us, and Sarah Thomas from the Centre of Sign Sight Sound, who is online. Welcome to both of you. Thank you very much, both of you, for your papers, which we've all read. Could you briefly tell us what involvement you or your organisation have had in the development of this Bill, if any? Could I start with you, Sarah?

Yes. Thank you. As an organisation, we, along with, in fact, all the other third sector organisations in Wales, as a sector, we've all been involved in the development in some way. The Centre of Sign Sight Sound worked with Mark for a number of years. We do need to let you know that he is our patron. So, we were there right at the very forefront, and I do believe it was really a meeting that was held at our organisation that was the springboard for Mark's involvement in this. We've run a number of consultations with members of the deaf community in north Wales at our organisation. Actually, we've just responded to any call to arms that we've had regarding the Bill. 

Thank you very much. Polly Winn, what has your involvement been with the Bill? 

Very similar to Sarah. Thanks for having me here this morning. So, we've been supportive of Mark Isherwood's Bill since the outset, and alongside Sarah, CoSSS and many other deaf organisations, we are members of the deaf BSL consortium, which is an alliance of charities and campaigners on this issue. We're also members of the cross-party group on deaf issues, chaired by Mark Isherwood, and we've had many opportunities to feed in throughout that and share priorities for the Bill, which we're very grateful for, and we're pleased to be here to continue that today. 

And have both your organisations been involved in the ministerial advisory group that's been supporting the research around the Bill?

Yes, that's right. So, we're really pleased to have been represented on the Welsh Government BSL stakeholder group as well, and, as Sarah said, it's a very similar group of stakeholders all working together with this shared aim. 

And just for the record, Sarah Thomas, you've been involved in that stakeholder group as well.

We have indeed. 

Okay. So, we don't want to be accused of marking our own homework. So, what is your overall view of the Bill and its provisions? So, Sarah Thomas, do you want to go first? 

I think it's a very positive Bill. I think it will embed the rights of deaf people in Wales. I would like to say that I'm not experienced in policies and policy making. I am speaking on behalf of the deaf community of north Wales here. It will give us a measurable framework, something that will hopefully be meaningful, and also I think it goes a long way in demonstrating the Welsh Government's commitment to that recognition of BSL. It puts responsibility to action at the forefront; rather than it just being, 'We've recognised BSL', we are actually going to do something about it. Thank you.

Thank you. So, overall, Polly Winn, what's your analysis of the Bill?

Yes, we agree. We think that it's a really positive draft Bill that we've been able to respond to. We think that legislation is necessary to achieve the desired change and equality for BSL users in Wales. We know that deaf BSL users continue to face significant inequality and barriers across everyday life. At RNID, we're focused on three particular areas, with the first being health. We conducted research earlier this year to understand the barriers that deaf people face in accessing health services, which I'll come on to later on. Employment is also a focus area for us, and we know that analysis of Welsh census data shows that BSL users are three times more likely to be economically inactive than the wider population. Then, inclusion is our third focus area. We think that this Bill provides a coherent structure to address those challenges, and it provides the deaf BSL-using community with the recognition of their language and culture that is incredibly important for them. So, yes, we really support the Bill.

Okay. There's a clear need for this legislation, based on the consultation that took place before the Bill was even published, but were it to fail for any reason—it is certainly the intention of the committee to meet all of the timescales that we have been set—are there other ways in which the policy changes that I know both of you want to see could be achieved if the Bill doesn't make it to the statute book? Very briefly, Sarah, do you want to come in first?

I'm not sure it would be as successful as the Bill would be. That statutory backing would mean that the requirement on public bodies would mean that it's not optional—it's a statutory requirement that they have to meet.

Thank you. 

Yes, I would really echo what Sarah said. I think that, while we've seen some policy improvements in the past go some way to making progress, what we do see is then that, if there's a policy shift, there's a loss of momentum and that progress is short-lived. So, this Bill will provide the statutory footing for progress, for scrutiny for the Welsh deaf BSL community to be meaningfully engaged in that process. And I think that, if this legislation doesn't pass, it will mean that Wales is also an outlier in the UK. We have Scottish BSL legislation, we have UK Government legislation and the Northern Ireland Executive is passing their own Sign Language Bill, which is supported by the Executive, at the moment, so it really would make Wales an outlier if we didn't see this Bill pass, sadly.

And lastly from me, what consideration was given to the Bill including other forms of communication used by deaf people, such as sign-supported English or tactile signing? In your various forums, was this discussed and then decided not to include it, or was it not discussed? Sarah.

It wasn't discussed. British Sign Language is the chosen language of the deaf BSL community in Wales. Sign-supported English and other signed methods tend to be used for people who have, maybe, grown up in an aural situation—so, somebody who is deafened and has that strong link with English, or Welsh. We have sign-supported English and sign-supported Welsh. But that's very much based on the grammar, the structure of a spoken language, whereas BSL is a language in its own right. It doesn't need to be based on anything else. 

Thank you for that explanation. 

Yes, I'm going to agree with Sarah there as well. Tools like Makaton are incredibly useful as a communication tool, but the focus of this Bill is about BSL as a language, and it has its own grammar and syntax and, obviously, is primarily a visual language. As Sarah said, it's distinct from English, rather than being a sign-supported version of English or Welsh. So, I think that this Bill not only recognises the language from a communication and access perspective but also from a culture and community perspective.

Thank you. Jane Dodds. 

Do you want to go first, Polly?

Yes, I'm very happy to. Yes, obviously, as Mark Isherwood said, this is a framework Bill, but I think what we feel at the moment is that it provides quite a coherent structure. I think all the different provisions within the Bill—so, the existence of the national adviser supported by the advisory board—are a new model. Elsewhere, we've seen just the advisory board and often not a statutory commitment. So, the way those two things can work together and the reporting structure provides all these different checkpoints for accountability and implementation. But I think it is incredibly important for that to be robustly implemented, so it doesn't become confusing for public bodies or those who are subject to duties under the Bill.

And I wanted to highlight that we think guidance is really a linchpin to this Bill here, in terms of providing the detail of exactly how public duties should meet their responsibilities. So, the provisions in the Bill say that the Minister should issue guidance. We want to see that guidance developed in collaboration with the deaf BSL community and for that guidance to provide a further level of detail on exactly what that looks like and what the end result should be, and, as I highlighted earlier, the kind of time-bound, measurable outcomes. Then, with that guidance, that can set a quality and a standard for public bodies to base their BSL plans on, and then they can take that away and conduct more localised engagement. So, I think that's how I see the Bill, and how we see the Bill working as a framework.

Yes, of course. So, I think this is, in part, learning from mistakes we've seen elsewhere with other legislation. So, the UK BSL Act passed in 2022. There's an element within that Bill for the Secretary of State to publish guidance for how UK Government departments should meet their duties within the Bill, but that particular element of the Bill has never been enacted—the statutory element to that has never been passed properly, which means that different departments have gone away and published their plans without using that guidance. So, it means that you've got quite an inconsistent quality of plans across Government departments, whereas we think that central guidance created in collaboration with the deaf BSL community will set a standard and a quality that can mean there is a more consistent framework to assess progress. I hope that answers your question.

Yes, I just want to echo everything that Polly has said, really. For us, the most important thing is that framework is co-produced with members of the deaf BSL signing community, rather than some sort of after-the-fact consultation where the deaf community are asked, 'Is this okay? And if it's not, well, there's not really anything to replace it.' So, for us, the framework, I think, is really important. It's important for public bodies to be able to all report against similar measures, so we're not ineffectively measuring apples against pears. But with any of that framework, any of that guidance, for us, it's imperative that deaf people are involved right from the very outset.

In an ideal world, those targets would be that 100 per cent of any information that's shared with members of the public is available through British Sign Language, that there is some sort of measure against the quality of the information that's shared with members of the public through British Sign Language, some measure around how deaf people can contact public bodies, and something quantitative about how many deaf people have been able to contact—those sorts of measures—but also qualitative. There's no point in having, 'A hundred per cent of the deaf community have been able to contact us about the colour of the paint', if 100 per cent of the deaf people have said that the paint is no good.

Yes. Thank you. I'll come back to the point about targets, if that's okay, but another element that I wanted to add that I think we shared in our inquiry response is the importance of addressing immediate barriers that might undermine the implementation of the Bill. So, we do know we want to be realistic that there are significant resource and capacity challenges both within the deaf BSL sector and within public services, so we'd like to see a plan for how we address that. For example, there's a real lack of BSL interpreters in Wales at the moment, and no ability for sign language interpreters to train and qualify in Wales. So, we're seeing the numbers of interpreters diminish, and, obviously, they'll have an incredibly important role as a conduit between public bodies and the deaf BSL community throughout this Bill. So, we'd love to see some kind of workforce plan there.

I think we also need to be open to engaging and doing things differently. There's so much expertise within organisations like ours, Sarah's, the British Deaf Association and National Deaf Children's Society in how to engage with the deaf community. It might be that traditional channels don't work. I know at RNID, at a UK level, we previously supported Ofcom to consult on their video relay service 999, and we supported them to facilitate that through Facebook because we know that's where the deaf BSL community are and often engage. So, it's about considering how we can do things differently.

In terms of targets, I think there needs to be clear prioritisation. We know we can't do everything at once, and, as Sarah said, the ideal would be that absolutely everything is accessible, but we do know there needs to be prioritisation. So, I think perhaps much of the work undertaken by the Welsh Government BSL stakeholder group over the past six months could provide some strategy for priorities, because we have addressed some immediate barriers there.

There also needs to be a clear framework for feedback and complaints processes as well, because one thing that came up in our health research is that there just aren't accessible ways for BSL users to raise concerns about how services are inaccessible to them, because often those complaints processes are inaccessible themselves. So, I think if that could be a priority throughout implementation as well, that would help.

I do think there's an opportunity here for the framework to be developed, yes, with the deaf community—No. 1 priority—but there are also other groups that have expertise in some of these topics. For example, Polly's just been talking there about barriers to deaf people when it comes to health. Now, there is a new group that has been funded through Bangor University who would bring a lot of expertise around this, and one of the things that they're looking at is exactly this—it's health inequalities in Wales. So, I think it's also important that other groups who may bring expertise are also consulted when it comes to the framework.

Thank you. I just wanted to add to that, because I think that's a really pertinent point. When we first started these discussions with the Welsh Government, we talked about stakeholder mapping and the need to do more with what we have. There are, as Sarah said, so many good pockets of best practice and areas of work that we can learn from. So, I think, perhaps, the first step in this Bill is identifying those connections and identifying what learnings can be immediately embedded. We've already made progress here. So, with the implementation of this Bill, we don't need to start from scratch, we just need to use that best practice and make sure it's applied consistently. 

I think our view is that initially there's going to be a bit of time to implement the Bill, so that three-year reporting process does make sense within this first term, if the strategy's going to be published within 18 months, and then the BSL plans for public bodies are going to be every year after. We don't have any immediate concerns about that time frame, but it may be that we do want to review that once the legislation is more established. The key for us is for the process to be responsive. So, if the strategy sets out goals and objectives that aren't being met, how will future reports and strategies respond to that, and what action will be taken to enforce the Bill properly? We don't want a strategy or a report for the sake of it. We want to see actions come out of that.

No, I think they're fine. One thing you need to be aware of, though, is that there will be a lot of scrutiny from the deaf community once this Bill is passed. And so, we just need to make sure that those timescales are very, very clear and, in some cases, actual dates put against them, because that's what the deaf community will be expecting.

Thank you. I'd like to call Altaf Hussain, who's going to talk about the public bodies listed on the face of the Bill.

Thank you, Chair. My question area, as the Chair said, is the listed public bodies. The Bill gives specific duties to local authorities, health boards and certain NHS trusts and special health authorities. How will placing duties on these public bodies help to address the main barriers faced by deaf people? 

Sarah, do you want to start? Brevity here, because this is not a policy discussion.

The public bodies that are named already do have a duty to ensure that their services are accessible to the deaf BSL-using community. I do think that the list that's there is about right. There's no-one on there that shouldn't be there. There are one or two that are missing, but that is possibly going to be another question a bit later on. This, again, is embedding the rights of deaf people within those public bodies to ensure that deaf BSL users are able to access those bodies. Thank you.

Polly Winn. [Interruption.] Hang on a minute. Shall we just hear from Polly on your first question?

I'll just reiterate what Sarah said: I think the public bodies listed are the right ones. We would like to see consideration of further public bodies in the future, for example the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, Llais, the patient health body, Social Care Wales, capital regions and joint committees, and then Transport for Wales. But health and employment are key areas for us at RNID. We think that we will see change needed in those areas if they are subject to duties under the Bill.

Altaf, back to you.

Thank you. Sarah said about the missing bodies in this. Do you think the Bill should place duties on any other devolved Welsh bodies?

I think Polly just mentioned a few there. Obviously, there is the question of Estyn, Social Care Wales, those departments that actually scrutinise and oversee on-the-ground front-line services, and then for us also there is the question of companies or organisations that carry out work on those departments’ behalf. So the question is what will be their responsibility.

Thank you very much. Scotland has had a BSL Act since 2015. However, concerns have been raised about public services there not meeting their statutory duties or not setting specific goals as part of their BSL plans. Does the Bill provide an opportunity to monitor the performance of listed bodies and to prevent non-compliance? 

Sarah, do you want to go first?

Just to clarify, are you asking about the Scottish Bill or this Bill?

We want to learn from the Scottish experience. 

Does our Bill provide an opportunity to monitor the performance of listed public bodies and to prevent non-compliance?

I think this is where the adviser role comes in. Am I okay to talk about that here? 

We're are coming on to the adviser shortly, but I think it is really is there anything further—. I mean, clearly, add whatever you want. So, you have flagged the adviser. Anything else?

I'll discuss that later. I think it is always difficult to go on the coat-tails of something else, and I’m not sure that we should be looking to Scotland for a Bill in Wales. Yes, it is right that Scotland had a Bill, and the rest of the UK holds the Scottish Bill up as best practice. However, just because things may not be working as they should be in Scotland does not mean that we should not find a way for it to work in Wales. I hope I understood your question clearly there.

Just to add to that, I think the reporting process is really crucial for that scrutiny of how public bodies are meeting their duties under the Bill. As we’ll come onto about the adviser, I think there is still a question about powers of the adviser or the advisory board, how they can compel public bodies to act or how they can intervene and investigate. We know there are provisions within the Bill to ask for additional reports and ask for plans to be reviewed, which we welcome. I think there are still some questions about how the adviser or advisory panel can compel public bodies to act.

I think a crucial thing here as well is aligning this legislation with existing duties upon public bodies, for example the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the provisions for a more equal Wales. This Bill has shared aims, so we want them to work in tandem. We do not want public bodies to see this as multiple different tick boxes, as Sarah implied earlier. We want this to be a cohesive and meaningful process for them, and we want there to be space to reflect and improve.

Thanks, Chair.

Thank you. We’re now going to take a short break of two minutes to enable the change of interpreter. We’ll go private and we will come back very shortly.

Welcome back. Sioned Williams, would you like to ask your questions? 

Shall I go first? Thank you for that question. We do think that the national BSL adviser is a really important role, and we do broadly think they have the right powers. I think, as I mentioned earlier, there are still some questions about exactly how they can investigate and intervene where public bodies aren't adhering to their plans. There are duties to provide additional plans, but we'd like to see perhaps further discussion of exactly what that can look like, and to hear the views of public bodies on that as well.

I think national BSL adviser and the BSL advisory board is a really strong dual structure, because there is a lot of responsibility on one person as this advocate for the deaf BSL community in Wales. So, I think that dual structure really helps bring forward a wealth of experience. I think we'd like to see still a little bit further clarity on the resource for the adviser as well. We really welcome that there is provision for remuneration and facilities, but to establish, for example, are they a full-time role, is it a part-time role, could it be a job share. I think the role as an adviser is, from our point of view, valuable in that closeness to Government in terms of advising Government directly, but still retaining that independence as not a member of Government themselves, and there as an advocate for the community.

I think another area we would like to see a little bit more clarity is how we formalise that engagement with the deaf BSL community, how they play that role as a conduit and how they are accountable to the community. Sarah spoke earlier about really clear communication. This Bill is so significant to the deaf BSL community. As soon as, we hope, it passes, people will want to see progress. So, it will be the role of the adviser and the panel to set very clear expectations of what that looks like, and maintain very clear communication.

I think we'd like to see the adviser have the power to compel public bodies to adhere to their plans. We'd like there to be action if those obligations aren't met. We think that can only be done if there are incredibly clear, time-bound measures set out within the plans. So, that needs to be within the plans from the outset. Then, in the review and reporting process, if the assessment is that progress isn't made, there might be good reason for this. There might be resource challenges. So then, how do we address those challenges? How can we consult with the community in that area? What additional tools can be used? Does the target need to be revised, or is it just that this duty hasn't been taken seriously enough? If that duty isn't taken seriously enough, we want to see the adviser be able to raise that with Ministers, and for Ministers to compel that public body to act and see that change. I hope that's addressed your point.

I just have one thing to add to everything that Polly has said. I think this will be echoed by everybody that you speak to today in the fact that that national adviser really should be a member of the deaf BSL signing community in Wales. I agree with everything else that Polly has said with regard to it not being a figurehead, that it would be someone that does have the power to compel, the power to investigate, the power to enforce.

Because that adviser will then come with that lived experience of knowing what it is to be a profoundly deaf BSL user living in Wales, trying to access all of those public bodies that everybody else is accessing. So, to start with, they come with that lived experience, which is more valuable than any qualification, paper qualification, they may come with. They also will be there to represent other deaf people, and it's only right that they are represented by a member of their own community.

Thank you for that question. I think there needs to be a very clear structure of how often that adviser and the panel meet, and exactly what they should be discussing. Because what we found, as the BSL stakeholder group established by Welsh Government, is that there is such a wealth of things to discuss that it's been quite a challenge to prioritise. So, we have spent a lot of time doing that towards the identification of a road map. There will obviously be a consultation on the national strategy, so we hope that will shape some of the priorities for the adviser and the panel. The panel should bring together a wealth of lived experience of people who have represented—whether formally or informally—the deaf BSL community before, people representing different organisations. There's a wealth of academics in Wales who have focused on the experiences of the deaf BSL community. So, it should bring forward all that expertise. Perhaps there could be consideration of sub-groups, or people with specialist knowledge and interest, to investigate certain areas and to collaborate with particular public bodies.

One thing we didn't believe was clear within the draft Bill was about how the advisory board can liaise with public bodies themselves. I think that would be a welcome addition to the Bill, for advisory board members to be able to engage with public bodies, as well, with the support of the adviser. Because, then, if there is the ability to focus on, for example, health as an area, and there are members focused on that, that could be an ability to work on multiple things at once and really use the expertise of the panel to their full ability.

I should add as well that I'm happy to support in guidance after this, as a colleague of mine at RNID does sit on the UK advisory board, so if there are any learnings that I can follow up with there about what's worked well and perhaps what we could learn in Wales, I'm happy to follow up with that.

I would like to see the adviser being involved in that. I think, No. 1, having the adviser be a profoundly deaf BSL user does mean that people who use BSL would be able to take their complaints, concerns, compliments, to somebody face to face. They don't have to go through somebody else, they don't have to find somebody to support them in writing an e-mail, writing a letter, and then the person receiving that complaint, concern, compliment would then be able to respond in British Sign Language to them. It takes out that middle person where, with all the will in the world, things do sometimes get lost in translation. So, it removes that. I do think that having a deaf person who the deaf community can take a complaint to and know that something will be done will be invaluable.

I would agree with Sarah's point there that there is an important role for the adviser as that representative of the community, but I think that my only concern there—and this is something that we've discussed at RNID a lot—is that we wouldn't then want this to not be seen as a problem of, for example, the public services ombudsman, because access to services is their responsibility, and that should include the deaf BSL community. So, perhaps there's an immediate role for the adviser to provide that complaints mechanism, because we know that this is a huge issue. Our recent report about access to healthcare identified how so many people don't complain because the complaints process is inaccessible. So, perhaps there's an immediate action for the national adviser there and then to work with those additional public bodies, the public services ombudsman, other bodies like Llais within health, for example, to ensure that their processes are also accessible. And we can never undervalue the importance of BSL users being able to directly communicate with another BSL user. But we have seen, for example, in Scotland, that there is Contact Scotland, which is a national video relay service that is available 24 hours a day for all public services. So, it would be great to explore options for things like that as well to make existing services more accessible and to ensure that existing services can't ignore the needs of the deaf BSL signer community as well. 

Before we move on, I just wanted to pick up on the issue of, Sarah, your emphasis on the importance of the BSL adviser being a deaf BSL signer. Now, all public appointments are open to competition and applicants have to meet the criteria, which includes the knowledge, the experience, the ability to demonstrate that they can follow things up and keep several plates spinning at the same time. Often there is—. My concern is that, if you insist that the person must be a signer, they may or may not have the other criteria that are needed to effect the change we need in public bodies. So, there are multiple issues here, but you can often put on a person specification a 'desirable' criterion that they should be a signer, but I wondered what discussion the deaf community that you represent has had about how we need to ensure that we have somebody with the heft to transform these listed public bodies as well as being able to communicate in sign language. So, I just wondered if you—. Because you don't want to be in a situation where you're unable to appoint somebody because there isn't anybody who meets the criteria.

And I would agree totally. The right person for the job should be the person who can tick all of those boxes on that person specification on that job description. But I do think that a profoundly deaf sign language user is the only person who can truly represent the profoundly deaf BSL signing community. I do think that you will find that there are members of the deaf community who are underemployed, who have the skills but, simply because they are seen as being a deaf person, are not given the opportunities. I do think that there are members of the deaf community who would excel at this job, and I truly believe that the right deaf person is out there living in Wales at the moment. But I do think that you cannot have a non-deaf BSL user representing the deaf BSL community of Wales.

Okay, thank you for that clarity, and, clearly, we'll pick this up with the Government. We'll now move on to precisely engaging with the deaf community. Jane Dodds.

Yes, thank you very much. I think that this needs to be a clear, stated aim here, as it is, so I think, within the strategy, we want to see identification of this as an action for the adviser and panel to take forward, and I think, going back to what I said earlier about reviewing what already exists, we have a wealth of charities and organisations across Wales that represent the deaf community that have those connections that are where the deaf community are: Sarah in north Wales; BDA, NDCS have child and parent networks; RNID, we run our own services. So, there are existing channels. There are also deaf clubs that exist across Wales. Sadly, we've seen a huge decline in numbers of those deaf clubs. So, I think that could be an area that we look at as well for how we better resource those community events and groups that provide so much support. I also think I forgot to mention Wales Council for Deaf People, who run a lot of services. So, I think we can look at what we already have and look at how we can build that. I don't want to repeat too much of what I said earlier, but also reconsidering different channels, so Facebook and WhatsApp, where the community already are. We talk a lot in the disability sector about there's no such thing as hard to reach; you just need to go where communities are and be prepared to do things differently. So, I think that's exactly what we want to see within the Bill, and we would want to set out some very clear communication channels for how we update the deaf BSL community on progress and implementation and how they can share their views on that as well.

Not really much to add. Obviously, engagement with the deaf community, if it's not coming from a deaf person, will put a lot of strain on what is already a small number of interpreters and translators that we have in Wales. But Polly is right; there are ways and means of communicating ideas and reports to the deaf community utilising that sort of social media, because it's very, very easy to put that visual report up on social media. There are lots and lots of people who currently do that in Wales who would be able to work with the adviser and the stakeholder adviser board on best practice on that.

I think we'd like to see more detailed information on where that should come throughout the Bill's provisions. So, as I said earlier, for us, guidance is absolutely crucial; that needs to be developed in conjunction with the deaf community. I think when we've been discussing this, we've considered the different tiers of engagement, essentially, because we do want to be realistic about the capacity of the deaf BSL community as well. So, for guidance to be developed in collaboration with the deaf community, that to then be used as the basis for public bodies to create their plans, and then for there to be detailed local engagement, and I think—. I know in the last session with Mark Isherwood there was discussion about localised working, so health boards working with local authorities, working with other public bodies. I think that's a really sensible approach, so BSL users aren't constantly being asked the same questions by different public bodies. So, how can we take those learnings and roll them out? But if it's okay, I will reflect on that and come back with any additions, because I'd love to share some more specific examples.

It's a question for us, perhaps.

I can't think of anything negative at the moment. I can only think of positive consequences.

It's fine. And Sarah, maybe there are none for you either. It's not a trick question, it's just—.

For me, the worry was unemployment on my behalf, maybe. [Laughter.]

All right.

Very good. Altaf Hussain, would you like to come back?

Thank you very much, Chair. Now, the question area is barriers to implementation. Stakeholders have suggested that the lack of qualified BSL interpreters and translators could be a barrier to the successful implementation of the Bill. How significant is this challenge and what steps could be taken to address it?

Sarah, do you want to start?

I will do, indeed. You're right, there is a lack of qualified interpreters and translators in Wales, a lack of a pathway to train in Wales. What happens is people want to become interpreters, so they go, they train out of Wales, and because they've trained out of Wales, they stay out of Wales. So, that is an issue.

The Welsh Government have, in the past, invested money. They trained some 30 interpreters. That was some time ago now, and a lot of those interpreters are coming to the end of their working life. So, there needs to be investment in pathways for people in Wales who are interested to become qualified interpreters and translators.

Other issues that may come into this could be the differences between public bodies that are working in very rural areas and smaller services, if you like, where the deaf community is very, very spread out geographically, compared with those organisations that may have bigger budgets, may be embedded in places where there is a much bigger deaf community. So, there would be issues there, I think, on how they could have 'the same service'. So, there may be issues there.

Also, that investment in finances. What we don't want here is we don't want people to see that the investment in BSL with this Bill is effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul. We don't want this to be seen as the reason why somebody else is not getting something.

Also, the final barrier will be those expectations of the deaf community. At the moment, everything the deaf community talks about is focused on the BSL Bill. And so their expectations need to be—'managed' is not quite the right word, but you need to understand what their expectations are going to be, so that they then don't become despondent with the Bill. Thank you.

Polly.

Sarah's really covered a whole wealth of ground there, but I want to add to that that transparency is absolutely crucial. I think sometimes the despondency amongst deaf BSL user communities is symbolic of the poor access to information, that they often don't receive the right information about changes that have been made or progress that's been made, and they just have their own experiences of barriers. So, it can create this cycle of frustration, and we want that to end with the Bill. So, I think transparency is incredibly crucial.

Sarah mentioned the BSL Futures scheme. I think it was £1.6 million invested by Welsh Government, alongside European social funding, to improve the BSL interpreter workforce in Wales. We do want to see a workforce strategy. I think it would be impossible to implement this Bill without that. The interpreters that we do have in Wales do an absolutely incredible job and we need to build that capacity.

I also think that there's a role for properly engaging with the public bodies whose duty it is to meet the provisions within the Bill as well. We need to understand their challenges. We don't want this to be something that public bodies are just told they have to do and they don't understand the importance of it. We need to have that open conversation, and we need to ensure that there is resource and training for public bodies to implement plans effectively. I think Sarah really covered all the key areas there.

Thank you very much. Before coming to my last question, Sarah, you mentioned about rural areas where there won't be facilities for deaf people. Do you think that we should be migrating them towards the urban areas where you have more facilities for them? I didn't understand that.

That's okay. I live and work in north Wales where, I'm sure you're aware, there are towns with one bus service that comes once a day. There are services where a library visits once a month. There are services where people just physically can't access them. Now, that's just the general population. If you now think that there may be one deaf person in one village that lives two miles away from a bus stop, you can see why ensuring that their service is equitable to someone who lives in Cardiff, where there's a very big deaf community and lots of big organisations with big budgets, you can see how that could be problematic. That doesn't mean that we should be moving people, but that does mean that there does need to be some flexibility in any framework and any guidance to ensure that there will be some things that work well in a city and some things that will work very poorly in a rural setting of north Wales, but that doesn't mean that being rural is an excuse not to do something.

I agree 100 per cent with you. My last question is: is there anything else that you would like to see amended or included in the Bill? Both of you.

I don't personally, other than maybe looking at those public bodies that I mentioned earlier on—about adding them to the Bill. Thank you.

I think, for me, and for us at RNID, it's what we've already discussed. It's about this being a responsive process. It's about the process of implementation. It's about taking a test-and-learn approach, so if there are challenges throughout implementation, if there are specific areas that are posing a more difficult challenge to implement the duties within the Bill properly, it's about taking a step back, understanding what is needed to address those challenges, adapting our plans accordingly, and allocating resources and time to address that, and then ensuring, when we do tackle those difficult problems, that it is rolled out across other public bodies, across different processes, so that we aren't seeing good practice in one area and that learning not being extended across other areas and other bodies.

Thanks, Chair.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much indeed for your evidence. We will be sending you a transcript of your contributions, and you obviously should amend them if we've misheard you. Otherwise we really have learnt a lot today. Thank you very much for keeping your comments brief as well. That's extremely helpful. I think we covered what we needed to cover.

We're now going to take a break until our next public session, which starts at 13:25. So, if Members could be back by 13:20, just to ensure that we can iron out any technical problems that we need to sort out before we actually start the session again. Thank you very much indeed.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Welcome back to the Equality and Social Justice Committee. We continue our scrutiny of the British Sign Language (Wales) Bill, and in our third evidence session, and the second today, we have Tom Lichy and Martin Griffiths from the British Deaf Association, and Cath Booth from the Wales Council for Deaf People and Charles Hampton, also from the Wales Council for Deaf People. So, I welcome you all, and I'm going to start the questions. You don't have to all answer every question. If somebody else has already said an important point you agree with, you can just say, ‘I agree, but I wish to add something else.’ Could you briefly tell us what involvement you and your organisation have had in the development of this Bill? Can I start with the British Deaf Association? Tom Lichy, would you like to start?

Thank you. We're very honoured to be here. This is an amazing step forward for the British Deaf Association and for the deaf community of Wales. It's amazing, thank you very much. Can I just clarify: are you asking me to respond to that particular question right now?

Yes. Yes, please. 

Could you please repeat the question?

I'll repeat the question. What involvement have you and your organisation had in the development of this Bill?

Thank you. In many ways, yes, we've had some involvement. The deaf community in Wales and BDA Wales have been lobbying and highlighting and making the case for the legislation for many years, that we need this legislation in place for Wales and sign language here. But with regard to the actual wording of the Bill, we have not been involved. We've organised for representatives of the deaf community to meet with Members of the Senedd and other representatives to articulate their experiences and show their perspectives and their views as to why they feel legislation is required. Thank you.

Very good. Martin, is there anything you wish to add from the BDA? 

Yes. The deaf community in Wales have been involved in round-table discussions for the audit of Welsh Government for the BSL charter in the past. We've had a number of projects with democratic engagement to go out to speak to deaf people about how political institutions work, and how to engage with them. In those conversations we've gathered some feedback about some of the things that people want solved in their lives, and there's been quite a bit of demand for legislation, because people are telling us that current levers are not working.

But, as Tom said, we're not involved directly in the wording of the Bill, but we've been involved with other stakeholders in advising the Welsh Parliament on how to run consultations, and to make them accessible so that deaf people can contribute. Between us all, we've got quite a lot of people contributing, which is a great advance for people to be able to engage with Welsh Parliament. That was what I wanted to add.

Thank you. Charles and Cath, what involvement has the Wales Council for Deaf People had in the formation of this Bill?

Again, thank you for inviting us today to be part of the panel. We've been members of quite a number of groups that have been working across Wales for quite a long time—the all-Wales deaf mental health and well-being group, the deaf health Wales project, and the BSL stakeholder group. But, more recently, what we've done is work with our members and community members—deaf and deafblind groups, the deaf community and hard-of-hearing groups too—to work with the Welsh Parliament to set up focus groups to look at the Bill, to talk to them, help raise awareness of the Bill, actually. Some people weren't even aware of it. So, from raising awareness right through to seeking that really helpful feedback, life experience journeys that people want to see going forward as part of this Bill, as part of that feedback and consultation. I think we've got more groups coming up. We've done online, face to face at deaf clubs, and we've worked really closely with the BDA to make sure there's no duplication. So, we're all trying to reach as many people as possible to make sure that everyone is able to contribute where they can.

Thank you. Charles, is there something you'd like to add to what Cath has said?

No, I think Cath has covered everything there. Our main focus has been the deaf community and doing that in a careful, considerate way to make sure that deaf people have representation, to make sure that deaf people are aware of their rights and the information out there available to them. We're very grateful for the input of the British Deaf Association and being able to share our skills and knowledge going forward to help avoid barriers in the future. And it's been very good with the BSL stakeholder group, and I thank you for that.

What is your overall view, Charles, of the Bill and its provisions?

I think the Bill is a fantastic first step forward. It's very much the first step. I think that we've had representation from all parts of the deaf community, not just myself, but many others too. I think there's a realisation that there are many difficulties here in Wales. It's been a big learning step and a journey for us all in the creation of this Bill, but I do think the Bill provides more power, more strength and more clarity over the rights and wrongs, going forward. I think advancing that to a legal status for us as the deaf community, and for yourselves, we have then that shared information and responsibility and the status of British Sign Language going forward. I think that will impact deaf people in all walks of life, especially for those that are part of the Welsh signing community. It enables them to be aware of their rights and to have a right to eliminate barriers that they're currently facing, and know that they can have provisions in their own language, going forward. It's a fantastic start, and I feel that will grow and it will be a bonus for those in future generations. It's lovely to think that we'll secure those positive aspects for future generations going forward and that deaf children will then stay in Wales. That would help secure that.

Very good. Tom Lichy, your view of the Bill as drafted.

I'm over the moon. I think it's a really valuable step forward. The British Deaf Association was established 135 years ago by deaf people, with the aim of campaigning for the recognition of our language, our culture and our heritage, so that future generations can benefit. It was set up by deaf people 135 years ago. There were dark times when deaf people were told they couldn't sign, when deaf children were punished for using sign language. It feels now times are changing, which is amazing. So, thank you to the Welsh Government, to the Senedd, for accepting our language, our heritage as being valued.

And I would just like to add that, up until now, it has been that deaf people are, if you like, a subset of a disabled group, but we actually have a multilevel identity as deaf and disabled. Sometimes we are disabled, we need reasonable adjustments. There's been a long-held view that sign language is only for deaf people who can't learn to speak, a sort of second option, if you like. But there are many deaf people who speak who still prefer sign language. A lot of deaf people grow up with BSL as their mother language, their preferred language. Imagine going to Wales and saying to Welsh people, 'You can use Welsh, but only if you can't learn English in the first place'. It wouldn't happen that way, would it, and we want the same for BSL. That would not be acceptable. And it's the same for sign language. So, I'm really happy that this Bill is focusing on the language and cultural elements rather than the disability elements. So, I would just like to say 'thank you' again for that.

Thank you. Do Charles or Cath wish to add anything about the overall view of the Bill?

If I may just say that we fully support what Tom has said. It is around language and recognition of language. This Bill, hopefully, is a really positive step forward for providing a clear legal framework for those adjustments not to be just adjustments, but legislative requirements for public bodies here in Wales to be able to make those barriers disappear, hopefully, and/or reduce them, at least. I think it's a really positive step forward. We've been working in Wales for 20 years. We have seen things, sadly, and some aspects get worse for some of our members of the deaf signing community. This can only be a positive step forward for us here in Wales as the deaf community.

So, why is legislation needed? Are the Bill's aims achievable in other ways, such as policy change or more funding for advisers? 

I think it's as Tom has said, really. Historically, it's been seen as a disability issue, and as a result of that, it's been a reasonable-adjustment opportunity for people to make those adjustments or even make themselves aware of what adjustments may be required. I think this legislation provides that really clear framework and very clear outcomes for public bodies to be able to understand what is required, on a language perspective, for the deaf signing community, and then look at those outcomes that could be and should be achieved and then hopefully provide the resources and the infrastructure to allow that to happen in a legal framework, rather than in a reasonable-adjustment way, if that makes sense.

Thank you. Should the Bill also make specific provision to support or facilitate other forms of communication used by deaf people, such as sign-supported English or tactile signing?

I think the delivery and implementation of the Bill needs to be led by deaf signers. SSE and Makaton in some ways are based on BSL, but they are more contact coding or forms of communication, they are not in themselves languages. One of the key principles that BDA is happy to see in the Bill is the concept of services being designed, delivered, evaluated by deaf signers themselves, because I think that's a much more cost-effective way of creating the best impact for deaf signers and the deaf community.

In terms of sign-supported English or signed English, quite often they're used for young children to be able to acquire the English language. So, they're used as a tool for them to learn written English and to be able to communicate in written English. However, our language is British Sign Language, not English. Deaf people need to be able to understand the difference between the two. In terms of bilingualism, it's important to acquire both, and that means then that deaf people can cope with the two languages, going forward. What we see quite often is that deaf children grow up and maybe get to 16 or 17, 18 years of age, and they could be fluent in British Sign Language. However, that cannot happen if they are only given sign-supported English. British Sign Language is a visual language, which encompasses hand shapes and movement, and it's really important for deaf people to acquire that language to be able to express themselves effectively. Sign-supported English is more about the structure of the English language, and BSL's structure is very different to the structure of English. So, as I said before, sign-supported English is a tool for deaf children to acquire English skills. However, BSL has its own structure. What's really important is working those two together in the education of children so that they can become bilingual. 

Cath, you wanted to add to that. 

Yes, I agree. I just wanted to add around the deafblind community, who we also have offered support and work alongside on a regular basis. This Bill will be a really positive step forward for those who are deaf signers who have maybe acquired sight loss as part of Usher syndrome and/or use, therefore, hands-on signing and things like that. So, again, it would cover off and assist that group of individuals, too.

Thank you. Martin, I'm going to move on now. Is there anything you wanted to add to what the others have said?

I just wanted to say that I support what the three previous contributors have said. I'm a deafblind person myself. As Cath has alluded to, deaf signers who are also severely visually impaired may argue the case for visual frame signing and for hands-on signing. As Charles has said, BSL is a language, whereas some of the other methods that you described are actually tools for communication. So, I agree with what people are saying, but we may need to make a note to consider the needs of deafblind people whose first language is BSL, and they just need extra support.

Thank you. I'm now going to call Sioned Williams, who's going to be speaking in Welsh.

So, there's one area the Bill does not yet cover, which is education, but the deaf community in Wales have highlighted that as a critical example of a priority. And this starts from birth when you're supporting families to learn to communicate with their families through to primary and secondary education. There's no provision as it stands in the Bill. The Bill includes a list of public bodies, and it would be nice to understand why the particular bodies there were chosen, and what also is the mechanism for adding other bodies to that list—for example, Estyn and Qualifications Wales. 

From a BDA perspective, we would prefer a small number of high-quality plans and reporting requirements rather than too many, because we feel that the implementation of these plans must be led by deaf people and the capacity of the deaf community in Wales is limited due to the barriers they've experienced and that we've already explained, so how do we expect people to jump from that to developing a plan? I would prefer to start with a smaller number of high-quality plans, which means we need to focus on deaf leadership as a model. We can trial it in a few plans, and then grow over time as the learning takes place.

I missed the question, sorry. I was looking down. Can you repeat the question?

Currently, looking into the future, I think there is a lot of room for improvement. But in terms of the deaf community here now and the stakeholders, they have many skills to offer, but, actually, it's a matter of upskilling some of the community to be able to have the skills to be able to make the reports and report on the progress of the BSL Bill. It's needed, and we do have representation in the deaf community, but a lot of it will come down to cost, going forward, and I think a priority is for us to look and to see deaf signers as Members of the Senedd, for the deaf community to see deaf sign language users here representing them.

I want to say 'yes' to your question, but, as Tom mentioned, there's a small number of deaf people that are able to help with the reporting on the BSL Bill, going forward. But if we look at, maybe, in two, three years' time, when we have strengthened our structure, so that we can progress, then I think there could be positives. But it's difficult for me to say for certain now, and, like we have us here today on the panel, strengthening our cause, I think we need more Welsh deaf signers as part of our fight, going forward, and there's some upskilling that would be involved in that.

Diolch. Martin, I think you had your hand up first.

Tom mentioned Estyn and Qualifications Wales. As we probably know, Qualifications Wales suspended development of the Wales BSL GCSE. So, one of our concerns there was the teaching workforce. Obviously, with British Sign Language, the best teachers are qualified deaf teachers, so the workforce needs to be expanded. That needs to be deaf led in consultation with the various education bodies responsible, because the feedback that we are getting—. For example, one of my colleagues has passed the top level of British Sign Language learning, which is level 6, but there are a lot of barriers from that point onwards to getting specific teacher training and things like this, and training in how to work as a freelancer, delivering and adding to the workforce. So, I think I agree with Tom that we do need to consider education. It's a massive task.

We know that BSL provided to children from the ages of nought to five—I'm talking deaf children, obviously—gives them a better chance of entering school on a similar level to their peers who are hearing. Also, as Charles mentioned earlier, really, it gives a platform to be supported to learn other languages like English, Welsh and so on. So, I just wanted to add that point, really, in that one of the issues is that there is a lack of teaching workforce to deliver that. It would stop the situation that I've seen over many, many years of people arriving into various projects with no educational qualifications or lower qualifications than their peers, because, as Charles alluded to, the skills are there, but the language barriers are stopping people progressing to teach their beautiful language.

I love the concept of the principles of the Bill. If we look at other countries who have introduced their own sign language legislation, what often happens is the legislation is passed, then civil servants are brought in—hearing people who do not sign—to start the creation of these plans. So, they arrive on the job, they can't sign, they don't know deaf people, they don't understand the deaf community, they don't know about the service provision for deaf BSL signers. So, it becomes a slow process where you're paying staff just to learn the basics, effectively, which I don't think is a good use of Government money. Here in Wales, you have the opportunity to do things right from the start. So, if you bring in deaf signing professionals to design and deliver the solutions they will hit the ground running on the first day of the job. They know sign language, they know about deaf issues, they know the deaf community. All these things others have to learn. So, it's a fantastic opportunity. I would ask the committee to please push Government to make it clear about how the operational or strategic plans will be delivered, and who will be leading on those, hopefully ensuring it is deaf signers doing that. The national plans really need to have two parts to them: an action plan and an operational plan. I will handover to my colleague Martin now. 

In your question, you referenced British Sign Language interpreters. So, we currently have 54 people in Wales, as we understand it, who are qualified, registered British Sign Language interpreters. So, we are chronically short in this department. Probably over 20 years ago now, there was a scheme called BSL Futures, in which a group of people were fast-tracked to become BSL interpreters, and many of the current interpreters came from that group. So, I think what's happened is that we haven't exponentially increased the capacity of British Sign Language interpreting. So, there is currently no clear pathway in Wales to become an interpreter. Very often, people will go to level 3 and then look for the next step, which is a level 4. Maybe in their area, there's no level 4 course. So, very often, people stop, even though they are aspiring to become either an interpreter or a translator. So, I know this is something that Cath and I have talked about quite a lot, about creating better pathways to become interpreters. Both of us have met with Careers Wales and Working Wales, because we want to frame interpreting as an occupation that will allow people to become freelance, to work when they want to work. So, for example, if you like interpreting concerts with Tom Jones, you can do that, but if you like supporting people in hospital environments, in education—. I think it's really important that we consider how we increase our interpreting capacity in Wales, because it's chronically short. And I know colleagues from the Welsh Parliament, the Welsh Government, have said to us that they've struggled to book interpreters for some of the focus groups that we are running. They've found it really difficult, and I think they've realised, yes, we are definitely short. So, I just wanted to add that point. 

Okay. We need to take a short break, because the interpreters who are on the screen need to swap over, so that they can continue to do a good job. We'll go into private session for two or three minutes, and then we'll come back straight away.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything that's been said, but I guess, for me, it's about the adviser's role and the fact that having a deaf BSL signer—

Okay. We are going to come on to the role of the adviser in a short moment, so if you'd like to hold your comments on that, we can just continue this section of the Bill. We are looking at the Bill, not the policy issues.

We will come on to that. 

So, just going back to sign language in schools, I've been working with the deaf community for over 35 years, and, as part of that, I went out to visit schools where they use the Welsh language, and the children were very, very keen to learn sign language. I taught them some sign language and they were fantastic at taking those signs on. Some of them would hope then in the future to become British Sign Language interpreters, and I said to them, 'You can do that. You can work between Welsh and British Sign Language.' They were very enthusiastic. They thought that was brilliant. These were 11 to 16-year-old children I was working with, and they want to learn sign language. They were very keen. They want to be able to communicate with their deaf peers, who they currently can't communicate with effectively. They then looked to set up a sign language group in the school, and I really encouraged them to do so. I went back and checked on those groups regularly. What they needed was almost somebody to—. I was Ofqual, really, going in there, congratulating them and making them feel that they would they were doing a great job at learning the language.

But I think what's really important here, as part of this, is that we have ongoing assessment. I'm qualified to do so, and to go in and assess sign language, but, for many schools, they can't make that provision. It might be that they have a group of children who are very keen to learn and take British Sign Language to the next level, but that's when qualified deaf linguists need to be able to go in there and to be questioned by those children who are very keen to learn. And when they ask those questions, I can be there ready to answer them, but, for many children, they don't—. And children are very inquisitive. They want to ask 'why', but they haven't necessarily got access to the right people for those answers. But this is the first step in that progress.

I had an Ofqual meeting recently where we established sign language checks in school, when looking at the BSL GCSE. And that hasn't happened yet. There's lots of talk around it, and it's happening more in theory than in practice, but what needs to happen is that those children have the opportunity to progress and for that to be recognised.

So, as I mentioned before, there is lots of interest, and children are very curious, but what we want to be able to do is ensure the introduction of the language and the continuation of that learning, so that they continue to be keen into their adult years, and that they use the language, become fluent and develop those skills. I think that is really important. Lots of those children understand already that British Sign Language is a language, but it's making sure that the language and the learning of it continues into their later years, so they can go on to work in that profession. So, like I said, the excitement's there, and the curiosity, but how do we nurture that and continue it going forward.

We need funding for more qualified interpreters, and we need that because just learning from level 1, level 2 and level 3, that can be quite affordable, but when you go on to level 4 and level 6, and that's your interpreter training, it is very expensive. And I think for those, quite often, maybe some people that come to learning the language may not necessarily have the work or the income to be able to afford that training. So, I set up a sign language centre in Newport, and that enables people to come and become trainee interpreters as part of our interpreter trainee programme. They come into that environment and do some intensive learning. Before they are qualified interpreters, they interpret sessions where it can be phone calls or brief discussions in sign language. They also have the opportunity to learn theatre interpreting skills or skills that are required to work in a court setting. It might be that they look at also medical interpreting skills as part of that training.

But the main gap at the moment is funding to be able to continue with that sort of training. If there was funding, then that training can be specifically focused, as I mentioned before, on those different scenarios that come up when interpreting. But, as mentioned, the training is rather costly.

I want to intervene here, because we need to focus on the Bill, and the question from Sioned is: should there be a target for BSL interpreters in the Bill? ‘Yes’ or ‘no’ is fine.

For me, I’d say ‘no’, because I don't want us to be trapped. Interpreters are an important topic, but there are other priorities for the deaf community that require change through time. We want to empower the Welsh deaf community to lead on this and highlight the priorities and what those priorities should be.

Charles, do you agree or disagree? 

I partly agree. At present, we definitely need some targets. We want to have those interpreters trained up and qualified, but the funding isn't there. As Tom said, that could change in the long term, but it would be important to have a target so that we don't lose what we already have, and that we gain, and that that increases over time. Quite often, we do have a situation where people don't necessarily stay in Wales, because the work isn't here for them. I think it's a matter of: if we do acquire funding, we are very focused on how we use that effectively. There are many priorities, as mentioned. I think if it becomes a legal matter that we need to have a set number of interpreters or teachers in British Sign Language, that helps with job security going forward. But it's a matter of finding that skill base.

Martin.

I agree with Tom that we do need deaf people to lead what their priorities are. I just wanted to say that the BSL stakeholder group, that initiative set up by the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Trefnydd and Chief Whip, has shown that when deaf people work together, we actually produced a lot of work in the space of just six to seven months. We had deaf co-chairs and deaf stakeholders as the majority of them. So, I think it is really important that whilst we perhaps do not want to hamstring ourselves with specific targets at this stage, we do need—. As Charles alluded to, we wouldn't want to be reviewing this in six years' time and finding that no progress has been made. But, as I say, I think any panel or national adviser would need to facilitate the discussions on targets. So, right now, probably no, but just that we do need to see improvements.

Diolch, Gadeirydd.

Okay, are you happy—? You also mentioned the timescales.

Oh yes, the reporting— 

The timescales—

Yes, the timescales—

Yes, absolutely. I was going to comment on the other bit, but I am happy to come back to you on that too.

Go ahead, yes. 

In reference to what my colleagues have said about the interpreter targets, I think coming back to education, it's very important that we try to see those improvements for our deaf children in mainstream schools here in Wales, because there are no deaf schools here. So, what we see at the moment is deaf children going to England to be educated in BSL, or we are having our deaf children attend mainstream schools and we get story after story of there being no communication support workers, or if there are, there is no governance for those communication support workers. Actually, that's the child's main and only way of communicating and learning in schools here in Wales.

For me, those targets around interpreters would be focused at that level for those children in mainstream schools here in Wales, to allow more interpreting to occur in schools for those children. Increasing the language level to where it should be would be why I would want targets in the Bill.

And on the timetable. 

Yes. I think six yearly with progress reviews every three years is a reasonable suggestion and proposal. I think the public body action plans, the national plans that the public bodies that have been named will be working to and liaising with the adviser and the advisory panel on, will hopefully make sure that that progress is being monitored within that three-year period, and not waiting for three years to occur before then we realise that perhaps we've gone a bit off track, or we haven't hit some of those really key targets.

I agree. It's important that the plans have clear, measurable actions and timelines, though.

Yes, I was just going to say the same thing. Yes, I agree with Cath.

Diolch. 

We're going to move on now and bring in Altaf Hussain, who is going to briefly discuss the listed public bodies that we have on the face of the Bill.

Thank you very much, Chair. Now, talking about the listed public bodies, the Bill gives special duties to local authorities, health boards and certain NHS trusts and special health authorities. How will placing duties on these public bodies help to address the main barriers faced by deaf people?

Martin. 

So, we've got the accessible standards—that's the NHS Wales accessible standards for communication and information—for people with sensory loss in Wales. So, they've been in place for 12, going on 13, years, now. Whilst I think pockets of progress have been made as a result of those standards, one of the issues is that deaf organisations, advocates, in Wales, are still getting regular stories of complexities. So, for example, I've been supporting a deaf mother whose child is extremely ill and has been in hospital for a long period of time. There have been lots of issues about the provision of interpreters, provision of remote interpreters via an iPad device. So, these issues are regularly reported as failures that are still going on 12 years after the standards were put in place.

So, I think one of the issues is that the standards have been best practice rather than mandated. So, we know that the current levers are not working. We're also aware, and we have been working, with the refreshing of those standards, due to concerns raised by RNID and RNIB and BDA, over the lack of monitoring. So, there's a lot happening, like the NHS app, and lots of GP practices in Wales becoming more app based. And yet, despite all the consultations that have gone on in the past, these new apps, like the NHS Wales app, are just not accessible to BSL signers. So, this is why we're hoping that the BSL (Wales) Bill legislation will mandate plans to improve this situation. Because we are seeing our health boards failing time and time again, going back to the same sort of concerns, people raising the same issues. So, I just wanted to say that, because the question was specifically about the NHS.

Please try and keep to the Bill, rather than the issues that I know are alive in your daily lives, okay—the Bill and the framework.

I just wanted to say the comparison in England—actually, the accessible information standards have statutory obligations within them. I've worked in England and in Wales for 35 years delivering services, and I've seen the difference that regulatory, legislative process can make in England around those accessible information standards, in comparison to what we, sadly, haven't seen happen here in Wales, and I think this Bill will help resolve some of that challenge.

Thank you very much. Do you think the Bill should place duties on any other devolved Welsh bodies?

If I may, just to lead on—

You talk about regulatory bodies, which are not here, and, you know, there should be something.

If I may, just to lead on, so I've delivered care and support services for 35 years within the deaf community, to support and work alongside deaf adults with additional and complex needs, and Care Inspectorate Wales, I think, would be a really critical part of that process for us here. I would like to see Care Inspectorate Wales added to that public body list. I think it will make a big difference to the care and support services here. There is one supported living service that is accessible to the deaf community in Wales—one in the whole of Wales. There were two, but, sadly, the second one has now closed, and the domiciliary care services are really struggling. So, again, having Care Inspectorate Wales, having that accountability and responsibility to help move this forward, will be really, really important.

Charles, briefly.

I agree with what Cath has said there. I can't complain about the NHS service and day services. The issue we have is access during the night time, the barriers that deaf people face in the night, because everything closes, and there is no help, and they're crying out for that help.

Okay. I'm going to cut you off.

Oh, okay.

Tom—on the Bill, not the policy issues. 

Okay. On the Bill. So, the Bill requests that public bodies establish plans, and it's really important that those national plans include the vision and the 'how' as to how they will be achieved. So, the vision is the strategy, but we also need the operational elements to explain how these things will be done, how they'll be achieved. There's a history of giving people jobs, people who aren't from the community, like I said before. We need to be paying staff who are deaf signers with lived experience, train them, coach them, improve their skills, develop them, so they can take on the delivery of this vision, and I think that's really important. I would request the committee to press the Government to think about the 'how' and the action plan, as well as the high-level strategic overview.

Thank you. Back to you, Altaf.

Thank you. My last question is: Scotland has had a BSL Act since 2015. However, concerns have been raised about public services there not meeting their statutory duties or not setting specific goals as part of their BSL plans. Does the Bill provide enough opportunities to monitor the performance of listed public bodies and to prevent non-compliance? Yes, Tom.

The previous drafting of the Bill talked about a commissioner, which has now been changed in favour of establishing a BSL adviser role, supported by a BSL panel. Now, that role is really important, and I would ask the committee to push Government to try and strengthen the role of that BSL adviser. It's also important that the panel themselves are deaf signers with lived experience and professional skills. The BSL adviser needs to be able to speak to those in power. It's important that they can highlight important and critical issues and that that will be taken note of. That is really important. Thank you.

Okay, Altaf?

Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you. I think that that's enough. 

Okay. We'll take a short break before moving on to Sioned Williams's further section. 

Sioned Williams.

Of course, we want the adviser role to be as powerful as possible, but we are aware that the Bill has to pass through the Senedd, so I think it's a question of negotiation with the Senedd as to what is acceptable. We would appreciate some guidance from the committee on—. So, the area I would appreciate guidance from the committee on is how to appropriately support the role of the adviser, how to make sure they have the resources they need and how to give the moral support so that they can speak truth to power, as I mentioned earlier. I think it's important that those on the panel are all fluent signers as well, because that would really help with the effective operation of the panel in between meetings so that they can deliver the work without having to bring in interpreters every time they simply need a discussion.

Yes, we need to put that in the Bill; absolutely, 100 per cent, yes, please.  

Of course. It's a sign language-based Bill, not a disability-based Bill. A lot of deaf people do not sign, and that's fine, that's their choice. But we are focusing on BSL the language, so it's important that the adviser and the panel members are fluent signers.

I would like to give you an example. Thanks to Martin and to Charles for commenting on the Welsh civil service BSL stakeholder group. I am the co-chair there, with a deaf civil servant. We share the same language. We've got different professional roles, different responsibilities, but we are able to communicate speedily, clearly. We understand each other's issues, we both have experience of what doesn't work, we have experience of what's been tried before, and because of all this, we've been able to get through the work very productively and efficiently.

I'm also the secretary of the BSL Alliance, which is a pan-UK consortium of 66 deaf organisations, signing-led organisations, from across the UK. Our meetings do not have interpreters; all representatives sign. They are a mix of deaf and hearing people, but they all communicate fluently in BSL, and the work is very effective. I'm also the chair of a body called the BSL research forum. That's a group of 11 universities who do research into sign language. Again, we have a mixture of deaf and hearing members, but everybody signs fluently, and, once again, we don't need interpreters to aid us delivering in our work.

They need to be fluent, and fluent means they can attend a professional high-level meeting and conduct that in BSL. Many deaf people aren't actually given the opportunity to learn BSL at home or school. A lot of deaf people learn BSL later in life, so I don't want to block or exclude them from being involved. We want to be as inclusive as possible.

I would love the adviser to have the power to investigate complaints. I'm aware there's been an issue with the Welsh language Act, and we should learn from that experience, and focus on what is achievable, what is practical and productive.

Thank you very much. We're going to now move on to Jane Dodds.

I feel like I might sound a bit like a broken record, I'm sorry, but I think it's important that the adviser and the panel are deaf signers. They know the community, they know the services, they know the solutions, and they know what's been tried in the past as well, what's worked from that and what's failed. It makes it easier then for them to gain examples of what has worked from across the UK.

I'll give you a quick example, if I may. It's on the topic of interpreters. We think that all interpreters are hearing, but we actually do have a number of deaf interpreters and translators, and that number is actually growing. They work from autocues, captions and scripts. And there's been research to show that deaf interpreters produce more clearly for the deaf audience to pick up, as opposed to watching hearing interpreters. So, that is one example of deaf people creating the solutions to an issue, and I think that's what we need to be aiming for.

I just wanted to add that I think it's important that the composition of the panel contains people who have regular contact with what we call grass-roots ordinary deaf people. For example, the British Deaf Association has two community engagement officers who regularly visit deaf clubs, and I know the Wales Council for Deaf People also regularly visit deaf clubs—so two organisations who work quite closely together. But we've also got that continuous contact with deaf clubs. So, I think it's important that the composition of the panel stipulates people who are in constant engagement with the Welsh deaf community across the whole of Wales, and not just parts of Wales.

I agree with everything that Tom has said. I think that the vision is for us to have deaf signers on the panel, but also as the adviser, but that they have regular access to grass-roots deaf communities. I think what's really important is that they have that understanding of the grass-roots deaf community, and they can then collate that information and those views and feed that back. I think what we want is people that live in both worlds, so that we have that bridge between those communities. It needs to be people who are open minded and are approachable, so that people feel that they can share their experiences and opinions from the community to that panel and adviser. Do you agree with that, Cath?

I do agree. I think they should be accountable to the deaf community for the work that is being undertaken as part of the Bill. Absolutely.

Let me just turn to the right page of my notes.

At the moment, we don't see any unintended consequences, but there is a risk there. An example of a risk would be that the Government funds a project for deaf people, but doesn't actually then meet the priorities of the deaf community. And that's again why it's important that the panel has connections with the grass roots, and the adviser as well.

The other risk is that the Government will pay people who do not sign to do things for deaf people. We really want to ensure the funding is spent on deaf staff so that they can get on and do the job.

Altaf, your final question.

Thank you, Chair. This is the last area of questions: barriers to implementation. Apart from a shortage in BSL translators and interpreters, what factors might prevent the Bill from achieving its aims and how could these challenges be addressed? Tom.

Could you please repeat the question?

Apart from a shortage, as we know we have, of BSL translators and interpreters, what factors might prevent the Bill from achieving its aims and how could these challenges be addressed? Martin.

I was just going to say that it's important that we appoint the right national adviser, the right panel, and, as Cath said, being accountable to the deaf community. We are aware of the shortages in interpreters and translators and so on. I think it's really important we get the right—. For example, I won't name the organisation, but it is one organisation that works with local government that doesn't seem to buy into the Bill, so I think it's important that the ministerial departments and people working directly with Government buy into the Bill, because if they don't buy into it, that might be a challenge. This is why we need a strong and leading national adviser with links to the deaf community, who might have sufficient power to call out anybody who's not producing the right kind of plans and so on. So, I think that's the answer to your question from me, and I think Tom might have something to say, and probably Cath.

Thank you, Martin. On barriers to success of the legislation, the deaf community in Wales are very experienced in the barriers. They have the knowledge, skills and experience to deliver, as I've said a lot today. So we need to bring in deaf people to lead on this work. It's not going to be easy, I know that. I've seen public bodies and charities advertising roles open to deaf people, and they always say that nobody with the right skill set has applied. But my response is, 'Well, hang on, you can't just expect people to exist there. You have to support them, grow a pool of capability within the deaf community.' It's important that the operational plan includes elements for training, mentoring, shadowing and skills development. Now, this won't happen overnight—it's not a quick success. It needs careful consideration and planning in order to work well. 

If I may just add, I guess what my mind goes to is money and funding. Actually, I think that's a really important part of this puzzle. Having listened to the Finance Committee meeting on Friday, from my sunbed in Lanzarote, I heard Jane Hutt talk about the regulatory impact assessment work that has been done, and the fact that money has been set aside for the first budget year of 2026-27 for the advisory role and the panel, and the costs that would be associated with this Bill. I also heard Mike Hedges talk about the fact that once that money is in a budget—. It’s very hard to get it in a budget, but once it's in a budget, then there are, perhaps, ways and means of reviewing that, and the benefit and the costs, and how viable that is, going forward, in the same way, perhaps, as you have to do with every other element of that budget, including the Welsh language budget. So, I think it’s really important that that money has been set aside. I think that’s a really positive step. I think making sure that those conversations, then, are ongoing every year after that around what can be afforded and how this is then moved forward, and what those costs and benefits are in that impact assessment, will be really, really important.

Thank you very much. My last question is: is there anything else that you would like to see amended or included in the Bill? No? No, Chair. Thank you very much. There’s nothing.

Okay.

Charles, yes.

I just want to make the point again that the implementation of the plan has to be led by deaf signers.

I think we've got that.

I don’t think that’s strong enough in the body of the Bill, as it stands, and, for me, that’s the key amendment that I would like to see being made.

Thank you very much. Thanks, Chair.

Very good. Jane.

Each public body will be creating their own BSL plans, and, if I understand correctly, they will be merged into a national BSL plan. So, my point is that the national plan should include a strategy and operational detail.

Diolch.

Did you want any more from me on that?

Thank you. We will send you a transcript of this scrutiny session. If there’s anything that we’ve misinterpreted, please let us know and you can amend your contribution. Otherwise, we want to thank you, as witnesses, as well as the people who have supported you, as interpreters of what we are saying, as well as what you are saying, to help us have this really historic session, actually. So, we thank you all, including the people behind the scenes who are not in the room.

Thank you very much.

Okay, we’ll now take a break, and we may or may not be able to restart at 15:15, depending on whether the next two witnesses are content to resume at 15:15.

Welcome back to the Equality and Social Justice Committee. We're now holding our third scrutiny session this afternoon on the British Sign Language (BSL) (Wales) Bill. I'd very much like to welcome Jemina Napier from Herriot-Watt University, who's joining us online, and Dr Biao Zeng of the University of South Wales. I'm going to start off with the questions. I wonder, briefly, if I could start with you, Jemina Napier, if you could tell us what involvement you or your institution has had in the development of this Bill.

Yes, I think my audio is on. Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence today, and thank you for that question. My institution hasn't had any direct involvement with the Bill in Wales, but we have had quite a lot of involvement with the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015. We felt this was an opportunity, obviously, to provide input into the Welsh Bill, because of the similarities and the experience and expertise that we've got in the area.

Okay. Zeng, have you been consulted at all on the development of this?

Yes. Thank you very much, Jen, for the invitation, and everyone. My name is Zeng. I'm a lecturer in psychology from the University of South Wales. I was involved with this Bill from earlier this year. I engaged with the cross-party group on deaf issues. I attended the group's meetings several times,  and also I had a meeting with Tom Lichy and Mark Isherwood, with his research management. So, we've had lots of discussions about that. My background is in, originally, psycholinguistics, so I'm doing speech perception, and I'm also doing research about BSL. We want to know, in BSL, where you use hand and lip movement, which one is more important. This is a basic question that I do, and I introduce my research with that.

Another thing is that we know, after lockdown, lots of the communication became hybrid. BSL has moved to online as well. So, we do some research about that—how to enhance the different information or cues to help deaf people and make their lives easier. So, this is my contribution to this Bill and my background. Thank you.

Okay. So, you were basically doing research on behalf of the cross-party group and on Mark Isherwood, who's the Member in charge of this Bill.

I think Mark initiated this group. So, we have some communication, but I don't personally work for him.

No, I understand that. Thank you very much indeed. We'll come back a little bit later to all that. In your experience, why is legislation needed to promote and facilitate the use of BSL? Or could the Bill's aims be achieved in other ways, such as policy change or more funding?

Should I answer that? Okay. I think basically I'd say I think we're doing something good. So, that's what we should do. If you look back at the history, I think Scotland passed the Bill in 2015, and in the whole UK, it was passed in 2022. So, principally, I think we need to have BSL awareness and give the deaf community more support. That's very important.

Another thing is, if you ask me if there's any alternative way to do that, probably my answer is 'no'. We can take this approach, but we can do it better. Before this Bill came out—we discussed that—a lot of the support to deaf people, the deaf community, I think, are like piecemeal. We should put all the sources together and give them systematic support, and engage more, like with a research institution like USW, because now, today's policy making and Bills are becoming more and more evidence based. So, we should take it this way. Also, we need to make the communities contribute more to that. Even in the future, some high-tech technology can contribute to this service and support as well. So, my understanding is that we have the right approach to do that. And I believe—well, maybe I'm optimistic, I think—we should do the right thing in the coming consideration of the voting. Thank you.

Thank you. That is our objective—to get it done this side of next year's elections. Professor Napier, the same question to you, really: is legislation needed, or are there other mechanisms? 

Thank you. I would agree with the previous speaker that I do think it's critical that we have legislation. So, my background, just to give you some context, is I do research primarily on access to public services. So, my research focus is on sign language interpreting and sign language communication. I've done a lot of work around translating research into policy. And what we've seen, historically, is that policies only go so far. And what we have seen critically is a difference here in Scotland, and I think also, with the UK Act more recently, since 2022, that having legislation actually gives more visibility and more teeth to the policies that might exist, because it's actually a recognition of British Sign Language as an indigenous language. And, obviously, a Welsh piece of legislation would recognise the specifics of the use of BSL in Wales in the same way we have in Scotland, which I think then gives the Government more—. I'm trying to think what the word is; I've just lost my word—

Obligations. Duties.

Yes, obligations, and more accountability—I think that's the word I was looking for. Policies often are good philosophically and aspirationally, but I think, when you have legislation, then that actually does mean there's much more accountability for Government, for public services and so on, to ensure that not only can BSL be used as a point of access, so that people can access public services and other institutions, but it also provides the opportunity to promote BSL as a language of the nation and promote BSL as a language of a minority group, and so, obviously, in Wales you’re talking about a minority within a minority, in some respects. And it also gives the opportunity not only to talk about access, for example, through interpreters, but also to promote the opportunities for deaf people themselves to become qualified to deliver services in BSL directly to the deaf community, and I think that's sometimes overlooked when we only think about improving access by providing through either interpreters or technology, but also more deaf people becoming qualified to use their language in service provision as well directly.

Thank you. Can I now call Sioned Williams?

Is it my turn again?

Please.

Yes, okay. I think if you talk about barriers, yes, this is why I say we can do better when we have found more evidence. So, the first thing that is a big challenge I can see, for example, now today is that lots of the communication we rely on is online. So, online communication has new issues, and we need to find sound evidence on how deaf people communicate online. It's very different in person, because with in-person communication we can talk to multiple people, but online we have to wait for this guy to finish and then move to the next one. So, this pattern of behaviour is totally different. We want to know more evidence.

Now I want to come back to—. Well, we talk about a lot of policies, and that's very good, but we should also think about how these policies can serve the individuals. So, we need to know how the individual processes BSL, how they can put—. Which part is more important for them, for deaf people—the mouth or hand? The BSL user is not born to be deaf. They can link your lip movement to a sound. Maybe they use BSL in another way. So, these are the things we need to know.

And other barriers—I think there are a lot. From my research examples I tried to write an introduction for the paper. I tried to find out how many people are using BSL in Wales. I can't find a number. So, I think there is a lot of work we need to do when you understand the context. We want to find other factors first, and also this will be very helpful for us in the future. How can we spend the money?

I think the barriers now, to be honest—. If you look at the economic climate, it's not a good time to talk about money. But we still need to think about that. It's not only about cost; we also need to think about the output. So, you think about the cost-effective ways to think about that. But to the best of my knowledge, there is no economic evaluation of these policies that is specific to BSL. There's very, very little evidence.

So, these are the barriers we need to overcome and we need to build up the evidence. Maybe I have other points, but I think probably these three challenges are quite enough. I will leave this to the professor. Thank you.

Thank you. So, as I mentioned, actually, most of my research primarily has focused on access to public services. I've done a lot of research around access to healthcare and access to justice, both in terms of accessing police interviews, police contact, courtrooms, whether deaf people can serve as jurors, and at the moment a lot of my research is focusing around deaf women and experiences of domestic abuse and the support that they get through the police, the courts and social services. I think what we can see overarching, in all of these different contexts—. What we're seeing as an overarching theme is a lack of consistency in service provision. So, for example, quite often there's a lack of qualified trained interpreters, and a lot of interpreter training is very generic. On my programme at Heriot-Watt University that I'm involved in, we teach and try and equip our students when they graduate to be able to be a bit of a jack-of-all-trades, so that they have to come out and work across a whole range of areas. But there are certain areas where we know that maybe more specific high levels of advanced training are necessary to specialise, for example, in legal interpreting, court interpreting, police interpreting and healthcare interpreting, because you're often dealing with people that are in vulnerable situations, and perhaps are more disadvantaged than in other contexts. So, what we're seeing is that quite often interpreters don't feel comfortable to work in those contexts, because they don't feel that they have enough training or enough of the specialty knowledge that they need. There's also a lack of interpreters, especially in rural areas—regional and rural areas—which is where some technological advances can assist, but it never really replaces the face-to-face contact. That's because BSL, obviously, is a visual language so when we see BSL on screen—we're seeing a sign language interpreter today—there are certain nuances that actually get missed through this two-dimensional form of screens. So, it's about exploring when it's appropriate to use technologies, for what purpose and how long for.

So, a lot of the issues are around interpreting—provision of interpreters, policies and standards around when interpreters are called, working conditions for interpreters. For example, in a courtroom, you should have at least two interpreters working and they alternate every 15 to 20 minutes, but quite often, depending on where you are in the country, that might not always be the case. One interpreter might be booked because perhaps they can't find a second interpreter, or the people in charge of booking the interpreters don't realise the potential cognitive challenge, or there's a fatigue that interpreters can experience. So, there's a lot of that awareness and consistency around the actual policy and provision of interpreting and access in that respect, but also around the lack of information available—excuse me, I've got a little bit of a frog in my throat today—lack of information available in BSL. When we look at, for example, websites, the NHS has lots of information available that people can access around different forms of health conditions, treatments and processes, and where you go to get information. We're seeing a real inconsistency in how much information is provided in BSL.

There's a charity called SignHealth in England that's trying to rectify some of that, so they produce some videos or translations of existing NHS videos. But what we're finding is, again, there's just a lack of consistency around what information people can access. For example, if you go to the doctor you might have an interpreter in your healthcare appointment. Many of us know that, then, if you get a diagnosis or you get an explanation of your health condition, you might be given a leaflet or pointed to a website, 'Here you go, find more information', but if that's not in BSL, then deaf people will then experience another barrier on top of whether they can even get the appointment with an interpreter in the first place, to then all that extra information that they might not be able to access. So, I'd say that they're probably the two primary issues that we've identified in our research with public service access.

Yes, we do, actually. We've done a lot of work, for example, in Scotland in collaboration with Police Scotland, where we've actually been training police officers and sign language interpreters together, because what we've identified as good practice is actually for the service providers, the professionals, understanding what it is that interpreters need to do their job and vice versa. So, it's for an interpreter, for example, to understand what the protocols are in a police interview and why police officers ask questions in a certain way and follow a certain protocol, because interpreters then need to understand what they need to do in that process of translation.

You're probably familiar—. Obviously, we're experiencing several interpreters working today, so there's always a risk of something being lost in translation. So, if interpreters understand what the goals are for whether it's a healthcare appointment, whether it's a police interview, whether it's a court process, by actually doing training for both elements—and actually, it's about collaborative working—then working together almost like as a team, rather than seeing the interpreters as a sort of add-on that just comes in as a patchwork kind of process—. It's actually recognising them as another professional in the room, and how you can best work together to overcome some of those challenges.

Of course, we're also looking at things like setting up training, making sure training is available, professional development training for various professionals in the public sector, for interpreters, and it's also about education and awareness raising in the deaf community itself. Another example is that with our domestic abuse work, we're finding that deaf people don't necessarily understand what abuse is. Because they've not had that access to information, they might not recognise, 'This thing that's happening to me is abuse', or 'This thing I'm doing to another person is actually some form of abuse.' So, it's actually about also educating the deaf community about what their rights are to access public services—when they can ask for an interpreter, when they can ask for information to be translated—so that they actually have equivalent information and access.

Thank you, Sioned. That's a very good question indeed. I have some contact with high-tech companies. So, I think, technically speaking, if we convert some body language gestures to text, it is not rocket science now—we can do that. What is very interesting is that to decide whether we take that approach—there are a lot of factors behind that. The first one might be some of your attitude or your culture to the technology. So, for example, I noticed some of the differences maybe between the UK and the USA's deaf people's attitude to technology. In the US, I think they're quite open to this technology. Because we have some of the goggles—they can very quickly convert their body language to text, and they're very happy to take that. I heard that from one company. But they said, when they wanted to introduce this tool in the UK, the deaf community was quite resistant. Because they tried—. Probably, in the UK, I think we emphasise the value, the identity of BSL, because it gives an identity and it defines that they belong to the deaf community. So, that will make the different pathways, whether you're taking this technology or not—. So, any companies, if they want to develop the research and development, or marketing strategies, have to think about that.

And there are other things that are related. So, for example, if we take the magic goggles to communicate, that's much easier and fast. But that means that, probably, someday, BSL, or the BSL communities, will be declining and will disappear. It's like some dialect. So, if you think about BSL, let's say in a language Bill or public services Bill—the different definitions probably will create a different attitude or strategy to using the high-tech knowledge. So, this is one point.

Of course, if you think about the more extreme case—. So, if you think about the data, one or two babies born in the UK per 1,000, or globally per 1,000, are deaf. But only 10 per cent are born to parents who are deaf—people's family. The other 90 per cent, the parents are hearing people. So, they are still very much a minority. So, if, someday, BSL disappeared, they probably, at some stage, would be struggling—'What communication should I use?' So, we need to think that this is a very, very extreme disadvantage for families and deaf community members—what they will do.

So, to make a very simple comment: technically, this is not rocket science—we can convert BSL into speech or written text. That's easy. But when you think about some ethical issues—. So, yes, this is my point.

Thanks for that question. Before I answer that, I wouldn't mind just following on from the previous question, if that's okay, around technology, because I think it's important to make a couple of points here. Just to follow on from the previous speaker around resistance in the deaf community, I think we have to be very careful about framing it as resistance. I grew up in a multigenerational deaf family. So, I'm a hearing person, but BSL is my first language. Most of my family members are deaf and my husband's family are deaf, so I'm very steeped in the deaf community. And I think that conversations I've had with deaf colleagues through our research—it's not about resistance, it's about actually that deaf people often aren't involved in the technological solutions. And so it's not necessarily resistance, it's more an understanding that deaf people have experienced oppression in many parts of their lives, for many years—so, language deprivation, if they're not given access to sign language from birth. Because, as has been noted, they might have hearing parents, and parents aren't always given information about BSL and the deaf community. And then hearing people managing services and so on and so forth, which is why I mentioned earlier on about deaf people being given the opportunity to become qualified to work with their own community and in their own language.

So, I think that, when it comes to technological solutions, deaf people would much prefer it if they could be directly involved in developing the solutions or the innovations, because otherwise it just feels like more paternalistic hearing people telling them, 'This is an easy solution for you, and we can solve your problems with communication and access.' Actually, it's more complex than that, it's more nuanced than that, because in some ways the technology is easy, but language is complicated and it's nuanced, it's idiomatic, it's cultural; it's connected to culture and behaviours. So, I think that what deaf people—. And we're seeing a colleague, for example, Maartje De Meulder, who is a deaf academic herself, actually working with technologists to say, 'Look, we're developing AI and all of this generative AI, which is wonderful, and it certainly can provide solutions, can provide access, could reduce barriers to some extent, but it has to be what's going to work for deaf people, what deaf people tell us is going to work for them. There's no point in us developing solutions and they say, "Well, I'm not going to use it like that," or "It's not going to actually help me."'

So, an example as well is—. Some of the research that I've done around technology is more around using video relay services and video remote interpreting services, and what we have found is that what deaf people tell us is that they think that that is fine for the first point of contact. So, if someone is trying to contact the police or trying to contact NHS 111, for example, then yes, and especially in emergency situations. We now have BSL 999. So, there are ways that technology can really provide an equivalent opportunity for deaf people to make that first point of contact. But what deaf people tell us is that it's fine for that initial contact, so that they're not left stranded or isolated without information or access to information, but then ongoing communications ideally should have interpreters involved face to face, because, as I mentioned earlier on, there's something that changes when you're communicating in BSL through technology. You can miss some of the nuances because of the two-dimensional aspect of the screen rather than the face-to-face 3D. So, again, it's about listening to deaf people telling us what it is that they feel works for them. So, technology is definitely a solution to a point, but we have to involve deaf people themselves in those conversations.

And then to follow on to the second question about what we found in Scotland, there's actually just been an inquiry by the—. You're probably familiar with the equality and human rights committee of the Scottish Parliament. Their report's just about to be launched in a couple of weeks, and we gave evidence to that as well, because they're reviewing the 10-year-old Act. What we're finding, I think, in Scotland is that it definitely has made a difference, having the legislation. Like I said earlier on about accountability, there's a requirement for a national plan, there's a requirement for public institutions to have their own local plans—so, universities, colleges, the NHS, the justice department and so on all have their own BSL plans. So, there's a distributed responsibility and accountability across all public services and Government departments and so on.

I think one of the challenges has been the lack of resource to support the delivery of the national plan and local plans. There was originally a BSL officer, and that person left the Scottish Government, and they haven't been replaced recently. They had a couple of different people in that post who were deaf, and then that person has moved on to a different career and they haven't replaced them. The person who's now got BSL as part of their remit, a wider remit in the equalities unit, is a hearing person that doesn't sign, and what we're seeing is then a real impact in their understanding. They have a lot of goodwill, obviously, and it's their role and they're supporting the BSL plan, but I think that they don't always understand all of the arguments and all of the nuances of what's needed.

Then there's the lack of resource, both in terms of finance and staff, to actually get things done, and there hasn't been, to date, any kind of working group or advisory group or anything, so it's about who's overseeing it. If you've got different public services that have got their own plans, where does the accountability sit? So, who's checking that those different plans are actually being enacted, being implemented, and so where does the buck stop? That's been one of the, I think, weaknesses we've seen in Scotland, who has that oversight, especially if you don't have a BSL officer in post, and also they weren't senior enough to actually make decisions, or push policy through, or make sure that those plans also had accountability at a local level as well.

But we have seen much more improvement in terms of standardisation of policies around BSL access to information, so a lot more websites have BSL translations. Police Scotland now has a whole swathe of their information now with BSL videos, we have more consistency with interpreters, a lot of the NHS boards—the 14 NHS boards in Scotland now have their own in-house BSL interpreting teams, so they can equip deaf people with that BSL access much more quickly than using freelance pools. So, there's been a lot of progress in that sense, but I think there's still more that needs to be done around the accountability and the resource that's behind the implementation, especially if you look at the Scottish Government's investment in Gaelic, for example, where there isn't that equivalent financial investment in BSL. So, we're seeing a discrepancy there in terms of the equivalence of the recognition for both those minority languages.

Before we move on to discussing the specifics of the Welsh Bill, and before we move away completely from technology, I'm interested to get both your views on the technology that was used in the session earlier this afternoon, just to find out whether we could have done it differently and that would have suited the witnesses better, or whether that is the best available. We're on a learning curve here, and we had two interpreters in the room and two in another studio, obviously, signing for the general public. So, the interpreters in the room were signing for the witnesses, and then there was another individual who was using a sort of a touch typist, who was putting words onto a screen for somebody who had a cochlear implant, which seemed to work for them. But could we have done it differently? Does the Senedd Commission need to do a little bit more research into this? Shall I start with you, Zeng?

Yes. I'm sorry—this is a technology problem, it's too loud. I think definitely we need to do more research, but, before I talk about that, and thank you very much, Professor Napier, probably I think 'resistance' is not a good word, and I think in the future—. Sorry, I'm not a native speaker, but I think you proposed a very good idea about how, when we design a technology solution for deaf people, we need to think about something more like some user-engaged design. So, that's very important, that we get feedback from the real user.

Let's come back to another case, maybe to answer on the technology, how to do better on this topic. Probably you know in Wales, we have a very good case; let's talk about the WITS—

The what, sorry?

The Wales Interpreter and Translation Service in hospital. I would not call that a disaster, but it has received a lot of complaints, so, probably, we can learn more from this WITS example, probably because we didn't have such a discussion, so that's why they didn't design it in a very user-friendly way. This is, I think, the way we need to think about that; user-engaged design is very important and can improve how we can use BSL in our public services. So, that's one thing.

Another thing is, I can still be quite a cautious person; I'm not in economics, but I'm quite keen to think about the money, because this sometimes is shaping people's behaviour a lot. So, for all this, if we want to spread the BSL service in all our public sectors, we need to think about the cost. This is very important, I think.

It's relevant to the financial implications.

Yes, I always think about that, because the technical, it depends on Government investment or is more private driven, things like that. And for the technical-wise, as I can see, there are lots of technical things coming out, for example, like virtual reality things that can provide more of a vivid or interactive user experience. So, I think this is one. So, just to make a very simple conclusion, technology can help us, and it can be better, but we need to put the technologies in a more ethical and, indeed, users' perspective to think about that. But, of course, I think the economics perspective is very important as well.

Okay, thank you. We'll obviously take feedback from the witnesses in the last session, anyway. Jane.

Yes, of course, thank you. Thank you for that question. I think it's always an interesting question, isn't it, because you think about how much can we put into the Bill, how much could we put into the Act, that's going to make a meaningful difference. I know one of the criticisms perhaps of the BSL Scotland Act is that it doesn't cover education. So, it doesn't actually cover the promotion of BSL as a language for children through their education. And, actually, a lot of people would say that that's, actually, where one of the key barriers is, because if there isn't that accountability to ensure that deaf people, deaf children, can learn BSL, acquire BSL, from as young an age as possible and then also access their education in BSL, then that actually can lead to problems later on in their adult lives.

I think you would find—. You can talk to many deaf people and also research is showing that one of the biggest benefits for deaf people is that if you give them BSL as their first language, then it's actually easier—with any language, it's easier to learn a second language when you've got a first language. Historically, there's always been more focus on deaf people having hearing aids, cochlear implants, learning English, learning speech. But, actually, research has shown that if you have BSL as a foundation then you can learn to speak and to read and to write, and potentially hear, depending on the kind of hearing loss that you've got and what devices you have and whether—. Cochlear implants aren't suitable for everybody. But it's like, 'Well why wouldn't you equip deaf people with all of the resources and so give them—?' And Wales, obviously, is a bilingual country, so it's that philosophy of bilingualism. So, give them BSL from birth. Fine, give them a cochlear implant too, if that's what works and that's what the parents want so they have access to English, so that you're giving them all of the resources possible. The BSL Act in Scotland doesn't really cover that component of child language development and education. If you get that right from the start, then, actually, it means that all of the access and the promotion of BSL for adults should follow on from that.

I think that the BSL Act in Scotland has been very good at promoting BSL as a first language, a preferred language, a language of choice. And we have the catchphrase, if you like, that Scotland should be the best place for BSL users to live, work, study and visit. So, in all walks of life, in all contexts, deaf people, deaf BSL users, should be able to access information and freely navigate society. I think that, because we have the Act, it does raise that visibility and it does really embed that philosophy in the linguistic landscape, if you like, of Scotland. And we definitely have seen a difference in that over the last 10 years.

Can I just intervene and say we just need to take a short break—sorry about this—so that we can swap the interpreters? So, it'll literally be a couple of minutes and then we'll obviously come back to you.

Thank you very much. I think this is a very good question, and for this job interview, I prepared for it. [Laughter.] First of all, before I answer whether this is good or bad for the Welsh BSL Bill, I would like to do a comparison between the UK and Scotland. My understanding is that they've taken a different focus. For the UK's BSL Bill there's a focus on the central Government's communication, and they focus on the press conferences or policy announcements, and they make a more symbolic recognition to say, 'Okay, BSL is a national language'. So, this is the main focus for the UK BSL Act. 

But, for Scotland, I think it's slightly different. It's more focused on the details, if you think about the service planning and if you think about the accessibility, and, also, look at it being applied in the public sector, and looking for the long term—the outcomes. So, I think, as Wales, probably, we will take this approach, because we're still under consideration, so we do need to think about which approach will be better for the BSL Bill in Wales. But, definitely, for me, I prefer the Scottish approach. We need to think more about how we can deliver this, as a Bill.

So, we come back to look at the Welsh draft. If I just read that, there are some key points that I just wrote down. Indeed, these are my questions, also my comments. The first one is that we define the adviser's or the commissioner's role. There's some discussion as to whether we will use 'the commissioner' or 'the adviser'. I don't know what the background behind that is, but I think that if we want to think about who delivers in this way, especially as a new Bill or Act, probably I'd prefer that we have a strong, task-focused commissioner. So, this is my reading from that.

The second one is that I noticed that we have a list of some bodies; it's very similar to the Scottish one. But I don't know what the criteria are when we choose or select these bodies. Of course, we can see that we have local authorities, NHS trusts and boards and some other services, but I didn't see two very important factors. One is education and the other is public health—that department of the NHS. Another one I would recommend is the police, because lots of deaf people are in, I think, a vulnerable group, and they need more support for that, when you think about, 'What is the list of bodies that should be involved in the Act?' 

Diolch.

Education is included in local authorities—they run schools.

Okay, yes.

This is a very intriguing question. To be honest, I don't know why we define six years. So, the general election is every four years, and local elections are annual—one year, maybe. So, where has the six years come from? If you look at some countries, like the communist countries, they prefer a five-year plan. Where has the six years come from, and another three years? The key thing is not about the time range, how long before we review that; I would like to link the review to the delivery. There's a conversation I have with Professor Napier—we talk about the delivery. In Scotland, as you said, we have resource to deliver that. My point is, what will the review bring to us or to the BSL Bill? More resource to deliver, or more support for that? That is of key importance. Also, it can be linked to a specific role, like an adviser or the commissioner—I still prefer this term—so, what can they do for this review and create some of the outcomes from the review? Generally, from my experience, I'm not a policy maker, but I think six years might be too long.

I would agree. I think it's almost arbitrary, really, isn't it, if you think about the time frame. I would agree that six years may be too long, especially if you go back to our earlier point around technology and technological development and innovation. It moves so fast. So, if you're really wanting to be able to capitalise, not only on technological innovation, but also on the changing landscape—we're thinking about climate change, we're thinking about sustainability, we're thinking about all of the different kinds of things that are Government priorities. So, if we think about generally, whichever Government we're talking about, how often strategies are developed and revised, reviewed, changed, and how that impacts on funding, which is where the priorities are, I think that the ideal would be to map on to whatever the processes are for Governments, with the ability to be agile and to be able to adapt, because things do change so quickly. We've seen economically the impact on inflation, on interest rates. There are so many different things in the landscape that can impact on what resource is available, what funding is available. So, I think that there needs to be a level of agility there, ideally. Perhaps six years might be a little bit too long, because, by the time you get to that point, you might already be too far behind that progress.

I'd be happy to go first with that one. It's a difficult one, isn't it? Because we understand that having a broader framework gives you the opportunity to be exploratory, especially when you're introducing the Act for the first time—to be able to see what emerges, where the demands are, doing the needs analyses, and so on. Initially, I could see the benefits of having a broader framework, but I think that, if you don't have targets, it's easy to get lost, for things to become deprioritised, or for the agencies or the institutions that have a level of accountability to be able to claim that they weren't able to achieve as much as they would have liked to achieve, because there were no targets to work against.

I do think that there are certain benefits to having targets, but I think that you don't want to be overambitious. I think what we found with the BSL Scotland Act in the most recent strategy was that they significantly revised some of the targets and some of the aspirations, if you like, from the first national plan, which was deemed to be a little bit overambitious about what realistically can be achieved in the length of time that you have, especially if you're thinking about what resource is available, what workforce is available to support and implement. It's having to think about that quite strategically, having the ability to be agile, but I think almost wanting to start from the ground up.

Zeng made the point earlier on that we don't know exactly how many BSL users there are in Wales, for example. It's trying to map out and document, so then you can do a needs analysis of how many BSL users are there, how many children, how many adults, what service provision is there happening and where should it happen. Even mapping all of that out and then building up from there, I think, would be a useful way of then mapping out the targets, because you know where the gaps are and what the potential solutions might be, especially if that involves consultations with the deaf community in Wales about what they see as their needs, because, obviously, Wales has its own culture, its own linguistic values, so there might be many overlaps to what we're seeing in England and Scotland, but there also would be very Welsh-specific recommendations and targets that you'd be wanting to set.

Thank you. I think this is a very tricky question. I would say, for example, the BSL UK Bill is quite symbolic and shows some gestures, but for the Welsh one, I would like it more balanced—like some recognition, and then more practical issues can be involved. I just read these summaries of this draft, and they give us that, in the 10-year period, they will spend £3.76 million to £4.14 million. So, they are some of the targets in there, but I don't know where these numbers come from and how to use this money. 

So, I think, if we want to do better, my personal view is that you need to think about who uses the money and how to evaluate the outcome for that. Again, I don't know this number that's coming, how to cost that, but if we have some money we can spend, that's good. I think this is quite a big progress. It's telling me, 'Wales is a nice place and we can do better than the other regions in this country.' So keep this target, and we can do some review and think about how to use it better and invest more, or whatever.

Okay. Thank you. Altaf Hussain.

Thank you, Chair. Now, let's talk about the listed public bodies. The Bill requires local authorities, health boards and certain NHS trusts and special health authorities to develop local BSL plans and to report on progress. Will placing duties on these public bodies help to address the main barriers faced by deaf people?

Thank you. I'm happy to answer that question. We've seen definite benefits to having local plans within institutions, because otherwise I think what happens is somebody always thinks that somebody else is doing it, that somebody else is taking responsibility. So, if you have a national plan that's been laid out by the Government, then you have different public institutions who are saying that it's the Government's responsibility to take ownership, ensure that services are accessible and make sure all of those things are put in place. But when you have local plans, it puts the onus on the institutions to take responsibility as well. So, again, it's that distributed responsibility and understanding that we have so many different strategies and devices for equitable access.

Whether it's patients or witnesses, defendants, et cetera, et cetera, people accessing any kind of public service and education, then we often will talk about equality, diversity and inclusion, and thinking about the different considerations for different communities, so there has to be an onus on that local level to make sure that they're getting it right, and that it's equitable, it's accessible and it's inclusive. Otherwise, I think what happens is everyone just points the finger at the Government and says, 'It's their responsibility. We don't have to do anything until they tell us what to do.' So, it's that shared responsibility, distributed responsibility, I think, which is critical.

About the local area plans, I have some experience that might be shared with you. I once worked with the Wales Council for Deaf People for two years, and I got lots of information from them. I'm just thinking, if we talk about the local plans, what these structures look like. They rely on each county, or an even smaller unit. So, for example, in Wales, we have the index of multiple deprivation, so we separate into smaller areas. So, the key thing is, I think, we need to think about the unit size and how many people we want to cover. And that will be delivered more concretely—the service or help—for the local deaf community. This is my point. Otherwise, as Professor Napier said, we can't just point to the Government and say, 'Just do something', and we don't know how to deliver that. So this is quite like some structural issue, when you think about it, to deliver the service and the support.

Thank you.

Could I just—? Would you mind, sorry, if I just come in and add something else? I think it goes back to my earlier point about consulting with deaf communities, and I think Dr Zeng has made a good point about how local do you go, and what layer do you go to. I've been involved, for example, in developing the local BSL plan for my university, the Heriot-Watt University, and actually the Scottish Government requires that you consult with deaf community members in the development of your local plan. I think some of the institutions might have found that challenging in the time frames that were available when the new national plan came out, and then we were expected to deliver our local plans within a very specific time frame, and it wasn't clear initially how long that would be. So, it's about allowing people time to involve deaf community members in consultations, so that the plans that they develop, again, are responsive to the needs of that community, depending on which institution it is and the locality of that plan. So, that would be an important element to also include.

And Professor, it will make the delivery uniform between the rural and urban areas, will it?

It could certainly—. I think it would be difficult to say that it would make it uniform, because we know there will be different demands, different needs, in rural and urban areas. For example, if you're talking about setting targets for how many healthcare appointments would be met through the provision of sign language interpreters, then obviously that's going to be different in rural areas than it is in urban areas, depending on the availability of interpreters or whether you use technology. So, I think you still need to take into account those different local needs, but at least it would give consistency in the way that people are responding and deciding what kind of provision needs to be in place.

Thank you very much. The BSL Act in Scotland places duties on a wider range of organisations, including ombudsmen and universities and further education institutions. Do you think that the BSL Bill should place duties on any other devolved bodies in Wales? 

That's a very good question. I think if you're going to include education, obviously, for children all the way through, as you said, in Scotland we only require local plans for further education colleges, higher education colleges, and then the ombudsman and certain other institutions, but it doesn't apply to everybody. So, I would say that, yes, we know schools or at least local education authorities, so through the councils we need to make sure that there's applicability there to schools, if you're including education for children. I think we can look at broad brush strokes. If we're looking at justice, social services and so on, there is an argument for drilling down to a more local level within the different departments, but I think the problem is then that that takes up more time and resource if you go down to too low a level, or across too many organisations, because some might be captured by certain overarching departments. For example, in Scotland we have COSLA, which is an umbrella organisation that brings together different social services across the whole of Scotland. It would make sense for organisations like that, which are umbrella institutions, perhaps to have a plan that then would apply to all members of that organisation, because I think that might be more practical and could be a part of membership requirements, that they're all aligning to the same overarching plan.

Thank you very much. Dr Zeng.

Yes, I think it’s a very good question, and indeed when I was involved in this Bill’s procedures we had some discussion related to that. I would link this question to the point on the relation between BSL and the GCSE. So, we have two ways we can do BSL in GCSEs. The first one is we can take BSL as a foreign language like French or German, as the subject of a GCSE. That’s one way. Another option is we can BSL-ise all the GCSEs. They're two totally different things. So, we want to know which approach we want to take.

The second one is: we know Wales is at least a bilingual nation, and we have to promote Welsh education as well at university levels. So, before we step out and think about applying BSL in broader areas, probably we need to do some review to look at any lessons we can get from our Welsh language policy. So, this way, it will make us do this better. So, I don't have any answers for that, but just based on my observations or my discussions when engaged in this Bill's procedure, we need to think about it from these two perspectives. Thank you. 

Let's come to the last section, and that is the barriers to implementation. Stakeholders have suggested that a lack of qualified BSL interpreters and translators could be a barrier to successful implementation of the Bill. My question is: what steps could be taken to address this challenge?

If I could answer that question, I mentioned earlier on about—. I think that the Act is actually twofold, because it's not only about providing access through interpreters or translation of material, but also providing deaf people with the opportunity to work in public services, and so on, so they can provide services directly. So, it's identifying pathways for training and qualifications for deaf people, because if we're thinking about promoting BSL, it's not just about promoting deaf people being able to access through interpreters; it's also, 'Could they have the opportunity to work in public services, and therefore provide direct service provision to deaf BSL users?' We know that with other communities—migrant communities, for example—the research shows that, basically, direct service provision is preferable for many, many reasons rather than going through interpreters, because it's about shared identity, it's about shared culture, shared values, and so on.

So, I think that there's an element there that should also be considered, and it would be a great opportunity to say, 'Okay, how can we—?' Going back to earlier on, we were talking about the economy and the economics. If you train more deaf people up, it's not just about training up more interpreters, but also if there are more deaf people who can provide direct services, then it means that these deaf people are employed, they're contributing to the economy, they're paying tax, and so it's actually a much more holistic way of thinking about the promotion of BSL.

Thank you very much. Professor Zeng. 

As Professor Napier mentioned, the integrative approach is very good to improve the BSL translation's quality. This can be in some of these surveys or it can be academic areas. That's quite good what it brings. I just feel it's quite a dilemma for me. So, for example, 10 years ago in the whole of the UK, probably we had 900 BSL qualified translators, but I don't know what the numbers are now after 10 years. So, if we think about it, one way is to increase the number of qualified BSL translators to provide more services for them in different sectors. That's one case. Another one, as we've discussed a lot today, is to think about the technologies. So, can technologies bring a more efficient BSL service?

So, for me, I just feel it's a dilemma. Again, I would like to think about when there is more evidence to look at the current situation, and if we can do some predictions in future, that's very important. So, in the future, BSL, how many people will use that? That will help us to plan over the next 10 years.

Thank you very much. My last question is: is there anything else that you would like to see amended or included in the Bill that will help to improve outcomes for deaf people in Wales?

Should I take this first? I think in this way, I think it would be quite inspiring from the perspective of what we want to do in the future. So, for example, among academics, I would say a few academics are born deaf or are BSL users, but at USW, we have a good case. I once had a colleague called Rob—sorry, I've forgotten his surname—but now he's maybe moved to another university. So, I think in future I would like to see deaf people being more visible in different areas, like academia, even in the restaurant. I'm very happy to take a service from deaf people, and to serve the food—whatever. So, this is my expectation for this Bill, and also this is why I'm involved and engaged. This is a whole procedure.

Thank you.

I would say something similar, actually. It goes back to my earlier point, about the promotion of BSL and that deaf people themselves should be able to become qualified, whether that's as academics or to work in a whole range of different areas. It's the promotion of career opportunities for deaf people in BSL, using BSL. And, therefore, rather than thinking about deaf people only accessing services, where they're the service receiver, perhaps they could be the service provider. Why not? Why can't deaf people be doctors and nurses, and so on? We're seeing in America a lot more deaf people are becoming qualified in those areas. We do have, as Zeng just said, Dr Rob Wilks, who was in USW and is now at the University of the West of England. At Heriot-Watt, where I am, we have five deaf academics working in our team. We also have deaf postdoctoral researchers and research assistants. We actually have the first deaf professor—the first deaf person, deaf academic to become a full professor—at Heriot-Watt University: Annelies Kusters. She was promoted to professor two years ago.

So, it's amazing to see these kinds of opportunities and where deaf people can make these contributions, whether it's in government, in education. We have more deaf people being trained to become teachers. So, I think that there's a real opportunity in Wales for that, to actually recognise in this—. With the equivalent of Welsh, spoken Welsh, where there are language policies to promote the use of Welsh, and people teaching Welsh, learning Welsh, and then working and delivering services in Welsh, why not think about the equivalent in BSL?

Thank you, all. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much indeed. That's been an excellent session—really helpful information. We'll send you both a transcript of your contributions, so that you can correct it if there's anything we've misinterpreted. But your contribution has been extremely useful. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you for the audit.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you.

So, are Members content to note the two items of correspondence we've had since last Monday? Jane Dodds.

Thanks, Chair. I'd just like to draw attention to the correspondence from Children's Legal Centre Wales, which requests that we join with the Children, Young People and Education Committee in writing to the Cabinet Secretary for an update in relation to the proposals in 'If not now, then when? Radical reform for care experienced children and young people', particularly in relation to deprivation of liberty orders.

Are Members content to do that? I think we had a brief discussion, Altaf, before we resumed public session about some of the serious human rights issues that are involved in this. Are you happy with that, Altaf, that we write to the Minister, along with the children's committee?

Excellent. It's very useful that both of you obviously are very familiar with it. So, we look forward to seeing that draft for sending off to the Minister.

I'd now like to ask us to move into private session, to discuss things, for the remainder of the meeting. Are you content? Yes.