National Assembly for Wales

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the Equality and Social Justice Committee. We are continuing our scrutiny of the British Sign Language (Wales) Bill. All Members are present. Are there any declarations of interest? I see none.

For this session, we are very pleased to welcome  Kieran Sawdon and Jamie Martin from the National Deaf Children's Society, and Rocio Cifuentes, the children's commissioner. Just to assure members of the public, we will be taking breaks after about 20 or 30 minutes to enable our British Sign Language interpreters to swap over. But that will only be a very short period. 

So, I very much welcome all of you. Starting with Jamie Martin, please could you tell us what involvement you and your organisation have had in the development of this Bill?

I think that Kieran might be a better person to explain that, if that's possible.

Okay. Kieran. Excellent.

In terms of our wider involvement in developing this Bill, we've been in communication with Mark Isherwood throughout this, as you can imagine, both informally and as a member of the cross-party group for deaf issues, where this has been a topic of discussion for some time, as you can imagine. In terms of our involvement in the intricacies of the Bill, we haven't really been that involved, aside from our submission to the draft consultation before the Bill was laid.

We're also a member of the BSL Wales consortium, which is a collection of third sector organisations, policy experts and grass-roots campaigners who generally support the Bill. I'm aware that the committee has taken some interest in members of the Welsh Government's BSL stakeholder group as well. So, just to clarify, we are also a member of that group. 

Thank you. Rocio Cifuentes, could you just tell us what involvement your office has had in the development of this Bill?

Thank you. We first discussed the Bill with Mark Isherwood in one of our regular meetings with him, where he mentioned it and invited us to respond to the consultation. We did respond to the consultation and indicated our support and welcoming of the proposed Bill, particularly because of my office's engagement with deaf children and young people, which has really highlighted the need for better support for them, particularly better provision of BSL. We submitted the response to this consultation, as you know, and have broadly welcomed it, on the basis of the engagement that my office has had with deaf children and young people. 

Thank you. I wondered if I could ask to give your overall views of the Bill and its provisions. So, first of all, the children's deaf society. 

It will come as absolutely no surprise that we're strongly in favour of the Bill. Currently, the picture for BSL legislation in Wales is very unequal, and, bear with me as I explain this, because I do have quite a fun way of explaining this: picture yourself standing on St Helen's Road in Swansea, in-between the Guildhall, which is managed by Swansea Council, and Swansea Crown Court, which is managed by the Ministry of Justice. The Westminster BSL legislation, which was brought in in 2022, covers one of those buildings, and in the other one, technically it is still the law of the land, but it's not worth the paper it's written on in there. It's really unequal for deaf people in Wales at the moment. BSL is typically viewed as an accessibility tool under the Equality Act 2010, rather than as a language in its own right. Don't get me wrong, the Equality Act has definitely helped in establishing further provision for BSL, but it has not gone anywhere near far enough, and because it's viewed as a tool rather than as a language, it's viewed as an option amongst many, which is something that we really need to change the dynamic on, so to speak. 

As the National Deaf Children's Society, representing at least 2,227 deaf children and their families across Wales, according to the 2024 Consortium for Research in Deaf Education in Wales report, as an organisation, we are very firm believers in the principle of informed choice. What that means is that the families of deaf children should have all of the available options made clear to them, and they should be then able to choose what is best for their child, until the child is old enough to make the decision for themselves. As it currently stands, however, for many families across Wales, BSL is just not a viable option at the moment, and, as you can imagine, we're not big fans of that. We very much want to see that changed. We very much believe that the Bill, through its various provisions, checks and balances, will have the potential to strengthen BSL as a community language in Wales.

Thank you. Anything Jamie wishes to add to that?

Yes, thank you. We have said that we have got membership support and they are also supportive of the Bill as well. People are saying things like, 'BSL is very important, they need their children to be able to communicate in BSL.' 

Thank you. Rocio, what is your overall view of this Bill? Do you think it meets the human rights of children who are deaf?

I think it is a very positive step forward towards a place where we will be able to better meet the linguistic rights and the accessibility rights of deaf children and young people. We know currently, as has been highlighted—there of very different legislation, because some of it relates to reserved issues and some of it is devolved—there is huge inequality that deaf children experience currently. This Bill would give us more parity with other UK nations and would mean that deaf children could actually get closer to accessing the equality and the access to education that they are entitled to in Wales.

The consultation document already sets out in significant detail the way in which deaf children and young people are disadvantaged and the way in which they underachieve in relation to their peers in schools. I myself have also, as I mentioned, met with groups of deaf children and young people who told me how there are very few currently accessible youth clubs that they can access and how they often have to over-rely on family members to access health appointments. So, my overall view of this Bill is that it would take us closer to a situation where it would be incumbent on all public services to consider the ways in which they could shape and focus their services to better meet the needs of deaf children and young people.

Were this legislation not to go ahead—and we have every intention of ensuring we keep to our timetable—do you think that the Bill’s aims could be achieved in other ways, such as you using the heft of your role as the children's commissioner to insist on children's rights?

I wish I could agree with your use of the term 'heft'. Unfortunately, I don't have those powers to compel public services to provide those services. I can call things out and I can make recommendations, and my office has the power to investigate individual breaches of children's rights and systemic issues, but I don't have that 'heft', as you describe, to actually make changes in this regard. The current Equality Act as well is limited in how it can actually force changes or even encourage changes in this regard. So, I think to introduce a duty that would mean that public services would have to consider how they promote the use of BSL would actually go a long way to making a difference on the ground. As with any legislation, it will always come down to how well it is implemented, and I would agree with evidence that you've already heard about how important it is to make sure that there are effective monitoring and implementation structures built into the legislation, and in terms of how often you are expecting a Welsh Government strategy to be reviewed and how you would expect public bodies to report back on their progress. Yes, this is a start, but it will depend very much on how well this is implemented.

Okay. We'll now start to explore some of the detail of exactly what's in the Bill, and Julie Morgan's going to start us off.

Diolch, and bore da. I wanted to ask whether you felt the current drafting of the Bill, as it is, does ensure that the needs of deaf children and young people will be addressed. So, shall we start with the NDCS? 

Diolch. We believe that the Bill has a much stronger footing compared to legislation that's already in place in other parts of the UK in its current form, and that really exemplifies the fact that this Bill has looked at what's working and what's not working in other parts of the UK, and we very much welcome that being taken into account. Overall, we think the main risk of this Bill in terms of whether or not it will work for children and young people is whether or not it becomes performative in nature rather than it being about producing results and the needed change. However, we also believe that the inclusion of the adviser and the accompanying panel, which I dare say we'll discuss later as well, which is a new model compared to the ones that we see in the other UK nations, plus the democratic checks and balances that will be in place with us, such as the Welsh Government's national strategy having to be laid before the Senedd, and also with successors of this committee potentially also having a role in pre-appointment scrutiny sessions with the adviser as well, that all fills us with confidence in this Bill, moving forward.

There are still barriers that need to be tackled in the first few years of implementation—the lack of BSL interpreters and accompanying infrastructure in particular. But we also know we're not the only ones to raise this, and whilst it's not my position to talk about the work of the Welsh Government's BSL stakeholder group fully, you can imagine that's been a massive topic of conversation, and if this Bill were to be passed, this would be running alongside anything that comes out of the stakeholder group as well.

That's very good, the encouraging nature and the fact that you think this will be a strong Bill in comparison. I was going to ask you about what you said about the risk of it becoming performative. What exactly do you mean by that? 

We've seen examples of this in other places, where even though there's legislation in place, it becomes a bit of a tick box. It's another plan that a public body has to fill out, 'Just fill it out, say that there's some progress towards it', and then at the end of the day, there's not much tangible progress that's been made, but on paper the duty's been fulfilled. That's why we very much welcome the adviser capacity in this, because that way then there's that additional scrutiny that can take place, if that makes sense.  

I understand that. Did you have anything to add, Jamie? 

I would certainly agree about the importance of having that detail. I think when we're looking at families of deaf children, they always struggle to learn BSL. It's difficult to find the right opportunities for them to attend courses, or even the right course. And also, children need to be involved as well. It's important for deaf children as well. It's not just the family learning but also the deaf child learning BSL, and also for the child to have that opportunity to learn BSL in the proper way. We need to then make sure that they've got supportive staff, that there are people around those children to support them properly.

Thank you. Rocio, I wondered if you had any comments on the Bill as it's drafted. How does it fulfil children's rights?

I think for me currently the biggest area that could be strengthened within the Bill as it's written is how it proposes to directly hear from deaf children and young people, what is the mechanism for that and how that voice will also be responded to, what is the accountability structure for children and young people to be heard.

I welcome generally the role of the advisory panel and the role of the adviser, but it's not clear whether any of those advisory panel members would be or could be children or young people, or a children and young person's representative. I would recommend, if possible, consideration be given to how a specific children and young people's advisory panel could be established to also communicate with the adviser in a very similar way to the, presumably, adult advisory panel, but to make sure that that is an equitable panel, given the same consideration and the same status.  

I also very much welcome the proposal that the BSL adviser will be a person who actually uses and speaks BSL. I think that is a really important principle. I also welcome the fact that in the consultation documentation, a children's rights impact assessment has already been undertaken and highlights specifically which rights will be directly impacted by the proposed Bill. 

So, I am very encouraged overall, but I think having a clearer mechanism for hearing directly from children and young people would very much strengthen the Bill and the work as it goes forward.

Yes, I think that's a very important point. Thank you for that. And then my final question. The plan is to report at least once every three years, and then review at least once every six years the national BSL strategy. I wondered what your views were on that. Rocio, do you want to answer this? 

It very much depends on the level of detail within that report. My understanding is that, currently, there isn't a plan to set specific targets or metrics within the strategy. I think a good strategy would have some targets and measurable outcomes to enable effective reporting. I think that the time period seems reasonable in terms of a three-year period and then six years to refresh the strategy, because as we all know, things do take time to embed and to get going.

However, I would just really urge for that reporting mechanism to be as detailed as possible, and also, as I've said, to include a way of hearing directly from children and young people and how they are experiencing the implementation of the strategy, and also how it is impacting on children and young people through the delivery of public services. So, not only asking children and young people, 'How do you feel about this?', but asking service providers how have children and young people benefited from any changes that they have implemented.

Thank you very much. Jamie or Kieran. Will Kieran start?

We echo all the points that the children's commissioner has made. Additionally, on top of some of the points that she's made, I'd also like to state that we fully agree with the involvement of children and young people in the advisory panel process as well. That's very much in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—article 12 specifically—which the Welsh Government has already indicated its support for previously. So, in theory, we see there being no major issues with the Welsh Government supporting that.

In terms of the timelines, in our written evidence we did flag a slight niggle with these timelines. Overall, they are very sensible, especially to begin with; it takes time to embed long-term change. I warn the committee this is very much me sat here with my crystal ball out, and looking at potential problems that may arise far into the future, we're talking 16, 20 years' time. We are a bit worried that the six-year timeline may cause issues, given the Senedd's own electoral cycle and the impact that has on Government, particularly given the fact that—this is on my very rough maths—the next election will be the seventh Senedd and the ninth Senedd, then, will be dealing with a Welsh Government who will be working entirely with an inherited strategy.

Given the democratic checks and balances with the strategy that should take place, hopefully that will create no issues. However, there are, understandably, mechanisms within the Bill that enable the Welsh Government to revise the strategy if they choose to. What we don't want to see is that provision to be used for future Governments to rubber-stamp them with their own seal of approval. We want that to be used for the actual reason that it's there, which is to react to changing circumstances or to tweak something that perhaps isn't working.

I'm not saying that the timelines need to be fully changed. We've listened to the evidence that others have contributed, and six years does make sense, especially in the beginning. However, looking at the wording of the Bill may be required here. I believe currently it states that if the Welsh Government wants to revise the strategy, it needs to consult with the BSL adviser. So, perhaps just strengthening that wording there, so rather than it just being consulting, they need the agreement of the adviser, just to prevent that from potentially being a bit of a political football further on down the line, because the deaf community of Wales deserves better than that, we believe.

Thank you. Jamie, did you want to add anything?

I agree with what both people have said. I would like to ask if the panel could involve the parents of deaf children as well, because our organisation supports parents of deaf children. I think it's vital that deaf children and young people are involved and have their voices heard.

Thank you very much.

Before I move us on, I wonder if I could just ask a little bit more about how this children and young people advisory panel might work. I'm sure the commissioner would want it to involve deaf children from across Wales. How practical is it to have online meetings with children who sign? Bringing children 200 miles for one meeting has an impact on their education, and there are costs and complexity, whereas online is easy to organise through the school.

Jamie, do you want to take that?

We should ask children and young people first about that. I'm assuming that each will have their own support and communication needs that could be organised. You could also have the panel moving around the country rather than staying in one space. You could have different young people from different areas being able to access that panel and have their views given. But also online is workable.

Thank you. Mick Antoniw, would you like to ask your questions?

Thank you. Bore da. I'd like to ask a little bit about the Bill itself and the listing of public bodies within the Bill. The Bill places duties on local authorities and health bodies to plan how they will promote and facilitate the use of BSL and then to report on the progress. Perhaps you could outline what you would expect from this. What are you expecting these public bodies to be doing to improve the lives of deaf children and young people?

The duties that the Bill currently has in line for public bodies are a major improvement on the current system, and we believe that they will help to generate a positive change for deaf children and young people in particular. That is looking towards access. The health boards are obviously covered in this, as you mentioned. That is looking at how deaf children and young people can be explained in their own language how things are working for them, what sorts of provisions are being put in place for them, rather than them having to rely on their parents telling them everything. It takes away an aspect of independence there, and an opportunity for them to grow and understand what's happening with their bodies. 

With education, we would expect this to also funnel into the expansions that we see happening within the additional learning needs system at the moment. We believe, as an organisation, that the vast majority of deaf children and young people are eligible for individual development plans. That's not the case at the moment. A lot of that tends to be because children are classed as needing universal provision, whereas we believe that's not always the case, especially when it comes to deaf children and young people with the accessibility and communication support that is needed. Looking at how local authorities would react to this and what their BSL plans could be, that could be expanding provision in their education systems, in their state schools, rather than everyone having to rely on whatever communication method the school can grab at that given point, if that makes sense.

Monitoring is obviously a key part of that. Do you have any specific views in terms of the nature of monitoring and what that should amount to? Because that ultimately determines what progress is being made.

Definitely. We very much believe that the adviser should have a role in the monitoring. As it currently stands, there is some provision for the adviser to look into what's going on and also to request additional information from the listed public bodies. However, we would like to see that expanded a bit so that the adviser and accompanying advisory board can react to any developing situations, and also, of course, raise that with the Welsh Government to see if anything can be taken forward. So, to summarise, basically, yes, we would very much expect them to report pretty much to the adviser.

Mick Antoniw, can I just pause the proceedings so that we're able to have a change-over of BSL interpreter? We'll go into private session literally just for a couple of minutes.

Back to Mick Antoniw.

Thank you. Just following on, then, from the last questions I was asking, within the Bill, obviously, relating to public bodies, in your written evidence, you suggested that this should be extended to Estyn and Qualifications Wales. These are quite different bodies to the public authorities in terms of what their functions are. I wonder, perhaps, if you could just outline in a bit more detail the reasoning for this and what impact you think it would have.

Yes, definitely. To start with Estyn, comparing it to legislation that has taken place in other parts of the UK, so looking at the Westminster Act, for example, Ofsted was not listed in that but Ofsted did not need to be listed, given its status as a non-ministerial Government department, whereas Estyn is fully independent of Welsh Government, albeit taking its steer from Welsh Government in how it works. The reason that we've included Estyn is because state schools, by virtue of their being operated by local authorities, will come under this legislation and, as a result of that, it seems a bit odd to us that the body that is responsible for monitoring and ensuring standards in the education system will not be covered by that as well. So, ideally what we're looking for, especially taking into consideration Estyn's role in terms of monitoring additional learning needs provision—. So, the reason for that is just to mitigate any discrepancies that may take place there. With Qualifications Wales it's, again, for similar reasons, just to make sure that everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet, so to speak.

But another one that we also mention is Medr, the public-facing name for the fairly newly established commission for tertiary education and research. The reason that we also highlighted Medr as a prime example is because of Medr's role in post-16 across the board—that includes sixth forms, which, of course, are also a part of state schools, most of the time—and also their role in terms of adult learning. One aspect of this Bill—. This is primarily a Bill in terms of linguistic rights—there's no getting around that—but as part of that, there's naturally going to be an accessibility aspect to it in terms of learning BSL and gaining those skills. And given Medr's very specific area of expertise, it seems like a bit of an odd one to miss there. Again, it's not up to me what Medr's BSL plan would be, but you'd think that it would look into expanding BSL provision in terms of access to learning. 

Thank you for that. I was going to ask you about that, but you've answered it. You've anticipated the direction that I was going to go in with regard to further and higher education. 

Really, just again your views on the Bill as to whether you think that it would provide sufficient opportunity to monitor how local authorities are implementing their BSL plans and to ensure that they're complying with their duties. This comes back a little bit to what I was asking earlier about the monitoring. The monitoring and then the subsequent implementation, it seems to me, are absolutely fundamental to the Bill. I'm just really wondering whether you think that the Bill could be strengthened in any way with regard to monitoring and scrutinising listed public bodies. Is there any improvement that can be made to the Bill, in your view, that you would actually like to see?

I think that a lot of that comes down to how much of this is co-produced with the deaf community as well. That is a major aspect of this, given that that's the community that's going to be mostly engaged with this. For that, that's where we look again to the role of the adviser, the role of the advisory board, and also their role in terms of monitoring. Obviously, Welsh Government is going to have a role in terms of ensuring that the listed public bodies are keeping to what they're saying in their BSL plans, but it's the adviser and the advisory board that will have mostly that lived experience, that will be able to say what is working, what isn't working. We would also expect any sort of monitoring for the public bodies themselves to contribute some of that in terms of their own engagement work, so that that can funnel in as well, if that makes sense.

Yes, that's very helpful. That really answers, I think, the points I wanted to raise. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. I just want to pick up with Rocio Cifuentes. The Bill obviously places duties on local authorities and health bodies to plan how they improve the lives of deaf and young people. Is the Bill sufficiently clear on what action the Bill will require local authorities and health bodies to do?

From my reading of it, it is not, in the main, looking to prescribe specific actions at this point, and it is looking to set out a framework and a requirement to consider and hopefully consult and co-produce in order to decide on which specific actions are required. Obviously, the risk is that if that's too non-prescriptive, you may get very different actions being committed to and undertaken by the different public bodies.

So, I would recommend and encourage there to be, as we go through the process, a slightly more prescriptive and consistent approach used. But I think in terms of what specific actions, I would support what my colleague Kieran has said in terms of the importance of co-producing and defining those actions with the deaf community and deaf children and young people, as I've said. But clearly they would need to respond to the biggest areas of inequality that the existing evidence is telling us about, which is that there's such a lot of evidence about inequalities in relation to access to education, also access to health services, and I presume this is why the Bill has started with listing local authorities and health boards as a starting point for the public bodies that would fall under the Bill.

I do agree with Kieran's proposal that other bodies should be considered to come into scope, but I think in terms of a pragmatic starting point, I think it's the local authorities and the health boards that are currently responsible for providing the services that we know most directly result in unequal access for deaf children and young people and the deaf community as a whole.

Thank you. We'll now move on to the role of the adviser. Sioned Williams.

Diolch. My office, in our response to the consultation initially, when it was proposed to be a commissioner, we stated that we were unsure whether that would work, and we did have some questions about potential duplication or lack of clarity about the powers in relation to my own office and other commissioners.

So, I do welcome the change to the proposal now, and I welcome the description of the role as an adviser. I think there is a good example that can be drawn on in relation to the national adviser on violence against women, and we have seen in practice how that role, the national adviser on violence against women, has had a high profile and a seemingly positive influence on Government discussions and actions in that space. So, I think there is a good model to be learnt from in that respect. And I think the role, as it’s set out, seems to offer a good way of ensuring the right level of influence and access to Government. So, in that respect, I support the way that the adviser’s role is currently set out.

I do think that that would strengthen the independence, as you say, yes.

We agree with pretty much everything the commissioner has said, which is no surprise there. Again, I want to note that the adviser role goes a lot further than what is already in place in England and Scotland, which is welcome.

You have spoken about whether there should be more of a democratic process, considering that that's not currently explicitly labelled in the Bill. It would be our expectation that that would take place. The Cabinet Secretary herself has compared this to the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015 and the VAWDASV adviser specifically. So, we see no reason why that should be any different; from our reading, that, hopefully, was what was going to happen in the first place.

We do think that some aspects could be strengthened and, in particular, we want the independence of the adviser from the Welsh Ministers to be stressed a little bit more. I don't know if there's room to do that in the Bill itself, perhaps in the explanatory memorandum, just to highlight that, unlike a statutory commissioner, which was the original proposal, the adviser will be an employee of Welsh Government, but that being said, we very much view them as being more of a critical friend to the Welsh Ministers than answering to the Ministers. That is the main area that we would want to drill down a little bit more on. It's very much just maintaining that friendly distance, if that makes sense.

I think that there are pros and cons. I have seen examples—. There are sometimes adult boards with designated places for children—well, usually not a child, but often a young person—and in those cases, there is a requirement to really consider safeguarding issues and access issues to enable usually an older child or young person to take part safely and equitably. It doesn't always work, I think. On the whole, it's very difficult to actually achieve a situation where a young person can take part in an equal and safe way with a majority of adult members—you know, the rest of the panel. So, in that respect, I think it is preferable to have a children and young persons' panel that is entirely a child and young persons' space and can be facilitated and children and young people can be supported, not least because it enables children and young people from different backgrounds, different parts of Wales, to take part and for their collective views to be considered. It's almost always impossible for one or two people to represent a whole community anyway, so that reduces what would be the onus on a single child or young person representative on an adult panel. But what is really important then is, if there is a separate children and youth panel, that the mechanism for feeding their views into the main panel or directly back up to the adviser is robust and also enables a two-way flow of communication, and that those views are really taken as seriously as the views of adults and are responded to as well.

I think that would be more consistent with Welsh Government's existing commitments to considering the rights of the child and their rights to be heard, article 12.   

Yes, very happy to. The commissioner's suggestion of a children and young people's panel is a very interesting one, and I think one that merits further exploration. Speaking from my own experience, I used to sit on the Climate Change Commission as the young person's representative, way back when, don't ask me how long ago, and it was quite—. I felt it worked rather well for me, but I was about 17 years old at the time. So, membership of adult panels for a young person is very much suited to young people in the elder teens, rather than for children and young people in general. So, I think that's a very good suggestion that does definitely warrant further exploration.

Apologies, could you repeat the beginning of the question? I missed it.   

I think it is important that that is really carefully considered and that sufficient resource is actually given to help the panel deliver whatever they sign up to. From my reading of it, it seemed that there would be some payment, but it seemed to be a minimal amount. So, in terms of exactly how much time those panel members would be required to give to the role, I think that needs to be really clear, and there needs to be sufficient remuneration and sufficient days in the month to do this really important role. In terms of the number of individuals on that panel or how representative they should be, I think that could merit some further consideration. There doesn't seem to be a lot of detail there around that. I think that there's been reference to potentially looking at how the VAWDASV panel works, and potentially using those numbers. But, again, I think that this is something that could usefully be discussed with the deaf community. 

I think that the importance—. It's right to have sign-language-using children or young people. But I think that we also need to be careful how we find those people, how we source them, because you want a variety of views to be represented. Deaf clubs are common, but not every deaf person attends deaf clubs. So, we need to be considering the diversity of the community that is out there. Also, our organisation feels that it is important to involve parents of deaf children and young people as well.

Our position as an organisation is that it should be a member of the signing community. We understand that there are some legal complications when it comes to specifying that the adviser should definitely be a deaf person, so we don't want to cause any potential legal problems there. What the Bill states right now—that the adviser has to be a member of the signing community—we think that that's very sufficient. We know that other organisations would probably disagree with us on that, and that's perfectly fine, but, for us, we think that it fulfils the requirements.

I think that the language that's used—. I think that I agree with Kieran that it's relatively broad at the moment, in terms of a requirement to be a member of the signing community. I can see the complexities with perhaps making it more specific. As with any identity, there's an element of personal subjectivity there, and I don't know if it's possible for others to define or decide who is or isn't a member of the signing community. But I think that the principle of trying to have a person, an adviser, who has lived experience of the issues and challenges that they are there to represent is a really important one. So, I think that any language, or any more detail, that could be added to the Bill to make that principle, to set out what it might mean in practice, would be really welcomed.

Diolch. Diolch, Gadeirydd.

Thank you. We have got two more areas that we want to discuss with you, but we are now going to take another short break in order to enable the interpreters for the general public to be able to swap over.

Jane Dodds, I wondered if you could ask your questions around engagement with the deaf communities.

I think again, as I said previously, because there is such a diversity within the community, we need to offer different ways of access for people. So, we can access places like schools, we can offer opportunities for people to come to forums, engagement with people like the children's commissioner, for example. For organisations like us, rather than organisations who—. I think it's important to have a range of organisations, not just our organisation. Other organisations could be involved in helping that engagement as well. We don't own deaf children and young people. So, we'd encourage you to access different services. I think it's about collaboration and not just looking, for example, at deaf clubs as a way to access people, because there's such a range of locations that you could find deaf children and young people and other members of the deaf community.

At the moment, we don't have a panel of that nature, and that's due to our organisation's current strategy, which very heavily focuses on the early years. So, a lot of that is, currently—. We're heavily focused right now on newborn hearing screening, for example. Some of you may be aware of some potential changes of that nature.

We do have previous experience of this in line with other strategies that we've had as an organisation, and we'd be very happy to write to the committee to provide further evidence on that.

I think the points that have been made are really important, particularly the reminder or the really important point that the deaf community is very diverse, so we're not talking about a homogenous group of people, and therefore a strategy to engage with that community also needs to be diverse and use different points of contact, including youth clubs, but also schools and individuals who just may not be part of any wider groups. Clearly, as we can see, BSL interpretation is fundamental. We know and we've heard that there aren't enough BSL interpreters in Wales. Unfortunately, we also have recently had the decision by Qualifications Wales to not progress with the BSL GCSE, which I expressed my disappointment in. Part of the rationale for that decision was that we don't have enough teachers of BSL. All of these things are part of the picture and why we need a long-term strategy, but also these are the practicalities that an effective engagement strategy needs to grapple with before you can even begin to have these conversations to inform what you need to do next.

Communication is fundamental for all of us, regardless of what language we speak, and we all have a right to use our language to communicate. So, this is not easy, but I think the complexities and the practicalities need to be really reflected in the strategy, particularly around the planning that is needed and the investment that is needed to make sure that we do have the teachers and the interpreters to enable communication with the BSL community.

I think for us—again, I'm aware I sound like a bit of a broken record in this session—a lot of it comes back to the engagement that will take place within the advisory panel and the various groups that the advisory panel will involve themselves with. For good accountability to take place, communities need to be informed about what's going on and what decisions are being made. We see this time and time again, not just within the deaf community, but within wider society as well. If people aren't informed about what's going on, people get angry, people don't understand, and for that to be tackled, there just needs to be not so much education, but there needs to be that knowledge of what's going on so that people can hold public organisations to account proactively. That can take place through a myriad of forms. That could be through the advisory panel. That could also be through your good selves as Members in your discussions with constituents. So, there are many ways in which that can take place, but a lot of it within the framework of this Bill does fall back to the adviser and the panel.

There are different ways of being accountable. One example, if I could just add to what's been said previously by the commissioner, is that there are not enough BSL interpreters, you're correct. Also, within education, there are not enough communication support workers who have the BSL levels required. We can say that that should be provided, the individual development plan can say that should be provided, you should provide a communication support worker, but in reality it's very difficult to find people who have the correct qualifications in order to provide that role. So, that's one way of being accountable: if we can look at what's happening within a young person's IDP and within their education.

I think there could be more clarity given to, when the three-year report is done, exactly what will be within that, who that will be presented to and what will happen as a result of that. So, if the reporting says we haven't made much progress, who will that be delivered to? And what the mechanism is for the deaf community, hopefully through their representation via the advisory group or groups, to then respond back to the Welsh Government and to shape and refine future strategies. There is a need to really think carefully through how the accountability measures can be strengthened at this stage, because we already have several public structures where, perhaps, accountability isn't as good as it should be. We even have the Youth Parliament, who produce excellent reports and is a fantastic way of hearing from children and young people, however there isn't currently a requirement on the Welsh Government to respond formally to their reports. So, that is weakness, I think, in the accountability structures for that body. I think a formal requirement for the Welsh Government not only to report but to respond to recommendations from the adviser or from the advisory panel would strengthen the accountability.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. 

Diolch yn fawr. Altaf Hussain. 

Thank you very much, Chair. The question is about barriers to implementation, and the question is specifically for Kieran and Jamie. Your evidence highlighted the barriers that hearing parents can face when trying to learn BSL. What would you like to see put in place to make it easier for people to learn BSL, or even to train as interpreters or translators? Thank you.

I think the way that parents of deaf children learn BSL needs to be thought about. There's level 1, there's level 2, there's level 3 out there, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's suitable for families. I do think that we need to look at ways to provide a diverse course when it comes to British Sign Language, and how parents and families access those courses. And also, the vocabulary that's involved in the course that's being taught. I know that's something that's to be thought about later down the line in terms of the strategy and the provision of those courses. Does that cover and answer your question?

Yes, that was very quick. 

Not much else to add. I agree with everything that Jamie said. On top of that, we've discussed the barriers and we've highlighted the cost barriers that exist, particularly for adults who are learning. Obviously, for parents, those are the courses that they're looking at, but it's not just the cost aspect; it's also local availability. Particularly in rural areas, we see that that's a growing issue. For example, in Cardiff it'll be a lot easier to find a course than, say, in Gwynedd or Powys. So, it's looking at how do we introduce those courses, how do we introduce them in a family-friendly way. So, not only are the parents learning, but they're also learning how to teach their children at the same time, which is a bit of a unique skill set. That's why families sign language courses are so important, but it's trying to find a way to make that as available as possible and as widespread as possible. Part of that will be in-person learning, part of that will probably be online as well. It's just trying to find the best solution in that regard.

Although we have a problem with the number of interpreters and translators. Is there anything else that you'd like to see amended or improved in the Bill? 

On the point of interpreters and translators, we very much agree with that, as we've already stated. In terms of any other changes to the Bill, there's not much else that I can think of. I know Jamie had a point to raise about interpreters as well in terms of the involvement with the board.

That's right, yes. I think when it comes to the training of British Sign Language interpreters, it's very important, but I think maybe there should be some inclusion of them on the panel too, because, actually, it allows them to voice the difficulties that are being faced and the challenges of interpreting, and the fact that there are low numbers. It also means that we can look closer at the provision and the training of interpreters going forward, with the input of an interpreter themselves.

Thank you. I just want to follow up a little bit around costs, because there has to be a financial impact assessment attached to this Bill. You say that the cost of BSL learning is prohibitive for many families. Could you just tell us what it costs? Because, clearly, those who are teaching need to be remunerated for that work. 

Yes, definitely. For the early levels of learning, particularly BSL level 1, the costs can be quite low. So we're talking, I think, off the top of my head, roughly £100 or so, depending on who they're doing the course with. [Interruption.] About £300, sorry; I got that number wrong. But then, as you start looking at the higher levels and you're achieving further proficiency in the language, the costs can go up and up to more than double that. So, if you're talking about a working family that's potentially struggling, that's a very prohibitive cost in terms of them gaining those skills. It is important for BSL teachers to be remunerated, that goes without saying. So, perhaps it's looking at other ways in which BSL can be taught to make it more inclusive, so that more people can experience it and become a part of it.

Do these courses occur online or do they take place in person?

It depends on the teacher.

It varies.

It feels like we need to have a little bit more information on this, because if family x is informed that they have a deaf child, what are the options for training and who's going to pay for it? Because if your relative is having a knee replacement, normally somebody close to them gets trained up to help that person to do the exercises, to make that a successful operation, and obviously the health service absorbs that cost. But I think we need to have a similar approach to this, because the adult simply isn't able to support their child adequately or optimally unless they've got the skills to do that.

If it would be helpful for the committee, we could look into the costings further and send the committee that information. Perhaps we could also look at it in terms of the difference between geographical areas as well. I feel like that may be beneficial.

Yes. Clearly, if you live in an urban area, it may be possible to have it in person. If it's in a rural area, it may simply be impractical, because who's going to look after the child while you're doing it?

May I just follow that up as well? Are there any ways that parents, carers, families can actually get it funded? Are there grants? I think we really would like to tighten on the whole process of accessibility for children, young people and their families to be able to equitably access BSL interpreting, so there's no inequality issues or inequity issues here.

I got a number wrong; I don't trust myself. Jamie.

Can I just clarify the question? Is that regarding funding, as mentioned earlier, or is it more around access?

Both. My question is how do poor families access fairly the opportunity to be able to interpret for their children, as well as their children being able to access it.

Do you mean how should they access British Sign Language training—is that the question? Am I right? Sorry, I just want to make sure I've got the question clear.

Yes, how can they. 

I think there are two points to consider in this situation. There's the child themselves—how does the child access training. It could be via school, and that's if they've got the right support available. They could have a teacher for the deaf, but is that person skilled enough to be able to teach the language to the child, and will they even have the time to be able to do that? So, there is a cost consideration in that scenario.

And then, when we look at the home situation, I think there are many variables. So, yes, if it's the family’s first language then absolutely. And can that family access the benefits system? Another consideration is where the course takes place; if it's online, has the family got the technology suitable to be able to access an online course? So, it's really difficult to give a simple response to that question. It's the same if you look at social care. So, if you look at local social care, what's available? Can they fund courses? Is that an option? The Bill doesn't mention where the money comes from for those aspects, and I think the strategy needs to hold the further detail for that.

Sioned.

There is huge potential for duplication here. I know that my office can investigate individual breaches of children's rights, however, we do signpost individuals to the complaints systems of public bodies, to go through the full complaints system before we pick it up. So, it's already quite complicated. The proposal seems to indicate that the adviser could receive or be informed about complaints but not necessarily investigate them, so I think that needs to be clarified. It doesn't seem that, on the face of it, this has been designed to be an investigation or complaint-dealing mechanism, because the resource just isn't there, as it's currently set out, to enable that. So, I think more information about how to equitably access existing complaints mechanisms is a role that the adviser could usefully take. But I think it would be worth setting that out more clearly.

I have very little to add to what the commissioner said, aside from the fact that, as she stated, the complaints procedure can be a bit cumbersome and convoluted and confusing for some people. And this is not just something to take into consideration with this Bil, but in a wider sense, perhaps it needs to be looked at how complaints procedures are made more accessible in general, particularly for members of the deaf community.

Can I just add that my office is working with the Welsh Government to look at their existing model complaints policies, to help them be more accessible for children and young people? And we’re working with—sorry, not Welsh Government; the public services ombudsman, to look at that. And within that work, we would envisage making sure that that is accessible to deaf children and young people as well. But I think the complaints system across the board is something that could do with looking at.

I wonder if the National Deaf Children's Society could provide us with some written evidence that provides portraits of individuals—without breaching confidentiality—about how a parent accessed training to be a user of BSL, who paid for it and where did they have to go to get it. Who paid for the childcare costs or the transport costs, if we're looking at people who are struggling to meet the heating bills? So, if you could give us some information about cases that you're aware of, without mentioning individuals, and equally who pays for the cost of a child learning BSL to a higher degree. 

Altaf, you wanted to come back in.

Yes, a quick question to the National Deaf Children's Society. What is the youngest age that children have been—? You know—[Inaudible.] That would be very interesting, when they start looking after those children. That would be helpful. 

What is the youngest age at which you have involvement with deaf children?

The youngest age at which we can have involvement with deaf children is pretty much from identification. So, that can be newborns. Typically, with the current policies around newborn hearing screening, audiologists will typically refer parents of deaf children to NDCS for additional guidance and information. Considering that the vast majority of deaf children and young people are born to hearing parents, as you can imagine, it's a bit of a shock to the system for them. So, we very much then play a role in supporting the parents, in explaining how the system works, how things work, all of that sort of stuff.

Does anybody have any further questions to our witnesses? I see none. So, we thank you all for the excellent quality and clarity of your evidence. We'll send you a transcript of what you have said and, obviously, we'd like you to correct it if we interpreted it wrongly. The committee will now take a break, and the next session will commence promptly at 13:30. So, I would ask Members to be back by 13:25, so that we can organise the technicalities so that we start on time. 

Good afternoon. Welcome back to the Equality and Social Justice Committee and we're now going to continue with our evidence session 6 on the British Sign Language (Wales) Bill. I'm very pleased to welcome Dr Kate Attfield who works for Cardiff Metropolitan University, although she's appearing in her personal capacity, and Dr Rob Wilks, University of the West of England, who's joining us online. So, let me just get my script, which I've lost, of course. So, I know that the first question I wanted to ask is: what has been your involvement, if any, in this Bill? And perhaps I could ask Rob Wilks to start.

Okay, thank you for inviting me here today to provide evidence to the committee. I really appreciate the opportunity. I have been involved for a while; I was part of the group of deaf people working with Mark Isherwood on the motion discussed and voted upon in the Senedd. That motion then became the proposal for Mark’s Member's Bill. So, I've been involved for many years now.

Very good. And Dr Attfield, what's your involvement been?

I haven't been directly involved at this stage, but previously I used to work at the British Deaf Association and I worked with Mark Isherwood, at a sort of pre stage to this, from 2005 up until 2013, but then I moved into academia.

Very good, okay. Starting with Dr Wilks, we've obviously had your very detailed paper, and thank you very much for that, so could you just summarise your attitude towards this legislation and whether you think if the legislation was not achieved, there would be other ways in which we could achieve the aims of the Bill?

Okay, that is a very big question. I have been studying and researching the different sign language laws of the UK, in Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales, and I think the Welsh Bill has the opportunity to be the strongest out of them all. The reason for that is that we would have the BSL adviser, who would report to the Welsh Government, develop the national strategy and work alongside public bodies who will have their own BSL plans. Because of these, the Welsh Bill stands out, especially as there would be a BSL adviser, a role not found in the other parts of the UK.

Thank you. I'll come back to you in a moment. First of all, Dr Attfield, what is your summary of this Bill's intentions, and are there any other ways in which it could be achieved?

Yes, thank you. So, I think the legislation is vital, but I think that it requires ambitious commitment and corresponding funding, which I might come on to later. I think there is potentially an excellent framework and I think it has the potential to ensure meaningful acceptance of deaf people in society, particularly in Welsh society. I also think that what's excellent is that the fundamental mechanisms entrenched in the Bill and having the regulations seem to give it potential power, so that's really great.

In terms of whether it could be achieved in another way, I don't think it could at all. I think that deaf people are under-educated and unemployed and thereby seen as recipients of society, and I think that in order for public bodies to move forward and progress, there needs to be a statutory duty on them to make not just access for deaf people, but to enable them to be able to contribute to society meaningfully. 

Okay. Thank you for that clarity. Dr Wilks, I'll come back to you, because you're obviously the expert in the BSL Acts across the UK. What can we learn from the implementation of the BSL Act in Scotland? 

Okay. So, I'd just like to mention there that I am in agreement with what Dr Kate Attfield has said around policy and BSL equality in Wales and how that can't be achieved, but that it needs to be put into statute, and, as a lawyer, I will always be an advocate for legislation over policy. Policy often follows the opinions of political parties and will depend on the priority of the political party in power at the time. However, if it is enshrined in legislation, political influence will have a lesser effect.

In Scotland, as you mentioned, they have a national plan. So, the Scottish Government have to produce a national plan every six years and, as part of that, the public authorities have their own individual BSL plans that tie into the national plan. I have done further research on Scotland and how the Act works there, and what I can see is that the general issue, when looking at it across the board, is that when it comes to the outcomes and the impact of that, there doesn't seem to be specific detail around what those outcomes will be. So, the aims are quite general—they are around 'improving life' for deaf people, having BSL taught in schools. What I find is that it is very vague and this makes it very difficult to assess the impact that the Scottish Act has had. 

Because we have heard—. 

Sorry, just to—. I think there is a lesson there to be learnt, and that's around making sure that we have measurable outcomes that can be evidenced, that are impactful to the deaf community. 

Okay. We have heard that some Scottish institutions named in their Act have yet to come up with a BSL plan. Is that correct?

That's correct, yes. I think that's a minority. Most of them have created a BSL plan, but there are some that haven't. But there's an issue around the fact that there's no disciplinary or no challenge if they do not create a plan. It's almost as though it's voluntary, like a voluntary exercise, and, 'Oh, you haven't created the plan. Oh, well', and time moves on. But I think we need to avoid that in Wales. 

Thank you. Dr Attfield, what's your assessment of the effectiveness or otherwise of the Scotland Act?  

I have read about those issues that Rob has brought up. And I know that there has been some sort of available subjective interpretation of what people have to do, and things have progressed on without that happening. And, of course, that's what we have to avoid altogether, and so we have to make sure that the BSL adviser is very clear about what their duties and powers are, the strategy has to be tight with timescales and so on, and then the Welsh Ministers, who they have to report to, have to be knowledgeable about what progress means and whether that's enough.

Thank you. We'll now move on to look at different aspects of the Bill, and, first of all, Julie Morgan has some questions. 

Diolch, and prynhawn da—we are in the afternoon now, aren't we? Yes. The Bill would require Welsh Ministers and listed public bodies to plan how they would promote and facilitate BSL, and to report on progress. So, how do you think that this framework would achieve meaningful improvements for deaf people, and are there any areas that you would like to see changed? Shall we start with you, Kate?

Yes. Thank you. I think that the capacity to have subordinate legislation is essential. I think that, initially, it provides a framework with statutory duties, which is potentially really positive. I think that the BSL adviser—. Are we going to ask about the position of that person later?

Yes, we are.

Yes. Okay. So, I think that they—. I suppose that, if it's parallel to the adviser for violence against women, and that they are able to do research themselves, and if they have research staff, then they are able to find really pertinent evidence of what needs to happen. Obviously, also, what seems to be in-built in it is the Bill allowing for scrutiny at multiple levels. That's essential. My hope in the end is that deaf people can be meaningfully educated and employed, and have meaningful position and citizenship in society, and contribute effectively.

I do have a concern about whether there is enough power given to Welsh Ministers and the adviser. Obviously, the adviser isn't a commissioner. But, hopefully, maybe the difference would be that Welsh Ministers are more directly responsible for co-ordinating and working with the BSL adviser more directly. So, maybe that would be an advantage.

So, what would you like added to the Bill?

I was wondering if there are some areas that might need to be tightened. So, I was wondering about section 4(1)(b). I was wondering if there seems to be a loophole where public bodies can do nothing at all. It says that they have to describe how they intend to follow the guidance issued under section 3, which says that they have to give guidance to public bodies about how they may promote and facilitate the use of BSL, as in how they choose to do it, but then it says,

'or explains why it does not intend to do so'.

And then, similarly, that seems to be the same sort of pattern in section 5(8) and also section 6(1)(b), where, if they just explain that in BSL, they seem to be able to say, 'We're not going to do anything'. So, I was wondering if that's—unless it's purposeful—a loophole.

And my other concern is that, if there was—. This has to have a long-term commitment embedded into it. And so, for example, if there was a change of Government, I was wondering if—. It can't just depend on the commitment that people have and the enthusiasm people have for it. The Act has to hold weight in order to make sure that any political party would progress with it. So, my concern is that section 1 says—. I think it could be subjectively interpreted, and then that would mean that public bodies would have a legitimate reason to only promote and facilitate BSL superficially.

Also, another concern is that section 9, under regulations, allows for the saving of funding, which potentially suggests that, you know, they could just say, 'Well, we can't afford to pay'. Or maybe it would be minimal. I think that it should be promoted as a third language of Wales rather than helping deaf people. Deaf people should be recognised as a resource, rather than individuals who have been prevented from accessing and contributing to society.

Another thing is that I was wondering if we needed to have a—. Like in the memorandum, I was wondering if we need to have a definition of what British Sign Language is at the start of the Act. I don't know if you saw what I wrote, but there was a definition given of BSL, and I thought it was a misdirected definition, because it didn't convey that British Sign Language is a grammatical language. So, I was wondering if we could say—. I don't know if it's appropriate to say it at the start of the Act or somewhere else, but I think we should say, 'British Sign Language, BSL, is a signed language that has its own grammar, that is different to English and Welsh. This means that BSL has its own syntax, morphology and phonology', and we could also add, 'BSL is one of around 300 signed languages globally.' So, it's nothing like—. The previous definition was all about the fact that it's full of gestures. That just doesn't explain that it has any due recognition of credibility.

Thank you very much. One of the strong points you're making is that you want it futureproofed for—

Yes, exactly. Can I add one more thing? My concern also is that—. Well, one thing is that the Act needs to be able to enforce penalties on public bodies, I would say. Once it's been made sure that public bodies have to comply with this, in order to have meaningful power, they need to be able to make sure that bodies are going to do what they've agreed to do. And also, I think it would be a mistake—I don't know if I can move on to this—to just invest in having a whole load of new hearing BSL interpreters. I know that, in 2003, that's what happened, and deaf people felt very not heard, because they felt that the investment was in the hearing people and helping hearing people to understand them, rather than being investment in themselves.

Thank you very much for that. Dr Wilks, can I ask you the same question? How do you think this framework would achieve meaningful improvements for deaf people, and are there any other areas that you'd like to see added or changed?

I think, really, there are a lot of themes that Dr Kate has already talked about. So, when we think about BSL, it's not good enough to just say, BSL as if there is only one form of BSL. There are at least four regional variations in Wales alone. We know that, but it's not necessarily documented. So, there are regional variations, and so I think we need to ensure that any definition includes that there are regional differences and that BSL is not produced one way in Wales.

I think, also, one of the themes, when we look at it, is access. I think one of the dangers we have is if we compare BSL to Welsh, they are treated differently. The Welsh Language Commissioner has powers to sanction if public bodies fail to provide information in Welsh. For BSL that wouldn’t happen. The BSL adviser could ask the public body why they haven’t provided the information in BSL, and they could justify why they haven’t. That is a concern.

And going back, then, to your question—. I'm sorry, do you mind repeating your question, please?

I was asking whether the framework of this Bill would have meaningful improvements for deaf people in Wales and what you would like added or changed. 

Thank you for repeating your question. My biggest concern is—. I have created the term 'deaf legal illusion'. So, there are sign language laws that say, 'Well, we protect sign language', or, 'We give deaf people rights', but they are generally tokenistic. They give the illusion that there are rights for deaf people, but the reality is not the same. Nothing has changed. The status quo carries on with no real changes, and I think that's the danger we need to be wary of. I’ve seen this in sign language laws around the world, including the UK. That is the danger. We need to avoid the deaf legal illusion from happening.

So, I think the framework that we have at the moment has potential. There is potential for massive change, and I think it can happen within Wales, but—and I have to say, I think there are a lot of buts—for example, having read through the Bill, it talks about that if a public body cannot follow the guidance for whatever reason, then they have the ability to say, 'I'm sorry, we can't do it', if they can justify that reasoning for not doing it, and what I would say is 'get away with it.'

Also, my concern is that the list of public bodies is very short. They are not all the public bodies, and I think that there are a lot of public bodies that are missed off the list that could be included. So, I think that the list that has been provided is not lengthy enough—not everybody is on there.

I think there are a number of issues that deaf people who live in Wales live with. For example, education, transport—they are not inclusive at the moment. You could argue that education will be included because local authorities are within the list of public bodies. However, they have a limited budget and they don't fully understand that BSL is a language, as my own research has previously shown when we looked at Scotland, for example. At Government level, there is an understanding that BSL is a language, but if we're talking about local front-line services—by that I mean the local authority—they see it as a communication tool, and we need to avoid that misunderstanding, because it is a language and everybody who is involved in producing any plans must understand that we are talking about an actual language. We are not talking about a communication tool. It's a language in and of its own right and people need to understand that, that understanding that it is a language should change things.

And also we talked previously about funding. There is no commitment—you are right, Dr Kate—there is no commitment to funding at the moment. I know people have different priorities, but in order to achieve anything, in order for the Bill to achieve what it hopes to achieve, there needs to be funding. So, BSL needs to be taught, and we need lots of people involved in everyday services. It's not a one-off; it's an everyday thing. We don’t have monolingual services at the moment. What would be useful to have is other services that are—. We have services in English, we have services in Welsh, and we also need services, or should have services, in BSL. People who speak Welsh know that automatically they can get their needs met whenever they go in a public service; BSL just hasn't got that at the moment. I think that's what's needed, that people can go and receive a service directly from another BSL user so that they're not relying on a third party—the interpreter—being involved; they can actually have a direct conversation with another person using their same language. I think that's the sort of thing that we would want to be looking at and sorting out, and I think that would help that Bill to become a reality.

Also, there are concerns I have about monitoring, because at the moment there is the review of the national strategy, which has to be reviewed every six years. And you could say six years is a long time, but then I'm thinking, 'Well, included in the Bill is a halfway review just to see that things are moving forward and that things are on track.' And the Bill says that the Welsh Ministers can demand a change and a review if needs be. We need the BSL adviser to be able to do the same thing. And I understand that if you're looking at having to review every six years, there will be a lot of services that need reviewing and that person might not have the ability to do that well.

And how do deaf people make complaints if the service isn't being provided for them? If they go to the BSL adviser, it seems to me they will not have the ability to do much with that. They don't have that power that they might need, and they don't have the power to go back to an organisation and say, 'Why are you not doing what you said you were going to do?'

I admire your enthusiasm, Dr Wilks, but we're obviously running through every aspect of the Bill at once. So, we will be coming on to the adviser, but I think—. Julie Morgan, were there any further questions you wanted to ask?

One question, Dr Wilks. You did suggest, following up what you've just been saying, that the BSL adviser could be required to produce an annual report to complement the statutory reporting requirements. So, could you explain why you think there should be an annual report?

Well, I'd like to stop you, because I think we want to address that a bit later on. I'd like to call in Mick Antoniw at this stage to discuss which listed public bodies are or are not mentioned in the Bill. You're on mute at the moment, Mick.

Sorry, I thought it was automatically demuting.

Yes, so did I. 

For Dr Wilks, on the basis of—. You've almost answered a part of the question for you, but let me present it in this particular way. Obviously, public bodies and the duty on them goes to the heart of this Bill, but in your evidence, Dr Wilks, you've suggested that the duties could be strengthened, requiring them to take all reasonable steps. As a lawyer, I've always had concern when the phrase 'all reasonable steps' gets inserted into legislation, because it's never clear what it actually means, but it's something that you've suggested in your evidence. What impact would it have? Why do you think the Bill doesn't actually have that specific requirement? How would it actually add to and strengthen the Bill, in your opinion?

When we're thinking about the list of public bodies that are included, as I mentioned before, I think a big issue for deaf people within Wales is education. I have two deaf daughters and they go to school in Bristol. The reason for that is there is no deaf school in Wales. They need to be with deaf peers, but with Wales having a policy of mainstreaming all children, then that becomes problematic. So, if we look at things like Estyn or Qualifications Wales, they're not included. And also further and higher education are not included in the list as well. They are in Scotland but they're not in Wales, or not in this particular Bill. So, I think when we're thinking about anybody who provides education, that needs to be part of the plan.

Also Transport for Wales is not included as well. And the ombudsman is missing from the list, and I believe they need to be part of that list so that deaf people have a place to go to make a complaint, so that they can complain about public services. And I think the words 'reasonable steps' are very interesting as well. The Equality Act has 'reasonable adjustments'. There is much debate about whether ‘reasonable adjustments’ are good enough. We know that this concept is not just used in the UK, but also all over the world, often called 'reasonable accommodations'. Why do I bring that up?  In the Bill in Northern Ireland, for example, they talk about reasonable steps, and all of the Government departments will have to take reasonable steps to follow their strategy. And also the public authorities will have to take reasonable steps to amend their services, and I think that adds some strength to the Bill.

When we look at Scotland, as you asked me earlier, the local authorities don't necessarily have to make a plan. Some of them haven't produced a BSL plan, and there's no penalty for that. So, if they had a duty to make reasonable steps, I think that that then would force them into having to do something, or to do more than they are currently, and that needs to be part of the Welsh legislation, just to strengthen it.

And I don't think it should necessarily be seen as a burden; I think reasonable steps are—. If you have some difficulty, if it's around funding or if, on a practical level, you are not able to achieve—. So, for example, a local authority may have had a number of cuts, they may be close to bankruptcy, and they're saying, 'Actually, we can't afford to do this, and these are the reasons for it', then at least they've tried to make reasonable steps, and they're mindful of the fact that there is legislation that they should be following and they're not able to. But I think that 'reasonable steps' adds a little bit of strength to it.

Thank you. We now need to take a break in order to change interpreters, and we'll come straight back to Mick Antoniw after that.

Mick Antoniw, could you continue your questioning, please?

Thank you, Chair. Dr Wilks, you started explaining about the comprehensive nature, or the lack of it being a comprehensive list, that there are more bodies that should be incorporated into the Bill on that very specific list. Estyn was one of them; there were a number of others relating to further and higher education and so on. So, I will take that, really, as read. Following on from one of the comments that was made by Dr Attfield earlier in terms of, I suppose, the get-out clause, as it's referred to, whereby listed public bodies could decide not to follow Welsh Government guidance, provided that they set out in their plans why they are not following it, I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on that, because it's a pretty enormous, I suppose, way, of avoiding the duty. Perhaps you could explain what your thinking is as to why that is there in the Bill, but also why it shouldn't be in the Bill, if that is your opinion.

Is that directed—?

Dr Wilks.

To Dr Wilks, yes.

Okay. I think the issue, as I mentioned earlier, is around us needing transformative legislation. So, I mentioned the examples from Scotland around the fact that some of the public authorities haven't produced their BSL plan and there's no punishment for that—there's no penalty. So, there need to be people, as part of this, who are on the advisory board, who have lived experience, who can actually call these local authorities out for not fulfilling their duties. There are so many reasons why a local authority may not follow the legislation. So, for example—. Maybe I'm going to sound like I'm maybe against the local authorities today, but, actually, their record so far isn't great. The provision for deaf people is very poor. Quite often, it's a case of, 'Oh, well, we can't do that, we haven't got the funding, we haven't got enough staff.' There's a myriad of excuses, and there’s a danger that it could become a bit of a postcode lottery here in Wales. So, whether you're going to get a good service from the local authority will depend on where you live, and that can’t be right. All deaf people in Wales deserve equal treatment, wherever they live. Those are my concerns in terms of the so-called get-out clause.

Can I just pursue that a little bit? Earlier you were talking about the reasonable practicability test and imposing a duty in respect of reasonable practicability, but reasonable practicability is also a sort of get-out area. It seems to me to be not that dissimilar in practice, or do you think that your reasonable practicability suggestion actually is stronger than what is in the Bill already? Dr Wilks.

I think that what would be stronger is to remove it completely. However, I am aware that, actually, there has to be some compromise. We have to use some common sense. If local authorities and other organisations struggle to comply with the legislation, they need to be able to state their reason for that. If they say that they can't, we need a reason for it. The difference between ‘reasonably practicable’ and ‘reasonable steps’—

On your question of whether there's a difference between the two, I think that when it comes to it being reasonably practicable, the focus is on practicalities. When it comes to reasonable steps, I feel that that's wider reaching, and you could argue that 'reasonable steps' is weaker, compared to the other. But I think that we couldn't conclude either way, in all honesty, which is better. I think that, ideally, the clause would be removed completely, but in reality, that cannot be the case.

Thank you for that. I suppose it leaves the drafters with that dilemma and, of course, in terms of our recommendations. In some of the evidence that we've had, there have been suggestions that the reporting duties for listed public bodies should be aligned with, for example, the well-being objectives in the future generations Act. What are your thoughts on that? Are there any strengths or disadvantages to that approach?

You need to specify who you're asking the question to.

I beg your pardon. To Dr Wilks and also to Dr Attfield. Dr Wilks first.

In terms of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, the future generations commissioner’s duties provides a good model. If you remember the original draft proposal for the Bill, it does talk about that Act. It mentions aligning the reporting cycle for the BSL Bill with the reporting cycle for the future generations Act and the reporting that's needed. We thought that would reduce the burden on public authorities. They could work alongside each other as they would have a similar reporting cycle. But what we don't want is to water down the BSL Act within the reporting cycle because of the future generations Act and the variety of areas that that covers following the UN’s sustainable goals. We don’t want BSL to become just a small part of the well-being of future generations Act and the reporting of that; it needs to have reporting in its own right because it needs to be a priority for the Welsh Government and public bodies.

Thank you for that comprehensive answer. Dr Attfield, did you have any views?

I would like to say that, yes, of course it should align with the future generations Act. In particular, I think deaf people should be seen as having their own well-being and future generations. Therefore, of course, they go hand in hand, don't they? Also, I'd like to say that I don't believe that deaf people are protected by the Equality Act 2010, because for those deaf people who don't believe that they have a disability, and many don't, it means that they have no legal protection at all. So, I slightly disagree with Rob about the reasonableness and the get-out clause, because I think why shouldn’t they have to recognise them. The Welsh language is protected and people are given a right to use that, so I think why shouldn’t they be given a right to communicate in their own language throughout society.

Also, can I go back to the public bodies? I wanted to say that I completely agree with everything that Rob has said, but also particularly that it struck me that the list was councils and health bodies, and deaf people aren’t just recipients—they don’t just access health and then sometimes go into a council building. They want to be able to do everything that anyone else can do. My particular interest is Medr and higher education, obviously, coming from a higher education institution. I agree about Estyn, Medr and Transport for Wales, but also I looked through the 56 public bodies that there are, and of course councils are covered, but also there are all the courts bodies, police, fire, employment, commissioners, libraries, museums, sports—all of that, I think, should be listed as a public body specifically.

Thank you very much. I don't have any further questions, Chair.

Thank you very much. We'll now move on to the role of the BSL adviser and the assisting panel. Sioned Williams.

First of all, it says already that the BSL adviser has to be a fluent BSL signer, which, of course, is essential. I also believe that the BSL adviser needs to be a deaf person themselves, a deaf BSL signer themselves, and that's for several reasons. They have to be in a position to be able to engage directly with Welsh deaf communities. I know that there's also a shortfall of interpreters—that means that there's no need for interpreters to be present.

Obviously, hearing BSL interpreters are needed, but it should be when deaf people are communicating with hearing people, if those hearing people can't sign. It should be that hearing people are needing the interpreters. A deaf person has their own life experience of being a minority person in society, experiencing the issues of deaf people, obviously. I think only someone from the deaf community can represent their own community authentically; I think a hearing person cannot do that.

Also, I think that it would be very damaging to have a hearing person who is the BSL adviser, because it would potentially feel like a recurrence of the old missioners for deaf people, where hearing people have traditionally always told deaf people what to do. Even though I did say at the start that deaf people are undereducated and underemployed—which they are; they've always had a learning ceiling enforced on them—deaf people are obviously very intelligent and they know what they need and they know what they want. Basically, I just think that there should be a stated occupational requirement requiring that the BSL adviser is deaf. I think that if the adviser was hearing, they just wouldn't have any credibility with the deaf community.

Then, of course, the BSL adviser must be highly professional, have the capacity to do research, have the capacity to have all the requirements of meeting, consulting, meeting targets, managing people, chairing advisory panel meetings, all of those things; of course, that's got to be part of it. There should be a strict job description, and obviously, they've got to meet all those essential criteria, but I think that the fundamental basis has to be that they are a deaf person.

I know that nobody's mentioned it today, but in lots of recent correspondence, I've read that people have mentioned the term 'profoundly deaf' and I just wanted to say that I'm completely against that mention of it, because it's a reference to their medical status, and it's irrelevant. I know nobody else has said it, but I've seen it recently in lots of correspondence.

I do agree with Dr Attfield. My gut as a deaf BSL user is that it needs to be a deaf BSL user with lived experience. I also think that the person needs to be Welsh. There's been no mention of that. It needs to be somebody that has been born and brought up in Wales who has that Welsh identity and culture. I think that's important to me. And at the same time, I do have a little bit of a dilemma, because actually it is a language Act that we're looking at, and it's not a deaf Act. It's a language Act that we're discussing today, and it means really that the main focus is language, and really that does mean that the adviser should be fluent in British Sign Language.

In terms of lived experience, that part is a little bit unclear. In my view, I have observed that throughout these committee hearings, most of those who have provided evidence to date have decided to use English instead of BSL even if fluent in BSL, or some are just not confident in publicly speaking in British Sign Language. That has annoyed me. I think speaking English is part of them using their privilege to use whichever language they want, the Welsh language or the English language instead of British Sign Language, when this discussion and this forum is about British Sign Language itself. So, the BSL adviser, if for example it was a hearing person, then they could use their hearing privilege in a Welsh Government forum to be able to speak with those other colleagues who can’t use BSL.

I think what's really important is that the Welsh Government get to a level where they fully understand the issues that face our language, and that won't necessarily be the case if it's somebody that comes in and uses spoken English with colleagues. You can see my dilemma.  So, we need somebody who is deaf and has lived experience in a Welsh context, fluent in BSL. If they can't sign, that is a big fat 'no', but if they are fluent in BSL, I think that maybe that there's a question mark over that and there needs to be further consideration.

I think, with complaints, the adviser should be able to deal directly with complaints. I feel sure that the deaf community will have plenty of complaints coming forward, and they have a right to complain, and they should be able to complain. If they're not happy with the service they're receiving, then they have to complain, and there shouldn't be any barriers still there. If there are barriers put in place, they have to be able to complain about them. For the adviser, I'm mindful that the BSL adviser's role is a compromise, because originally it was supposed to be a commissioner, or the thought was that it was going to be a commissioner. So, to achieve success with the Bill, I think a compromise has had to happen—I understand that. And I think it's a good compromise. I think it's a reasonable compromise. It's a commissioner in action rather than name, it seems to me. So, they do have less power, I do understand that, and I need reassurance that the resources will still be there, in the same way as the person will be a civil servant in the Welsh Government. Obviously, their role will depend on the Government itself and the Government's priorities. So, a commissioner is more independent in theory. So, I think we'd like to see the BSL adviser being as independent as possible—independent from daily operations—and also having enough resources in order to allow them to carry out their duties, and having a budget. And I understand that the Welsh Government will decide what that budget will be, but what I don't want to see is it just being a tokenistic amount of money that isn't going to let them do their job effectively.

First of all, the BSL adviser will understand deaf issues immediately. The ombudsman is not on the list—the public authorities list anyway. So, they will just carry on doing as they do now. They are not accessible to the deaf community and they're not expected to become accessible to the deaf community, and they will not be able to accept complaints given in first language BSL. Whether deaf people can complain to the ombudsman, the local authority, the health board, will depend on whether they have a BSL plan and whether that includes improvements to their complaints procedure. If it doesn't, then there's no way for the Welsh Ministers or the BSL adviser to sanction them and say, 'You've not followed your BSL plan, you haven’t improved your complaints procedure.' There's no power there, and it becomes a catch-22 situation then. If the deaf person wants to complain, they go to the BSL adviser. The BSL adviser says, 'No, I can't do anything, I don't have that power. You'll need to go to the health board.' They go to the health board and the health board is the one that hasn't improved their complaints procedure, or they complain to their local authority, but they’re not able to accept complaints in BSL. In the end, they go to the ombudsman saying, 'I'm not happy with the way my complaints have been dealt with', and the ombudsman isn’t able to accept complaints in BSL either, and they’re not currently on the list of public authorities for the Bill. So, what’s the point?  So, the BSL adviser, at the very least, would be able to deal with those complaints.

Thank you. I absolutely agree with all of that. I think that the point about if the BSL adviser is—. If there is an occupational requirement and the BSL adviser is deaf, then the obvious place to go for the deaf community is to the deaf person who is representing them. And I agree with all of the other issues that Rob said as well about power being removed from them, it just means that they're just a sort of puppet figure. And so they need to have real power to be able to investigate and enforce anything, and maybe they could work in tandem with other people where reports are complained to as well. I also think, overall, there just has to be a long-term funding commitment to make this work. Otherwise, it's just going to be subsidiary to everything else. 

Thank you. I believe that perhaps the panel could be made up of people who have expertise in all of the different public body areas that are listed in the Act, if there are all the ones that we have suggested. And so, for example, there'd be somebody responsible for education, somebody responsible for police, somebody responsible for sport. But they will have to have—. Obviously, they'll have to be knowledgeable about all of these issues and be able to work in collaboration with the BSL adviser.

I think Dr Attfield has got a good idea about the BSL advisory panel. My issue, however, is who we would have on the panel. If they are only deaf BSL users, then the number of deaf BSL using professionals in Wales are a minority. We might not have the various deaf individuals with the skills that you are talking about. So, if we bring people in and then in six years' time we then get a new panel, that could be quite difficult, because who would replace the members of the original panel? And I think that is a big concern of mine, who would be appointed to the panel over time.

Deaf people have suffered for years from oppression, a poor education system, poor access to health services, a number of barriers, lack of access to BSL. A lot of deaf people in Wales just haven't been able to achieve their full potential because of all of those things. They may be interested in the role, but they may not have the qualifications that the role, if they're too strict, might suggest they have to have.

I think the BSL advisory panel would need a different focus. We need to think about, rather than bringing in people who might have a specific knowledge base, bringing in people with lived experience, and adopt a co-production style, and perhaps have deaf experts on board as well. So, we could have grass-roots people of the community, people who have lived experience, and then they can learn the skills and work alongside other people who might be experts within other fields, and they can work together.

I think it would be easy to justify why we'd have hearing people who could use BSL, and then we would get a group of the actual community that is supposed to be represented here. I think that may be the best approach, to have a mixture of qualified professionals and deaf people from the community as well, to achieve better outcomes for the deaf community in Wales.

Okay. We are going to take a technical break, so that we can swap interpreters.

So, before we move on, I just want to ask both of you why you wouldn't want users of BSL to have the same public services as users of Welsh or English. Specifically, the complaints process. There is a hierarchy of complaints. The ombudsman can't do complaints that haven't already exhausted the complaints process. Why wouldn't you want a complaint about education or health to be dealt with by the relevant body, rather than set apart by the BSL adviser, who, inevitably, can't be in every single local authority? So, I just wanted to put that to you. You seem to be wanting the BSL adviser to be equivalent to the First Minister. Do you want to start, Dr Wilks? Brevity is a virtue.

Okay. So, just to clarify: every public authority deals with complaints, but currently the Bill does not have anything to say about the fact that it has to be sorted by their own complaints procedure. So, the strategy that is mentioned, the strategy for the improvement of complaints procedures in Wales as a whole could be mentioned, but my concern is around the gaps in the local authorities to deal with the complaints. The BSL adviser could support in that area. That's my vision. 

Thank you. Dr Attfield, is there anything that you want to add on that front?

Yes. I absolutely agree. Also, what's in the Bill is that the BSL adviser will have their own team to support with dealing with things. It's not just one person alone dealing with absolutely everything. And, yes, of course, there has to be a filtering process. But also the point is that deaf people don't have access in the same way that hearing people have access in society. So, they are therefore prevented from being able to complain, because they just can't get to do it.

I grasp that point, but we're trying to embed into these named public bodies that they will know how to access the language that they're going to need if they're dealing with somebody whose language is BSL.

Yes, but there needs to be monitoring to see if that's working, doesn't there? 

Oh, absolutely. Very good. Thank you. We will now move on to Jane Dodds. 

Okay. That's a very good question. As the co-lead for the BSL (Wales) Bill campaign and the group, there has been a lot of support for the Bill itself, but that has met with some difficulties, in terms of the geography of Wales. So, there are some clear splits between the north and south, for example, and, you could even argue, between the south-west and north-east as well. So, there are, as I mentioned, splits and difficulties geographically, and that does have an impact on how cohesive we are and how much we can collaborate as a nation. What we want is a united deaf community, for us to be able to support each other and work alongside each other, but what I see quite often is that deaf people prefer to have face-to-face contact. They prefer to be able to go to their local community and meet others on a face-to-face basis, to be able to know each other and to talk to each other. And that's fine. That's not a problem. That can fit in well. However, when you look at the modern world and how it's been digitalised, things have been taken online, face-to-face isn't the norm as much as it once was. So, for example, the BSL adviser or local public bodies, when they look at their BSL plan, this needs to be taken into consideration. It then needs to be a collaborative effort to reach out to Welsh deaf communities nationwide, because what we want is for them to feel valued and, actually, those deaf communities deserve to have the opportunity to be heard.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Dr Attfield.

Thank you. I completely agree. In terms of every age group, I would suggest that—. There are a few third sector deaf organisations that different deaf people are attracted to, and also there are deaf clubs that also do tend to be older generations of deaf people, but then, obviously, as Rob has just said, there's social media—you can attract younger people's views online. So, hopefully that would be quite comprehensive.

And you want to go first to Dr Attfield?

Could it be in both? That's my suggestion, just to make sure that there are both layers.

Sorry, do you mind asking the question again, please?

As I mentioned previously around co-production, I think it's really important that lived experience of the Welsh deaf community is fed into the national strategy, the BSL Bill, the guidance and any other documentation that is created. The deaf community need the opportunity to feed into that. I think, in terms of my knowledge of the deaf community, the more views we get, the better. There are lots of public bodies that struggle to understand the experience of deaf signers in Wales. I think, quite often, it's difficult for them to get their head around, especially at a local level. As I mentioned before, they still see BSL as a communication tool, and we need to change that mindset, so that BSL can reach equivalence with other languages in this country. I think it will take a long time for that mindset to change, specifically around deaf education. I think there needs to be improved accountability. I mentioned the Bill in Scotland before. When I reviewed their outcomes and their goals, they seemed to be rather vague. So, off the back of that, we need to make sure that any objectives or aims within that strategy for the BSL Bill need to be measurable, which means that we can have that comparison and we can assess the impact, which is quite simple really. 

Yes, I agree with you. I think, yes, ideally you could put targets in the legislation itself. The thing is that what needs to be confirmed is the amount of long-term commitment to funding first of all, before you can say, 'All of these things need to happen', that are impossible to happen. But, ideally, yes, of course, and ideally there needs to be available public information, comprehensive public information in BSL in all of these public bodies. Deaf people need to be able to go in and be able to make an appointment and have a conversation with somebody and have the access that they want, and they need to be able to apply for jobs and be able to work in places. So much is needed, but, obviously, all of it needs serious commitment and funding to make sure that it can happen. Ultimately, the whole of society will be able to sign and deaf people will be able to get jobs and contribute at a high level in society.

That is a massive question and I'm just thinking about how to answer that. I think my difficulty is that there are so many and, if anything, too many problems to be resolved for the Welsh signing community. For a start, going back to the mention of co-production, it's making sure that deaf people's views and their life experience are shared and fed back into the strategy and guidance and the planning.

I'm not sure when it comes to the Senedd's responsibility around creating targets. I think maybe it would be better to have more general focuses. If you look at the Bill in Northern Ireland, it says that all Government departments have a legal duty to give deaf people access to information from their departments—so, access to their services, ultimately. I think it's a matter of making sure that we have a minimum standard. As Dr Attfield mentioned previously, deaf people need to be able to access the information from these different Government departments and local authorities, public bodies. I think that sets the foundation for us moving forward.

Thank you. Can I just remind the witnesses that no Government can bind a future Government on future spending? It is down to the citizens of Wales to choose the Government that's going to support the objectives of this Bill.

So, we're now going to move to the last section. Altaf Hussain.

Thank you very much, Chair. I know about the passing of time. My question area is barriers to implementation. What factors might prevent the Bill from achieving its aims, and how could these challenges be addressed? That is a question for both of you. Dr Wilks. 

Who did you want to ask first the question to? 

Dr Wilks will be fine. 

Yes, I think there are a number of barriers. The No. 1 issue, I believe, is that there aren't enough interpreters, and, obviously, if all public services in Wales wish to provide an active offer, then the answer would be to provide services in sign language. I know that that's a long-term commitment, because it's not going to happen overnight. Those services will need to rely on the use of interpreters and translators as well. They'll need to do that in the interim. There are 54 BSL interpreters in Wales, and there are two deaf translators. So, if you imagine now the Government and listed public authorities will be looking for translators for the national strategy, the BSL plans, with only two translators, they will be overwhelmed with the amount of work they will have to do. Interpreters are already busy. It's already difficult to book interpreters in Wales as it stands. So, as the demand from public bodies increases, then there will be a need to bring in more interpreters. That becomes problematic, I believe. That's one of the issues.

If we're talking about an increase in work for BSL teachers as a way of facilitating and supporting BSL, I would think that would become a responsibility of the Government. There are not enough BSL teachers as it stands, so there are not going to be enough BSL teachers, going forward.

Another barrier is that there are no deaf schools in Wales, and what we call a deaf space. The deaf spaces in Wales, there are a few, but they are decreasing year on year. Obviously, with the older generation who are currently running and organising those deaf spaces, when you're thinking about our deaf children who are in mainstream settings rather than in deaf spaces, then, when our older generation pass on, there won't be people to take over those deaf spaces. So, where are our future deaf leaders?

Also, I think one of the big issues is this idea of disabled versus a language minority, and that dilemma. The attitude towards deaf people is that they are disabled, and if you think about the many Government departments or local authorities dealing with deaf people, are they going to approach it with the right understanding?

Thank you. Dr Attfield.

Are you asking about how you see this—?

These challenges to be addressed. 

Challenges in terms of implementation. 

That's correct. 

Yes. I think that if—. If the BSL adviser is appointed and there's an advisory panel, and plus the adviser has their own support team, then hopefully—. I think that the mechanisms that have been built into the Bill look like it could definitely work. I think that the loopholes, if they are considered to be so, need to be tightened or removed so that there are clear responsibilities—the clear power and responsibilities to be able to enforce changes and positive change. And then, obviously, it's up to the people on the panel and then the people they consult to work out what they want the strategy to be, and the direction they want to move in to move forward.

One thing that I think is an issue, added to what Rob said, is that deaf people don't tend to study their own language, and deaf people need to be able to study their own language plus British Sign Language linguistics to be able to have a strong command of their own language, to be able to express themselves fully and to be able to, yes, communicate and produce work.

Yes. Now, is there anything else that you would like to see amended or included in the Bill? This is to both of you, really. Rob.

I can't think of anything right now. I think everything has been covered. All the things that I think needed to be improved or amended I've already raised and we've talked about today. I think, for the deaf community in Wales, the important thing is that they are involved within the process and also to make sure that we have measurable outcomes—clear, measurable outcomes—and then that becomes easier to assess and monitor the success of the Bill.

Thank you very much. Kate.

I think that we need to make sure that the Bill that will be the Act holds meaningful power, so that the parties who are responsible for enacting it do have the power to be able to expect difference. I do think that also the fact that this—. An Act with interventionary power I think is a really good idea. For example, I was aware of it when I—. I know the Social Services and Well-Being (Wales) Act 2014 backwards, and I like the fact that that's got interventionary power. This feels like it's the same thing but potentially even more interventionary. So, I think that feels very positive.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. I've just got a couple of additional questions. Dr Attfield, in your earlier answers, you referred to something that happened in 2003. None of the members of the committee were Senedd Members at the time, and I wondered if it relates to the point at which money was set aside by the Government to train up these interpreters in 2006. When exactly were you employed by the BDA?

I think it—. Yes, I was actually working at the BDA then. I think that there was the UK recognition of BSL in 2003, which obviously wasn't an Act, but I think, if I'm right, there was a funding pot created to employ hearing BSL interpreters, but the deaf people felt disillusioned because they were thinking, 'But where's the investment in us?'

Okay. So, did you work for BDA UK or BDA Cymru?

Wales, which is a branch of the UK BDA. Yes, I did.

Fine. Okay. So, you were specifically talking about the disappointment of the signing community, that none of them, or very few of them, were recruited.

They didn't feel invested in at all.

Okay. Thank you for that. And otherwise, I also am keen to hear from Dr Wilks how many BSL academics are there in the further and university education world, if you know.

I think that's a really good question. If I could go back a little bit to the question you asked Dr Attfield, 2003 was the BSL Futures funding, and it was funded by the Welsh Government at the time. That was the same time as the BSL action came through—the recognition of BSL. So, it wasn't law at that time, it was a policy. So, it wasn't law, it was policy only, and one result of that was to increase the number of interpreters in Wales, and they did manage to achieve that. That did happen, it did increase the numbers, but a lot of the interpreters then moved to England, unfortunately. A lot of the interpreters have now also retired because they've become older; those who qualified through the programme are coming up to retirement age. And so it was successful up to a point. And I'm so sorry, what was your question again directly to me?

Well, I just was interested to know—. You're obviously a very valuable researcher on the implementation of legislation to address the BSL community, and its need to use its own language. So, how many people are there in higher and further education, if you know, who are signers?

I don't know the exact number, but I am involved in the Deaf UK and Ireland Academics group, and, within that group, there are about 30 of us. So, worldwide, I'm also involved in a deaf academics conference network that happens every two years, and that conference is quite well attended. So, there are usually around 100 deaf academics who attend that conference, and that's every two years. Those are academics from around the world. So, to be fair, I think that the UK isn't doing too badly with its number of deaf academics. Two years ago, the first deaf professor in the UK was appointed. So, that was only two years ago. And I think that that has led the way for more and more deaf people who are academics to carry on and to go on to become a professor. I would say that, in Wales, there are very few deaf academics, so we're having to look at the whole of the UK to see the numbers. I'm from Wales, but I work in Bristol. So, I do think that, overall, in the world, there is a fairly good number of deaf academics.

Thank you. Thank you for that background, because both of you have been very modest at not setting your own stalls out. You're obviously not politicians. [Laughter.] Thank you very much indeed for your evidence. We will provide you with a transcript of what you have said, and, if there are any errors, please do correct it. Thank you for your contributions today. It's been very helpful to hear your views as we try and make sure that the Bill is as good as it possibly can be.

There are two papers to note: correspondence from the First Minister as well as correspondence from the Llywydd. Does anybody wish to comment on that before we take them as noted and then we move into private session? I see no-one wishing to speak on those matters.

So, under Standing Order 17.42, can I ask you to agree to exclude the public from the rest of this meeting?