Equality and Social Justice Committee

So, are Members content to go into private session until we resume at 14:30 in public?

Good afternoon. Welcome back to the Equality and Social Justice Committee meeting where we are discussing the Stage 1 scrutiny of the British Sign Language (Wales) Bill. A great welcome to the Member in charge of the Bill, Mark Isherwood MS, and your supporting team: Gareth Rogers, the Bill manager for the Senedd Commission, Claire Thomas from the research service and Gareth Howells from Legal Services. So, all four of you, welcome for this private Member’s Bill on a very, very important subject. We very much welcome this Bill.

I’m going to start by asking briefly if you could summarise why this Bill is needed and why this legislation is an improvement on that of other nations in the UK.

Okay. Well, thanks very much; prynhawn da. Sorry I’m late. First, can I thank the team around me, who’ve been doing a brilliant job supporting me throughout the whole process? But, as you know, the essence of the Bill is focused on introducing a statutory duty to promote and facilitate the use of British Sign Language in Wales, and it’s a language Bill, it’s recognising British Sign Language as a language, not as simply a communication system, like some other systems like Makaton, for example, important, of course, though they are.

The reason I’ve been pursuing this Bill for six years now is because the deaf community, initially in north Wales and then across Wales, asked me to. I’m also a member of the cross-party group on deaf issues and chair of the cross-party group on disability and so on, and now I chair the cross-party group on deaf issues, and, as this has gone on, the weight of support from the people who this seeks to benefit has grown and grown, though, clearly, they’ve had views upon it as well.

Why has it taken six years to get this far? We're not denying that it's an important Bill. Why has it taken six years, and how would you see it working alongside the Equality Act 2010 and the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015?

This was first raised with me at a conference in north Wales in 2018. I then started bidding in the ballots that all Members are invited to bid for—backbenchers are invited to bid for—to seek to lead a debate seeking agreement on a proposal to introduce legislation. I finally had that debate after winning a ballot in February, I believe it was, 2021, just before the last election.

Of course, no Parliament binds its successor, so I started the whole process again at the beginning of this term, and had to wait til towards the end of 2022 before I had a further opportunity. Again, as happened originally, on a free vote the Senedd voted to support the principle. I then had to wait for success in being drawn in the ballot to actually introduce a Bill, and that opportunity finally came around to propose or lead a debate on introduction of the Bill in I think it was June 2024 and, again, the Senedd voted in favour of that.

That, as you’ll be aware from your wider legislative scrutiny, then kick starts a process that takes up to 12 months where the proposing Member—actually, it was the Government—has to undertake a consultation in accordance with the prescribed format. We have to produce an explanatory memorandum and a draft Bill. Also, this was the first time in the Senedd’s experience where they’ve had to factor British Sign Language into that process, so that in itself has been a learning process for the Senedd itself, as well as, I believe, the Welsh Government. We didn’t get it completely right at the beginning and further adaptations had to be made as the consultation went forward and was extended.

Thank you. What lessons have you learned from the legislative approaches taken by other countries and other nations within the UK? How have you learned from the Bills that have already been established in those places?

There are some examples like New Zealand, which introduced legislation back in 2006, and that's been monitored and they've produced progress reports and so on. That's led to things like a national online interactive New Zealand Sign Language learning tool becoming available nationally. At a domestic level, Scotland introduced an Act, the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015, a decade ago. In fact, they're in the process of review after 10 years. The UK Parliament followed that a lot more recently and produced the British Sign Language Act 2022. That applies to all reserved matters—matters reserved to the UK Government applying in Wales. But the duties to report and other duties placed on Ministers in the UK Parliament in relation to matters that are devolved to Wales do not apply to Welsh Ministers in relation to the same matters. In other words, there were no duties—equivalent duties—for all the devolved matters—health, education and so on—in Wales.

Northern Ireland has also got an Executive Bill going through, and as it's an Executive, i.e. Government, Bill, that's expected to pass as well. So, we've been mindful of not only the format of the different Acts introduced, or being introduced, in the rest of the UK—and they've all followed a relatively similar pattern—but also the early evidence that's come from them, particularly in Scotland, where there's now been a series of formal reviews.

So, lastly from me: British Sign Language is obviously a crucial form of communication for particular communities of deaf people, for whom it is their primary language. Could you just explain why the Bill doesn't make any provision to support or facilitate other forms of communication used by deaf people, such as sign-supported English or Makaton?

Well, this is unashamedly a language Bill, and you refer to valuable but separate communication systems that exist in different formats, for use appropriately. This is a language Bill. It's a language rights Bill, but it's also about tackling the barriers that people whose first language is BSL—so, deaf BSL signers—encounter through that in particular. The consultation responses we received were overwhelmingly in support of this as a language Bill.

They also, of course, want to support and retain those other systems you refer to, and, as we've seen in Scotland, for example, it is hoped and expected that once Welsh Government and public bodies, through this legislation, are required to focus on promoting and facilitating the use of BSL, that will further drive awareness and understanding of wider deaf and hearing loss issues and the necessary provision for those, including for people like me, because I'm sitting here with this around my neck.

Thank you. I'd now like to call Julie Morgan.

Thank you, Chair. Congratulations on getting the Bill to this place. I think it shows great commitment. How will this Bill ensure that public bodies do take a strategic approach to promoting and facilitating the use of BSL and that they will make sure that actions are joined up between different organisations?

That's a very pertinent question, and it was also raised in the Chamber when I made my statement on this in July. The Bill or the Act will require the Welsh Government to produce a national strategy within 18 months of the Act coming into force, before which they must appoint a BSL adviser and an advisory panel or assisting panel. The Welsh Government then issue guidance that will go to all listed public bodies under the Act. They will then be required to produce a plan within 12 months of the strategy being published, and then to produce a report for the 12 months after that on progress but also areas where they failed to make progress. At that stage, Welsh Ministers can, and obviously will be expected to, respond and they might direct a local authority or other public body listed to review its plan if they feel that actions that should have been taken haven't been. And if a plan is reviewed, that reviewed plan must be published and then that must also be reviewed again within a further 12 months.

There are lessons from Scotland, which you may be aware of, in their review thus far, that whereas the overwhelming majority of public bodies have produced plans and have followed through to a greater or lesser extent, some haven't, and there has been weakness in monitoring and evaluation: whose job is it if there is a failure to do this? And it might be a matter that you may wish to consider in your evidence gathering and in whatever comes out of that. But that's clearly for you to consider yourselves.

And I think—. The final part of your question, sorry, could you repeat that?

How will the plans be co-ordinated between different organisations?

Good point. Well that's, again, up to the organisations, but there is a very good precedent established in Scotland where, in a number of areas, you've seen health boards—I don't think they call them boards, but their equivalent of health boards—working with one or more local authorities to produce area plans. So, that is a good-practice model that public bodies in Wales may wish to consider.

Right. Thank you for that. You've chosen a six-year review period for the national BSL strategy. I just wondered why it was six years when other national strategies tend to be four years. I just wondered what the rationale was behind the six years.

Well, there are, I think, three-year reviews and then the six-year review that you referred to. In the terminology it's review and—

The six-year review refers to the strategy itself being—

But in between there's the three-year one as well. England, I believe, have a six-year system in place. By having our three-year interim, quasi review, then in some ways it's more thorough than some other places. But the initial Bill—. The controversial bit—. You might recall, when this was first voted on in June 2024, the Welsh Government at the time said that they didn't see any need for this. Subsequent to that, I had lots of constructive meetings with Welsh Government Ministers and we came forward with some compromises, and this model was drawn from what was considered to be the best models incorporated in the other UK legislation.

Right. So, it's looking at other legislation that's made you go for six years.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you very much. And so, looking at a good local BSL plan, what do you think it should contain?

Yes, it then must publish a report at least once every three years; that's what I was trying to remember.

How they are going to ensure that the barriers to access reported widely by deaf BSL signers are addressed. Again, we've heard before in the consultation, but comprehensively since, that, disproportionately, deaf people lose out when accessing health services. We all know the figures on educational underachievement when deafness is not a learning disability. We heard about people being wrongly prescribed medication that is actually harmful to them, or people having comorbid conditions not being addressed comorbidly. Therefore, we want to see those organisations laying out how they will tackle the barriers themselves and support people through that process. Some of that will be practical issues: a shortage of interpreters in schools, a shortage of teachers of the deaf—again, that's an issue that's come up in Scotland; and access to better awareness and training for people, particularly families into whom a deaf person might be born—again, a key concern raised by families about the unaffordable and often inaccessible access to training and courses in BSL that they’ve encountered. Some of this will be long term; there is a shortage of interpreters, there’s a shortage of teachers for the deaf, a shortage of necessarily appropriate qualified clinicians in the health service. That, hopefully, therefore will see plans acknowledging that, and putting in place workforce plans to address that.

But this is a framework Bill; we’re not pre-specifying what the Welsh Governments in the future, what public bodies in the future will arrive at as their priorities, but we hope there would be oversight built into this, and the national adviser and the assisting panel keeping a close eye that those public bodies will do the right thing, or be intervened upon if they don’t.

Thank you. And then, going back to the reporting, what was the rationale for requiring listed public bodies to report on their progress within 12 months of publishing their BSL plan, but then not at another time?

Well, I explained earlier, there possibly is another time if their subsequent review report after a further 12 months doesn’t satisfy the Welsh Government, and they’re required to do another review plan. But, again, this was looking at legislation elsewhere and UK and this was a model that Welsh Government Ministers were content with in order for the Bill to go forward. But, largely—unless I’m corrected by colleagues—it reflects the models implemented in the other UK Acts. Is that fair to say?

It just seems that they may report within 12 months and it’s satisfactory, sort of thing, so it’s not asked to report again, but wouldn’t it be an idea to have some further reporting after a certain period of time?

Well, there is—a further 12 months after that initial plan is published, they must produce a review report showing progress, but also acknowledging and addressing the areas where they haven’t made the progress required, and at that stage—or at any stage, technically—the Welsh Government can require them to amend the plan, which would then require them to publish their amended and revised plan and then to produce a further 12-month review after that. But, let’s say—we’ve learnt from Scotland, and I’m trying to be diplomatic here—that one of the areas where it’s produced less well than had been hoped, than some other areas, is this, and I would encourage you to consider whether, therefore, based on the Scottish experience, we need to suggest strengthened monitoring and evaluation processes.

Yes, thank you. Thank you very much, Mark.

I just want to come back on what you were saying about the BSL plans, because if the BSL plans are not ambitious in increasing the number of BSL interpreters, then, clearly, we’re not going to see the change that this Bill is proposing, and I wondered whether you’ve considered strengthening that section 4 to ensure that the plans must do certain things, rather than a description of how they intend to promote and facilitate. How do you guard against a body simply saying, 'We’re not going to do anything about this; it's not a priority'?

You’re quite right—that is a risk, and that is why some of the processes I’ve just described have been put in place. This is a framework Bill, and the consensus was that we should ensure that what comes forward in the future should not be overly prescribed; we need to hear what deaf communities themselves have to say, what the BSL adviser, who must be a BSL speaker him or herself, and what the assisting panel have to say, representing more widely the deaf community and being in touch with what their priorities are. We want Welsh Government Ministers to have the discretion all Ministers need when monitoring and implementing legislation, and public bodies, again, to be able to flex according to local priorities, because some health boards, some local authorities are further down the road on this, putting it politely, than others, or, putting it another way, some are too far behind. They all have to catch up with where we need to be, but not all necessarily at the same pace. But, I think, as Julie Morgan indicated, there's room there for area working between some of those public bodies also.

Thank you.

If local plans are lacking in any particular area, then the Welsh Ministers have a power to make regulations to specify something must be included in local plans.

Okay. So, you think the Bill is clear enough in saying that the Welsh Government will act—

They have a clear power to say, 'You must include x in your local plans.' Those regulations will be laid before the Senedd, of course.

Thank you. Mick Antoniw, I wonder if you could ask your questions.

Okay. Firstly, Mark, thank you for all the work and the resilience in actually getting the legislation to this stage. It's a really important piece of legislation. Within it, though, you've chosen local authorities and health bodies as the listed public bodies that are going to have duties under the Bill. Can you perhaps explain why you focused just on these two?

Yes. The overwhelming weight of evidence we received from submissions related to health and education. Therefore, it was felt that that's where the focus and priority should be, although I'm mindful that other issues are raised, such as the barriers that people encounter on transport. I know that when the statement was made in July, reference was made to, potentially, Transport for Wales being incorporated. I know that Members questioning me at that time referred to bodies like Estyn, for example. Again, these are the other bodies you may wish to consider. Scotland, on paper, has a far higher number of bodies, but then they have more local authorities, and they will have more health bodies than Wales has. But it was felt, certainly as a starting point, that that's where the priority must lie. But, again, Welsh Ministers, under the legislation, will be able to add to that list of bodies through regulation.

Thank you for that. I understand that. I suppose one part of the question gets on to the fact that, of course, local authorities encompass many areas of public service and responsibility, don't they? So, for example, you have the various areas of education, you have the issues of social care, and so on. What consideration did you give, though, to that? I understand where you're coming from in terms of wanting to focus on, I suppose, maximising the delivery and impact, but in terms of all those other areas where, clearly, BSL is important, what consideration have you given to that, as to how they would be affected? Does there need to be something more specific than what exists in the legislation? Do there need to be more priorities on the face of the Bill, or, really, are you satisfied, as you say it's framework legislation, to allow that to develop as time goes on?

In an ideal world, I would have loved to have a Bill where we list a long number of 'must-dos' in all the areas that you're referring to, but that's not the model that the rest of the UK has followed. The priority for me was to ensure that we can achieve the consensus necessary to get this Bill onto the statute book and set in train a system whereby public bodies must promote and facilitate the use of BSL in all the areas you've described. A local authority, as you say, isn't delivering one thing, it's covering multiple things, so the expectation is that its plan will cover all the areas within its remit that affect deaf BSL signers, including, very much, health and social care. And it is a framework Bill, so we don't want to overly prescribe what, as I said earlier, those bodies and the deaf communities and the BSL adviser and panel might determine should be the priorities for the future.

Now, these duties will obviously impact on capacity, will obviously be a cost to them and there is obviously a workload, and I know there's been consideration of that. I wonder perhaps if you could just outline a little bit about the consideration that has been given. I think one of the points you made earlier was with regard to Scotland and certain areas that hadn't yet complied with or delivered on the duties that have been given to them, and I suspect that some of that links to all the other demands, and so on, that are being put on local government at a very difficult time. What are your thoughts in terms of how that capacity can be addressed, because, ultimately, delivery is the most important thing, isn't it, putting this into effect?

Yes. Well, as you know, the explanatory memorandum details the costs of introducing and implementing the Bill and the plans, and so on, but it doesn't cover the cost of what additional items may be included in the national strategy and the plans in the future. Scotland, I believe, has identified that as a factor in the areas where it has performed less well. They have a committee inquiry ongoing that will be making recommendations on that accordingly. I would hope, in terms of the great scheme of things, given the relatively small costs involved, that whoever is in Government at the time determines that this should be a priority, not only as a cost, but as an investment, because getting this right will save money through benefiting multiple other areas. For example, we know, through research carried out and headed by Swansea University, that mental health problems in the deaf community are double that in the wider community. We know, as I referred to earlier, that educational underachievement in schools is significant when it comes to deaf children, not because they can't achieve, but because the support isn't available when they need it. We know, for some of the reasons I highlighted earlier, that deaf people often acquire health conditions that deteriorate to a greater extent because of a failure to communicate early with their health professionals, and that incurs further costs for the public bodies concerned, as we go forward. So, I would hope and trust that appropriate funding would be found in these areas—areas that Members themselves regularly raise the need for, such as more interpreters, more teachers of the deaf, more allied health professionals, not just as a cost, but because of the early intervention and prevention that they can deliver, thereby also taking pressure off secondary and statutory services further down the road.

Thank you for that. You've already mentioned certain areas that come into a different category but would likely be impacted, and you mentioned things like transport and other sectors and so on, so I won’t go there, because I think you've already explained the position there. In your statement on 16 July, you said that local authorities could work individually or with regional partners to produce a local BSL plan, but, of course, that requires local authorities and health bodies working together. How do you envisage that working, or how confident are you that that would be facilitated, would actually happen to deliver the outcomes that we would like to see from this legislation?

How confident? Well, we know from our own work in our own constituencies and regions how well that works in other areas, and in some areas, let's say, it works better than others. I would hope that public bodies would see the benefit of not only sharing resources in preparing this, but in co-delivery, where critical mass can be achieved, which couldn’t be achieved individually. At the same time, however, I recognise that some public bodies may have good reason to maintain certain elements of this at a localised level or within their own organisation because the population of need already exists and because the critical mass of services is already there. But we know across Wales in general that's not the case. Public bodies should hopefully see the benefit of co-designing and co-delivering the plans and the services that will follow from those in the future.

That's very helpful. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We're now going to take a very short break so that we can have a change of interpreter, but this won't take very long, so members of the public can be assured that we'll be coming back to the next questions very shortly.

Welcome back to the scrutiny of the British Sign Language Bill. I'd like to call Sioned Williams to ask her questions about the role of the BSL adviser.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Mark. I'd like to congratulate you also on your perseverance in bringing this Bill forward. I just want to ask, to begin with, how you envisage that this Bill will ensure that BSL signers have a voice in the design and delivery of public services and policies that affect them.

That is absolutely central to the intention of this Bill. It's why, from the moment the adviser came into discussion as a way forward, I stated categorically that that person must be a BSL signer themselves, and fortunately got universal agreement to that. This person, I hope and anticipate, will be in regular contact with the deaf community, of which—hopefully and intentionally—they will also be part. So, speaking from lived experience also.

It's a statutory appointment, which is something we don't have anywhere else in the UK. The adviser will have a central role in working with the Welsh Government on the strategy, but they will also be supported by the assisting panel. Again, Welsh Ministers will have a statutory duty to appoint an assisting panel, which is something that doesn't exist elsewhere. The other Governments have appointed advisory panels, but that statutory assisting panel is unique in the UK context. That also, hopefully, should, as intended, comprise people who themselves are members of the deaf community and/or in direct contact with members of the deaf community, so the authentic voice of deaf people is at the centre of this all the time.

Although the adviser themselves does not have strong powers to then intervene directly, because of the role they have with the Welsh Government, and because of the direct experience they and the assisting panel will have day to day, I hope—and I'm confident—that that person and the panel will be raising matters with Welsh Government Ministers, and with the relevant public bodies with which they will have established working contacts throughout Wales, and that there should be no doubt, when they highlight deficiencies or praise good practice models, that that should then be taken forward, if not at a local level, then by Ministers, using the regulatory powers they have.

You proposed initially establishing a BSL commissioner, and a number of those who responded to the consultation supported that. So, why did you decide to go after the model of an adviser rather than a BSL commissioner?

The practice of what can be achieved rather than possibly compromise the Bill. Originally, the Bill I proposed, as you know, included a commissioner, and that was a proposal that came out of deaf organisations and the deaf community, which they hoped would replicate, for instance, the Welsh Language Commissioner's role in Wales as a language commissioner. Obviously, there were high costs involved with that, which Ministers were uncomfortable with, and when they stated in the Chamber in June last year that they didn't see the need for this, that was one of the key sticking points.

So, the adviser came forward as an alternative, based on the advisers appointed under the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015, which still have significant advisory roles, significant duties and responsibilities, which do, as you know as a Member, directly influence Government and backbenchers in the Senedd, and help drive change in public bodies across Wales. So, that was the compromise reached, and the concession was that that would be a statutory appointment, which is going further, as I said, than in the other UK nations.

And so you're confident that there'll be sufficient teeth, if not in the same way as the powers of commissioners—that the influence there will enable the adviser to have enough teeth in terms of ensuring what these public bodies should be delivering is being delivered. Do you feel that the Bill ensures that that will happen?

Assuming we get the right person and persons in the panel—and I hope and trust we will—the adviser will be appointed according to the public appointments system, because it's a statutory role, which hopefully would ensure public accountability. The intention is that, yes, this should enable the oversight and the voice of deaf people to be heard at the centre of Government and in those public bodies. As you know, most of our commissioners do not actually themselves have very strong powers to intervene directly, but they do have a role in accessing Government, in meeting certain statutory reporting requirements and in overall driving change where it's necessary. So, it is hoped and intended that that will be the outcome of this role—from the beginning, in terms of the design of the strategy, and as we move forward with the guidance, the plans, the revised plans, the three-yearly Welsh Government reports and the six-yearly reviews. On how confident I am, I'd like to say I'm very confident, but nobody can foresee the future. I expect and hope to see the change we need via the model that this Act will put in place.

And then something else, of course, in terms of accountability is the ability to investigate complaints. Your initial proposal suggested that the commissioner would be able to establish a procedure for the investigation of complaints. So with that not happening now, how do you feel that that will be able to be answered by the Bill—the ability to respond to complaints from the community?

I anticipate that the adviser will receive complaints, even if unsolicited and not on a formal basis, because I hope and trust that that person and their team will be open and accessible, particularly to deaf BSL signers and the deaf community more widely, in order to know what's going on, to know what's working well, what isn't working well and what they need to be telling Ministers and the relevant public bodies as we go forward. So it's vital that those voices are at the centre of this, and if this doesn't necessarily produce the outcomes required, either because the adviser and the panel don't highlight the issues that are occurring or because, having highlighted them, they're not then given the attention they should receive, then that should be captured in the reviews and reports that follow further down the road. But again, you may wish to consider in your evidence gathering whether you wish to formulate a view on that.

One question to finish: just in terms of the assisting panel, what extra value does that panel offer the adviser? How do you see that that will work in practice—the relationship between the adviser, the assisting panel, Ministers and the community?

I always like, particularly when I chair committees, for example, the Latin term 'prima inter pares', first amongst equals. A good adviser, a good chair, a good team leader is the first amongst equals. They don't pretend to know everything or to have access to all the information sources required, but having a team around them that has the expertise, the knowledge and the connections within the community necessary will add to the value of the adviser and the information that he or she is working from.

And so this arrangement will be set out in regulations. Or do you foresee that these details in terms of how this will work will be set out in the Bill?

I'll get some advice on that, in terms of the working between the two.

The Schedule sets out a bit of information about the appointment of the adviser and the panel, and it'll be down to the terms of appointment of the panel and the adviser as set by the Welsh Ministers.

Diolch.

I've got a further question, but I'll leave it until after I've called Jane Dodds.

Thank you very much, Mark, and congratulations to you on getting to this point in relation to the Bill. It's very interesting and you've clearly given this a great deal of thought around this Bill, so thank you for that.

We've talked a great deal about monitoring and getting the desired outcomes in relation to this Bill. First of all, you've mentioned the fact that the Government will be responsible for monitoring, but do you have any idea as to how public bodies with duties under the Bill will be monitored and held to account, particularly in relation to health services and education services? That's what we understand will be the most important bodies for you in terms of delivering results for the future. So, in your view, how do you see them working?

It very much follows on from the response that I gave to Julie Morgan earlier. I explained—. I'm sure you're familiar with it from the explanatory memorandum, but the process will apply at the beginning in terms of the plans, the reviews, and the potentially revised reviews, and further revised reports on the reviews and so on. But after that period, potentially, if a public body chooses to take their eye off the ball, for whatever reason, and nobody's keeping an eye on this, you could see slippage, or you could see box ticking rather than real change. To me, it's vitally important that lived experience is at the centre of this, at a local level—that deaf communities, deaf people and their families are given the opportunity to explain what their real experience is at a local level to the public bodies, and hopefully to co-design and co-deliver the solutions necessary at a local and, if necessary, on an area-based level.

This is for Welsh Ministers to consider, but there may be a role for the relevant regulatory bodies, so Healthcare Inspectorate Wales, Care Inspectorate Wales, and we mentioned Estyn earlier and so on—whether this could be something that they ask questions about as they go around their work visiting public bodies, as they do. Of course, committees in councils and health boards have members who should be scrutinising their executives or their executive officers in relation to these, alongside other, matters. It would be nice to think that they are made aware of that and that the plans ensure, at a local level, that they do. And again, potentially, given what we've learned in Scotland, you may wish to ask whether there should be a role for future Welsh Governments to have some strengthened oversight in these areas.

Thank you very much. Also, you've mentioned perhaps strengthening the monitoring framework. Have you given any thought to targets, for example, around this Bill—having targets contained within the Bill? I would be interested to hear exactly, if that would be possible, regarding, for example, targets in getting BSL teachers. That is, over the years, how many BSL teachers have been available in local authorities? Have you considered targets, for example?

Well, in an ideal world, I'd love, as I said earlier, to have lots of must-dos in all those specific areas, with targets. But this is a framework Bill, so it's not pre-specifying what will be in the strategy, what will be in the plans. The expectation, given that you're highlighting the priority areas that the consultees have highlighted and the community has been highlighting for years, is that that will be where the plans will be focused. And if they're not, the expectation would be that Welsh Ministers would be putting crosses on their annual report and sending them back for review. It's a key point you make, but it's not, as a framework Bill, for us to set targets in those specific areas. That would be for those plans and the strategies.

The one target that this Bill needs to set is 100 per cent compliance with producing the plans and the reviews. Because in Scotland, although their care and health body, consortia, carried out a review and found that their Act had driven significant change and improvement, there was still a significant minority of public bodies that had failed to comply with the requirements to produce the plans and reviews, and then to properly implement them. So, that should be our target to start with: 100 per cent compliance with the Bill, or the Act as it would be, and with them producing plans with teeth and, potentially, targets for them to take forward.

Could I ask Gareth Howells if it would be possible to have targets within a Bill of this sort, for example? If we were to make that a recommendation, would it be possible to have those targets?

If targets were certain enough, and I'm sure they would be, and if they were within competency, I don't see a legal barrier to that, no.

Thank you very much. Could I move to my next question? Now, in terms of the relationship between Welsh Government and the bodies responsible for education and health, how do you see them working? Do you see them collaborating or providing time for improvements to be made, as the Bill progresses? Do you see that relationship? You've mentioned that you want to see 100 per cent compliance, but how do you see that relationship developing?

Well, as the Bill develops, I would imagine that there will be an ongoing dialogue between the Government and those bodies, particularly when you and the other committees produce your reports on the Bill. In relation to whatever recommendations may be made, which they may have a view upon, they may seek to influence the Welsh Government response to those recommendations, though, ultimately, my response to those recommendations—. We shall see what comes of it at Stage 2 and Stage 3.

But there's also what happens after the Bill and the expectation, or the requirement, at the beginning, that the two should be working very closely with the strategy, with the guidance that will be issued with the publication of the plans and the reviews. Beyond that point, in an ideal world, as we've discussed earlier, Welsh Government oversight wouldn't stop, it would continue. But, clearly, with the three-yearly reports and the six-yearly reviews that the Welsh Government itself must produce, Welsh Government will need to have live data from all those bodies in order to produce a national report and a national review at that time. So, that will ensure that that's happening.

You've also got the situation, as I mentioned earlier, with the adviser and assisting panel, who will be, we imagine, connected to all these public bodies. The powers may be limited, but they, I'm sure, will have a voice, making it quite clear if they feel that things are not as they should be or delivering as they need to. And we must never forget things like Senedd committees, questions in the Chamber, and the accountability of Government to communities, as this goes forward.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Before we go on to costs, I have a specific question about the way you have drafted the Bill in relation to the BSL adviser. Going back to the questions from Sioned Williams about how you manage complaints, in subsection 7 of the clause on the BSL adviser, you quite rightly say that

'If the BSL adviser requests that a listed public body provides the adviser with information...the body must comply with the request'.

But then you put in a get-out-of-jail clause, saying

'unless it considers that doing so would conflict with its duties or have an adverse effect on the exercise of its functions.'

Could you explain why you added that sub-clause, because we are going to have to look at the detail of the wording in order to work out where amendments are necessary. Could you just explain why you added this caveat?

Well, I think as Gareth has been largely quiet thus far—. I actually picked up on that as a concern—

Fine. Gareth Rogers.

—when the draft arrived with that in it. It’s not something I personally drafted, and you provided a very appropriate and neutral response. Can you explain what that might have been?

I'll try. As Mark said, we did take advice from Welsh Government on this, and it’s wording that is consistent with similar provisions in different Acts, and similar approaches they take. I think the advice we had was that the instances where this would be the case would be quite small. It’s unlikely that—

That's not what the Bill says, nor does the explanatory memorandum say that. So, what makes you think it's only going to be a small—? And what guarantees have you got that it will only be very small, or specific circumstances where there's been a tragedy, or something really significant has happened in a particular organisation?

No, I understand—. What I meant to say is that the number of instances where this could be an issue we were told could be quite small, where what the Bill is asking for would conflict with the duties that local authorities or health bodies have. So, that was the advice we were given—

Fine, thank you.

—so we included it within the drafting.

From a purely legal viewpoint, in terms of the way this is worded, do you have any thoughts?

It is a compromise, yes. It does soften the hard duty there to provide the information, but in relatively limited circumstances, we hope.

Fine. Sioned Williams wanted to come in.

Just to follow up on that, could you provide us with an example of something like this, or when there would be some sort of conflict?

Well, I think of some of the other legislation we have—. And we’re all familiar with it from our casework, where a local authority or another public body will claim to be compliant with the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 codes of practice for example, or duties under the Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty, and our constituents' experience is otherwise, and the evidence we see when we look at it supports the constituents' viewpoint. That is my concern, that a get-out-of-jail card that's too widely worded could allow the wrong sort of public official to dodge things. As I say, the wording as it is was inserted in order to produce something that could be widely supported. And you heard from Gareth Rogers the official view on why this should be only be considered as something to be used in exceptional circumstances.

So, for example, if a listed public body had a legal duty of confidentiality over certain information, then it wouldn’t be able to share it with the adviser in this instance.

Okay. Thank you for your honesty in this, and it’s something we can probe as we go forward.

We are unclear as to whether we now need to take another short break, or whether we can continue for the last section of questions.

We'll take a break.

We're going to take a short break, just to change interpreter.

Our final set of questions is about the costs and any other barriers to implementation, so I'd like to call Altaf Hussain.

Thank you, Chair. Great to see you, Mark—great work. And my question is: the regulatory impact assessment, RIA, estimates the Bill could cost the listed public bodies up to £2.5 million over a 10-year period to comply with the planning and reporting duties in the Bill. To what extent do you think additional funding will be required to implement the Bill's provisions?

Thank you. It was estimated that the cost over 10 years could be between £3.8 million to £4.1 million, the main costs being the adviser, over a 10-year period £1.1 million, including salary and recruitment costs up front; the panel referred to, £247,000; the cost to the Welsh Government, £230,000, including producing and updating the strategy and fulfilling its reporting duties; and, for listed public bodies, between £2.1 and £2.5 million, including producing and updating their BSL plans and fulfilling their reporting duties. Apologies for reading—I want to make sure I get this right. But, based on the higher estimate for local public bodies, and clearly they're not all the same size, that would equate to roughly £7,500 per public body per year, although, clearly, there'll be some years when it's higher, particularly when they're producing plans and reviews, and some years when there'd be virtually no cost at all within the areas covered by the explanatory memorandum.

Thank you for that, Mark. The RIA does not estimate the costs of measures that may arise from the national BSL strategy or local BSL plans. While implementation will be a matter for the Welsh Government, what consideration has been given to how these measures might be resourced?

I think I've sort of touched on that earlier. Because it's a framework Bill, it doesn't prescribe what measures might be covered in the strategy and the plans, but one would anticipate that some of those measures, particularly those highlighted by people today, will have a cost, but that's a cost in order to meet the needs that already exist for things like interpreters, teachers of the deaf, allied health professionals and so on. We can't put a price on those until we know what the plans say, and arguably those should be funded anyhow, not only in the context of the upfront cost, but as an intervention and prevention measure that saves money in wider areas and prevents people from entering into crisis when they needn't do so, hopefully opens the door to wider education attainment, better health outcomes, higher levels of meaningful employment and so on, all of which would reduce pressure and cost on the public purse.

Thank you for that, Mark. Now, public bodies like Velindre foresee some struggles over meeting this Bill's provisions unless applied with proportionality before being rolled out in increments, while the Welsh ambulance trust cites skills shortage as a barrier further to this, reflecting just how important and likely it is Wales attracts enough qualified BSL interpreters and translators to make this Bill sufficiently successful. Also, particularly, is it especially detrimental that there is no GCSE for BSL available within Wales?

Precisely for the reasons you identified, this is intended to kick start action in all those areas. Where costs are identified, it will be for future Welsh Governments to prioritise necessary funding. I suspect the public bodies you refer to—and, clearly, proportionality will be important—will say, 'Fine, yes, but it's going to cost us x amount. We want the Welsh Government to give us extra for it.' But they also need to consider internally how they prioritise their own budgets and how offsetting certain things through investment in these areas would actually help reduce pressures, potentially, in other areas.

In terms of GCSE, as you know, Qualifications Wales took the decision to withdraw the proposed BSL GCSE for a number of reasons, one of which was that there weren't enough teachers of the deaf and interpreters to deliver on that. They instead stated that there will be provision through the skills for life modules and that if there's sufficient take-up of those modules then they would reconsider the introduction of a GCSE. They've also said that schools and local authorities can, if they wish, introduce the GCSE in BSL being introduced in England, but, again, it comes back to the question of who is going to deliver that.

So, the expectation of the Bill is that this would not only kick start statutory bodies to start prioritising these priority areas, but also raise wider understanding and awareness, not only within the deaf community but in the wider community, of the barriers that deaf people face and of the need to collectively remove those barriers. Some of that will just be attitudinal and that costs nothing. Some of it will need real investment, and, therefore, the plans that are produced in the future would need to be costed.

Thank you, Mark, for that. The New Zealand Sign Language Act 2006 made New Zealand Sign Language an official language nearly 20 years ago. What are the lessons learned from comparing legislative efforts elsewhere, including identifying the mistakes made? In your view, what would you identify the main barriers being in implementing this legislation within Wales?

I think the Chair opened with a question about international examples, and I made reference to the New Zealand lead that was taken on this in 2006. As you say, it became their third official language, after Maori, but Maori had helped them with this, because, although it was a minority language, it was critically important to the community it impacted. One of the things that positively came out of this was their Learn New Zealand Sign Language interactive online learning tool. Because of the rurality of New Zealand—and there's some similarity in Wales—and because of the lack of interpreters and so on, this has enabled not just deaf people or families of deaf people, but people more widely, to learn in modules the New Zealand Sign Language there. So, that's an example of something positive that's come out of it, but they've been at this a lot longer than we have and they've learned from the experiences on the way, including things that didn't work. In Scotland, similarly, they've introduced—is it the contact scheme, contact BSL scheme—which, again, it's not the ideal where you have an interpreter in the room, but it has enabled wider use of BSL for people for whom it's their primary language in accessing services, employment and otherwise.

Thank you, Mark. Chair, can I ask one more question, please?

Yes.

Thank you. What level of flexibility does this offer between balancing pragmatic principles and adopting stringent safeguards for users of BSL who have historically been underserved, while we already know that multiple stakeholders state they have identified particular problems?

As we've heard from some of the questions today, it's not overly stringent; it's entirely pragmatic. This is a pragmatic, framework Bill designed to ensure that Wales is not the only UK nation without BSL legislation, to produce BSL legislation in Wales that is actually stronger than in the other UK nations, but legislation nonetheless that will be dependent upon the actions and decisions of future Welsh Governments and public bodies in Wales. And that's where oversight in future Welsh Parliaments, Senedds, and others', will be critical, as well as rigorous and powerful application of the reporting and review processes that the Act will require.

Thank you, Mark. Great to see you.

Thank you very much, Mark Isherwood and your team, for enabling us to have that overarching view of the Bill that you are proposing. We look forward to working with you to make sure that the Bill is as good as it can be for delivering for the cause of British Sign Language being one of our languages. We will, obviously, be taking evidence from stakeholder groups over the next few weeks, where we will be gathering evidence, and we'll also be taking evidence in smaller informal sessions in different parts of the country. And I'm aware that there is a stakeholder group meeting in Colwyn Bay at 10:30 tomorrow morning, so if anybody wants to join that, with an interest in British Sign Language, they can e-mail us if they want further details and weren't aware of this meeting. And there are other stakeholder groups meeting around Wales, and they will also form part of our evidence gathering.

So, we look forward to continuing our scrutiny of this excellent and very important Bill, and we'll obviously be speaking to you again at the end of this Stage 1 process. So thank you very much for your time.

Thank you very much.

The committee will now go back into private session so that we can reflect on the evidence we've heard and to ensure that we are best able to take it forward in the sessions we'll be holding next Monday and in several subsequent Mondays. So, can we move into private session now?