Equality and Social Justice Committee

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.

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.

Thank you. Good afternoon. We have already touched on some concerns that both of you have in relation to the duties and powers that are proposed for the BSL adviser. So, could you tell us, in a bit more detail, what you would like to see in the Bill in terms of how the adviser is appointed? What kind of skills should that adviser have and what sort of experience should they have? Are you content or are you not content with what's in the Bill when it comes to the duties and powers? Perhaps Dr Attfield first of all.

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.

Perhaps we will come on to some of the other details of that in a second. Could I just get your view, Dr Wilks, in terms of the kind of person and the kind of experience that person should have, the person who's appointed to be the adviser? Do you agree with Dr Attfield? I think that you did in your evidence.

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.

Thank you. In terms of the duties and powers of the adviser, we spoke about the ability to investigate, we've spoken about the ability to enforce and to report on the listed public bodies. You mentioned that in your previous response. What about complaints? Is that something that the adviser should be taking action on? I would like to ask you what changes you would like to see in the Bill in order to address those issues and those aspects of the role, if you do think that those should be aspects of the role. Yes, Dr Wilks.

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.

Thank you. I'll come to Dr Attfield in a minute. But could I just ask Dr Wilks about that complaints aspect? We heard from the children's commissioner earlier that she was concerned there might be duplication of work happening. Why couldn't we ensure, for example, that the public services ombudsman and the complaints procedures of the health boards could deal with complaints from the deaf community? Why do you feel that the adviser should be a conduit for those complaints?

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.

Okay, thank you. Dr Attfield.

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 have one final question about the panel. The Bill proposes appointing a panel to assist the BSL adviser. How do you envisage that the respective roles of the panel and the adviser will work in practice? What value will the assisting panel bring? What's the potential there? And if you could tell us anything you think should be in the Bill around the role of the panel that you do not see is in there at the moment. Perhaps Dr Attfield to begin with.

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.

Of course, policing is not devolved. So, there are some things—and the courts and so on—that we wouldn't be able to include. Of course, people could work with non-devolved partners. Dr Wilks.

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.

Thank you, Chair.

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.

Thank you very much. I have a question on co-operation and engagement with deaf communities, particularly focusing on how we can ensure that every age group can be involved in the Bill and its development. Also, how can we ensure that there is accountability for deaf communities and deaf people too? Thank you. Perhaps we could go to Dr. Wilks first.

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.

Thank you very much. I have a question on how we can ensure that there is accountability in relation to this Bill. And also, in your view, is it sufficient for that to be on the face of the Bill, or should it be in objectives? What do you think would work? Sorry, I'm talking about guidance— should it be in guidance or on the face of the Bill? Should that accountability be on the face of the Bill or in guidance that the Government has to—?

And you want to go first to Dr Attfield?

Dr Attfield first of all.

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

Thank you. Dr Wilks, do you have a view on this?

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

On ensuring that there is accountability—that is to say, that the Bill does deliver what deaf communities want—in your view, is it important that that accountability is on the face of the Bill, or should it be in guidance, or both, perhaps, as Dr Attfield suggested?

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.

Thank you, and just one final question. Following on from what you said, Dr Wilks, in relation to ensuring that we measure exactly what the legislation will deliver and the impact that it will have, do we need targets in the legislation, do you think? And if we do need targets, what kind of targets should they be? Perhaps I'll turn to you, Dr Attfield, first, as I can see that you're thinking about it. Dr Attfield, do you have any view on that, or any ideas?

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.

Thank you very much. Dr Wilks, do you have a view on that?

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.

Thanks, Chair.

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?