Equality and Social Justice Committee

Aled Evans, Senedd legal services.

Gareth Rogers. I'm the Bill manager.

Claire Thomas, Senedd research.

Thank you. Welcome, Mark. This has been a fascinating Bill to be scrutinising. There is clearly broad support for the aims and principles of the Bill, but some significant concerns about its implementation and whether it's going to really lead to meaningful improvements. What's your response to those concerns, and what changes could be made to the Bill, if any, to improve or address those concerns?

The primary concerns appear to focus firstly on whether there are any mandatory reporting requirements and timelines, particularly for public bodies. Also over specific actions in relation, for example, to interpreters or teachers of the deaf—and of course, overriding all of that, funding.

As I stated in sessions previously with you, the Finance Committee and the legislation and justice committee, this is a framework Bill with a very narrow focus, unlike most other framework Bills, with the detail on most of those specific matters to follow through the strategy and the plans. I won't go into the reasons in great detail for that, because you may ask me about it later.

We are confident from the costings we did that the direct costs associated with the Bill are provided for, and we heard in the Chamber last week the Finance Secretary confirm that provision has been made for that within his budget for the next budget round.

Additional costs that might arise will be a matter for future Welsh Governments to tackle. The point is that this will introduce a legal requirement to promote and facilitate BSL and provide a strategy and have a statutory adviser and so on. Therefore, the onus will be on future Governments and public bodies to deliver on that goal in areas that need action anyhow, but this will focus specifically on why that matters and how this must be done.

We'll come on to financial matters a little bit later. I just want to, secondly, ask about—. Some of our witnesses think that the definition of BSL in the explanatory memorandum could be improved. Kate Attfield wants to improve the emphasis that BSL is a language with its own grammar, and also Rob Wilks emphasises that it has got regional variations, just like English and Welsh. What consideration have you given to amending that definition of BSL within the explanatory memorandum? You have actually included quite a few paragraphs on that; I just wondered if you think the Bill needs clarifying in that respect.

Could you remind me where we got the definition from originally? Because it wasn't something we made up.

No, of course not.

Our first port of call was to look at the issues around BSL signers and BSL users. So, from that perspective, we looked at the consultation responses, and the majority said that there was a need to use BSL signers. We then looked at other sources of information. Obviously, there are issues with the way 'd' lower case and 'D' capital is used across the literature. So, we looked at that, and I think that was an issue when we were drafting the explanatory memorandum. We did use the capital 'D' in that definition and we note now that the Welsh Government are referring to 'd', 'deaf', in lower case, so it might be worth considering whether we would technically look at revising the EM in that sense.

Perhaps I misunderstood; I thought you were talking about the specific definition, rather than those words within the definition. But I completely endorse what Claire says. The deaf-led organisations I initially consulted were very keen that we should stop using the term 'user', because that not only sounds a bit like 'user' in another context that they didn't want to be associated with, but it doesn't give sufficient gravitas to this as a language and a language Bill. So, Deaf BSL signers—capital 'D'—are deaf people whose first language is BSL in this context. BSL signers are the broader community of BSL users and, therefore, again, they were keen that we didn't confuse those two terms. So, if we're talking about deaf people specifically whose first language is BSL, they wanted to use the capital 'D', 'Deaf BSL signer' term, and, in terms of the wider BSL-speaking population, 'BSL signers' rather than 'users'.

Okay. The explanatory memorandum does say that sign language is a language in its own right and that sign language is not a signed version of a written or spoken language. Those are clear statements to me. Do you think, bearing in mind the comments of Dr Attfield and Dr Wilks, that there needs to be an amendment to the explanatory memorandum, or are you satisfied that you have captured their concerns in the explanatory memorandum, as is?

I'm open to wider definitions. We want to capture what this is about, and if you have recommendations based on your evidence that you feel require further words to be inserted, I'm completely relaxed about that and happy to consider that alongside all other recommendations that you might make. I think you had a second broader point—

Well, I think Dr Wilks was talking about regional variations, which is just like English and Welsh.

Absolutely, and that's the point I think I made in the Chamber in July when I was questioned on this when I made my statement on the Bill. 'BSL' is the term for the language, but, like all languages, it has dialects and regional variations. In Wales, there isn't, as I understand it from my attendance at talks on this by first-language BSL speakers, a separate Welsh language BSL—or 'WSL', should I say—but there are dialects. And even within Wales, there are different dialects, so there are different signs used between north Walian, particularly north-west Walian BSL, and south Walian BSL. But all that is intended to fall under the umbrella, alongside tactile forms, also.

And finally from me, the Scottish BSL Act does actually specify that the Act is talking about visual BSL, rather than other ways in which BSL is used with people with particular characteristics. I wondered what consideration you have given to specifying that we are talking about a visual language.

I think, with the deafblind community in particular, the explanatory memorandum makes specific reference to tactile forms being included, but I think you indicated that you wish to—

Yes, as part of the EM, there are explanatory notes that are attached to that. The explanatory notes will be published alongside the Act, should it be successful, and the explanatory notes do contain a further definition, which is a

'language that uses gestures, handshapes, facial expressions and body language to convey meaning and which, in its tactile forms, can also use touch.'

So, it does go further, to include that wider definition there. We took a different approach to Scotland. I know it's on the face of the Bill in Scotland, whereas we've put it in the explanatory notes, but as they're published alongside an Act, they have the same legal effect. That's the reason we took that approach.

Just to add as well, that approach is consistent with the British Sign Language Act 2022. So, the approach we've taken here is consistent with that legislation.

Okay.

Can I just comment here? It also should be noted that, in Scotland, they've introduced their own contact system, Contact Scotland BSL. As technology has developed, they've been able to expand that now to incorporate tactile forms, which they weren't able to do technologically at the beginning. So, that's something we could take advantage of.

I'm not clear whether the microphones are working. So, could we just have some explanation of that from the sound recordist? I can't see them coming on when Mark Isherwood is speaking, for example. [Interruption.] Mark's is on. Fine. Okay. It's all right. Jane Dodds, can I call you to put your questions?

Thank you very much. First of all, because this is the last time we will see you in this committee, Mark, could I just congratulate you and your team on the Bill? I appreciate the amount of work that's needed to produce such legislation. So, thank you very much. It's been very interesting for us. Thank you.

I'd like to ask about the fact that we have heard time and again from people who have appeared before the committee about the shortage of BSL interpreters—that is, that people are concerned that this will be a barrier. We heard, for example, from local authorities who said that they might be competing with each other to book BSL interpreters. Could I just ask you, therefore, once again, what you think about the fact that people are concerned about this, and about the shortage that we've experienced in trying to book people to interpret BSL? So, could you explain a little more regarding your opinion of this issue, please?

Well, that's 100 per cent accurate and valid. It's a major barrier not only in situations like this, but for health boards, GP surgeries, schools and otherwise, where people are encountering barriers that shouldn't be there, because they can't make themselves properly understood or can't fully grasp the understanding of the language being spoken at them. It's absolutely valid. Again, as I indicated earlier, it's a very focused framework Bill, but that should be front and centre of strategy guidance and plans that will follow. And, in my view, if it isn't, then it won't be meeting the legal requirement to promote and facilitate BSL.

Alongside that, there are many other issues, such as the flatlining after reduction in the number of teachers of the deaf, for example. One of the reasons why Qualifications Wales suspended their proposals for a BSL GCSE was because there weren't enough people with the appropriate skills and qualifications to teach that. This all means—and I'm sure you'll come to this—a workforce plan, a proper workforce plan to address these deficiencies. We'd have needed it without this Bill, as Members across parties have kept telling the Senedd over many years, but this Bill focused on BSL should, and will need to, have this at the centre if it's to fulfil its statutory purpose.

Thank you. Could I ask what discussions you've had with the Government about this situation? As we understand it, it takes up to seven years for someone to be in a position to be a BSL interpreter. So, have you had discussions with the Government about how we are going to deliver on this and change the situation with regard to BSL interpreters?

It has been part of the conversation. Most of the conversation initially was about achieving a Bill that the Welsh Government could support, which meant compromises—some additions, some improvements, but some losses. Yes, there is a behind-closed-doors recognition—not an attempt to blame or turn this into a political football, but rather, 'This is the situation. What are we going to do about it?'

You're right about timescales. I mean, just thinking aloud, perhaps the programme, as it will be, should be initiating people who are either BSL speakers already, or have some level of qualification in the area, who can reach the full level quicker than seven years. I think the precedent was 2003-07, when the person who's the current Cabinet Secretary, Jane Hutt, spearheaded a BSL Futures programme, and I attended the graduation ceremony at the end of it. But, since 2007, that should have been, in my view, a follow-on, something that carried on consistently and sustainably. But it did provide a precedent for a future Welsh Government to look at.

Thank you. My final question: what consideration have you given to having targets regarding BSL interpreters? What measures would it be good to include in the Bill? You've said it's framework legislation. So, if it was possible to have targets regarding BSL interpreters, would that be something that you'd like to see? I'm not sure whether anybody else has anything to add on that.

It would be lovely to say 'yes', but, again, this is a framework Bill. It's the bones for the meat to be added, or the vegetables to be added, depending on your taste.

Cauliflower cheese, I think.

Fair enough—when we get to it, it depends whether you're vegetarian or vegan, I suppose, and where the cheese comes from. But that's another story. So, when this gets to the strategy, the guidance and the plans, this level of detail should be in there, and, in my view, it would be fairly meaningless if it didn't have targets and timelines. So, I would very much hope that that would be the case.

As you're aware, some of the other concerns raised regarding other matters, legislative or otherwise, in this place have related to absence of or poor implementation of targets and timelines. Even the Cabinet Secretary agreed with you that, for this to be effective and to meet its statutory requirements, there would need to be appropriate targets and timelines applied to the key issues, and that should follow through to the plans also. But there will be variability, because some public bodies will be further ahead than others, some will have more resource available than others, some—I'm sure you'll get into this—will agree to co-operate on a regionalised basis and make better use of the resource they already have. Some may be more possessive of their independence. But the hope and intention is that they will seek to comply with the legislation and make sure that they do what it says on the tin.

Thank you. I'm sorry, this is genuinely my last question. Could I just confirm if you would like to see this committee making a couple of recommendations regarding targets in respect of BSL interpreters, or other issues, perhaps?

Well, I would certainly welcome, perhaps, a comment or recommendation regarding the need for targets and timelines to be in the strategy, and for that to be part of what the Welsh Government then oversees when reviewing plans and then reviewing the reports on the plans' implementation 12 months later, and, if necessary, asking those public bodies to revisit those plans and reviews, and effectively to start again, without hopefully delaying further the process they already should have in place. But, again, the specificity issue over how many, when and where will have to be in the strategy and the plans.

Thank you very much and congratulations once again.

Thank you. Can I call Julie Morgan, please?

Prynhawn da and well done on all you've achieved so far. I know it'll mean so much to so many people.

I've got a few questions about the duties placed on Welsh Ministers. The listed public bodies will be key partners in delivering the national BSL strategy, but the Bill doesn't explicitly require Welsh Ministers to consult with them on the content of the national BSL strategy or the guidance. So, why is that not required on the face of the Bill?

My understanding is that there is a duty on Welsh Ministers to consult the adviser on the strategy and any other persons they deem appropriate, which is pretty much standard language for Welsh Government legislation. Is that on the face of the Bill?

That's on the face of the Bill. That's section 2(4).

Obviously, the intention is that the advisory panel will be working very closely with the adviser and that they in turn, as equivalent persons do in other roles in Welsh legislation, will be engaging closely with the public bodies, not only to help them develop their plans and reviews, but also to improve their understanding and highlight areas that they may wish to improve, and then feed that back into the consultation process.

So, you feel quite satisfied that the key partners will be consulted.

Well, that duty does exist. The question is whether you wish to strengthen the term

'any other persons they consider appropriate',

but that is a fairly standardised term in legislation, I believe.

So, would you suggest that that should be strengthened?

Obviously, you can have a view on whether it should be strengthened, but in legal terms, what are the connotations?

It's ultimately a policy decision, but in terms of making sure the public bodies are involved, then that section 2(4)(b) does allow that role to take place. And as the Member said, we would expect the adviser to make sure that those public bodies or other people considered appropriate do have a role in that advice.

Thank you, that's fine. And then my second question is: what powers does the Bill provide Welsh Ministers to ensure that local BSL plans reflect the needs of deaf people, and that the plans are actually led by deaf people?

In my view, the plans would be meaningless if they hadn't involved not just consultation, but co-production, design and delivery with local deaf communities and the broader BSL signing communities. Welsh Ministers themselves then would obviously be the recipient of the plans. If they felt the plans were deficient, did not within themselves present a likelihood of achieving the goals required, then they can require the public body to revisit that and redraft the plans accordingly. In so doing, they would then have to further publish, 12 months later, a review of the revised plan. Similarly, when the reviews are submitted, Welsh Ministers again may have a view that they would then express to those public bodies, requiring them to revisit the gaps either in implementation or existing within the original plan, as then drafted. So, there are some measures in place.

So, do you think that is addressed?

Yes. You may have a view on whether there needs to be something in the Bill along the lines that the public bodies should be consulting, or a similar term to wider public bodies applying to Ministers, which I'd be interested to see. But one would be very surprised if any public body were to consider that they could produce a plan, or review a plan, based solely on corporate knowledge without engaging the wider affected population.

Yes. Absolutely. Because it does seem one of the key bits, doesn't it, the producing of that. Thank you very much. And then the other issue is, any sort of delay in the guidance, the WLGA suggested in particular that this would cause major difficulties if the guidance didn't come out, well, really, at the same time. So, what are your views on that?

Well, absolutely. The expectation is that the guidance will be published alongside or shortly after publication of the strategy, and the guidance will obviously reflect what's in the strategy. So, yes, it's a valid point. But the expectation is that will be right at the beginning, that the strategy, and therefore the guidance, will have been influenced by input from the adviser and, by association, the advisory panel and the broader community, and that that will permeate down. Because, obviously, public bodies will be unable to produce their plans without the strategy and the guidance. I understand there's not—. Normal precedent would not be to set a timeline for this. Would that be fair in legalistic terms?

You could set a timeline for it, but, I think, from the discussions with the Cabinet Secretary our understanding is that you will have that guidance being published alongside the strategy. But, as the Member said, there's nothing on the face of the Bill that expressly says that as it stands.

She has specifically said it will be published alongside—that's what I wanted to check.

Yes.

Sort of. I read the note. She agreed that it should be, as I understand it, and her expectation was that it would be, but there isn't a requirement in the Bill for that to be the case. Obviously, the strategy would be meaningless without the guidance, and the whole process would be meaningless without the guidance that the public bodies can then work from. But if you had a view on wording in that context, then, again, we'd be interested to see what your view is.

Thank you.

I think one of the concerns we have is that the British Sign Language Act 2022 has not yet delivered the guidance for England. So, we obviously wouldn't want to see that happening in Wales. Therefore, I hope you'll take away that it may be necessary to be a bit more specific in the Bill about when you expect the guidance to be produced. But, by all means, you can add to that if you want, but, clearly, we'll have something to say. We have already written to the UK Government to find out why it is that neither the last Government nor this Government has actually produced the guidance yet.

That would be helpful. Thank you.

Sioned Williams.

Thank you, Chair. We have heard a lot of evidence, quite robust evidence, really, about the importance of accountability to the deaf community and ensuring that the Bill's policy aim is delivered, and that the Act doesn't turn into a tokenistic Act. So, in terms of ensuring accountability, what mechanisms do you think should be implemented between the BSL adviser and the deaf communities in terms of that continuous and ongoing engagement?

Yes, we talk about expectation, I think the Welsh Government's view was the precedent was established, particularly with the violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence advisers, but also other public appointees in roles in other areas, each of whom has established those contacts with the relevant communities. So, the expectation is that that would occur here, especially given that we, or the Bill, would require the adviser to be a BSL signer himself or herself and for the advisory panel to be representative of the broader community, not just a bunch of the great and the good.

It is a concern. I mentioned earlier that you may wish to consider specifying the requirement for targets and timelines in the strategy, which would go some way towards strengthening accountability. If you feel that you need to say, in some form of words, that this must be more co-productive with the general community, you could do so; the question is how that would apply, what do you mean by that. As you will be aware, some public bodies in other contexts, including the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 or equality law, tend to have their own, dare I say, tame in-house panels—it's a very cruel term—who endorse their own marking of their own exam sheets. It's a question of how do we get into the genuine broad community and engage with them and hear it how it is, good and bad, and ugly.

Can I just ask for us to pause while we change interpreters? So, we'll take a two-minute pause of the recording.

Back to you, Sioned.

Thank you. So, you're satisfied currently that there's enough in the Bill that's going to enable, that's going to make it a requirement for that to happen in terms of this engagement that should be a requirement. As you said, a pattern has been established with the VAWDASV adviser, but you're satisfied that the Bill as it stands is sufficient to enable that to happen, to ensure that that does happen.

Provided that the persons involved do what we would anticipate of them. This is stronger than the Bills elsewhere because it has a statutory adviser and a panel to assist set in legislation. It has the extra review requirement from the public bodies, which doesn't exist elsewhere. And the purpose of having the adviser and the panel is to ensure not only that the voice of BSL signers is central to this, but also that they act as a bridge with the communities themselves. If that didn't happen, then I would hope and anticipate that, when future Welsh Governments carry out their three-year reviews and look at their six-year reports, they would be picking up on that and strengthening it at that point. But I would again emphasise that the only reason that I realised how important this was was because I attended meetings with deaf communities and representatives of deaf communities, and they told me, and why it was so important and what needed to be done. If I hadn't done that, then I wouldn't be sitting here today.

Thank you. In terms of the adviser, a number of witnesses have expressed a strong feeling that the adviser should be a deaf BSL signer. Others have questioned that and say that perhaps that wouldn't be possible legally. So, I'd like to know your view on that, and what conversations you have had with the Government in terms of their views on competency in that regard.

I'll come to you in one second. In discussions, this was very much a point of discussion. The Welsh Government's initial view—and this was based on advice received from a lawyer in one of those meetings—was that this might breach UK legislation and UK equalities legislation. So, the lawyers from both sides went away to consider if there was a way of doing this that was compliant with the reserved powers model, and they found that the way proposed in the Bill is compliant with UK and devolved law. But do you wish to answer that?

Yes. I don't have much to add to that, but just to say, as the Member did, there was nothing on the face of the Bill originally. Section 5(2) has been added since then, and we're quite pleased that there is a requirement for the adviser to be able to communicate effectively and use BSL, and we think that's a step forward, but we haven't gone further than that.

And, of course, that protected characteristic of being deaf, as well as being a BSL signer, that's where the legal problem is, from what I understand from the evidence we received.

Certainly, it's a complex area, looking at equal opportunities, and we do feel that this is a safe place for us to go to, and brings the benefit that is trying to be justified.

Could I just ask a question about that? Again, and I don't know whether Mark wants to answer this, is that something that you'd like to see the committee do, perhaps—ensure that we confirm that situation?

Well, that is our understanding of the legal position. If your evidence supports that, then it would be obviously helpful if you reinforced that. I think the form of words we've arrived at is considered to be fail-safe. If you have an alternative form of words that you consider to be more fail-safe, then we can consider those. Obviously, I would seek legal advice from our colleagues, and, obviously, Welsh Government would wish to consult their lawyers again regarding this. But, as you say, we've reached a safe place that both Government and the team around me are content with, and content that it does comply with the current statutory position.

Could I just ask why you use the word 'effectively' rather than 'fluently'?

I don't know. There's no particular reason.

Because we can all order a coffee in other languages, but that doesn't mean to say we're fluent. I just wondered—perhaps your legal adviser could just comment as to why you've used the word 'effectively'.

It was a drafting issue.

Yes, it's just the drafting. I think there are different styles of how this could work in legislation. I know, for example, looking at the Welsh Language Commissioner, in that legislation, you talk about having sufficient knowledge of and proficiency in the Welsh language, so there are different styles and examples around it. We felt that to 'communicate effectively' is quite clear.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Sioned, back to you.

Okay. Thank you. I just want to ask about complaints. What recourse would a deaf individual have who is wanting to raise concerns about the performance of a listed public body, or progress in terms of the national strategy? What steps would be available to an individual?

Well, the failure would be with the body, the public body, or a failure of a future Welsh Government to implement, oversee, its own strategy to effectively monitor plans and what follows from them. But, at the localised level, as with everything else, because this relates to performance by a public body, there are complaints processes that would apply—up to and including the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales—that would be the same processes here. We all have views on how effective those complaints processes would be, but, in my view, that should be considered separately. The principle of those complaints processes being the correct route to follow applies. Whether those complaints processes should be strengthened is a matter for another day.

Yes, that's a point, isn't it? You mentioned, when you were before us the last time, that perhaps the adviser would have a role in terms of receiving those complaints, but then, in terms of Welsh Ministers and public bodies, how can they ensure—? Is there anything in the Bill, or that should be stronger in the Bill, in terms of ensuring that the complaints processes that they have are accessible, because we have heard evidence that they're not, at the moment?

Well, I think we all have casework with different public bodies and we have varying experiences of how effective complaints processes are, but that, as I say, is not the purpose of this Bill; we have to work with the processes that there are and hope that they might be improved in the future. But, yes, whereas the adviser wouldn't be a formal complaint recipient and invigilator, that person and the team around them would be interacting with those public bodies and highlighting the concerns raised, whether they are genuine failures or whether they can be improved upon, wilful or otherwise, or whether it's better engagement with local people, particularly local deaf people, because of a failure to reach a mutual understanding of what, actually, they're doing.

Thank you. I just want to say, in closing, thank you very much to the Member, because I think all the responses that we've had so far show why there is a need for this focus in order to improve services across the board. So, thank you very much, Mark.

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

Thank you. The Bill imposes a number of duties on public bodies. In some of the evidence we've had from public bodies, they are suggesting that some of these duties could be aligned with a number of the other duties that they have in terms of their reporting requirements. I think they are, I suppose fairly to them, looking at how they can consolidate in terms of the various duties and reporting obligations that they have in their planning and various reporting requirements. But, of course, if this were to take place in that particular way, I suppose there is a risk that the BSL duties and reporting requirements would become subsumed, in some ways, within a broader expanse of responsibilities. Is this something that causes you any concern or do you have a particular view in terms of how distinct the reporting requirements should be in this instance?

I completely agree with the latter part of your analysis there that, if this was subsumed, then the focus would be at risk of being lost. The Equalities Act 2010 and the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and otherwise have varying reporting duties, but they're general; they don't apply to BSL. This is a BSL language Act. It's not an equalities Act, it's not a rights Act—it's a language Act, with a very specific focus. And we know from, particularly, the consultation responses we received, that current mechanisms are not providing for the needs of the deaf BSL signing community in Wales or elsewhere, hence the need for the focus on BSL specifically that this Bill seeks to provide for.

Thank you for that. One of the other, I suppose, issues that arises in terms of the timescales within the Bill is that public bodies are conducting engagement with deaf people, but also consulting on BSL plans, around about the same time, and potentially there is a risk that, I suppose, you can have too much consultation, in the sense that you have duplication, you have overlapping and so on. Do you have a particular view on this, on how that might best be done or what the potential challenges might be?

If they apply the genuine practices applying to co-production, the practices detailed, for example, in a different context, in the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, or the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, then they should be systemic, rather than burdensome. It should actually help them save time and resource by getting it right the first time, and actually strengthen the trust and confidence that communities have in the ability of the public body to deliver with them and for them. Too often, the barrier is the expectation, where it's simply applying another onerous consultation process on them. This goes beyond consultation and should be systemic.

Clearly, this Bill would require more resource at the beginning, because of the need to produce the plan within 12 months, and then the review within 12 months, but there wouldn't be the same level of pressure on time or financial resource in subsequent years, unless they fail to produce the appropriate plan or deliver on the implementation satisfactorily for the Welsh Government of the day. That would be down to them. And, of course, as I mentioned earlier, the funding for the implementation of the Bill, rather than what might flow from the strategy and plans, is costed and is provided for.

Thank you for that comprehensive answer. Just a final point from me, then. In terms of guidance to listed bodies from Welsh Ministers, do you have a view in terms of whether the guidance should provide for, allow for, greater perhaps regional engagement and development of BSL plans, or do you see this as very much something that should be a one-size-fits-all type of approach?

There has to be a level of local and regional discretion, because circumstances can vary, but there are good practice models in Scotland, for example, who have a health board working with a local authority. So, there will be many examples within Wales where joint working, sharing of resource, joint planning and delivery would make sense, not just between local authorities, but involving health boards and other related bodies. Whether you feel you need to make a recommendation regarding content in the guidance concerning this, to help those bodies better understand how this might work, alongside the other regional bodies that already exist—. Then you may wish to do so, but the intention is not to make this mandatory.

Thank you very much. No further questions, Chair.

Thank you. Can I just come back to your initial response to Mick Antoniw, where you say that you are concerned that, if the reporting requirements were incorporated with other issues under the Equality Act, it would be in danger of getting lost? Given that we have a very complicated alphabet soup of governance in this country, I just wondered whether you could envisage how one could reduce the form filling, the reporting, without losing the focus on the progress to be made on BSL.

Other than within the Bill—for other matters, you mean.

Well, if they were—. They were very clear, these local authorities, that this would be a more cost-efficient way and therefore that might improve the way in which the impact was rolled out.

The fear is that this conflates two separate matters. We've got the Equality Act 2010, we've got the public sector equality duty and reporting duties thereon, but this isn't an equalities Bill; this is a language Bill, specifically focused on BSL, with a very narrow focus. It shouldn't be a huge additional burden if it's systemic, but, if it goes into general reporting duties and the public sector equality duty, it's likely to get as lost as it has within the primary legislation applying to equalities. Reasonable adjustments alone, as we saw in the evidence submitted to the consultation, have not delivered for the deaf community, and you’ve heard in your evidence from many witnesses about the barriers that still exist in key services upon which we all, including deaf people, depend.

It's certainly the case that the obligations to the BSL community have not been met under the Equality Act, but the best way forward on that is obviously something we can discuss further later on.

It might be a good idea if we have a brief pause again now before we move over to our next section.

Altaf Hussain, would you like to ask a question?

Thanks, Mark, and great work. I'm very proud of you.

The area I'm touching on is barriers to implementation. The WLGA told the committee they do not have a huge amount of confidence in the estimated costs to listed public bodies set out in the RIA, and there are a number of unknown factors that might influence future costs. What work are you doing to ensure the RIA reflects the actual cost to the public bodies of preparing and publishing BSL plans and targets?

The costings produced in the RIA were based upon rigorous engagement with the Welsh Government, I think with public bodies also, including the WLGA, if I remember. Thus far, we've considered, because of that rigorous engagement, them to be realistic. Do you have any comments?

As you say, we did consult with the WLGA as part of building the assumptions and the costings around that. Similarly, we did engage with Welsh Government colleagues as well, and the Cabinet Secretary. I know in evidence to the Finance Committee, the Cabinet Secretary was satisfied that the costs that we've set out were reasonable in this regard. As the Member in charge has said throughout, the costs involved reflect what it would be to produce the strategy and produce the plans. What comes later, the implementation further down the line, those costs are not included in the RIA, because we simply don't know what will be in the strategy at that point and what will flow through into the BSL plans.

How will you ensure that costs in the RIA are updated to reflect the fact that council pay has been updated?

Council pay? Of officers et cetera?

That's correct. You do update them.

We hadn't considered, or did you, future—?

When we produced the costs, we were basing it on the previous year's council staff costs. That can be reflected as the Bill goes forward. If a revised EM is produced after Stage 2, for example, we can update those figures to reflect the new pay scales.

Okay, thank you. The framework nature of this Bill means that no new funding will be set aside to meet the cost of action set out in the national BSL strategy or local plans. Some local authorities have told us they will not be able to deliver high-quality plans without additional funding, and it creates a risk that local plans will become a tick-box exercise. Are you concerned? What discussions have you had with the Government about it? Are you concerned that the lack of allocated funds may be a problem to get your aim and what you want?

Firstly, as I said before, this will be a statutory requirement, and if there's a failure to produce robust plans and then a failure to implement those robust plans, they're accountable to future Welsh Governments. Equally, future Welsh Governments will have an onus on them to ensure that funding is available to deliver the relevant services, and we're talking here about interpreters and workforce plans. Those will have to start with a national strategy, but reflecting local gaps and local need.

This is something that's needed anyhow, regardless of the Bill. The Bill focuses on the BSL element of that, but actually, once effectively in place, this should be actually saving money, preventing crisis, enabling people to complete their education, to avoid some of the health inequities they suffer, and so on.

I would hope and expect that any future Welsh Government would recognise the need to fund the strategy that they produce, and then as they go forward, any reviews they apply to that strategy in the future. But no Government binds its successor, and we can't sit here in the context of this or any other legislation and state what future Governments will commit financially. That's down to budget processes, including the Parliament, the Senedd, doing its job at the time with scrutiny of the then Welsh Government budgets. But this will have to be provided for in those budgets, once those figures are known, once the strategy and plans are in place.

Mark, I wish you all the best and wish you well. Thanks, Chair.

Thank you.

I just want to follow up. What risk assessment have you made of the ability of local authorities to carry out this statutory requirement unless they have a wider pool of interpreters to enable them to do it? Because without interpreters, they're not going to be able to speak to BSL users in their local area or region.

Most plans would be short, medium and long term, based on what can be done now, what can be done in the medium term, and how we're going to achieve the long-term goals. If a plan was submitted claiming that any public body could reach the goal within 12 months, I trust that the relevant Minister at the time would send it straight back to them, unless they could show that they, unlike elsewhere, had all the resource, human and otherwise, available to them already.

This will be a progressive action. I don't mean 'progressive' necessarily in the other meaning of the term, but the action that will progress through time, as the necessary measures are put in place to enable the fulfilment of the goal that the Act is about achieving, and the statutory requirement to do so. If we need a workforce plan—which we will, I presume—then that should be, as we said earlier, at the centre of the strategy and the plans.

Different local authorities, health boards and otherwise, might say, 'We need x, y or z number; we will work with this college or that provider to get to that point, we'll engage with the local community, we'll target people who are already signers up to any particular level', or they may not, and if they don't, then hopefully questions will be asked of them. Rome wasn't built in a day, but the architect can still have an eye on what Rome's going to look like once the city is complete, and that's where we need to be looking.

I can think of various buildings that have taken 100 years to build, though, and that's the concern I have. You're absolutely right that current Governments can't bind future Governments or future Senedds on their financial priorities, but we've still got one more budget to this Senedd. What discussions have you had with the Welsh Government or other parties who may be able to help shape the budget by making a start on expanding the number of interpreters?

That will be a matter for the strategy. Again, it's a narrow framework Bill. We have discussed this with the Welsh Government, we came up with a figure in the RIA, and, obviously, this can be reviewed based on updated costs. The Welsh Government has committed to fund that, which is the only known cost. It's the cost of the Bill itself in that financial year. But the strategy and the plans will identify the actions to which costs can then be attached, and the future Welsh Government or Governments will need to address that in their budgets. We can't do that in a Bill that isn't specifying what will be in the strategy or the plans once the Bill has become an Act.

But given it takes so many years to train up interpreters, why don't you think you could make a start now, even if—? You don't have to be a genius to think that this isn't going to be part of the strategy. This clearly is going to be part of the strategy. You don't think there's any role for making a start on expanding the number of interpreters, without being able to predict exactly what's in the strategy.

Personally, I'd love to. I'd absolutely love to specify huge sums of money and action immediately to provide more interpreters, teachers of the deaf, training for health board staff so they know how to book an interpreter, because there are deficiencies identified in some of the evidence we received, support for parents who have deaf children to learn BSL and so on. I'd love to be able to say all that and have that type of a Bill.

But in order to secure support for this Bill, and Government support, it was agreed that we would take the framework model on this basis and leave that meat to be added to the bone, as I referred to earlier, or cheese to be added to the bone, once we reach the strategy and plan stage. But the nature of this Bill precludes, as I understand it, that level of specificity regarding actions that are not yet specified in strategies or plans. Is there anything you wish to add, either of you, from a legal viewpoint or research viewpoint?

Not so much from a legal viewpoint, but alongside all the work that's been happening on the Bill, the Welsh Government has had its BSL stakeholder group looking at this. Recommendation 15 is specifically about BSL interpreting and translation workforce, so there are already recommendations made to the Welsh Government around that. Part of this is trying to open that up as a career, and they recommend the Welsh Government work with Careers Wales, et cetera, in doing that. So, there's a lot of work already going on with the Welsh Government—that will help. As I say, I don't think there's a quick win, a quick fix, to this, but if you go from that bottom level up, through it being a career pathway, then I think that will help as well. That's a formal recommendation by the stakeholder group to the Welsh Government.

Is there a way that you can build the recommendation into the regulatory assessment?

Hypothetically, if you make a recommendation that, based on your evidence, this particular issue—because, obviously, you'll have heard about many other issues also, which would be teased out in strategies and plans—merits direct reference in the Bill, or the explanatory memorandum, that you would expect, or, based on the evidence you've heard, there will be a requirement for the strategy to address this on a fully-funded basis, then that would be for your committee to consider. My understand thus far is the nature of a narrow framework Bill would have precluded that. Legally, would that be feasible?

You could have specified targets, no doubt. We've seen it with the million Welsh language speakers by 2025, et cetera. That provision says that the strategy must contain a similar target. In terms of the costing et cetera, I'm not so clear, but there's precedent for that set target, yes.

Okay. Are there any other issues we haven't asked you about that are keeping you awake at night in relation to this Bill?

Not that immediately jumps to mind. You've been very thorough, and actually I'm encouraged by the matters that you're highlighting, because those are the sorts of matters that have been occupying my thoughts late at night. I'm pleased that the witnesses have convinced you, as they convinced me, that action is required, and some of the specific areas that you identify will need to be part of that action as we go forward.

Well, this is the Equality and Social Justice Committee. We have obligations in that regard. Thank you very much indeed for your attendance today. We'll obviously send you a transcript of your comments, and you can, by all means, correct them if they're not correct.