S4M-13046 British Sign Language (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick): The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-13046, in the name of Mark Griffin, on the British Sign Language (Scotland) Bill. Members may wish to note that British Sign Language interpreters are present in the chamber and will be signing the debate. Members may also wish to note that the Parliament today received an award from Action on Hearing Loss of a charter mark, which is a nationally recognised accreditation for organisations that offer excellent levels of service and accessibility for people who are deaf or have hearing loss.

14:10
... ... ...
15:26

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP):

The debate is less than half over, yet I already find myself significantly challenged—I have a whole series of questions that I will have to go away and ask myself after the debate, because it has been informative.

There is some doubt on some issues. Siobhan McMahon said that there are 100 BSL speakers for each of the 80 interpreters, but the situation might be even worse than that because, according to the Scottish Parliament information centre, the 2011 census tells us that there are 12,533 households in which someone speaks BSL. That would make the figure one interpreter for every 150 houses in which BSL is spoken. Whatever number is relevant, it is clear that the issue that we properly find ourselves debating is challenging and important.

Using visual communication is not alien to any of us. A shrug of the shoulders is immediately recognised as indicating doubt, rubbing the fingers together in a certain way is recognised to indicate money and there is a well-known hand gesture for “Do you want a drink?” We all have our little bits of personal sign language, but BSL is quite different, because it offers a standardised approach that reaches beyond local variation and culture. Equally, BSL is a language that has slang and rude words that people use when they are speaking to one another in a social setting. In that sense, it is genuinely as rich as any other language.

We have heard it suggested that the list of bodies that will be affected by the bill ought to be looked at. It strikes me that, with some of the bodies concerned, the use of sign language—or, indeed, any language—has legal force. For people who are in court or in front of a tribunal, it is important that there is precision. There is a particular need that must be emphasised in that environment, but in social environments and normal day-to-day commerce perhaps less rigour is required. We need to make sure that, when legal force is required, we have people in place to meet that need.

Dennis Robertson: I advise Stewart Stevenson that members of the BSL community can usually tell which part of Scotland or Britain someone comes from because of the different way in which they use the language. I was taught BSL by someone from Glasgow, and he had to vary the teaching to take account of some of the language differences in Aberdeen. As BSL is a visual language, I could present, but I could not receive.

Stewart Stevenson: I look forward to hearing about the differences between Doric BSL and posh Morningside BSL; perhaps I can do so after the debate.

One or two points have come to me as the debate has developed and I thought about what I might say. Ought we to see, as part of our future planning, a standardised sign that says “BSL spoken here” so that people whose first and preferred language is BSL know where to go? It should be a very simple symbol, by the way, so that someone driving a car can see it in a glance. The letters “BSL” might be good enough alone if they are in a standard format.

A lot of academic research has been done on visual communication. For example, Desmond Morris produced a wonderful book called “Manwatching: A Field Guide to Human Behaviour”, on how we communicate visually. I commend that book to others. I regularly see sign languages during my journeys to Parliament, and, indeed, I have watched BSL conversations in the Parliament chamber’s public gallery that have not attracted the ire of the Presiding Officer, because they have not intruded into the performance here as an oral conversation might do.

People who are visually impaired have huge help, and we can see it. For example, the edges of platforms at railway stations have baubles so that visually impaired people know that they are reaching the edge, and pavements have similar markings. Buses and trains have oral announcements that help the blind. How much are we doing for people who are deaf? So much less. It is important that we consider that there is a category of people in our community with a particular language who have been significantly neglected, compared with others.

When I was a youngster we were taught some BSL in our Sunday school—at least, I think it was BSL; it was certainly sign language of some kind. Alas, not a shred of that has survived into my adult life. As Dennis said, we need to be careful about simple things such as our speaking rate. In the nearly half a million words that I have contributed to parliamentary debates since I came here in 2001, I have averaged 131 words a minute. Do I really need to slow down? Can I speed up? Of course, as Dennis explained to me a minute or two ago in a little aside, there is not an exact mapping of words between the languages. He told me that, for example, BSL does not have a word for “if”. That is actually quite good news because “if” is one of the most destructive words in the English language in certain contexts.

I will close by saying a word or two about the efforts of the proposer of the bill, Mark Griffin, and to congratulate him on his work. We as a Parliament should always be looking at what other Parliaments do. For example, the Australian Parliament has a seven-minute curfew on questions at Prime Minister’s question time. It does not matter whether the Prime Minister is speaking: chop—next question. That is not a bad idea.

We are looking at what Westminster has done in electing committee conveners, but what we can show others is the access that we give for back benchers to legislate. In fact, if every back bencher took the opportunity to do that, there would be 256 bills per parliamentary session. However, there are so many fewer than that because it is a formidably difficult task, engaging a lot of time and effort. I congratulate Mark Griffin on the work that he has put into the bill and I thank him, if only for raising my awareness and giving me a set of questions that I have to go and ask myself and get answers to later.

15:34