Alasdair Allan
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Like other members, I very much hope to see further and more comprehensive legislation soon. Meanwhile, as other members have mentioned, it is important not to lose sight of the reasons for and origin of crofting law.”
“I am pleased that my final speech in this session of Parliament is about such an important subject to my constituents as crofting. I, too, pay tribute to the contributions that have been made on the issue over the years by many members, not least by Rhoda Grant and Edward Mountain. This bill has been in the works for a long time.”
“However, the history that I have just recounted means that crofters are very aware that this traditional, culturally vital way of life requires legislation to sustain and protect it. The bill is a step forward in what must be a longer process of crofting law reform.”
“I was pleased to secure several amendments at stage 2, including to give ministers the power to regulate the transfer of owner-occupier crofts, to prevent a right-to-buy where a crofter is in breach of their duties, to explicitly include enforcement duties in the Crofting Commission’s responsibilities and to introduce a more practical and…”
“Depending on the voting intentions of my constituents, I look forward to working with the next Government on the additional legislation that will be required. In the meantime, the bill is an important step forward on the road to crofting legislation reform and I urge members to give it their support. 17:26”
“My amendment 6 would make it clear that that power includes the ability to make provisions on the transfer of associated grazing shares, should it be desirable to strengthen or modify the regime set out in sections 14A and 15. I move amendment 6.”
The complete record
Every one of 496 lines we hold for Alasdair Allan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 10.
“The deer working group was clear that that requirement was too burdensome, so we consulted on proposals to amend the review period and brought forward changes that will require NatureScot to review compliance in three circumstances: first, when requested to do so by ministers; secondly, if substantive changes have been made to the code; and thirdly, at a bare minimum, no later than 10 years after the code was laid before the Parliament. NatureScot will also be able to carry out a review at any other point if it feels that that is appropriate. I set out very clearly at stage 2, but will do so again now, that it is my expectation that 10 years will not become the norm for compliance reviews. For those reasons, I ask Mr Mountain not to move amendments 9 and 80. If he does, I ask members to vote against them.”
“However, I have listened to the concerns that have been raised by stakeholders and the committee during proceedings at stages 1 and 2. Although the use of “will” instead of “may” was intended to provide some security to stakeholders, it has raised concerns about lack of flexibility, so I am content to support the change proposed by Mr Eagle. I ask Mr Mountain not to move his amendment 8 and instead to support his colleague’s amendment 79, and I ask members to support amendment 79. I cannot support Mr Mountain’s amendments 9 and 80. At present, NatureScot must review compliance with the code of practice every three years.”
“Our intention with the changes to be made to the 1996 act has always been to retain flexibility on the make-up of the panels, but amendments 5, 6 and 7 would undermine that. For those reasons, I urge members not to vote for them. 17:00 Amendment 78 attempts to reinstate the close season for male deer. I have lost count of the number of times that Mr Mountain has attempted to overturn the decision of the Parliament on close seasons of deer. His attempt at stage 2 was debated and opposed at that time. I therefore recommend that members oppose it again. I turn to Edward Mountain’s amendment 8 and Tim Eagle’s amendment 79. I cannot support Mr Mountain’s amendment, as I think that there is a benefit in requiring NatureScot to set out in the code of practice details of how and where it intends to intervene in deer management.”
“An amendment that will be made by the bill will allow NatureScot to sit on a panel as a member. Mr Mountain’s amendment 5 would make it a requirement that it did so, and his amendment 6 would make it an obligation that the NatureScot member of the panel was always in attendance at any meeting of the panel. We can foresee that there may be circumstances in which it would be beneficial for a relevant expert from NatureScot to sit on a panel, but it is not our intention that such an expert will sit on every panel. That decision reflects the discussions that we had with stakeholders during the drafting of the bill. Amendment 7 is not necessary, as not all panels will relate to the management of deer in local areas. For example, a previous panel related to the transfer of deer functions from the Red Deer Commission to NatureScot.”
“In practice, it would create complex engagement requirements that could delay decision making, particularly where the public disagreed with or had concerns about proposed deer management. We all know that deer management can be an emotive subject, and there are many views on the best way to manage deer in different areas. I also do not think that Edward Mountain has considered the potential implications in peri-urban areas, where some members of the public who rarely see deer may not understand the impact that they have on the environment if their population is left unchecked, and they may not actually care. For those reasons, I ask him not to move amendment 4. If he moves it, I ask members not to support it. Edward Mountain’s amendments 5, 6 and 7 relate to the composition of deer management panels.”
“Edward Mountain’s amendment 3 seeks to amend the aims and purposes of the 1996 act to make it explicit that NatureScot must ensure that deer are controlled humanely as well as effectively when it exercises its functions under that act. Consideration of deer welfare is already embedded in the existing best practice guidance in Scotland and in NatureScot’s code of practice. Amendment 3 therefore reinforces our existing policy, and it is for that reason that I will support it. Although Edward Mountain’s amendment 4 is well intentioned, as it seeks “to prevent conflict between the public and” those who are undertaking deer management, it would introduce significant challenges that would risk undermining effective management.”
“The amendment is unnecessary and confusing because it would include fallow deer in the list of deer that are native to Scotland. I therefore ask Edward Mountain not to press his amendment. If he presses it, I ask members to oppose it. I support the aim that Mr Mountain looks to achieve with amendment 2, but I cannot support it, as I set out at stage 2. We have many excellent deer managers up and down Scotland and I want to ensure that they know, as I do, that we will always need skilled people on the ground to manage our deer population. Amendment 2 would require NatureScot to consider the protection and promotion of deer management employment in carrying out any of its deer functions. That is impractical. For that reason and for the reasons that were set out at stage 2, the amendment is unnecessary and I ask members not to support it.”
“I hope that the cabinet secretary will respond, because sites are degrading and we need to take action now. Jim Fairlie: I beg the Parliament’s forgiveness, as this is going to be quite a long response. Edward Mountain’s amendment 1 relates to the aims and purpose of deer management. It seeks to redefine one of the aims from furthering “the conservation of deer native to Scotland” to furthering the conservation of “fallow, red and roe deer”. The deer working group report set out that four species of wild deer occur in Scotland—the two species of native wild deer, which are red and roe, and the two non-native species, which are fallow and sika. While we recognise that fallow deer are now naturalised in Scotland, they are not a species that is native to Scotland.”
“I am struggling to get my head around that, because that feels completely inadequate for the scale of nature restoration that is required, particularly for sites that are hugely degraded. Amendment 93 is designed to specify the situations in which NatureScot must act to control high deer numbers because we cannot wait. The amendment is tightly drawn to cover habitats of national and international importance as well as peatlands, due to their critical role in storing climate emissions. In instances where those habitats are being damaged by deer, NatureScot must use its powers under sections 7 and 8 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 to intervene to save those sites from further destruction and decay. Existing procedure on appeal provisions in the 1997 act will also apply in those situations, so no additional appeals process is required.”
“Mark Ruskell: Amendment 93 was originally lodged by Emma Roddick at stage 2. In my experience, Emma Roddick is right about most things and I think that she is right about that particular amendment, because we do need to take action where deer are damaging our protected sites. We know that large deer populations have been identified by NatureScot as one of the main reasons why those critical sites are often in an unfavourable condition. The public investment that goes into internationally protected habitats such as the flow country or Scotland’s rainforest is completely undermined by critical damage caused by deer. In evidence to the committee, NatureScot indicated that it plans to use the new powers in the bill to add proposed new sections 6ZA and 6ZB to the 1996 act, but that it would use those powers only once or twice a year.”
“That amendment would ensure that those owners and occupiers who are, or are likely to be, significantly affected by the proposed control scheme are notified and are able to lodge objections, if they so wish. At the same time, amendments 52 and 53 would strike an important balance by making clear that only those owners and occupiers upon whom a control scheme imposes a requirement may appeal to the Scottish Land Court. Those indirectly affected can be heard, but the process would remain proportionate and focused. Taken together, the amendments would strengthen local engagement, protect community interests and ensure that control schemes operate fairly and effectively. I ask members to support my amendments 51, 52 and 53. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Mark Ruskell to speak to amendment 93 and other amendments in the group.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Beatrice Wishart to speak to amendment 51 and other amendments in the group. Beatrice Wishart: It was remiss of me not to thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their engagement on my previous amendments, so I do so now, while also thanking the minister and his officials for their time and assistance with the amendments that I am about to speak to. Amendments 51, 52 and 53 are rooted in ensuring that local communities and neighbouring land managers are properly considered when deer control schemes are proposed. Amendment 51 recognises that control schemes can have real impact beyond the land that is directly subject to requirements, and particularly on neighbouring holdings, local deer management arrangements and rural communities whose economies and environments are closely connected.”
“My amendment would ensure that SNH would publish reviews of those orders, providing transparency on the progress and impact of any orders that are put in place. Amendment 50 would allow people who are detrimentally impacted by deer numbers to ask SNH to act to mitigate the situation. Constituents have come to me with concerns about deer numbers after trying to speak to the owners of the estate that they live on, only to be told that the problem lies with a neighbouring estate—and to see the buck being passed. Amendment 50 would allow those who are impacted to ask SNH to investigate so that it can then take action, should it find that there is an issue. I am grateful to the minister for his assistance with those amendments following stage 2, and I hope that they will provide the assistance that those who are impacted require.”
“Given the central function of the code in steering where and how intervention will be used, amendment 87 seeks to underscore that NatureScot will be obliged to act “in accordance with any requirements set out in the code” when considering deer management plans, control agreements and control schemes and would, ultimately, help deer managers to understand where and how any intervention under the new grounds will be used. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Rhoda Grant to speak to amendment 49 and other amendments in the group. Rhoda Grant: I will speak to amendments 49 and 50 in my name. Amendment 49 concerns section 7 orders, which are deer management orders that are put in place when there is a problem with deer control.”
“Finally, my amendments 87, 89 and 90 are designed to provide reassurance for deer managers about the uncertainty and subjectivity inherent in the new grounds for intervention. Members will be aware that the code of practice for deer management will be used to set out the circumstances in which the new grounds will be used. That code is in the process of being updated, with input from the deer sector, so we do not yet have any detail about exactly how the new grounds will be applied.”
“The application of the new ground for intervention for nature restoration, in proposed new section 6ZB of the 1996 act, requires a connection to “a relevant target, strategy or plan relating to the environment, climate change or biodiversity”. Deer managers have expressed concerns to me about the all-encompassing nature of those targets, strategies or plans. My amendments 85 and 86 therefore seek to ensure that those targets, strategies and plans relate primarily to deer management. I do not consider that that would in any way tie the hands of either the Scottish Government or of NatureScot. Given that those powers relate to deer management, it is logical that the overarching targets, strategies and plans should also relate to deer.”
“It is difficult to see what that phrase will usefully add, given that the preceding terms—“preserves, protects, restores, enhances”—are comprehensive and cover the full range of meaningful improvements that could be delivered for the natural heritage or environment. If ministers could set out, perhaps with reference to a case study, why the terms “preserves, protects, restores, enhances” are insufficient on their own, I am sure that that would address the concerns of the deer sector. Beyond that, I simply point out to members that the subjectivity that is inherent in the new grounds for intervention has generated, and continues to generate, significant concern among deer managers.”
“That means, hypothetically, that intervention could be levelled against one landholding to deliver works, projects or natural processes on another landholding. That has the potential to drive a wedge through collaboration at the landscape scale and might even result in some landholdings lobbying NatureScot to intervene on their neighbours. I raise that as a genuine concern that has been expressed to me by the deer sector. It serves nobody’s interests, least of all the Scottish Government’s, to incite division and conflict among deer managers. I hope that members will be inclined to support my amendment 82. The effect of my amendment 84 would be to remove the phrase “otherwise improves” in relation to the “natural heritage or environment” in the new ground for intervention.”
“The Scottish Government has been clear about the importance of voluntary and collaborative deer management when it comes to delivering positive outcomes for people, jobs and nature. I could not agree more with that sentiment, which is why I am concerned about the new ground for NatureScot to intervene in deer management under the auspices of nature restoration, which will be created by section 13 of the bill. Several stakeholders, including Scottish Land & Estates and the Association of Deer Management Groups, have highlighted to me the potential for the new ground to generate conflict between landholdings. That is because the new ground for intervention will permit taking regulatory action “in relation to” an area of land, instead of “on” an area of land.”
“My amendment 79 seeks to clarify that the code should set out the circumstances in which NatureScot “may” intervene. That would afford it discretion to decide whether intervention is appropriate relative to the circumstances. For clarity, the amendment seeks to replace “will” with “may”. In its stage 1 report, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recognised the concerns of the deer management sector about the lack of detail on how the new grounds for intervention will be used. It is critical that the Scottish Government does not erode the trust and consensus that has been built up carefully with the deer management sector in recent years. Therefore, I urge members to back my amendment 79. I turn to my amendment 82.”
“The amendment reflects concerns that have been expressed to me by Scottish Land & Estates that the present wording will act as an impediment to NatureScot and will potentially force its hand to take action in line with the circumstances for intervention that are due to be set out in the deer management code of practice. The concern is that the wording “will intervene” will leave NatureScot with little room for manoeuvre. If the code says it, NatureScot will have to do it. It is likely that NatureScot will become exposed to direct lobbying and potential litigation, particularly from pressure groups, as well as from landholdings that consider that their neighbours are not doing enough to manage deer. That, in turn, will undermine the voluntary principle that underpins collaborative deer management.”
“I will leave it at that and perhaps come in again at the end with some closing remarks. I move amendment 1. Tim Eagle: I thank the minister for quite a lot of discussion of my amendments. I have brought back some amendments that were previously lodged at stage 2. I have lodged them again because I have had a lot of contact with the deer sector, which has raised some concerns. I want to set out again what the concerns are, although this is pretty much only for the record, because I do not think that the amendments will be agreed to. My amendment 79 would make it clear that the code of practice on deer management will set out the circumstances in which NatureScot “may” intervene in the management or control of deer, instead of the circumstances in which it must intervene.”
“16:45 I am disappointed that the Scottish Wildlife Trust is advising members that they should vote against many of my amendments in this group. That is because, as I said earlier, I do not believe that the people in the trust have ever got blood on their hands or dirt under their fingernails, or enacted policies by drawing up deer management plans to ensure the management of deer. It is easy to sit in an office and tell people on the ground how to do things better; I believe, and always have believed, that the people on the ground with experience know better about that. In passing, I note that RSPB Scotland, too, is asking members to vote against some of my amendments in the group. However, the RSPB is a protection organisation for bird species and not necessarily for other animals.”
“Amendment 103 obliges SNH to share the information with the landowner before SNH takes any further action regarding deer control. It cannot just go in and not provide the evidence for doing so. Amendment 104 obliges SNH to compensate the landowner for any damage caused to the land by any agent entering under SNH’s investigatory power. In fact, that ties in with one of the amendments that were made to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, whereby people exercising sporting rights had to compensate the tenant or the landowner if they caused damage. Amendment 105 is a wording change in the section that is being inserted into the 1996 act headed “Power to require information and documents” to ensure that it is acted on only when the documents are relevant to SNH’s exercise of its function.”
“On that last point, would the member not acknowledge that tenants are already bound by various pieces of legislation and good practice when it comes to safety matters anyway? I do not know whether he is raising a safety concern about tenants specifically. Edward Mountain: It is not tenants that I am concerned about here; it is people going in and acting on behalf of SNH. I want to ensure that all the sides talk together, because the only way in which deer management will work effectively is if all sides work together. Amendment 102 obliges SNH to share with the landholder any information that has been recorded under SNH’s investigatory powers in an accessible format and within three months. That seems fairly reasonable.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting dental practices in island communities to provide sufficient levels of service to ensure that islanders can access the dental care that they are entitled to. (S6O-05399)”
“I welcome the announcement this week in the Scottish budget of a mansion tax on properties valued at more than £1 million. Although I am sure that he is not being singled out, it seems likely that the new leader in Scotland of Mr Farage’s party will be among the first to pay the tax. Does the First Minister agree that it is fair to ask the wealthiest to contribute to public services and that it will be good to see certain figures in the House of Lords doing so more evidently?”
“However, I believe that the bill is an important step forward for crofting reform and that stakeholders will want to see it pass. I am therefore happy to commend the committee’s report to members. 16:32”
“As the minister said in November last year, the current bill will prepare the ground for what comes next by helping to increase residency levels and active croft use to allow consideration of what will be needed thereafter to increase the number of new entrants into crofting and to sustain support for existing crofters. As the Scottish Crofting Federation has noted, work on more fundamental reform must get under way during session 7 with a review of crofting policy and law. That must be followed by the introduction of further legislation and the continuation of the robust engagement with stakeholders that there has been to date in this complex area of law. I have no doubt that, in the course of stage 2, I will be among the committee members seeking to lodge amendments to improve the bill that is before us.”
“There are still concerns about the number of crofts that are abandoned or where the crofter is a long-term absentee. Likewise, there are concerns about the need for enforcement action on that to allow new entrants easier access to crofting. The committee welcomes the emphasis on the environment that is evident throughout the bill, but it is also keen to see safeguards to prevent any wholesale abandonment of agricultural land in the name of environmental use. It is outwith the scope of this bill, but in the future we must see legislation to tackle issues created by the marketisation of crofts that has happened in recent years.”
“I also thank the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity for his direct engagement with me on the bill and, more importantly, for his engagement with the wider committee. Part 1 of the bill focuses on nine key areas, including: expanding the powers of the Crofting Commission; streamlining the administration of crofting duties; amending the crofting register; and enabling more use of digital communication between crofters and the commission. It also introduces provisions for the environmental use of crofts and common grazings and sets out definitions of a “crofting community” and an “owner-occupier”. Part 2 of the bill merges the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, and part 3 contains more general provisions. As the committee report says, crofting does not function without effective regulation.”
“Crofting is a subject that is never far from my inbox—nor is the issue of crofting reform. It is clear that substantial change to 150 years’ worth of crofting legislation cannot be achieved in a single bill, but the bill that is before us is an important first step towards wider reform. It is my view that an additional bill will be needed in the next parliamentary session. I thank the other members of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, our officials and the witnesses for their input into our report. I particularly mention the visit that the committee’s convener Mr Carson and I were able to make to Skye. I believe that that visit was useful in informing the report and its conclusion that the committee should back the general principles of the bill.”
“In addition, through area-based schemes, we have invested more than £13 million in the Western Isles since 2013, helping 3,500 fuel-poor households to make their homes warmer. This budget will continue to advance social and economic prosperity in our islands, in line with our new national islands plan.”
“All will appreciate the budget’s support with the cost of living during what is such a financially challenging time for so many people. My constituency has some of the highest fuel poverty rates in the country. Will the cabinet secretary outline what specific support is included in the budget for those in rural and island areas who struggle with rising bills? Shona Robison: I am deeply aware that island communities continue to face some of the highest fuel poverty levels in Scotland. The budget continues support for the islands cost crisis emergency fund, which, since 2022, has distributed £4.4 million to support vulnerable households, including £1.1 million for Western Isles Council.”
“Efforts to protect children and young people from harm are a priority for all members. How is the Scottish Government working to ensure that support for survivors is trauma informed and accessible? Jenny Gilruth: As I alluded to in my response in December, I announced further funding to provide free access to online harm e-learning. Ensuring that survivors can access the support that they need is key. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs and I wrote to the cross- party group on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse, because we want to hear more from the wide range of survivors that it represents about how we can ensure that they can access a range of support and that our approach is trauma informed and accessible, which was the member’s substantive point. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Question 6 is from Fergus Ewing.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what work it is undertaking to ensure that rural and island communities have access to legal aid. (S6O- 05331)”
“At the same time, 20 to 25 per cent of seafood industry vacancies remain unfilled, and the end to EU freedom of movement provisions has been a significant contributor to that.”
“Fishing is a vital industry in the Western Isles and elsewhere, both economically and culturally, but it is one that requires sustained support given the challenges that the sector faces, for example as a result of Brexit’s implications for both exports and immigration and the consequent difficulty for some parts of the industry in recruiting crews. Increased administrative requirements, restrictions on labour mobility and the additional costs that are incurred in exporting to the EU have all had an impact. Seafood industry representatives estimate that Brexit has led to a 30 per cent increase in the cost of transporting products and a 50 per cent increase in the cost of packaging, with export health certificates estimated to have cost UK food businesses some £60 million in 2021 alone.”
“I had rather hoped that there would be no need to raise the issue again, given the pretty terrible reaction to the UK Government’s decision among Scottish fishing communities. However, the UK Government seems determined not to listen to reason on this occasion, despite many other notable policy U-turns in recent weeks. In my constituency, Na h-Eileanan an Iar, fishing remains a vital part of our daily lives and local heritage, from Ness to Vatersay. In 2023, fishing in the Western Isles contributed more than £8 million in approximate gross value added to the Scottish economy. Its percentage share of the fishing sector’s economic contribution has grown by 8 per cent since 2016, despite the fact that the number of individuals who are employed in fishing in my constituency has dropped by 16 per cent in the past five years.”
“I am afraid that the convoluted argument that Scottish Labour has offered to date on the issue— that the Scottish Government, in seeking to allocate our fair share of the funding in Scotland ourselves, is to blame for the situation where we receive only Barnett consequentials, rather than the equivalent proportion of the EU funding that we are no longer eligible for—does not hold water. The UK Government, by all accounts, refused to engage with devolved Governments on the issue in advance of, or indeed following, the allocation decision that was announced two months ago. Labour Senedd members and MPs across the political spectrum at Westminster have criticised the UK Government’s allocation decision. Why are all Labour MSPs and indeed most Tory MSPs unwilling to do the same?”
“I hope that colleagues across the chamber will recognise that the Labour UK Government’s decision to divide its new fishing fund using the Barnett formula is deeply flawed and does not provide our fishing communities across Scotland with the support that they need—indeed, the support that they were promised—after Scotland was taken out of the EU against our will. The new UK fishing and coastal growth fund replaces the equivalent EU funding that was lost following Brexit. The Scottish Government requested £166 million of the £360 million fund and requested that it then be able to allocate its share to Scottish coastal communities, as fishing is a devolved issue.”
“That is because the funding has been divided up based on Scotland’s share of the UK’s human population—a fact that has nothing whatsoever to do with the scale of our fishing industry. Certainly, it has nothing to do with the proportions of landings, the value of exports or the total catch value for each country—nor does it have anything to do with precedent. Prior to Brexit, the equivalent EU funding was split along the following lines: 46 per cent for Scotland, 36 per cent for England, 10 per cent for Northern Ireland and 8 per cent for Wales. That allocation recognised the significant economic contribution of Scotland’s fishing industry.”
“In October this year, the United Kingdom Labour Government allocated its new United Kingdom- European Union fishing and coastal growth fund across the UK in a way that bears no relation whatsoever to the scale of Scotland’s fishing industry or, indeed, to the way in which such funds have been allocated in the past. Scotland consistently lands around 63 per cent of the UK’s total catch value, and more than 60 per cent of the UK’s seafood exports come from Scotland. However, the UK Labour Government has decided that, of the £360 million fund, only £28 million will make its way to Scotland’s coastal communities. The much smaller fishing industry in England is set to receive £300 million. Scotland has somewhere between half and two thirds of the UK’s fishing industry, but we will get less than an 8 per cent of the UK Government’s fund.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the chamber an issue that matters to every fishing community in Scotland. It certainly matters to people in my island constituency, who have not been slow to raise it with me. I appreciate that the debate on my motion is the Parliament’s final item of business before the Christmas recess, so I am grateful to members who have stayed to take part in it. This is not the first time that the subject been raised in the Parliament but, as you will hear, there is good reason to raise it again.”
“I was disappointed that the minister did not know about portable changing places toilets, which would rectify many of the issues that she has raised with regard to some of the facilities. I will press amendment 11, because the disabled community does not want just to hear warm words from this Parliament. We want to see real action that will make a real change to people’s lives. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. As this is the first division of stage 3, I will suspend the meeting for around five minutes, to allow members to access the digital voting system. 16:43 Meeting suspended. 16:48 On resuming— The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the vote on amendment 11. Members should cast their votes now.”
“I hear what Mr Balfour says, and I echo what has been said about his dedication to supporting disabled people. However, before we set up any false divisions, will he acknowledge that many of us have campaigned for both Gaelic and BSL? Jeremy Balfour: I do accept that, but my point is that, at stage 2, the committee did not accept that amendment. Yet again, we have heard that the minister is concerned about cost and implementation. My big fear is that, down the road, a number of places will say that this provision is too expensive and they will not have to implement it. In his intervention on the minister, Mr Stewart took some of the words out of my mouth.”
“I move, That the Parliament notes the findings and recommendations in the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s 4th Report, 2025 (Session 6), Report on British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 (SP Paper 872). 15:19”
“We heard powerful first-hand testimony from a BSL user who had experienced such abuse. Although I do not have time to discuss that in any detail, I am sure that other members of the committee will do so later in the debate, and I look forward to their contributions. I conclude by reiterating my thanks to all those who contributed to our inquiry and to the Deputy First Minister for her response. The response is encouraging, in so far as the door is clearly open for further improvements to be made. It is my sincere hope that our recommendations can contribute to helping to make Scotland the best place in the world for BSL users to live, work, visit and learn.”
“While welcoming the work on guidance for teachers, I reiterate the need for parity with Gaelic- medium education. I will turn briefly to healthcare and justice. It is clear that improvements have been made in respect of the provision of interpreters for pre- arranged appointments, but BSL users told us of the barriers that they face when contacting emergency services. The committee recognised that communication barriers can exacerbate what are often already stressful and traumatic situations. It is therefore pleasing to learn that the police, fire and ambulance services are working with partners on an app to help deaf people communicate with first responders in emergencies. Another aspect of the justice system that our report considered in detail relates to the experience of deaf survivors of domestic abuse.”
“Looking back on the legislation as someone who was involved in it at the Government end, I think that Karen Adam touches on an important point, which is the importance of BSL as a language and all the human dignity that that implies. I realise that the act is about more than symbolism, but does she agree, as I am sure she will, about the impact that it made on that community to know that, symbolically, the country had recognised their language for what it is, which is a language? Karen Adam: I absolutely agree with Alasdair Allan. That has been part of the understanding that we have been trying to get across to people that BSL is not just a support for people with a disability or a hearing impairment; it is a language with a whole culture embedded in it, and that is how it needs to be treated.”