Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Equality and Social Justice Committee. I've had apologies from Julie Morgan, and we're very pleased to welcome John Griffiths to substitute for her. Are there any declarations of interest? I see none.

I want to welcome everybody to this meeting of the Stage 2 process of the British Sign Language (Wales) Bill. We will have simultaneous translation from Welsh to English for those who need it, and there is also live BSL interpretation being provided on Senedd.tv. So, we will have to take five-minute breaks, at 20 to 30 minute intervals, at a suitable point in the proceedings, to enable those interpreters to change over.

So, I want to just point out to you that, in front of you, you have got the marshalled list, and the order in which the amendments appear in the Bill and will be voted on. We will be addressing the Bill in groups. So, all amendments have been grouped into themes to facilitate debate on each theme.

I will call, initially, the mover of the main amendment, and then anybody else who has an amendment in that group. Then, there will be an opportunity for all other Members to contribute. The person who has moved the lead amendment will then get the opportunity to respond, before we move to the vote.

The voting order takes place in the order in which they appear in the Bill. So, we may discuss an amendment that we will then subsequently vote on later down in the agenda. So, I think I've covered everything, but if there's anything you wish to ask before we move into the debate—. 

I will then move straight into group 1, where there are two amendments, and I invite Mark Isherwood to speak. 

Diolch. Thank you. Perhaps before speaking on the amendments, I should declare that I'm patron of COS, that's the Centre of Sign-Sight-Sound, formerly the North Wales Deaf Association. And perhaps I should, just for the record, state that I chair the cross-party group on deaf issues. 

Thank you.

Amendment 1 has been tabled in response to this committee's recommendation 2, which called on me to review the description of British Sign Language, BSL, using the explanatory memorandum, and to consider including a definition of BSL on the face of the Bill.

The purpose of amendment 1 is to provide clarity on the face of the Bill about what BSL means for the purposes of the Bill, but this is not, in itself, a definition or a description of what BSL is. The amendment sets out that for the purposes of the Bill, and this includes for the Bill's main purpose of promoting and facilitating the use of BSL, meaning that both the visual and tactile forms of BSL are within that definition.

Subsection 2 of amendment 1 limits the availability of specific outputs from the Bill, including the BSL strategy, guidance, BSL plans and reports to the visual form of BSL only. This is in line with the approach taken in the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015. These specific outputs must all be published. The Bill will require those published documents to be available through the visual form of BSL and this can be done by publishing the visual BSL equivalent alongside the written version. Any tactile BSL form of the outputs could not be published or made available in the same way and can only be provided to an individual on a one-off basis given the nature of tactile BSL. This is the reason amendment 1 has been drafted the way it has.

My expectation is that Welsh Government would provide the BSL strategy, guidance or reports in tactile form if requested, and that this would be in line with their accessibility rules, which would already require them to do this, actually, if so requested. Listed public bodies would have their own accessibility rules for providing documents and, again, my expectation is that they would also provide the BSL plans in tactile forms on request.

In relation to the more detailed description of BSL, I note the concerns raised by stakeholders about the description of BSL used in the explanatory memorandum that accompanied the Bill, and in particular paragraph 162 of the explanatory memorandum. In consequence, I'm working with the Cabinet Secretary to revise the description of BSL in the explanatory memorandum and this will be published following the completion of Stage 2. I believe that the explanatory memorandum, the explanatory notes that will accompany the Act, would be the most appropriate place for the more detailed description of BSL.

In relation to amendment 2 in this group, this proposes a consequential change to the text of the current section 1. This is simply to take account of the new section being inserted by amendment 1. I therefore call on members of the committee to support amendments 1 and 2.

Are there any Members who wish to speak to either amendment 1 or 2? I see none and therefore we can move to a vote. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed. All those in favour, please raise your hand. And there are none against, so all Members are agreed—[Interruption.] Sorry?

Does any Member object? Putting the question—.

We haven't got any objections, because everybody voted in favour.

[Inaudible.]

In relation to amendment 2—. I'm sorry. Well, there were six in favour and none against.

So, in the case of amendment 2, the question is that amendment 2 be agreed. Do any Members object? I see no objection, therefore we can approve that nem. con.

We now move on to group 2, which encompasses amendments 3 and 16. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 3 and I call on Mark Isherwood to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Well, in your committee's Stage 1 report, one of the clear conclusions was that the single biggest threat to effective implementation of this Bill is the shortage of BSL translators and interpreters, a conclusion that I wholeheartedly agree with.

While I believe it will be impossible to pre-specify measurable targets for BSL translators and interpreters within the BSL strategy, amendment 3 would require the BSL strategy to include targets to increase or maintain the number of BSL translators and interpreters available for the purpose of exercising the functions flowing from this Bill. BSL translators and interpreters provide an absolutely essential service and act as a vital link for deaf BSL signers to those providing key services. Expansion of the BSL interpreter and translator workforce will be necessary, or would be necessary even without the additional duties that will be put in place should the Bill become law, although the Bill's additional duties strengthen the need for this.

I would like to thank, so I do thank, Sioned Williams, for tabling amendment 16, which calls for the strategy to include steps the Welsh Ministers intend to take in two distinct areas. The requirement for the collection of information set out in paragraph (a) of that amendment has real merit and would be helpful going forward. As an example, the lack of information and monitoring of BSL was particularly problematic for me and my team when developing the explanatory memorandum for the Bill. As such, I support this part of the amendment.

However, in relation to the proposed paragraph (b), while extending opportunities to learn BSL in the workplace would be very welcome, I do not believe the BSL strategy would be the appropriate place to provide for this. The purpose of the strategy is to describe how Welsh Ministers and the listed public bodies included in the Bill will promote and facilitate the use of BSL in the exercise of their functions. As set out in the amendment, the learning of BSL in the workplace would go much wider than this and would include the workplace more generally—in other words, anywhere that anyone attends work. I can't therefore support amendment 16 as currently drafted, but there would be merit, in my view, in splitting amendment 16 and pursuing a more limited amendment at Stage 3 in relation to the collection of information and monitoring the use of BSL as part of the BSL strategy.

Although a stand-alone amendment with a stand-alone section could be drafted for Stage 3 in relation to opportunities to learn BSL in the workplace, this goes far further than the Bill currently does. Given the implications for employers in all sectors, there would be need for consultation before enacting such a provision. There are also likely to be significant costs associated with this that would need to be explored. I therefore call on the committee, given those issues, to support amendment 3 and reject amendment 16 as currently drafted, with a view to an amended amendment being submitted at Stage 3.

Thank you, Mark. Sioned Williams, would you like to speak to amendment 16?

Are there any Members who wish to speak on either amendment 3 or amendment 16? Mark Isherwood.

Thank you very much, Sioned. I won't say any more about the amendment I'm proposing. I completely support the intent of both parts of your amendment. As I stated, I'd very much welcome the amendment at Stage 3 in relation to the first part of that amendment. The second is more about practical barriers. I know that deaf people face huge barriers to the workplace and then huge barriers in the workplace, which shouldn't be there. But the scope of this Bill is limited to the Welsh Government's own listed public bodies, and even if we were to attempt to broaden that, the delays that would then be necessary for further consultation et cetera would mean we'd run out of time this Senedd term.

So, on that basis, I would ask you to support my proposal at this stage—endorse or support my amendments and remove or vote against amendment 16 in the expectation that there will be a further amendment in this context at Stage 3.

Thank you, Mark. I assume you wish to move the amendment.

Yes, I move the amendment.

The question is that amendment 3 be agreed. Does any Member object? I see no objection, therefore amendment 3 is carried.

Sioned Williams, do you wish to move amendment 16?

Yes.

The question is that amendment 16 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we'll now move to a vote. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Two. And those against, please raise your hands. Four. So, in relation to amendment 16, two voted in favour and four against, and the amendment is therefore not agreed.

We now move on to group 3. These appear in different parts of the Bill, but we thought that it was helpful to have a proper discussion on the very important subject of consulting with the BSL signing community. So, in the third group of amendments, the lead amendment in this group is amendment 4, and therefore I call on Mark Isherwood to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in this group.

Diolch. Thank you. The amendments in this group, as you indicated, all relate to increasing consultation with the deaf community and deaf communities on key provisions in the Bill. This is something I know that this committee was keen to see and which came through in evidence at Stage 1 of the Bill. Amendments 4, 8, 10 and 14 each add a requirement to this Bill to ensure that there is increased consultation with representatives of BSL signers. Amendment 4 will require such consultation by Welsh Ministers before the publication of the BSL strategy. Amendment 8 will require such consultation by listed public bodies before a BSL plan can be published. Amendment 10 will require such consultation by Welsh Ministers when preparing the progress reports, and amendment 14 will require such consultation by Welsh Ministers before making any regulations to add or remove a listed public body.

Recommendation 4 from this committee highlighted that there was no provision in the Bill as introduced requiring consultation on the content of the BSL guidance. Amendment 7, therefore, goes further than amendments 4, 8, 10 and 14, and relates to the consultation duties more generally that will apply to the BSL guidance issued under section 3 of the Bill. As I outlined in response to recommendation 4, it will be essential that the BSL strategy and the associated BSL guidance are developed together. Section 2(4) of the Bill already places a duty on Welsh Ministers to consult on the strategy, and I agree that a similar duty should be placed on Welsh Ministers with regard to the guidance. Amendment 7 has been tabled accordingly.

Amendments 5, 11 and 15 are all technical drafting amendments needed as a consequence of amendments 4, 10 and 14 respectively. 

Turning to amendment 17, in the name of Sioned Williams, this aims to do broadly the same as my amendment 4. However, I believe that amendment 4 is broader and more workable in practice. Amendment 4 provides consistent wording with the other amendments in this group, amendments 7, 8, 10 and 14, and is also more in line with the drafting throughout the Bill. It should also be noted that the term 'BSL signers' used in my amendments, rather than the term 'BSL user', reflects the evidence received during the consultation on the Bill. For these reasons, I call on the committee to support amendments 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14 and 15, tabled in my name, but to reject, whilst respecting, amendment 17 in the name of Sioned Williams.

Very good. I'll now call Sioned Williams to speak to amendment 17 and then there'll be an opportunity for every other Member to speak.

Thank you. Jane Dodds.

Well, yes. I think he'll then pay regard to that question in his summing up.

Thank you. Mark Isherwood, do you wish to address this particular point now or do you want to use it as part of your summing up?

It'll do it in the summing up.

Okay. Is anybody else wishing to speak on either the three amendments we are about to take to the vote or the other six amendments in this group? This is the opportunity to raise any concerns or clarification you wish on these amendments. Okay. I see no other Members wishing to speak. Mark Isherwood, would you like to sum up the points raised by the other two speakers, as well as any other comments you wish to make about these nine amendments in total?

Thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr. I completely agree that we must, collectively, seek—and I quote you—to reflect the lived experience of the people the Bill is intended or supposed to support. That's why, essentially, this suite of amendments has been tabled in response to the recommendation this committee made. As I said, recommendation 4, as proposed, highlights that there was no provision in the Bill as introduced requiring consultation on the content of the BSL guidance, and this seeks to address that. The issue isn't timing. Time was something I mentioned in the response to the previous group of amendments, not this one. The issue here more is, I believe, that amendment 4 is actually broader and more workable in practice than the alternative proposed. It's for that reason that I ask Members to support my amendments, rather than amendment 17, whilst wholly supporting its intent.

So, we will now move to address three of these amendments: 4, 17 and 5. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I see no objection. Therefore, amendment 4 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Sioned Williams, do you wish to move amendment 17?

The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll now move to a vote. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed. All those in favour please raise your hands. Two. All those against please raise your hands. Four. So, in relation to amendment 17, there were two votes in favour, four against, and therefore the amendment is not agreed. 

Mark Isherwood, amendment 5. Do you wish to move to the vote? 

Yes, I propose. 

The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I see no objection. Therefore, amendment 5 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34. 

So, at this point, I'd like us to take a short break to enable the interpreters to change places.

We're now going to move to group 4 of the amendments, and the only amendment in this group is amendment 6. So, Mark Isherwood, would you like to move this amendment, please?

Thank you. Again, I thank this committee for having raised this yourselves. This was something that I know you were keen to see, because you set it out in recommendation 3 of your Stage 1 report. As a consequence, amendment 6 places a requirement on the face of the Bill that the BSL guidance is issued no later than the date on which the BSL strategy is published. The expectation has always been that the BSL guidance should be issued at the same time or shortly after the publication of the national BSL strategy, and the amendment would make this a requirement. The amendment proposes a direct link between the publication of the strategy and the date the guidance must be issued, ensuring that they will be available at the same time. Amendment 6 also includes a requirement that the BSL guidance is published. While this, again, was always the intention, the Bill is strengthened by including this provision and making it clear.

I hope you will believe this is a positive step forward, and thanks to yourselves, and I therefore call on the committee to support amendment 6.

Does anybody wish to speak to amendment 6?

Well, as you're all catatonic, I'll just say that I think it's incredibly important. This is something that public bodies and other statutory consultees have asked for, to ensure that when they're being asked to respond to the guidance, that they already have—. I mean, that they already have the guidance when they're being asked to respond to the strategy. And I think it's very important that they're able to see both parts of the story, so they're not acting blind. So, I thank you for your amendment. We'll now—. I'm assuming you wish to move to the vote, or perhaps you wish to respond?

Only to endorse your comments. As I say, it was always the intention that the two should run concurrently, but, hypothetically, there is the risk that a Welsh Government could, for whatever reason, create a gap in timing between the two, which could lead to everything else falling further down the line. So, it's a tidying-up amendment, but you were very helpful in ensuring that was facilitated.

Thank you, Mark. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I see no objection. Amendment 6 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Amendment 7, Mark Isherwood, in your name. We are due to take a vote on this now. Is there anything further you wish to say about amendment 7, or do you wish to move to a vote?

Nothing further to my previous comments, so please move.

Okay. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I see no objection. Amendment 7 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

We now move to group 5, which is about co-production with relevant stakeholders. Both amendments are proposed by Sioned Williams, amendments 19 and 18. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 19. I call on Sioned Williams to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendment in this group.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. These amendments in my name, 19 and 18, are both to do with co-production. A fundamental principle of this Bill is that deaf BSL signers are citizens of Wales who use a different language, albeit that that is often out of necessity rather than choice, but is also out of choice. That status brings with it formal entitlements under the Equality Act 2010, but is also recognising something even more important, that deaf BSL signers are experts in their own lived experience. They understand the realities, the challenges, the aspirations of deaf signing communities in a way no external body can. They can also communicate directly and efficiently with other deaf BSL signers without reliance on interpreters, allowing ideas, priorities and concerns to be shared quickly and authentically.

As local authorities, NHS health boards and other listed public bodies begin to develop their BSL plans, the expertise of the deaf signing community will be invaluable. Meaningful engagement with deaf signers must therefore be central to how these plans are developed and delivered. This was clearly recognised by our committee. In paragraph 197 of our report, we stated, and I quote:

'The need to engage with the BSL signing community in the development, and co-production of plans and guidance was one of the clearest themes of all from our scrutiny of the Bill.'

However, simply expressing an expectation that this engagement will happen is not enough. There is currently limited experience within the Welsh public sector of working in partnership with deaf BSL signers to the depth and extent that this Bill now requires. In short, listed public bodies will need clear guidance and support to do this well. Equally, as the British Deaf Association has advised me, there is limited experience within the deaf signing community itself of leading large-scale planning and delivery processes of this nature, despite the strong desire to do so. That is why we as a committee went on to say in our report, and I quote:

'We think that the Welsh Government should consider how it can empower a leadership cohort made up of Deaf BSL signers and equip them with the skills and experiences necessary to lead on planning and delivery of the Bill if it becomes law.'

Through tabling this amendment, I am seeking clarity on what plans are in place to make this aspiration a reality. I’m sure that the Member in charge agrees that deaf BSL signers should play a leading role in the development, delivery and oversight of BSL plans. Therefore, will steps be taken to build a capable and confident cohort of deaf leaders to fulfil that role? Will the Member in charge ensure that the Government commits to ensuring this issue is properly addressed within the statutory guidance that will support implementation of this Bill?

Amendment 18 also about co-production, which, as I've said, is central to the success of this Bill. It would require Welsh Ministers to publish a statement explaining both how the views of deaf BSL signers have been taken into account when preparing both the national BSL strategy and the guidance issued under section 3, because co-production is more than consultation. It means deaf BSL signers are actively involved in shaping decisions, not just asked for their opinion. Their expertise, experience and knowledge of the language are essential to making the strategy and the guidance effective and meaningful.

Requiring a published statement ensures transparency and accountability. It shows how the input from deaf BSL signers has influenced the strategy and guidance and demonstrates clearly that their voices are taken seriously at every stage. In short, this amendment, amendment 18, strengthens the Bill by putting co-production at the heart of the process. It ensures that deaf BSL signers are not only consulted but are central to shaping the decisions that affect their language and their daily lives. Diolch.

I'll call Mark Isherwood in the first instance, and then other Members can come in as well.

Thank you, Chair, and thanks very much, Sioned, for tabling these amendments on co-production. As you say, co-production is more than consultation. In fact, it's different to consultation. Committee members may be aware that I've long been an advocate of co-production, real co-production. I led the first debate on it here 13 years ago, and believe it not only can but should play a valuable or even essential role in the development, delivery and monitoring of public services. I therefore very much welcome these amendments and the opportunity to debate the importance of co-production and how it could be embedded within the implementation of this Bill.

The Co-Production Network for Wales defines co-production as, and I'm quoting:

'an asset-based approach to public services that enables people providing and people receiving services to share power and responsibility, and to work together in equal, reciprocal and caring relationships. It creates opportunities for people to access support when they need it, and to contribute to social change.'

The BSL Bill, especially if all my amendments are agreed today, will already require consultation with the deaf community on all of its key provisions. However, as indicated by Sioned Williams, co-production goes further than consultation alone, and would ensure that the deaf community were involved in the development of the key outputs from the Bill from the start, such as the BSL strategy, rather than simply being consulted on the strategy after it had been developed.

Co-production has been successfully used over many years and in various contexts, including in key legislative settings. As an example, the statutory codes of practice for the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 embed co-production within them and set out values and principles that should, and in some cases must, be followed at an individual or organisational and strategic level.

However, I appreciate that embedding co-production into this Bill will need consideration to ensure that it works in the best way possible for the deaf community and does not have any unintended consequences for the overall delivery of the Bill. What co-production would mean for the purposes of the Bill would also need to be clearly defined.

To that end, my intention is to explore this further and take advice, for example from the Co-production Network for Wales, on how this can best be taken forward. I will explore the feasibility of tabling an amendment at Stage 3 if an appropriate way forward can be found and agreed. This could, for example—and this is just one thought—reference the five ways of working specified in the well-being of future generations Act.

In relation to the amendments tabled by Sioned Williams, these stop short of calling for a duty requiring co-production on the face of the Bill, but I do believe that they relate to the wider question. I am supportive of the principle of the amendments. However, I would ask the Member whether she'd be willing to withdraw these amendments, 18 and 19, and work with both the Cabinet Secretary and me at Stage 3 to explore options for more detailed amendments on co-production in practice.

If, however, Members wish to take the amendments to a vote, I would, at this stage, call on the committee to reject amendments 18 and 19, with a view to, as I mentioned, Sioned Williams working with the Cabinet Secretary and me to see how we might take this forward at Stage 3.

Are there any other Members who would like to speak?

In respect of those two points that Mark has just moved, it seems to me that there is actually broad agreement in terms of the principle of the objectives of these. It's basically an issue of drafting and construction. Presumably, if these are proceeded with today and are not successful, effectively, the principle is a matter of redrafting to consider an amendment at Stage 3, which I think is probably where there would be unanimity on it.

Anybody else? Jane.

Does anybody else wish to speak? I think that we generally agree that co-production is the most important way to proceed on any services, both for efficiency and effectiveness. But I think that words like 'leading role' aren't really legal speak, and I'm concerned about things like the relationship with the BSL stakeholder group that the Cabinet Secretary has set up and the relationship with any other stakeholder who is a BSL user who might wish to disagree, for example, with the stakeholder group. There's geography involved—. I don’t feel that I know enough at the moment about this, and therefore, I think there are quite a lot of questions. I think there's an agreement in principle, but the way in which we're setting about this, we may be trying to get ahead of ourselves. Anyway, Sioned Williams, do you wish to move to a vote?

Can I respond?

I beg your pardon. Thank you. That was not an attempt to silence you.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. I would just like to thank Mark for the offer of working together to ensure, as I set out when I was setting out my amendments, the absolute crucial importance of co-production, which I know he's been a long advocate for, as he said. We all understand, I think, as a committee that it has to be at the very heart of this Bill if it is to be effective and achieve what we want it to achieve. Therefore, I would be content to withdraw those amendments at this time.

Does any Member object to the withdrawal of amendment 19? No. Therefore, the amendment is withdrawn.

Does any Member object to the withdrawal of amendment 18? I see no objection. Therefore, the amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment 8, Mark Isherwood, do you wish to move?

I do.

The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I see no objection. Therefore, amendment 8 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

We now move on to group 6. There are three amendments in this group—20, 21, and 22. This group is about the process for appointing the BSL adviser. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 20. I call on Sioned Williams to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in this group.

Thank you. Before I call the Member in charge, are there any other members of the committee who'd like to speak? Jane.

Thank you. Does anybody else from the committee—? Mick. 

Just on that, I respect that amendment 20, which is—. I understand the logic and the reasoning being put for it, and that it's quite a restrictive clause, but I understand from, I think, earlier discussions that there may be a competence issue. I was wondering if that could be clarified.

We did discuss this, did we not, at Stage 1, and I think the main concern of those who voted against the proposal was that it could lead to a referral to the Supreme Court on the grounds of it being outwith the Welsh Government's legislative competence and therefore that would put at risk the whole Bill. In the Bill that appointed the Welsh Language Commissioner, it did not state that you had to be a first language Welsh speaker, merely that you had to be able to speak competently in Welsh, and I think, therefore, we also took comfort from that proposal. This is definitely not an attempt to avoid the BSL community being front and centre of this appointment and leading on the Bill, but I think we need to ensure that what we're doing is in line with what the Senedd and the Welsh Government are able to do. Did you wish to speak further on that?

No, it was just that point.

Okay. Anybody else wish to speak before I call Mark Isherwood? Mark Isherwood, do you want to speak on the three amendments?

Diolch, Chair, and, again, thank you to Sioned Williams for tabling amendments 20, 21 and 22, and, as you've heard, amendment 20 to place a requirement on the face of the Bill that the BSL adviser must be a deaf person. The legal position, which has been strongly advised by both Senedd and Welsh Government lawyers, is that this would fall outside competence. Members of the general public—that means it's outside the devolution settlement with the UK Government; it's outside the current legislative framework within which this devolved Parliament and the Welsh Government must operate.

As I set out at Stage 1, the inclusion of a specific provision on the face of the Bill requiring the person appointed as the BSL adviser to be deaf has the potential to take the Bill outside the legislative competence of this Senedd. As such, this would raise the risk of a legal challenge to the Bill, and it's clear from the Stage 1 report that the majority of committee members agreed with that position.

Ultimately, as the Chair indicates, it's only the Supreme Court that could rule on any legal challenge surrounding competence, should the Bill be challenged. And should any challenge be made, there would be no time for the Supreme Court to consider and rule on that challenge before the end of this sixth Senedd term, which is only on 8 April, so we've got virtually no time for anything. However, I am currently exploring the term 'lived experience' and whether that can instead be added as a requirement for the adviser in a Stage 3 amendment. The advice I have from Senedd lawyers is it's a term that should be acceptable within the current levels of competence applying to devolution of settlement, but there are still ongoing discussions with Welsh Government lawyers regarding this.

So, in short, including a specific reference to the adviser being deaf risks the Bill being lost completely, and that's not a risk I'm prepared to take. It's taken me eight years, nearly, to get to this point, and I suggest, given the explanation I've given, it's not a risk that the committee would want or wish to take.

Amendments 21 and 22 relate to the appointment process for the BSL adviser, as you've heard. Amendment 21 calls for consultation with representatives of persons who are deaf and use BSL before the BSL adviser is appointed. However, it's not clear from amendment 21 what the purpose of the consultation would be, or at what point in the process that consultation would take place. It's therefore difficult to fully understand the intention of amendment 21 and the actual effect in practice it would have going forward.

In her response to the committee's Stage 1 report, the Cabinet Secretary for social justice committed to ensuring the appointments process for the BSL adviser would reflect the needs of the deaf BSL signing community, and that, as part of that, the Welsh Government would work with the deaf BSL community through the Welsh Government's BSL stakeholder group to address any barriers in the process. Of course, they would also have to work with the adviser, and if in place, the assisting panel also. There would therefore be consultation with the deaf community as part of that process, although, clearly, as I mentioned in the context of one of the earlier amendments, I'm mindful that the commitment made by this Cabinet Secretary would not be binding on a future Welsh Government.

Further, if the consultation referred to in amendment 21 related more to the candidate selected for appointment, this would not appear to be appropriate as part of the public appointments process that would apply, because we have to be clear that Welsh Ministers must ensure that they comply with public appointment procedures in undertaking the appointment of the BSL adviser.

In evidence to the committee at Stage 1 and in response to the committee's recommendation 8, the Cabinet Secretary also agreed that the BSL adviser should be recognised as eligible for pre-appointment scrutiny, in accordance with the normal public appointments process. This means that, in practice, a committee of the Senedd should have the opportunity to scrutinise the selected candidate before they're appointed, as is the case with the violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence national adviser for Wales, and it's also, by coincidence, similarly the case in Finance Committee on Thursday with the new Auditor General for Wales. So, it's common practice. With those commitments in place, I believe that the process for appointing the BSL adviser will include consultation with the deaf community and therefore I don't see the need to include these provisions on the face of the Bill at this stage. However, the commitments made by the Cabinet Secretary would not be binding on a future Welsh Government or Llywydd, and I will therefore be seeking further advice on this should a related amendment at Stage 3 be required. I mentioned the Llywydd, because the normal process would require this to be taken forward as an agreement between the Llywydd and the relevant Cabinet Secretary. 

Amendment 22 would provide that, in appointing the BSL adviser, the Welsh Ministers may seek advice for any purpose from any BSL signer whom they consider appropriate. This amendment does not seek to put any requirements or duties in place and simply states that Welsh Ministers may seek advice if they wished. I do not believe that there's a need for this to be set out on the face of the Bill because Welsh Ministers would already be free to seek advice as required at any time already. For the reasons I've highlighted, I call, therefore, on the committee to reject amendments 20, 21 and 22, as tabled in the name of Sioned Williams, with that commitment, as I said, to reconsider how we might bring forward an alternatively worded amendment at Stage 3 that would be compliant and would include a legally applicable definition that could also be used. 

Thank you. Can I call on Sioned Williams to reply to the debate?

'Nevertheless, to assist the committee, there appears to be no legal bar to the Bill requiring that the BSL adviser be deaf. The attention of the committee is drawn, in particular, to section 13(3) of and paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Equality Act 2010.

'Regarding legislative competence, the Welsh Government considers that a requirement that the BSL adviser be deaf would be within the legislative competence of the Senedd for the same reasons that the other provisions of the Bill would be.'

Sioned Williams, do you wish to move to a vote on amendment 20?

No.

No. Does any Member object to the withdrawal of amendment 20? I see not. Therefore, the amendment is withdrawn. 

Sioned Williams, amendment 21. Do you wish to move it?

No.

No. Does any Member object to withdrawing amendment 21? I see none. Therefore, amendment 21 is withdrawn. 

Sioned Williams, amendment 22—do you wish to move it?

No.

No. Any Member object to the withdrawal of amendment 22? I see none. Therefore, amendment 22 is withdrawn.

I suggest we now take a further break to enable the BSL interpreters to change places.

We're now going to move on to group 7, which is about the reporting arrangements and listed public bodies. So, the amendments in this group are amendment 9, 12, 13 and 24. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 9, so I call on Mark Isherwood to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other three amendments in this group.

Thank you, Chair. Recommendation 6 in this committee's Stage 1 report called for the early progress reports required by the Bill to include consideration of whether other authorities should be added to the listed public bodies included in section 8 of the Bill. As I set out in my response to the committee, I fully expect that, as part of the reporting process, Welsh Ministers will consider the list of public bodies included in the Bill and whether any changes to that list were necessary. I therefore agree that the early progress reports required by the Bill should involve consideration of whether other public bodies should be added. To ensure that this is done consistently, amendment 9 proposes that reports published under this section must include an explanation of the consideration given by the Welsh Ministers to amending the list of public bodies in the Bill.

Amendments 12 and 13 are tabled in response to recommendation 3 from the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and seek to amend section 8(1) of the Bill to include the full titles of Velindre and Public Health Wales NHS trusts. As I outlined to the committee during Stage 1, although it's unlikely that any confusion will be caused from the wording of section 8(1) of the Bill as introduced, this could be addressed as a drafting issue, and I'm happy, therefore, to bring forward these amendments in line with that committee's recommendation.

In relation to amendment 24, tabled in the name of Sioned Williams, I clearly understand the principle and support the principle behind this amendment, but believe there needs to be detailed consideration given before individual bodies are added as listed public bodies. As part of the process for adding authorities as listed public bodies, Welsh Ministers must, before making regulations, consult the BSL adviser. It's important that the adviser is involved in that process.

Amendment 14, tabled in my name, which we considered earlier, widens this consultation duty, and requires that representatives of BSL signers would also need to be consulted before the Welsh Ministers can make regulations to add or remove a listed public body. Given the processes this Bill puts in place for this purpose, having a fixed date for adding bodies to the list would also I consider not to be appropriate. Bodies should only be added after consideration and consultation. Unless there's proper consideration and consultation on the inclusion of further listed public bodies, their inclusion could be questioned.

I therefore call on the committee to support amendments 9, 12 and 13, which go some way to addressing these matters, but to reject amendment 24 for the reasons stated.

Before I call on Sioned Williams to propose amendment 24, are there any other Members who wish to speak on any of these four amendments? Jane Dodds.

Thank you. Are there any other Members who wish to speak before I call Sioned Williams? No. Sioned Williams, please could you present amendment 24 and also speak to the other three amendments in this group, if you so wish? 

Very good. I call on Mark Isherwood to reply to the debate. 

I thank Sioned Williams for her comments. As I say, I completely endorse and support the principle of this. As you indicate, proposed amendment 9 will, hopefully, go a long way towards addressing this. Future Welsh Governments will have to show that they've given this proper consideration and, presumably, added further bodies as we move forward. I forget the actual number; I think this already covers—is it 33 listed public bodies? It's a significant number to start with. But were we to change that now, there is a risk that, because of the need for further consideration and consultation, and also the need for the adviser to be involved in any further extension, that there, as you recognise, would be reasons not to support this amendment at this Stage, or these amendments at this Stage.

I'm going to call Jane Dodds, because I failed to see her earlier on.

Thank you. Is there anything further you would like to say, Mark Isherwood, in relation to the comments from Jane Dodds? 

Again, I completely endorse the intention and the goal. We share the goal. I remind Members, as I said earlier, that amendment 14 widens, or will require that representatives of BSL signers would also need to be consulted before Welsh Ministers can make regulations to add or remove a listed public body. So, there will be a stronger role in this process for BSL signers themselves, alongside a strengthened amendment 9, to ensure that future Ministers can’t dodge this. So, for the reasons I have described, I welcome the Member’s stated intent to not proceed with the vote.

Fine. I wondered if we could now move to amendment 9. I assume that you wish to move it, Mark Isherwood?

I'd be grateful if you could move that, yes, please. 

The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I see none. Amendment 9 is agreed, in accordance with Standing Order 17.34. 

Mark Isherwood, amendment 10. 

Yes, please. 

The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I see none. Amendment 10 is agreed in accordance with the Standing Order.

Mark Isherwood, amendment 11.

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I see none.

Therefore, we'll now move on to group 8. There's only one amendment in this group, and that's amendment 23, which relates to complaints about access to services. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 23, and I call on Sioned Williams to move and speak to the amendment.

Are there any Members who wish to speak on this? Jane Dodds.

Any other Members? I'd just like to add that I think there was some confusion in the Government that we were trying to set up a parallel complaints process, which I think was not the committee's intention at all. I think that, obviously, there is a need for visual guidance to be developed and published so that those who speak neither Welsh nor English are able to understand how the complaints process works and where they have to go if they're not receiving just rectification or consideration of their complaint. I'm unclear as to why we would need to put this in legislation because, already, all public bodies have an obligation to ensure that all citizens know how to complain. So, I just want to pose that to Sioned Williams. And that would include people like the public services ombudsman, in whose interest it is to ensure that all public bodies are rectifying, or not necessarily rectifying, but are taking complaints to the limit in an attempt to find resolution before some of them end up with the public services ombudsman. It's in their interest not to have more work than they can possibly deal with. So, Sioned Williams, it's over to you to reply to the debate. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon. It's good that we're co-producing this. Mark Isherwood is the mover in charge of the debate of the BSL Bill. Please do respond to the debate.

Amendment 23 is tabled in response to this committee's recommendation 10. As committee members will be aware, in response to the committee's Stage 1 report, I rejected recommendation 10, setting out my reasons for that, and I don't believe the situation has changed since. As you indicate, we're not proposing to set up a parallel separate complaints process to the existing complaints processes for the listed public bodies. Members may have concerns about the efficacy of those processes, but that's another matter. The fact is that those public bodies operate in accordance with those processes. The Bill does not include a specific complaints procedure, and therefore it would not be appropriate for the Bill to place a duty on Welsh Ministers to prepare and publish guidance on the appropriate route for the BSL signers to make complaints about access to services that are already subject to the specific complaints procedures of listed public bodies.

Again, as I set out in response to the committee's recommendation 9, my intention is to update the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the Bill to clarify the options available to complainants requiring recourse in instances where public services are failing to meet their duties under the Bill—in other words, to state quite clearly in plain language, including BSL, what the complaints processes are that should be followed, or can be followed by people who have something they wish to complain about. However, I'm working with the Cabinet Secretary for this purpose, and the intention is to include this in the revised explanatory memorandum that will be published following the end of Stage 2. I think we will have to include in our discussions—I think my next meeting is this week with the Cabinet Secretary—the intent brought forward by this amendment to ensure that that is, amongst other languages, published in BSL. For these reasons, I call on the committee to reject amendment 23.

Thank you. Sioned Williams, please, if you'd like to reply to the debate. 

Thank you. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I see objections. Therefore, we will move to the vote. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. And all those against. So, in relation to amendment 23, two voted in favour and four against, and the amendment is therefore not agreed.

Mark Isherwood, do you wish to move amendment 12? 

I do.

The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I see none. Therefore, amendment 12 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34. 

Mark Isherwood, amendment 13. 

I'd like to move.

The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I see none. Amendment 13 is agreed to, in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Sioned Williams, do you wish to move amendment 24?

I can't remember now whether I pulled it back or not. [Laughter.] 

It's the one that we discussed in the earlier briefing.

The list. 

Did I withdraw it? I can't remember. I withdrew it? Did I withdraw it? Yes, I withdrew it. No, I'm not going to move it. I'm very sorry. 

We didn't vote on it earlier.

My notes aren't clear enough.

So, the Member wishes to withdraw amendment 24. Does any Member object to the withdrawal of amendment 24? I see no objection. The amendment, therefore, is withdrawn.

Mark Isherwood, amendment 14.

I move.

The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I see none. Amendment 14 is agreed to, in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Mark Isherwood, amendment 15.

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I see none. Therefore, amendment 15 is agreed to, in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I think that we have now reached the end of all of the amendments. So, thank you very much to Mark Isherwood, the Member in charge, and the Senedd officials for their attendance.

That completes Stage 2 proceedings, and all sections and Schedules are deemed agreed.

Stage 3 begins tomorrow, and Stage 3 proceedings are expected to be scheduled for debate and voting in Plenary on 4 March. Confirmation of dates will be available on the committee's website as soon as that is confirmed.

Standing Orders make provision for the Member in charge to prepare a revised explanatory memorandum, taking into account the amendments that we've agreed today. The revised memorandum will be laid at least five working days before the Stage 3 proceedings are debated and voted on. So, thank you very much indeed, and we'll see you again in due course.

There are three papers to note. Is there any Member who wants to say anything before we formally approve these papers? No. I'd like to thank all those members in the gallery who've followed the proceedings today, and we'll welcome you for the Stage 3 proceedings, if you're available.

I would now like to ask for a motion, under Standing Order 17.42, to exclude the public from the remainder of today's meeting and from the entirety of the committee's meeting on 2 February.

Thank you very much indeed for coming. We will see you again soon. Thank you for your interest and support for this legislation.