Senedd Cymru | Welsh Parliament
Bil Aelod Arfaethedig – Mark Isherwood AS | Proposed Member Bill - Mark Isherwood MS
Datblygu'r Bil Iaith Arwyddion Prydain (BSL) (Cymru) | Development of the British Sign Language (BSL) (Wales) Bill
Ymateb gan: Mervyn James | Evidence from: Mervyn James
The British Sign Language Act 2022 requires the UK Government to issue guidance about the promotion and facilitation of the use of British Sign Language (BSL). This however only applies in England and not to the Welsh Government or public bodies in Wales such as councils or the NHS. The British Sign Language (BSL) (Wales) Bill aims to place equivalent specific duties on the Welsh Government and public bodies in Wales.
I do not feel there is a need for a BSL Act, and do not feel claims of lack of support or access has been validated.
ACCESS and SUPPORT: The Welsh NHS e.g. has the best access for BSL using deaf people in the UK, I have been with my deaf partner 32 years and not in all that time, have I been unable to obtain BSL support for her, none of the ‘state’ systems have denied her that support. Like every other country in the world, it is not possible for the state to empower social interactions. There are numerous reasons including ability and personal choice whereby BSL users prefer to be with own social areas. A BSL Act won’t work in that situation.
The issue appears to be confusion as to who (or how), to ask for support, with deaf charities wanting to be the ‘middle man’ to replace others at point of access contact, and it doesn’t work, as continuioty of funding to provide what they say they want, cannot be guaranteed, the RNID e.g. has lost 48% of its funding in 14 months, the BDA, is far too small an area to supply what they claim is needed.
Many BSL interpreters are ‘freelance’ and the effective supply of BSL help can then create issues, the support there is the ‘weakest link’. It needs normalising before an Act can be effective, we are talking 10-15yrs. Currently, there are issues between W.I.T.S, and freelance BSL interpreters in Wales. There is no lack of support as such, but a lack of agreement (Interpreter wages are a primary issue and the right of freelance to remain freelance, because work continuity isn’t there, at this time there is poor 24/7 BSL cover for deaf patients or HI patients in NHS Wales, because freelance BSL interpreters reserve the right not to provide that cover for personal or other reasons). BSL cover is not an organised system of support and relies on the interpreter at the time.
The ‘part-time’ system of BSL support needs to be replaced with a permanent and reliable system, I do not feel charity are the people that can provide that reliability, because they are depend on fund-raising and donation, which (As already stated), is causing issues with continuity of provision. There are differences on access and provision between the various deaf and hearing loss charities. No act for BSL is viable unless the support provision can be validated.
Various well-meaning campaigners for inclusion will use this chaos to suggest support isn’t there, the reality is that charities are in ‘competition’ with each other.
Ongoing discord between W.I.T.S. and freelance BSL interpreters creates areas where support will fail, because of that lack of work continuity, and the part-time nature of it. This can suggest the demand is not there, or the interpreters would be in full time work. Charities for the deaf themselves, have a lack of actual grass roots support or membership, with the few making decisions alone for the many, and sadly support has become some sort of ‘business’ option in regards to BSL access and support, with vested interest, determining how to proceed. Wales being far more a rural area has very different issues of BSL support to the rest of the UK, there is no ‘One BSL Act fits all deaf’.
It should be noted ALL the leading UK charities (including e.g. the NDCS/BDA/RNID), support a right for deaf-people accessing systems for BSL support, are fully enabled to use own FAMILY/FRIEND support. [This is regardless as to if those areas have ANY training or levels in BSL themselves].
Unprofessional/amateur support is a right,(And currently 68% of the main provision of BSL support to Deaf people), this renders many parts of a Welsh BSL Act, can be legally disregarded BY those Deaf and BSL using areas. The BDA supplied statistics suggests only 1% of all Deaf BSL users have any qualification in it. [This was also backed up by the ASLI support and SignHealth areas].
5 years ago an attempt by a few charities to BAN unprofessional support being allowed as bona fide help to deaf people. The BDA opposed this, the NHS encouraged it to save providing professional support itself. Acknowledgement family provided vital personal support and should be allowed at meets, was agreed, but, NOT, systems accepting family/friend support without proof they were qualified to act as interpreters, and provided neutral support.
Various reasons given were privacy invasion issues, and bias regarding medical and legal issues and decision-making being taken NOT by deaf BSL users themselves. While it is a right, personally I don’t offer signed support to my partner in medical or legal situations, but always ensure professional BSL help is in attendance.
Social Services expressed concern that not only were BSL users using family help but own under-age children (Hearing), to facilitate parental/sibling access to GP surgeries etc. All the leading deaf charities defended the right of family support, regardless, if there were concerns hearing family support had bias or issues following medical or legal jargon.
The BSL Act makes no provision to ensure deaf BSL users ONLY utilise professional and neutral help. Indeed some deaf complained and sued areas of the welsh NHS for a failure to clarify medical help despite their own non use of trained BSL and neutral interpreters. A BSL Act would still enable this chaos of support. Putting professional staff they interact with at risk of legal come-back, if non-professional family help misunderstood what was said etc.
EDUCATION: The main streaming of Welsh deaf children in education has been highly successful, removing the need for isolating deaf children in schools away from their families, that were maintaining barriers to their inclusion and access by default. Deaf schools in Wales had no real educational basis in regards to deaf children, and not even professional teachers in many old schools. It is widely understood in the ‘Deaf’ areas, that a drive is there to remove deaf children to areas that provide an education based almost totally on sign language alone.
I feel this would alienate deaf children from the wider world completely, and undermine the Welsh Government’s mainstream inclusion drive for deaf and disabled others. We are talking single figures for deaf children who cannot function except via highly specialised deaf schools, of which Wales has none.
There is ‘Nature versus Nurture’ in this premise that has cultural/protectionist overtones. There has been no real consultation with parents of deaf children as to if they would agree to such an approach. Current complaints are about poor BSL support in schools, but most of that is down to a lack of sufficiently trained TOD’s (teachers of the Deaf). When Welsh deaf schools closed Teachers to the Deaf were scattered, and many retired. Currently, and Wales/UK-wide, there is a huge shortage of ToD being trained.
BSL Access campaigns also want training of TOD’s to include ‘cultural’ content, to date, no curriculum, to train teachers that way is yet extant and in many areas, being resisted by ToD themselves who feel it diverts attention away from academic progress. The much-vaunted BSL GCSE in England, was scrapped due to the fact it couldn’t be included due to lack of planning, a curriculum, or staff trained for that.
Whilst more support is need in the support of deaf students/pupils this does not require a law to enact, but a more inclusive approach in schools and importantly the training of support staff, which if not undertaken, again negates the point of a BSL Act, the support won’t be there to make it work. We are talking years (15-20 plus), to train these people, and this would create parental right issues and a ‘tiered’ approach to deaf education, leading to a deaf ‘apartheid’ system of deaf children, have and have-nots in regards to support, based on cultural demand, which is unsupportive of main streaming of deaf children, as some ‘protectionist’ belief.
N.B BSL has NO academic signage that can be utilised in further/higher or University education, as the BSL signs haven’t yet been developed. The USA is improving their system the UK hasn’t even started, with just a few deaf academics trying to create their own signs. The BSL GCSE project in England as stated, put that aside because they already knew BSL limitations, even at that level.
Disagree. The demands for an act omits realism and at base is a non-inclusive act due to differences about who or what a deaf person is, that omits hearing loss and ability, background aspects in many respects. A ‘hierarchy’ of support would exist. You don’t have to be a particular deaf person (or even deaf), to be a user of sign language or BSL signing. The census allowed hearing users to be added to BSL statistics, these are hearing provision, they don’t require support, they provide it.. There are concerns that the wider attempt, is to utilise statistics to encompass deaf people and others with hearing loss, who don’t sign at all. Many deaf charities and hearing loss charities use the same statistics to include cultural and non-cultural deaf people as pertaining to the same area. It can be questionable these charities are the sole area supplying these figures.
This is because of how the inclusive ‘Deaf and HI’ remit is used, and how the cultural area have used a form of capitalisation of the term to differentiate who was a cultural person, and who isn’t,. The last two UK census’ were not designed to ask or validate that. This caused a move towards a ‘global inclusion’ approach of all by default.
We cannot rely on statistical data that cannot be validated, and is in fact guesswork. The remit stands because it is a sop to diversity, NOT inclusion, as ’Deaf’ areas are going it alone, using the cultural approach, we have no idea how many in Wales are those. We have to rely on areas like the BDA who don’t validate their statistics, and as stated have a vested interest of self-preservation as a BSL-driven charity. We can draw attention to the ‘consultation’ regarding the BSL Act in Wales at Cardiff Deaf Club where just 17 people were in attendance, that included hearing staff and interpreters fro 3 welsh charities. The consultations at various deaf clubs in Wales, did not include deaf who signed but do not attend deaf clubs, and attendances for these consultations was in single figures..
No
Yes
No.
Using the terminology ‘BSL users’ would not differentiate between a deaf user of BSL or a hearing user, or one that was proficient in BSL, or reliant on its use or not. Deaf may use BSL in there social sphere, but not otherwise.
No.
No, because this would label by default deaf and others at day one with hearing loss who do not sign at all, Statistics would just be used to underpin the solitary signing area, as does the BSL Act does already.
Disagree.
It is a ‘numbers game’ and there is disparity with regards to inclusion of others. Many deaf and Hi do not use sign language, the Act would empower one format of access as against including others being used.
Oral support, via lip-reading, speech to text technology and ‘app’ support, the BSL Act is far too ‘language secular’ in application, and the vague description and validation of ‘deaf’ people, has already created issues of access for others who are deaf and have hearing loss. Deaf patients in welsh hospitals etc are being offered BSL support they don’t use, and being denied text and other access they do. NHS areas are prioritising and assuming all deaf people use sign language. An Act would validate the discrepancy.
Education; Social Care.
I believe via other responses already supplied this is duplicating what has already been asked?
The Bill proposes to establish a BSL Commissioner who would promote and facilitate the use of BSL, and would have the same powers as other minority language Commissioners such as in the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011.
No.
I do not believe by default, a BSL commissioner would have the remit to enable all deaf in Wales with hearing loss, as his or her remit would be restricted to BSL users alone, that aren’t currently identified, we do not see real inclusion of others within the Act in other areas of the UK using it currently, its a specialization without a validation or inclusive system, It does not meet Equality law safeguards in Wales.
We do not know how many BSL users exist in Wales or, to what degree they are reliant ON BSL.
Including hearing users via the demands of the Act, then the commissioner excluding them by default just further explains the chaos of the terminology surrounding the BSL/Deaf/deaf/HI issue. Hearing loss areas do not possess representation or lobbying areas that BSL users do, the systems also make no attempt to enable them. With respect no survey of those with hearing loss or deafness in Wales has every been undertake by the Welsh Government. They rely in invalidated statistics supplied by charities.
No, and again these questions seem to duplicate others?
No.
Not possible, the Data Protection Act is already being used to prevent ‘testing and Assessment’ of BSL proficiency in the deaf. Charities would fill all the posts as they do now, so grassroots would still have no access, and as little input as now. people can be ignored unless they can ‘prove’ they are ‘cultural’ or are regular sign users, excluding the reality deaf people use multi-approaches to follow the spoken/written word, not one. Obviously the Data Protection Act again, prevents proof being obtained by default. The Act is based on statistical guesswork and wishful thinking to a larger extent.
The ‘Deaf’ term prevents their inclusion, because of a heirachy of the term now means (E.G. culture versus Disability). I feel the Welsh Government currently hasn’t the knowledge of the BSL area, and there is a real concern the Act divides support and access for others. Establishing some sort of ‘elite’ individual deaf area based solely on manual communication. Again the BSL Act is Exclusive, not Inclusive.
No.
No.
No, this creates and empowers difference (And division), by default.
The Assembly doesn’t understand there is an area of BSL deaf that are against inclusion of others and want a ‘BSL society and educational system of their own’, to that end they want deaf schools back and parents overruled on choice for deaf children, (Since without overriding parental choices they cannot fill special BSL classes or schools). Wales is unique in the UK, in that deaf schools no longer exist to perpetuate this approach, and because Wales prefers wider inclusions and wider access approaches instead.
The Welsh Assembly hasn’t enough information about the subjects of communication or implementation of an BSL Act. I feel the reasons have been explained very clearly. Wales has in excess of 300,000 with hearing loss, and a further estimated 110,000 adults with hearing loss who receive no support, (RNID figures), who are not consulted on anything, and and live alone.
Communication access is reliant on the skills of those with hearing loss and deafness can attain. Lip-reading and BSL tuition system in Wales, is part-time, and via lip-reading e.g. there is no ‘level’ of proficiency to obtain, (It is classed alongside flower arranging as a ‘hobby’ course, in many local classes set ups not a language course with a bottom-line qualification). BSL tuition is dominated by hearing students or those with hearing aids with useful hearing already. There is no system to teach adults deaf BSL, due to difficulties of inclusion and degrees of age and deafness. In essence, many1,000s of deaf who need help and the skills do not have access to them. There is no sense of any inclusion in the BSL Act for them
A BSL Act would not assist senior citizens who are now too old to acquire any sign language skills and have no access to acquiring lip-reading skills or have a desire to rely on BSL for communication. While a gap exists in BSL support, I believe it can be addressed via more in-depth identification and consultations with the majority who have deafness and loss in Wales, BSL deaf in Wales are not a majority or even determined. While an agreed minority, it is still very much an unidentified area in Wales.
We have an opportunity to replace the proposed BSL act with a more inclusive ‘Communication Act’ that addresses much better how the systems can be organised effectively. It appears on paper, a BSL Act circumvents Equality rights and discriminates by default. As inclusion and access is the main thrust of this BSL proposal, we should be using the ideal as a springboard for much wider support for all, and not, just for the undefined few. Clearly, the current inclusion rules in Wales are being by-passed by cultural minorities. Wales HASN’T identified a BSL sector, Welsh charities cannot.
Empowering a BSL Act WILL have ramifications on support and access for others by default, as various identity issues create conflict of what inclusion or access means.
A tiered education set up for deaf children? No organised set up for others with hearing loss? No Assessment? An inability to consult? The by-passing of the very support BY deaf the BSL Act is designed to empower? What is a communication ‘preference’, and what is an actual need? Who is ‘Deaf’, ‘deaf’ who isn’t? This poses confusion in systems who can get ‘caught’ between two communication areas the Act will be abusing. One they use occasionally, or another they use all the time. One who uses BSL only, another who uses BSL and Lip-reading and hearing aids, e.g. No deaf person just uses one means to access the spoken word.
The BSL Act doesn’t cover these areas. We cannot assume ‘Deaf’ BSL areas want to include non-signing others once a law enables them to go it alone. They don’t at present.
The Assembly, by not endorsing the BSL Act, and very expensive talk shop, could instead enable rights of other deaf and those with hearing loss, by endorsing more the equality and access laws Wales already has. We have 100s of 1,000s with deafness and hearing loss, do we need an Act for every single one of them? I do not feel supporters of this Act have proven a need for it.