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: Dr Rob Wilks, Uwch-ddarlithydd yn y Gyfraith | Evidence from: Dr Rob Wilks, Senior Lecturer in Law
This document provides a translation of the BSL response received from Dr Rob Wilks.
Question 1: Yes! Yes is it clear that a BSL Wales Bill urgently needed. People who use sign language in Wales have been excluded. This means that there's no equality of access in terms of consultations, education and public life. This country does not recognise British Sign Language. Without legislation public bodies will not have to think about deaf people, nor their linguistic or cultural needs. They can be ignored. The exclusion will continue.
The BSL Act 2022 in Westminster provided part recognition of BSL in the UK but in terms of what is devolved, like health, education and local government, they (Deaf people) are all excluded from that. It shows that there's no support for Welsh people who use sign language. That is a really important area of life.
Another example is that public bodies in Wales can exclude BSL from language plans.
There's been some research as well in terms of the Well-being of Future Generations Act there are annual reports, and reports written and there is no mention of BSL.
However, British Sign Language has been formally recognised in Wales since 2004. BSL is not just an accessibility tool. It is really about full inclusion around the language, it has its own grammar rules, and syntax. There is some cultural heritage associated with that too. It means that there is exclusion of deaf people who use sign language. It is not just an access issue, it's also a failure to accept their linguistic and cultural right to use BSL. They are a linguistic and minority group, legislation is the only way to make sure BSL has equality on a parity with English and Welsh. Also in terms of the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, there's a statement there which talks about recognition of sign language.
Question 2: I agree strongly that the main goal of the bill, is to recognise, accept, promote and facilitate BSL all over Wales. It is so important to achieve that linguistic quality. Without that working , it means that for people who are using BSL, there will continue to be multiple barriers to be able to access public services or education or employment and so on. The bill needs to run in parallel with international law alongside the UN Convention of the Rights on People with Disabilities. They stipulate that sign language should be promoted and protected equally to spoken languages. The bill should be following the principles of Welsh legislation with respect to the Welsh language. Welsh language has been promoted and protected. If the principle of that approach was mirrored with British Sign Language, then BSL would thrive.
Question 3: Yes the bill should be promoted and facilitated in terms of how it is used in society, there should be inclusion for tactile BSL formats too, which is important for deaf-blind people as well.
Tactile BSL is very important and is linked to the BSL system. Recognising tactile BSL will ensure all people using BSL are included in the law. However, it's important to remember that there must be a focus on BSL in terms of language, it is not an accessibility tool. There needs to be a distinct differentiation of language and access. There is a need to ensure that BSL is recognised in itself as a linguistic and cultural system not just an adjustment.
Question 4: Yes the Bill should support and advocate those regional (signing) variations as it is an important part of the linguistic culture and heritage here in Wales. There is a need to make sure that there's protection in place and Welsh version of BSL continues to flourish and reflects the diversity of the different BSL used in Wales.
There can be different ways to support that regional variation, and protection of that variation.
Firstly, in terms of filming and recording and keeping that for posterity and you can see that differentiation.
Secondly, with regards to interpreter training, the diversity of signing, can included as part of interpreter training in Wales.
Thirdly, the promotion of the awareness means that we can reach out and see the regional variations (north, south, east and west) in terms of sign language we need to be aware of that diversity and richness of language throughout Wales.
BSL can also have its profile raised via the public education system. Internationally, there has been examples of how sign language has been protected in terms of its linguistic diversity. It is important to recognise that regional diversity, and keep that collective memory and use of sign language.
Question 5: Yes I feel that the terminology, “a BSL signer” is more accurate, it's more inclusive too, but the word “user” feels very functional…for example “I am a user”, that doesn't feel right to me. I think a signer in BSL, means that BSL is an active, linguistic and cultural language. Also a “signer” reflects the linguistic community both deaf and hearing. It's about British sign language is not about auditory status. For example, could be an interpreter or [……………..] someone else like a family member can be included as the BSL signer too.
I feel that it's about recognising the signer and BSL as a proper language in itself. The Bill should recognise this and sign language on a parity with Welsh and English. We need to move away from using sign language as an access tool.
Question 6: I have mixed emotions about this question and some ill ease. The reason being, it distorts the fact of having the Bill. The bill is a language Act not a deaf Act.
There is a difference. BSL is a linguistic and cultural system. It is not a way of how the ear and its associated auditory processes work. The term Deaf BSL signers only applies to people who are deaf and use sign language at different levels.
If it applies just to deaf people, and deaf people who do not use sign language, what's the point? We need to make clear the distinction between BSL signers and people who are deaf as two separate entities. We need to avoid the connection of linguistic rights being linked to the medical or disability perspective. There's a separation that needs to be around language, that will help in terms of advocating for the cultural linguistic aspects of BSL and to avoid that divide within the deaf community.
Question 7(a): The deaf community has continuously been excluded and excluded from public service design.
An example of this is terms of many deaf clubs and community groups, say that they don't know what's going on in terms of the BSL Bill because the outreach just isn't there.
There hasn’t been a successful exercise in getting the people involved in the community and let them know. Information tends to be English not in BSL format. Where is the BSL?
We need to make sure that there is a formal way in which British signers can contribute and particularly their stories about how services can be improved to meet their needs.
There must be consultation with deaf clubs and using deaf-lead organisations applying a co-production model to make sure that BSL signers can be included in terms of policy development
Question 7(b): Public servants need to ensure that they can take on board responses and that responses are collected about lived experience for different BSL signers. You must do this through a consultative process via a BSL Advisory Panel (if it is set up) and use the co-production approach using deaf groups and deaf-led organisations.
Question 8: No the bill should solely focus on language. Make sure that the language is encouraged and facilitated and given the same prominence as spoken language (Welsh and English). You can't just merge language and access all in one unit. That is very important.
If that merge happens it means that BSL would be diluted, it is a language, and a linguistic system.
BSL is a full and rich language in its own right, with its own grammar and syntax it's got that cultural richness too. So when you talk about promotion in the Bill, it means focussing on linguistic equality, not around access.
If you are talking about access for example a VRS (video relay service) or captions, they are practical adaptations. These services can help remove some of the systematic systemic barriers that are present. However, adjustments are included under the Equality Act 2010 so that should not necessarily be included in this bill.
We need to focus on language and not detract from this. I feel if there is a merger around this, then it means that BSL just becomes a tool and disability support mechanism. There's been discussions around disability and linguistic minorities from deaf people and in terms of where they fit, but in terms of access. This will continue the confusion. […………..].
It becomes a distraction and not promoting BSL as a minority language and focussed on access.
I feel strongly that the BSL Bill should focus on BSL as an official language. If you need to refer to access issues, that needs to be kept separate from a legislative and policy perspective we need to keep those two different camps separate.
Question 9: Deaf people and their families have had barriers forever. The reason being is there's no linguistic equality in terms of sign language here in Wales.
Here is an example of a barrier, focussing around education. Deaf children in Wales are poorly educated in terms of education and outcomes compared to hearing counterparts. I feel that is because deaf people don't have access to BSL from a young age and early years.
The National Deaf Children’s Society, did some recent research and noted that 43% of deaf pupils in Wales achieved 5 A* to C grades GCSE compared to 63% of the hearing counterparts. You can see the stark difference and huge disparity.
Without BSL in schools and is not enough training for teachers of the Deaf, with regards to BSL. There is a training disparity at GCSE level.
Secondly, in terms of health, one issue is a shortage of interpreters, which means that Deaf people will have barriers at hospitals, GPs and appointments. This can lead to the possibility of delays in diagnosis of conditions.
Also communication breakdowns which means that the health of Deaf people will continue to get worse and decline. Many hospitals, GPs have continued to fail in their duties with providing an interpreter under their responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. This mean that BSL signers have no access.
Thirdly, in terms of employment of deaf people in Wales, the unemployment rate is significantly worse compared to the hearing counterparts. Also Deaf people have discrimination in work as well.
There is not enough adjustments being made. Applying for jobs is not easy either, because there is a reliance on telephones or telephone applications, or they can't access the application forms online, due to it being predominantly English based.
Fourthly, inclusion for older deaf people, (especially if they are in rural areas), are excluded from the consultative process and public life. An example of this is Bargoed Deaf Club. People there said that they didn't know that there is a consultation exercise going on at the moment. because in terms of outreach for the survey is poor. There is not enough BSL resources made available.
There are many barriers and we need to address that. The bill doesn't necessarily resolve that however it's an important first step to encourage BSL in public service and then the improvements will come later.
Question 10: The BSL Commissioner is an extremely important position. It can provide that oversight and promote linguistic equality. They can also make sure that public bodies that are maybe not fulfilling their duties, to be reminded of them and to be summoned and encourage them to progress. That will be helped by the Bill.
The commissioner’s role is to develop the BSL standard, offer that monitoring perspective and also investigate complaints. That is very important in order to achieve that change. There has been a Welsh Language Commissioner, and that has been very successful. A BSL Commissioner can do something similar. That will be needed to change public life.
In Scotland, there is a national (BSL) plan. The Scottish Government are leading on this and that can demonstrate how leadership can encourage that change and how public service can be improved in terms of access and so on for deaf people. But the commissioner effectiveness depends on the funding given to that person and also where they have enough staff if that isn't enough it just becomes a tokenistic gesture and nothing will change.
Question 11: I agree with the proposal.
I do agree but there's some additions needed and there are four main ones. There needs to be consideration for the private sector as a key area, many services such as banks or gas and electricity companies or shops. Most of those are private companies. The commissioner needs to ensure that there is the same level of standard adhered to and BSL signers not excluded.
Secondly, that the BSL commissioner should also encourage research and data collection, that can support further research, to make sure that there is understanding of the needs of Welsh BSL signers. It also provides evidence that can make policy decisions more effective.
Thirdly, the BSL commissioner should lead a public awareness campaign to demonstrate the importance and value of sign language, from a linguistic and cultural perspective. There needs to be encouragement of more people to learn BSL and also understanding of deaf issues in the public sphere.
Also to add, lastly, the promotion of early years intervention. There needs to be a national early years BSL programme to stop language deprivation of deaf children. If the commissioner can meet for those 4 areas, that would be excellent, and have a more proactive approach to addressing those barriers and developing sign language and linguistic equality.
Question 12: I agree! I fully agree!
Fluency for BSL is such an important aspect for the commissioner and the advisory panel members. They can then represent the Deaf community in Wales better. They will be able to make sure there is linguistic and cultural equality and consistency of this. They would be expected to be fluent and achieve a level, that is comparable of other languages. For example, in terms of Welsh language, if the people who are involved in work around Welsh, you would expect them to be fluent Welsh speakers. We expect the same standard.
Leadership of the bill should reflect identity of those impacted on and be BSL signers. If a person who doesn't have fluent signing skills is on the panel, that means there would be a power imbalance. You could have hearing people taking over and that could create a communication barrier, because they have to rely on interpreters to translate between English or Welsh & language. However if everybody is able to use sign language, that would smooth the process going forward. Also, the leadership should be deaf-led to make sure that there is culture and linguistic appreciation and understanding.
Question 13: I agree with the priorities that are outlined. I feel it is important to improve sign language provision in education. Access in early years, is vitally important and that would address the issue of language deprivation in deaf children. Access to interpreters in public services is needed. There are not enough interpreters. That needs to be addressed, to ensure equality of services and equality of access. Early years language support, is directed of families of deaf children, and they should be provided with the ability to learn sign language. That would greatly help the deaf children to thrive through learning language early. Those are things that are a priority, and that would address many of the barriers and that needs to go in line with the BSL bill, with the aim of achieving equality for BSL signers.
Question 14: I strongly agree. Annual reporting is needed to make sure that there is a clear visibility of what is going on. Accountability is needed to ensure there will be that oversight to ensure that the public bodies are doing their job properly. Also to monitor and see how the improvements are coming on.
The report should also include:
Firstly, how many BSL signers there are and how are they accessing public services?
Interpreting progress and training. Is there an upward recruitment rate of interpreters? Is the development of interpreters on the up ?
Thirdly, are BSL signers giving feedback on the level of access provided by public bodies and service quality? We need to know that feedback.
The reporting can run in parallel with The Well-being of Future Generations Act 2015 and the Bill can continue to consider the needs of BSL signers.
Question 15: There's a lot to talk about with this question. Another thing we need to think about is intersectionality and how that reflects different people's identity.
The bill should address with that too, in terms of other identities. Other intersectionalities have additional barriers. A BSL signer may have a different ethnicity to the majority. They may be LGBTQ+ or may have additional disabilities. We need to think about their needs too.
Secondly, with regards to funding they need to make sure there's enough funding to support interpreter training and public awareness in terms of campaigns. When establishing the commissioner, the money needs to be put in place for that.
Data collection is very important and the Welsh government must find ways to collect robust data linking to BSL signers. That in turn can help decision makers, for the future.
Fourthly, in terms of protecting the linguistic standard by regulation and maintaining that high standard, for example, linking to interpreter translation, to prevent language deprivation. Also making sure that the quality of service is in place.
I also want to talk about the consultation process itself. I feel there are various barriers with that too.
At the moment, the process has a lot of access issues. The whole point of the consultation exercise is to include the deaf community. [………......] and how they respond to the consultation.
We've not been able to think about their needs and lots of people have been excluded from the process.
Why do people feel there's exclusion?
Firstly, there's no BSL provision made to the consultation material. The consultation process requires people to use English and also to have Microsoft for which there is strong English or Welsh emphasis and requirement.
How do people work out how to submit responses in BSL?
I know that English is accessible for hearing people but for many deaf people, they are excluded from writing in English or Welsh, as they may not have access to those languages.
English and Welsh may be their second or third languages, so in terms of writing an effective response that may be dampened due to poor educational status.
Also with regards to information, on how to submit the information in BSL that process is not accessible there's no BSL translation which means that deaf people don't bother.
Second reason, is in terms of technology, digital literacy is an issue. The whole consultation process relies on the digital aspect which assumes that deaf people can use technology.
Actually, many deaf people are not able to use or access technology or a computer, or be able to record themselves signing and submit a response to the website via BSL.
Some community members have said I don’t have a phone or have a computer or they don't know how to use computer. They don't know how to navigate online onto the different websites or the different forms to submit information.
Hearing people can just go straight through their own computers, but there's no BSL provision on how to do that which means that digital inclusion for deaf people is inferior.
Thirdly there's not enough community engagement there has been some face-to-face consultation exercises however they were few and far between. Only 3 events have been organised. There has been poor marketing and not enough notice given.
There has been problems, for example, around the last minute booking of interpreters which means there hasn't been interpreters provided, so a lot of deaf people throughout Wales, especially if they live in rural areas or are older have been excluded. They didn't know what was going on and did not know that they could get involved. With regards to Deaf clubs such as Bargoed or Newport, the members there didn't really know what was going on, and didn't understand the point with the consultation exercise, which meant that the engagement and outreach was poor. Seems like “how to engage with deaf people” was not known.
Fourthly, there was not a process in place to outreach to deaf people.
It also relies on volunteer support. There's a lot of pressure put on the volunteers to reach out to the Deaf community to get that stakeholder engagement.
That relies on volunteers supporting deaf person to type in a response and submit it on behalf of that other person. Unpaid role.
That means the consultation process has failed. It doesn't meet the needs of the community that want to engage. You have to remember in terms of language (I had mentioned earlier) and access.
BSL is a complete language which means that the consultation process should be received in BSL to ensure that deaf people can contribute to the process in an equal way alongside English and Welsh.
There are many access issues and the evidence of the deaf experience of education is poor and services the poor and the whole experience aspect is a problem.
The consultation has failed, meaning that the response to the consultations will be limited.
I have some recommendations for future consultations complete BSL translation.
-Firstly, everything must be translated not just aspects of it.
-Submission in BSL should be made easier.
-There should be more organised face to face events.
-There should be an improvement to digital access to deaf people.
-They need to learn how to use computers and navigate the system, to make that submission in sign language
-There should also be extra time with an extension to the deadline.
There is a need to encourage deaf leadership, which means that the Deaf leaders can reach out and engage with deaf people to ensure that the consultation process is effective.
It is interesting because the consultation itself is evidence that needs to be a BSL Bill, because the Senedd itself, doesn’t know how to consult with the deaf community very well.
That's why we need a BSL Bill.
Future consultation exercises must have that linguistic justice, and accessibility throughout the process to make sure that nobody in the Welsh deaf community is excluded.