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: Cymdeithas Llywodraeth Leol Cymru (CLlLC) | Evidence from: Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA)
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.
No, we believe that the aims of this legislation are already covered by the Equality Act 2010. The Equality Act 2010 was applied to the Department for Works & Pensions (DWP) when they had to implement an action plan overseen by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, to ensure they were complying with legislation by having BSL available for those who required it Therefore we think that rather than a need for additional legislation it would be more appropriate to focus on improved monitoring of compliance of existing legislation and regulations.
We agree in principle with all of the goals, with the exception of the creation of a BSL Commissioner. If legislation is to be brought forward in this area then reporting should be through the existing Local Authority Strategic Equality Plans. This would fit within existing reporting frameworks and partially off-set any additional cost and resource implications.
Yes
No
No.
We agree that the promotion of BSL is beneficial for community cohesion and to reduce isolation and loneliness and therefore agree that it should be promoted accordingly, as many Councils already do through adult classes.
There is a shortage of translators, with just 51 almost all in South East Wales according to the Explanatory Memorandum. The Video Relay Services are provided in standardised BSL and therefore our current understanding is that there is not the structure or framework to require support for regional dialects of BSL.
In regard to how those who are BSL users/signers are referred to we would propose that the views of those who use BSL should be taken into account as per best practice and the emphasis of the Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the Social Services and Wellbeing (Wales) Act 2014.
No.
The reasons a person may use BSL may include being deaf but can be for alternative reasons. Therefore, the fact they use BSL, as their only or primary means of communication should not mean that they are expected to disclose any part of their medical history. This may risk being discriminatory to those who use BSL as their primary communication for alternative reasons (the majority of which are also medical). As such, we are unclear as to why there would need to be an explanation for why individuals primarily use BSL or its tactile forms.
Neither agree or disagree.
There are good examples of involvement, where councils have commissioned BSL translators to enable the full involvement of those whose primary communication is BSL to attend strategy events and to be involved in discussions. We know that more is always needed and that ongoing improvements in commissioning and co-design are a focus across councils. In regard to social care, there is concern around how Continuing HealthCare (CHC) is commissioned and the lack of choice that may be involved. The introduction of Direct Payments for CHC as proposed in the Health and Social Care (Wales) Bill may provide an avenue to help resolve some of these issues.
Agree.
We agree in principle and agree that deaf communities should have a voice in the design and delivery of services. However, we are concerned by the use of the term ‘formalised voice’ as this may put additional burden, for which there are not the BSL translators or services available to support, and which may increase costs and not be deliverable due to sufficiency issues. There is also a question of quality of the translation services. There is a risk that if each issue, equality or condition voice needs a formalised voice through attendance at key regional meetings such as the Regional Partnership Boards, that these meetings would become too large to function.
The proposal within the consultation is that the reporting mechanism should be through the Public Services Boards (PSBs). PSBs include Reserved Public Bodies such as the Police and exclude devolved public bodies such as Health and so we do not believe that this would be the most appropriate mechanism. Instead, the reporting mechanism should sit within the Strategic Equality Plan reporting mechanisms and ongoing scrutiny through the existing structures in place locally.
British Sign Language (BSL) is a very specific language and is very separate to other forms of hand or gesture language such as Makaton, Picture or Eye movement communication technology.
Hands-on or Tactile signing are based on BSL and may be appropriate, but the technology is currently not there for anything but in-person translation or for Braille users they may already carry the technology with them through a Screen Braille Communicator if they have sight and hearing loss.
The key barriers are in relation to communication and engagement and the access to timely and accurate information in formats that are understandable.
Unpaid carers continue to struggle to access courses to support learning, whether this is through BSL, Makaton or other hand, touch or gesture languages. The ongoing shortage of translation provision across Wales historically has presented barriers but with the emergence of technology such as BSL Video Relay Services these are reducing, and there may be further opportunities that are brought about through new technologies including AI.
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
We do not think that it is appropriate for a BSL Commissioner for Wales to be created. An alternative approach would be to appoint a Special Advisor(s). These could sit within the Children’s Commissioner’s Office and/or the Future Generations Commissioner’s Office or for them to be based alongside the Welsh Language Commissioner’s Office. A new BSL Commissioner would cover a maximum of 7,300 people according to the Explanatory Memorandum, which is approximately 1.33 per cent of the number of children and young people that are covered by the Children’s Commissioner and at most 0.85 per cent of those covered by the Welsh Language Commissioner. This would therefore appear to be a disproportionate use of resources. We do however fully recognise that it is important that BSL is more highly represented and promoted and feel that Special Advisors on BSL would allow this to take place. This would also show consistency where key and important areas of focus are required involving those with specialist knowledge, the Special Advisors for Violence Against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (VAWDASV) being one example where this is currently seen to be working well, providing advice and sharing their specialist knowledge with Ministers, Members of the Senedd and the wider public sector.
As mentioned in our answer to question 10, we do not believe that a Commissioner is appropriate. However, we do think that through Special Advisors and the creation of an Advisory Panel that the aims of the legislation could be achieved and the remit as proposed be met. In addition, if this is then reported on through equalities then there are already processes in place for the receipt of these reports from councils and a Minister with responsibility.
We have not provided a response, as it depends on what is meant by a fluent BSL user/signer as some may use it as a day to day communication method but not identify as fluent. Therefore, as with Welsh there should be the ability to identify the levels that individuals are able to communicate in signing, listening/watching and where appropriate reading.
Not everyone who is deaf uses BSL and therefore it is important to ensure that local design of services is possible which allows codesign and coproduction with those who will require the services through whichever communication mechanism they use. Also, as mentioned previously in our answers not all BSL users/signers are deaf and therefore it is important that the needs of those who need services are taken into consideration for the implementation of policies and for the procurement and commissioning of local or regional services.
We think there should be a requirement to report on all equality issues including BSL and as a result, that BSL should be included within the wider reporting mechanisms.
In regard to, the formulation of BSL standards to ensure that clear communication guidelines are distributed and complied with across Welsh public bodies and services, and impose an obligation to promote and facilitate BSL. There are only 51 registered BSL interpreters across the whole of Wales. Due to the nature of BSL interpreting where it has been commissioned by councils and other partners two interpreters are required, with research quoted in Clarion legal best practice guide indicating that 20-25 minutes is the maximum time for interpreters to concentrate as a result a team or pair of interpreters will switch every 20 to 30 minutes, as was evidenced by the 2024 Paralympic coverage with the interpreters switching at least twice an hour. This shows there is a sufficiency issue currently regarding the number of available translators which would push the costs of delivery up considerably.
Quality of BSL translators, the EM states that currently once a translator passes the course they are qualified for life. Therefore, there is currently no guarantee that the translators are of a high standard and have kept up with their skills. Before any requirement is required of public services it may be more appropriate to investigate this as it may be that some have stepped away from traditional BSL and moved to supporting the arts, which requires a different skill set.
Costs to councils and other public bodies: The EM identifies there will be additional costs for public bodies to report on their BSL usage, but there is no recognition that it is not just the costs but also the resources of staff to pull reports together adding a burden to workloads when councils are facing large staff cuts. Estimates that the preparation of BSL plans and performance review for public bodies to report would be around £790,000 a year over the first five year period with costs lower in future years. There is no detail on how much lower these are expected to be and there are only cost estimates around the plans and not for delivery of services or the provision of providing BSL interpretation for complaints or engagement activities. This estimate would appear therefore to be low. It is essential that any new requirement placed on councils is fully funded or risks drawing from other essential services.
There may be technological advances which enable AI assisted or generated BSL which could potentially bring down the costs, but currently this is not available and the current video relay services all charge by the minute. Councils in many instances already utilise Video Relay Services to meet the requirements of the Equalities Act (2010).
Consideration will need be given to the capacity within local government, particularly within the corporate centre, to meet the proposed commissioner expectations as outlined in the consultation documentation. Corporate capacity has frequently been reduced within councils to support their meeting of demand-led pressures limiting capacity to deliver addition requirements without additional funding.
Potential implications: there is a need to consider the strategic implications of additional equality related legislation and why the substantive aims of the bill cannot be achieved via the current (or any amended) provisions of the Equality Act (2010). When the Equality Act was initially introduced, a key purpose was to streamline and clarify citizens’ rights and obligations by bringing together equality-related legislation into one law. This legislation could begin to separate it again, leading to a more confusing and difficult environment to navigate for all stakeholders involved.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission: already have a statutory regulatory role under the Equality Act (2010). It will therefore be important for any new regulator, such as a BSL Commissioner, to have a clear and transparent role and there to be clarity around who carries out which roles and responsibilities in regard to the BSL landscape of rights and entitlements for citizens and public bodies. Otherwise, this risks causing confusion or creating duplication.
We agree that BSL is an important language and the third recognised language alongside English and Welsh. We therefore support many of the aims of the legislation but believe that rather than creating additional legislation our focus should be on the promotion of BSL and believe increased opportunities for learning BSL will improve community cohesion. We would also suggest the creation of a Special Advisor role over the need for a specific BSL Commissioner. The risk is a landscape of Commissioners all of whom carry small portfolio’s which will potentially diminish the role of Commissioner.
There is already an identified shortage of qualified BSL translators making the legislation incredibly difficult to deliver. Therefore, realistic promotion and an added need to report in the annual Strategic Equality Plans would appear to be a more appropriate requirement. This would require councils to explain if BSL users/signers were not involved in coproduction and codesign of services that they will use.