Question 7
Do you believe an Advisory Board of BSL users should be established, to advise the designated minister or all Scottish Ministers? Please explain the reasons for your answer.
In total, 143 responses were received to this question, including 39 from organisations and 104 from individuals. One hundred and thirty-six (95%) were generally supportive of the proposal to establish an Advisory Board, although there were some mixed views about the make-up of its membership.
Fifty-six respondents indicated that the Board should comprise a majority of deaf BSL users (or deaf people). In addition, while not responding specifically to this question, the supporters of the petition and the 76 respondents responding in similar terms (footnotes 3 and 4 in Section 2 refer) also supported a majority of BSL users on the Board.
Arguments in favour of the establishment of an Advisory Board of BSL users were put forward in responses received under cover of the SABH submission and included—
-
The Board would be able to provide “knowledgeable, fair and equal advice”.
-
“These people have hands on experience” and knew the “everyday problems” that deaf people can be faced with”, and “what it is like to be isolated in their community”.
-
It would enable “up-to-date information to be delivered at all times”.
-
Many users had BSL as their first language.
-
Information could potentially be collected and cascaded more efficiently.
-
[The Advisory Board] would be able to advise on the subject better than non-BSL users; this would allow them to make informative decisions.
-
It would enable the deaf community to have a say in shaping the policy.
Another respondent claimed that: “Just as a plumber should not be sent to do a chef’s job (and vice versa), there should be an Advisory Board of Deaf BSL users to advise the designated minister”. (Individual response 16)
Specific comments from organisations on the make up of such an Advisory Board included—
-
The National Association for Tertiary Education for Deaf people (NATED) felt that at least 80% of the Board should be deaf, that there should not be any places for particular organisations and the Deaf community should decide the membership.
-
The Scottish Council on Deafness felt that the majority should be Deaf BSL users and the remainder should be BSL users, including hearing people, BSL/English interpreters, members of Deaf organisations, and academics.
-
The SCCYP considered that the make up should comprise Deaf BSL users and also BSL users who were not deaf, but with expertise in particular areas such education policy or mental health.
-
Sense Scotland felt that any Advisory Board should not consist solely of BSL users. They referred to lessons learned with the Gaelic Advisory Board, one of which was, in their view, that limiting board membership to users was not the best way forward.
-
NHS Ayrshire and Arran felt that it should be a mixed group: a committee or board including BSL users, families, non-deaf people and special advisers.
Other comments
A number of respondents made other comments in relation to the Board—
-
One respondent who attended a Scottish Advisory Group on Deafblindness meeting on the proposed Bill, while agreeing that an Advisory Board should be established, commented that: “… this must include other communication methods including deafblind manual, hands-on signing, etc.”.
-
Inclusion Scotland did not agree with the concept of an Advisory Board solely in relation to BSL and favoured an Advisory Board on disability more widely.
-
Deaf Ex-Mainstreamers Group (DEX) said “a BSL Board should be established in law, and should not be an advisory board but an organisation entirely devoted to effective language planning, monitoring and enforcement”.
-
NHS Grampian and NHS Orkney, while being supportive, highlighted the need to ensure geographical equity of membership and representative number of NHS and local authority representatives.
-
East Lothian Council felt that an Advisory Board should cover inclusive communications more broadly.
Question 8 – Relevant public authorities BSL action plans
Question 8
Relevant public authorities will have to develop BSL action plans. Should there be a detailed list of such authorities (for example, the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament, health boards, local authorities etc.) and, if so, which ones should be included and why? Which ones should not?
One hundred and forty-three respondents directly answered this question, including 39 from organisations and 104 from individuals.
Strong support was expressed for a detailed list of relevant public authorities to develop action plans, with 79 (55%) respondents in general agreement. Twenty (14%) respondents would opt for the list being the same as that used in terms of the Gaelic Language Act, ie all public bodies with a plan for Gaelic should also have a plan for BSL. Eight other respondents (6%, all organisations) preferred the option of using an existing list, such as that used for the Equality Act 2010. The remaining 36 (25%) responses had mixed, other or no specific views.
Other suggestions with specific types of authorities included—
-
Deaf Ex-Mainstreamers Group (DEX) said “the most important” authorities, in its view, were the SQA, Care Inspectorate, Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration, Scottish Social Services Council, Health Bodies, Commissions (including Audit Scotland) and local authorities’ education departments and school governors.
-
Glasgow City Council felt the public bodies should include: the Care Inspectorate, National Galleries of Scotland, National Library of Scotland, National Museums of Scotland, Police Complaints Commissioner of Scotland, Risk Management Authority, Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration, Scottish Legal Aid Board, Scottish Police Service Authority, Scottish Qualifications Authority, Skills Development Scotland, Sports Scotland, Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, Public Transport Users Committee for Scotland, Scottish Law Commission, various Tribunals (Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland, Children’s Panel, Mental Health Tribunal Scotland, Parole Board for Scotland), all health boards, Mental Health Welfare Commission for Scotland, NHS 24, NHS Education for Scotland, NHS Health Scotland, NHS National Services Scotland, Scottish Ambulance Service Board, Scottish Prison Service, Scottish Court Service, Scottish Human Rights Commission.
A number of additional comments made by organisations included—
-
“Until we know the extent to which users may need information in BSL, it will be difficult to determine which public bodies should be on the list”. (SCCYP)
-
Angus Council felt that such a list should be determined by “how services and information is accessed by people who use minority languages” (BSL being included as such). It stated that: “large and medium public bodies should be included, and smaller public bodies should be included if they deal closely with deaf people”. Hearing Link (Scotland) was of a similar view: “This should mirror (as appropriate) plans and lists in place for other minority languages of Scotland”.
-
In supporting the use of an existing rather than a separate list, NHS Ayrshire and Arran favoured that used in the Equality Act 2010, and 2012 Specific Duties Regulations, arguing that it should be mainstreamed in this context rather than adding an “additional layer of bureaucracy”.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
