The reasonableness of providing British sign language as a “reasonable adjustment for those wanting access to an ‘experience’”

Abstract

The law in some ways is beginning to take positive steps for the Deaf community to ensure services generally are accessible following the pandemic and recent change in legislation, with the introduction of the British Sign Language Act 2022. Despite some improvement, there is little case law or scholarship in terms of disabled individuals wishing to access a service where the ‘experience’ is the core service. This article argues that recent changes in legislation and legal decisions will address this laguna by transforming attitudes and practices. It seeks to provide some guidance for service providers offering an experience as a core service to review and implement reasonable adjustments in advance to enable access to the experience for Deaf users using British Sign Language as a mainstream language. Although there is now legal recognition, it is argued that the requirement for the provision of British Sign Language should be incorporated into anti-discrimination legislation as a reasonable adjustment to ensure adjustments are made for Deaf users wishing access to an experience.

Introduction

The inherent legal uncertainty of the duty to make reasonable adjustments and the impact of COVID-19 has resulted in a rise in working-age disabled people and an increase in both employed and unemployed disabled people. ¹ There has also been a rise in disabled individuals who are economically inactive. ² Recently, changing attitudes toward deafness have been brought to the forefront in society, thus raising awareness and highlighting the need for society to adapt and transform perceptions by breaking down barriers that exist amongst the Deaf community in the entertainment industry. Following Rose Ayling-Ellis’ victory in the Strictly Come Dancing BBC Dance contest in 2021, the producers of the show were commended for their willingness to make adaptations to allow her to participate in the show. ³ Her victory has led to the British Sign Language Bill attracting more attention and cross-party support. ⁴ This has heightened focus on accessibility to services and changing attitudes towards disability and the Deaf community in terms of communication barriers and access to an experience, which, in this context, means accessing a live event, for example, a live concert. There have been some initiatives to make events fully inclusive for Deaf individuals by ensuring the provision of interpreters. Take, for example, the Eurovision Song Contest in 2015, where the event was fully inclusive in nine countries: Austria, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Latvia, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Slovenia. ⁵ The UK followed suit and provided interpreters for the songs during the 2023 contest. In addition, the recent signing of the British Deaf Association’s Charter for the British Sign Language by Mayor Sadiq Khan signifies an important step in ensuring Deaf Londoners have access to services by ensuring that the government priorities align with the British Sign Language Act 2022 recognising it as a language in Great Britain. ⁶

It is clear, in practice, that the requirement for the provision of the British Sign Language (BSL) is often overlooked. ⁷ Furthermore, it is extremely complex due to transmission patterns. ⁸ Historically, ‘Deaf communities have struggled to get their national sign languages legitimised’. ⁹ In most cases, it is obvious that without an interpreter, access to services or information is restricted, thereby excluding BSL users from access to services. ¹⁰ The introduction of the British Sign Language Act 2022 (BSL Act 2022) and the recent Little Mix county court decision have been significant steps in legally recognising BSL as a language, and it is hoped that it will transform service providers’ attitudes to allow full access to experiences for all.

This article seeks to challenge the understanding of the reasonableness of a service provider’s anticipatory duty to ensure the provision of a BSL interpreter, where the core service is an experience, as it is an area that has been overlooked in scholarship around disability and the anticipatory duty to make reasonable adjustments. It will shed light on the ramifications of the BSL Act 2022 and the impact of the recent Little Mix decision concerning the defunct and low-profile anticipatory duty to make reasonable adjustments, ¹¹ even though this is crucial in ensuring access to services and is closely linked to equality. ¹² ‘In many cases, a consumer who cannot access a service will simply buy the service in question from another service provider, if possible.’ ¹³ It is rare for those who are refused access to challenge their lack of access, as it is often difficult or expensive to pursue a claim. ¹⁴ Deaf users wanting access to an experience cannot simply buy a service from another provider; this calls for a unique approach to ensure such access. It is argued that the introduction of the BSL Act 2022 will go some way to assist in providing access to experiences for BSL service users wishing to participate in public life.

Explaining and understanding disability: The anticipatory duty

The duty

In an attempt to raise the profile of the anticipatory duty, theoretical models have assisted, to some extent, in understanding disability in terms of access to services generally, and the proactive duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). ¹⁵ The meaning of reasonable adjustments is limited as it is not explicitly defined in law. ¹⁶ However, the Code of Practice states that the reasonableness of the adjustment is much dependent on the undertaking of the service provider, and the effect of disability on the individual and resources. ¹⁷ The requirements as to when the duty arises are also contained in the Code of Practice ¹⁸ , and they apply to disabled people generally. ¹⁹ The Explanatory Notes in the Equality Act 2010 provide examples as to when a service provider is discharged from this duty, which includes modifying practices and altering access to physical premises, ²⁰ although there is no legal duty for the service provider to fundamentally change the nature of the service. ²¹ Under existing legislation, a service provider refers to someone providing a service to the public with or without payment. The purpose of the duty is ‘to provide access to a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard normally offered to the public at large,’ ²² which applies to disabled individuals generally. ²³

It is acknowledged that within disability discourse, the duty in the employment relationship is reactive, and it requires the employer to react once the employee makes their disability known. ²⁴ The employer, in these circumstances, is generally not required to anticipate the needs of the disabled employee. ²⁵ However, a service provider’s duty under the EqA 2010 is proactive; this involves ensuring access to services which are not reactive or targeted at ensuring access to an individual. ²⁶ It must be noted that the anticipatory nature of the duty is not contained in international law. ²⁷ Whilst this may be the case, it does not follow that it is inconsistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [UNCRPD]. ²⁸ Instead, it deals with other grounds which are ultimately protected by indirect discrimination and ensures equality in terms of providing opportunities for Deaf individuals to participate in society by ensuring accessibility. ²⁹ However, in terms of the UK anticipatory duty, more work is required to ensure ‘…enforcement of CRPD rights and the advancement of the model of ‘inclusive equality’ on which it rests’ ³⁰

Understanding the models used to define disability

Although the law assists in understanding the anticipatory duties, theoretical models have been developed to assist in understanding disability legislation, particularly in defining disability and the legal requirement to make reasonable adjustments. ³¹ More importantly, they have aided our understanding of societal attitudes towards the anticipatory legal duty to make such adjustments. The models provide a framework to assist in interpreting disability by looking at the legislative intention and its practical application in combating disability discrimination. ³² It is well known in disability discourse that the law in the UK is rooted in theoretical notions that perceive disability as a problem rather than viewing it as different but equal. ³³ These models are mirrored in anti-discrimination legislation, particularly the medical model, which sees the individual or impairment as the issue and implies that the individual’s autonomy is limited because of their impairment. ³⁴ This prevents individuals from participating in society and reinforces the individualised approach to ‘fixing’ a disabled person, suggesting that the individual is the problem and not society. ³⁵ This attitude has not served BSL users wanting access to an experience well and, as a result, has caused many service providers to unlawfully discriminate against these users by not providing full access to services that encompass experiences.

Medical and social models of disability

The medical model has influenced UK disability legislation. ³⁶ However, it has been argued that legislation in some cases perpetuates attitudes that reinforce discrimination through the social and medical model. ³⁷ Adopting the medical approach in cases perpetuates issues with a disabled person’s dependency as their independence is often limited. ³⁸ The model emphasises medical professionals to cure the impairment ³⁹ and implies that the disabled person needs medical treatment to cure their condition. ⁴⁰ It implies it is the disabled person that needs ‘fixing’ although this view is not universally accepted. ⁴¹ This is mirrored in UK legislation which, in many cases, does not assist in combatting discrimination but instead reinforces discrimination and does not assist in transforming attitudes about disability. ⁴²

Although the medical model considers the individual to be the problem, the social model recognises the need for integration and participation in mainstream activities. ⁴³ The model advocates accepting differences in society ⁴⁴ and has been used to transform attitudes towards disability. ⁴⁵ It focuses on breaking down social barriers which hinder inclusion and social change. ⁴⁶ It does not see the disabled person as the problem but rather blames the problem on the external environment, and it is this which hinders inclusion. It argues that disability is socially constructed. ⁴⁷ The social model is regarded as another way of interpreting and defining disability, which challenges the medical model through a sociological perspective. ⁴⁸ It has been argued that the law should challenge perceptions and attitudes by focusing on a transformative social model to change ingrained attitudes. ⁴⁹

Challenges to the social model: Development of the terms impairment and disability

Those from the Deaf community argue that BSL is essential in public life as it assists in ‘[building] a sense of community and belonging for Deaf people and highlights Deaf culture, identity, community and history, reflecting unique characteristics found amongst the population of Deaf people’. ⁵⁰ Although the Deaf community support the social model, they challenge its emphasis on impairment being the cause of deafness or disability. ⁵¹ Understanding the connection between impairment and disability has been a contentious issue amongst the Deaf community. Impairment is linked to functional limitation, which causes physical or mental damage or weakness, whereas disability refers to limited opportunities caused by society’s failure to tackle the physical and social barriers to enable a disabled user to participate in mainstream society. ⁵² It is also crucial for understanding disability discourse generally. ⁵³ The Deaf community believe that there is ‘…no impairment nor hearing loss’. ⁵⁴ Instead, many emphasise the importance of environments in which individuals find themselves and their impact on defining disability and Deaf culture. ⁵⁵ It must be noted that only a minority of Deaf individuals consider themselves disabled.

Challenges to the social model: The cultural model

In addition to the social and medical models, the term Deaf culture has developed in the last 20 or 30 years. ⁵⁶ It advocates for excluding the definition of deafness from a medical context as either a loss or impairment, in line with the social model. ⁵⁷ However, the medical model deviates and challenges the social model’s interpretation of ‘impairment’ and as ‘…for the majority of culturally Deaf people there is no ‘impairment nor hearing loss.’ ⁵⁸ Rather than seeing impairment and deafness as negative, Deaf culture believes that deafness should be celebrated. Interestingly, the EqA 2010 ‘…accords rights to individuals to protect them from discrimination but it does not protect or promote BSL as a language.’ ⁵⁹ Although the BSL Act 2022 does, and because of this, the EqA 2010 ‘…does not, therefore, focus on the value and integrity of BSL and Deaf culture.’ ⁶⁰ This is problematic for those Deaf individuals wishing to access an experience.

The anticipatory duty in practice: The reasonableness of an adjustment where the core service is an experience

Defining disability and the anticipatory duty

Unsurprisingly, disability is listed as a protected characteristic ⁶¹ which requires special treatment or special considerations in terms of access to an experience. ⁶² It must be noted that the former Coronavirus Act 2020 ⁶³ did not have an impact on the EqA 2010 in that the legal duty to make reasonable adjustments remained during the pandemic. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the impact of the legislation had a detrimental impact on some disabled individuals in that ‘…the rights of disabled people have been an afterthought if they were considered at all.’ ⁶⁴ Central to this is the legal anticipatory duty for service providers to make reasonable adjustments by taking proactive steps to ensure full access for disabled individuals. ⁶⁵ Recent scholarship has highlighted the anticipatory nature of the duty as problematic in terms of its usefulness, practical application, and implementation. ⁶⁶ This is even more problematic in terms of access to an experience. In short, ‘…the profile of the duty has been surprisingly low’. ⁶⁷ As a result, this area of law has received more attention and coverage over the last few years than is often the case following the Supreme Court decision in FirstGroup plc v Paulley, ⁶⁸ the recent county court Little Mix ruling, and the introduction of the new BSL Act 2022.

The duty in practice

Service providers are legally required to proactively assess the needs of a relevant group of people and not individual disabled people. ⁶⁹ Where the service is an experience, the duty applies to disabled persons generally and arises ‘…whenever a duty-bearer ought to anticipate that broad groups of disabled people might encounter such a disadvantage.’ ⁷⁰ As stated earlier, the anticipatory duty is not defined in the EqA 2010 ⁷¹ , it ‘…dates back to interpretations in codes of practice of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995…’ ⁷² It states the notion that the duty placed on providers of services is to take reasonable steps to remove the substantial disadvantage for a particular disabled person and that this is inconsistent with the anticipatory approach which has historically been problematic in its effectiveness. ⁷³ The plural use of ‘disabled persons’ has been interpreted by the National Disability Council, to mean ‘…that the duty was owed to disabled people generally, with the result that it must arise prior to duty-bearers becoming aware of any particular disabled person being disadvantaged.’ ⁷⁴

It must be noted that the

…anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty arises regardless of whether or not a particular individual is placed at a substantial disadvantage, breach of it will constitute unlawful discrimination only if a particular disabled person can show that the breach caused them substantial disadvantage. ⁷⁵

Although this is the case, any adjustments that ‘fundamentally alter the nature of a service or be beyond the power of those exercising a public function will never be “reasonable”’. ⁷⁶ The anticipatory duty is a continuing and evolving duty and appears in the Statutory Code of Practice on Services, which guides the interpretation of reasonableness to assist service providers. ⁷⁷ The Code of Practice is instrumental in that the EqA 2010 itself makes no mention of the concept of reasonableness. ⁷⁸ Therefore, service providers are required to rely heavily on the Code of Practice to interpret the reasonableness of any adjustment, which in cases of an experience is problematic as there is currently no guidance for those wishing to access a service where the core service is an experience. This, arguably, contributes to the ineffectiveness of the duty, which makes the duty even more difficult to apply and gauge in ensuring access to experiences for the Deaf community, thereby excluding Deaf individuals from mainstream experiences.

Profile and awareness of the anticipatory duty

Awareness of the Act has been cited as a contributing factor to the effectiveness of the reasonable adjustment duty. ⁷⁹ In addition, ‘the notion of reasonableness in this context covers both the effectiveness of the steps taken (in removing the disadvantage) and issues relating to disproportionate or undue burden’. ⁸⁰ Unfortunately, both types of duties are contained in s.20-22 EqA 2010, which is not helpful in its practical application as the language used in the act is reactive. ⁸¹ In addition, it is not visible in the EqA 2020 in terms of the reasonable adjustment duty. ⁸² This makes it even more difficult for service providers to fulfil their legal obligations to make reasonable adjustments to ensure an experience is accessible for BSL service users. Lawson and Orchard have suggested that the EqA 2010 should have separate sections to improve its visibility and impact. ⁸³ Even though this area is governed by law, the extent to which the anticipatory duty operates in practice remains uncertain and does not serve the Deaf community well when attempting to participate in concerts, festivals, and live events where the core service is the experience.

The reasonableness of an adjustment is assessed on a case-by-case basis. ⁸⁴ This adds to the inherent uncertainty of the duty for disabled service users wishing to participate in public life and the entertainment sector. Hurdles still exist, which means that the duty in practice does not work adequately for those wanting access to an experience. Not only is this important in terms of reasonable adjustments under the EqA 2010 but it is also important in terms of the requirement to make reasonable adjustments under the public sector duty. ⁸⁵ Although there are hurdles in terms of access to services, what remains unclear is the threshold at which the provision of a BSL interpreter would be deemed ‘reasonable’ to enable full access to the public at large where the experience is at the heart of the service.

A practical approach of the duty: Stretching the duty in Paulley

Legal decisions to date have attempted to deal with the practical application of the legal duty. The Supreme Court decision in Paulley has provided some guidance and clarity in terms of putting systems in place to ensure access to transport for disabled people, ⁸⁶ although not for an experience generally. However, the decision provides some guidance regarding the extent to which the duty can be stretched or even extended. ⁸⁷ In FirstGroup plc v Paulley 2017, Mr Paulley, a disabled wheelchair user, attempted to gain access to a service operated by FirstGroup. The company had a policy to ‘request’ passengers to prioritise wheelchair users’ access to the bus service. ⁸⁸ This was communicated to passengers by way of a notice in the vicinity for non-wheelchair users to give priority to passengers who use a wheelchair. On this occasion, when Mr Paulley boarded the bus, a mother had occupied the wheelchair space with her child in a pushchair. The bus driver asked the woman to fold her pushchair to allow Mr Paulley to board the bus, but she refused. This caused Mr Paulley to miss an important rail connection to his destination. Mr Paulley successfully sued FirstGroup and was awarded damages of £5,500 which was then appealed by FirstGroup. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision and, in coming to their decision, said that the duty was not breached as the requirement. Mr Paulley successfully appealed to the Supreme Court and concluded that FirstGroup did not go far enough to ensure that their duty to make reasonable adjustments was discharged, and the policy in itself was not enough to comply with the legal duty. In FirstGroup plc v Paulley, ⁸⁹ it was suggested that adopting a policy that involved moral pressure can be a measure a service provider can take to ensure compliance with the duty to make a reasonable adjustment. ⁹⁰ However, the legal ramifications in Paulley do not entirely extend to an experience, as the basis for the decision is on providing access to travel and not an experience. ⁹¹ Despite this, Paulley provides useful guidance about when a service provider is required to ‘go beyond making adjustments to ensure any disadvantage is removed; simply making adjustments will not in itself be enough to discharge a service provider’s duty to make reasonable adjustments’. ⁹²

Not going beyond ensuring the substantial disadvantage is removed has been problematic. This was demonstrated in the Little Mix case as the organisers believed they had done enough to remove the substantial disadvantage and discharged their duty. This has received little attention in terms of scholarship, which is a contributing factor to the ineffectiveness of the duty so far for BSL users requiring access to an experience in the entertainment industry. Most of the legal decisions to date have focused on access in terms of the fabric or physical features of premises, a service, and access to travel and transport, but there is little literature or scholarship that discusses access to a live experience for Deaf users. ⁹³

The Little Mix dispute: Stretching the concept of reasonableness in the context of service providers where the core service is an experience

Three Deaf mothers (whose primary language was BSL) pursued a claim against Live (the promoters) for failing to provide a BSL interpreter for an entire concert as a reasonable adjustment to enable them to participate in the entire concert; this would ultimately involve enjoying the entire experience, which included the music, a core component to any live concert. ⁹⁴ Failure to provide a BSL interpreter for the whole event (which included access to the auditory announcements) meant that they did not have access to the experience and were only able to enjoy part of the concert, which was not as close an experience as possible as it was for those individuals without a disability. ⁹⁵ In this case, it included experiencing the supporting acts, not just the main act, thereby highlighting barriers litigants encounter in bringing a claim for breach of the anticipatory duty. ⁹⁶ Shortly before the implementation of the BSL Act 2022 in April 2022, it was ruled that Live unlawfully discriminated against the Deaf mothers for a failure to make reasonable adjustments by not ensuring there was a BSL provision for the entire event, which did not fundamentally alter the nature of the service; in this case, the experience of the event. ⁹⁷ In most cases where the purpose of the service is a live experience, it is often difficult to gauge the level of adjustments required, much different from a service where its purpose is access to travel, which, ⁹⁸ in this case, includes an individual without a hearing impairment. Live threatened the families with cost liabilities of over £100,000 as they believed the provision of an interpreter for the entire concert was not reasonable and argued that there was insufficient time to provide this, although the judge concluded that it was ‘slightly surprising’ that the promoters had not been asked on previous occasions to ensure the provision of BSL for the entire event. ⁹⁹

The failure to provide a BSL interpreter for the entire concert meant that the Deaf mothers ‘…only got access to the last act.’ ¹⁰⁰ The mothers were awarded £5,000 for injury to feelings. ¹⁰¹ As Ms Reynolds put it, ‘If you went to a film can you imagine only getting access to the last 20 minutes?’ ¹⁰² More needs to be done in terms of ensuring full access to services, which include an experience. Partial access to the Little Mix set meant the providers did not discharge their legal duty to make reasonable adjustments, as the adjustments did not remove the substantial disadvantage, which was access to the entire concert. Arguably, if it was only Little Mix performing, this would not have been an issue and, therefore, the duty to make reasonable adjustments would have potentially been discharged. ¹⁰³ It must be highlighted that an important aspect of a Deaf person’s experience is the lyrics and words, as Deaf people are unable to have access to this due to their disability. ¹⁰⁴ Therefore, more importance is placed on ‘… the songs sung and interaction with the crowd’. ¹⁰⁵

Ramifications and impact of the little mix decision

The recent Little Mix ruling has been instructive in determining the reasonableness of providing a BSL interpreter to enable access to a live experience. ¹⁰⁶ This judgement revisited several longstanding legal issues in terms of access to services for the Deaf community, and the not-so-straightforward assessment of reasonableness in providing a BSL interpreter for an entire concert, where the core service is an experience. The judgement also highlighted challenges for providing access to concerts, which involves providing interpretation and suggestions to ensure problems in terms of access can be mitigated, ¹⁰⁷ as this may cause the Deaf disabled individuals to lose out on an experience enjoyed by all. ¹⁰⁸ It is this issue that has caused Deaf disabled users difficulties accessing live mainstream events in the entertainment industry, in particular those requiring a BSL interpreter for whom BSL is their primary language. Little Mix has demonstrated the hurdles litigants face in bringing a claim under the anticipatory duty to make reasonable adjustments. Ensuring these hurdles are removed is crucial to ensuring the Deaf community is given access to experiences enjoyed by able-bodied individuals which requires a more proactive approach in line with the anticipatory duty to make reasonable adjustments. The ruling in Little Mix serves as some guidance as to the reasonableness of access to a service where an experience is the core service. Transposing the anticipatory duty to an experience requires a different approach, which is more complex, and calls for ‘special considerations’ or ‘special treatment’ to remove the substantial disadvantage if the adjustment does not ultimately alter the nature of the service.

Implication of the decision and access to the legal system: Barriers

This decision does not set a precedent. However, it is pivotal as litigants rarely pursue non-employment discrimination claims due to costs, the complexity of track allocation, and the uncertainty regarding the prospects of success. ¹⁰⁹ In terms of costs, litigants in non-employment claims have the burden of paying costs as opposed to employment claims where the costs of bringing a case were abolished in July 2017 by the Supreme Court. This has enabled access to the legal system for those who may not have money to pursue employment-related claims in employment tribunals and, as a result, employment cases have nearly doubled since the fees were abolished. ¹¹⁰ Likewise, it is suggested that this approach should be adopted for those wishing to pursue claims against service providers for failure to ensure access for all, whether the service involves an experience or not. Most judges in the county courts, where claims under the anticipatory duty are heard, are generalists and the number of cases they hear is low. ¹¹¹ General reporting of county court cases seems to be an issue and, as a result, there is no record of some cases, ¹¹² thereby hindering the impact of decisions that can assist in transforming societal attitudes in terms of ensuring access to experiences that include concerts, festivals and live events for BSL users. This lack of reporting judgements has ‘particular significance for those elements, including the anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty, which operate only in non-employment contexts and thus fall outside the jurisdiction of employment tribunals (the judgements of which are reported).’ ¹¹³

Other barriers include the value of the claim which, in many cases, outweighs the damages awarded for these types of cases. ¹¹⁴ These contributing factors deter litigants from wanting to pursue a claim for breach of the anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty and are, therefore, denied access to the courts. This denies Deaf individuals access to experiences enjoyed by non-disabled individuals, which, in effect, does not allow vindication of disabled individuals’ rights and, ultimately, access.

Misinterpreting the legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where an experience is the core service

Although the Little Mix dispute is a county court case and does not set a precedent, as mentioned earlier, it is paramount and a breakthrough for Deaf disabled service users requiring access to an experience enjoyed by non-disabled individuals, ¹¹⁵ as it acknowledges that ‘BSL is a mainstream means of communication for a significant section of society’. ¹¹⁶ The legal reasoning and ramifications are crucial in determining the threshold in terms of assessing reasonable adjustments for service providers. Ensuring access would mean that the organisers were legally obliged to take proactive steps in making reasonable adjustments in advance of the concert to remove the substantial disadvantage. This approach would have required Live to plan and explore the potential needs of disabled people attending its concert by ensuring there was adequate provision for Deaf users for the entire concert, including the announcements and supporting acts. ‘This was all the more so when one of the claimants, Ms Reynolds, emailed the defendant nearly 2 months prior to the concert, to ask about it.’ ¹¹⁷

It was clear that Live had not proactively considered any reasonable adjustments to enable access for Deaf individuals who may have wanted to participate in the concert. ¹¹⁸ Although it is evident that no thought was given to BSL users attending the concert, some thought was given to disabled people in general as there was a diagrammatic plan which included a disabled viewing area at the front of the stage, thus demonstrating some understanding (albeit limited) of how the duty should operate in practice. ¹¹⁹ This demonstrated a ‘…vacuum of ignorance and misunderstanding as to any of the claimant’s disabilities and needs. There was no enquiry at any point as to the extent and nature of their ‘disabilities’. ¹²⁰ Although Live adjusted by ‘[providing] upgraded tickets, access to private accessible toilets and all public announcements on giant screens either side of the main stage,’ ¹²¹ this did not remove the substantial disadvantage of not allowing access to the entire experience. As a result, the legal duty was misinterpreted, causing the Deaf mothers to lose out on an experience enjoyed by the public at large. The organiser’s perception of the reasonable adjustment duty was that its purpose was to give the Deaf mothers ‘special treatment’, viewing their provisions as ‘favouritism’ or ‘perks’. ¹²² This demonstrates an example of where the anticipatory duty is often misunderstood as the purpose of the reasonable adjustment duty in this context was to remove the substantial disadvantage to ensure full access to the experience. This inevitably incorporates some form of special treatment or special considerations, bearing in mind the nature of any adjustments to an experience. Ms Reynold’s request was viewed as her being a nuisance rather than an adjustment that should have been considered in advance ¹²³ and, as a result, she was denied enjoyment of the entire experience. It should be borne in mind that the adjustment suggested did not alter the nature of the service. ¹²⁴ This approach marginalised and excluded Ms Reynolds and would affect other BSL Deaf users participating in mainstream live activities or events.

The assumption that the Deaf mothers would just fit in was the wrong approach and attitude to ensuring full access. Using costs as justification for not providing reasonable adjustments to enable full access to an experience was not entertained. It was concluded in the judgement that ‘Promoters and event organisers budget for crew, artists, sound systems and security (amongst other things) when putting on shows’. ¹²⁵ If they have difficulty doing so, they should seek expert advice to ensure access to the experience is available for BSL users. ¹²⁶ The decision stresses that organisers in general should take a proactive approach in ensuring that costs are absorbed in the overall cost of the event and should be wary of excluding the Deaf community from participating in live events such as these. ¹²⁷ It has been suggested that an updated Code of Practice containing the provision of BSL as a reasonable adjustment would clarify the threshold in determining whether providing BSL would discharge a service provider’s duty under the EqA 2010. In determining reasonableness in terms of cost, reference in the judgement was made to the Code of Practice, ¹²⁸ which suggested that ‘…the larger the financial resources of a service provider (for which the entirety of their business dealings are likely to be taken into account) the more likely it is that they would be expected to make adjustments with a significant cost as opposed to a provider with fewer resources’. ¹²⁹

The judge ruled ¹³⁰ that the cost ought to have been absorbed in some way. This would have cost Live less than 0.5% of the overall cost of the event. In not doing so, they failed to discharge their duty to make reasonable adjustments under the EqA 2010. ¹³¹ The reasoning was based on the purpose of the anticipatory duty outlined in the Code of Practice: As paragraph 7.4 of the Code sets out, it is ‘…to approximate the access enjoyed by disabled people to that enjoyed by the rest of the public.’ ¹³² It is clear that:

Service providers must anticipate the needs of people with disabilities who may wish to use their services, and make appropriate adjustments to provide access to a service as close as reasonably possible to that offered to the public at large, even if this involves additional costs. BSL interpretation will generally be an obvious adjustment at live events, even those of a musical nature. ¹³³

The purpose of the EqA 2010 is to ensure approximate access to an experience for ‘those without hearing loss’. ¹³⁴ This was recently confirmed in Lady Hale’s judgement in the case of FirstGroup plc v Paulley [2017] UKSC 4:

The object [of the reasonable adjustment duty], as has been said time and again, is to “level the playing field”, to lower the barriers which prevent disabled people having access to employment, accommodation, goods and services on the same terms as non-disabled people. It is to produce equality of results rather than equality of treatment… ¹³⁵

Thus, indicating the importance of access to the whole event and not partial access. As mentioned earlier, it must be noted that the purpose of the duty is to provide access that is as close as possible to that of a person who is not deaf, ¹³⁶ so long as the adjustment does not fundamentally alter the nature of the service. Unfortunately, in this case, the duty was misinterpreted and, as a result, the Deaf mothers were excluded from fully participating in the concert. This demonstrated the failure of the anticipatory duty to ensure full access to the event.

What is reasonable in the context of an experience?

In assessing the reasonableness of the adjustment, the defendants argued that their auxiliary aids were sufficient for the plaintiffs to participate in the concert and enjoy the experience, implying that this was sufficient to say they had discharged their legal obligations under the EqA 2010 to make reasonable adjustments. ¹³⁷ Unsurprisingly, this argument was not accepted nor entertained as it did not allow claimants access to the entire concert. Judge Avent highlighted how auxiliary aids are not of any assistance in concerts, in particular lipreading, due to the distance from the speaker, lighting, and any obstructions to the speaker’s mouth. ¹³⁸ In addition, he highlighted that the suggestion that auxiliary aids allowed the claimants to participate and enjoy the concert was naïve and ‘…[had] been reached without any understanding of the nature and extent of the disability of each claimant’. ¹³⁹ Interestingly, this argument highlights the ineffectiveness of the current duty where the core service is an experience, stating that in cases where the BSL user requires access to participate in the event, the auxiliary aid requirement outlined in the Code of Practice does not remove the substantial disadvantage (i.e., gaining full access to the experience of the entire concert). It has been suggested that the guidance should reflect that access to an experience is much different to general access, and should, perhaps, include examples of where a service provider organising concerts, festivals and live events may be able to suggest some examples or provide some guidance for other organisers in removing the substantial disadvantage which requires ‘special considerations’ or ‘special treatment’ following a proactive approach. This is certainly not an easy task, as can be seen in the Little Mix decision. More needs to be done to educate and raise the profile of the duty to ensure full participation at events and transform attitudes where access to the experience is paramount.

Interestingly, the defendants suggested that the carers’ tickets to enable the claimants to arrange their interpreter did not amount to a reasonable adjustment, as this would be a cost to the claimant and not in line with the Code of Practice. ¹⁴⁰ The level of interpretation at the concert ruled out the possibility of bringing a friend, as the level required for a concert would require a professional interpreter with associated costs. ¹⁴¹ The judgement stressed the importance of ensuring access to live events for the Deaf community ‘where concerts of this magnitude and size of being provided for a particular band, with or without support acts, for one night only at a specific geographic location, it seems to me generally speaking that the provision of a BSL interpreter will always be more than likely a reasonable adjustment to make or provide’. ¹⁴²

The introduction of the British sign language act 2022 and its impact on the reasonableness of an adjustment

Historical context

The introduction of the BSL Act was welcomed by campaigners. The origin of the marginalisation of Deaf people can be traced back to school where children were punished for using sign language and Deaf teachers were excluded. ¹⁴³ The historical marginalisation of Deaf individuals in the 19^th and 20^th centuries was dominated by oralism, where its focus was on training Deaf children to speak and lip-read rather than teaching them to use sign language; this ultimately harmed learning and literacy. ¹⁴⁴ Historically, Deaf people were perceived as imbeciles and were institutionalised and physically abused. ¹⁴⁵ In 1880, the Milan conference banned sign language in schools; this led to the devaluing of sign language and more focus being placed on spoken language, which was inevitably challenging for Deaf children to learn. This meant that ‘…instruction was largely inaccessible and unintelligible to Deaf students’ ¹⁴⁶ This led to limited access to education for Deaf children. ¹⁴⁷ The 1980s saw the British Deaf Association (BDA) campaigning for the legal status of BSL, which was then legally recognised as a language in its own right in Britain and Ireland in 2003. This paved the way for the BSL Act 2022. Although BSL was legally recognised in its own right, it had no legal status, which meant that there were still challenges for BSL users wanting access to services and information. ¹⁴⁸ This led to the BDA campaigning and publishing a report to ensure access to services and information in BSL and lobbying to ensure BSL had legal status. ¹⁴⁹

Impact of UNCRPD and cultural participation

Reasonable adjustments aim to ensure equitable access for individuals with disabilities reflected in the UNCRPD, where emphasis is placed on inclusion and equality. Article 9 emphasises accessibility as a precondition for equal participation, whilst Article 30 highlights the right to engage in cultural life, recreation, and education on an equal basis. This extends to ensuring BSL as a reasonable adjustment in cultural contexts contained in Article 30 UNCRPD, 2006. Reasonable adjustments should not merely focus on providing an experience but should also focus on cultural and educational participation as fundamental rights and place emphasis on dismantling barriers that prevent access generally. As discussed earlier, the social model mirrors this idea by framing disability as a consequence of societal barriers rather than individual impairments or deficits. ¹⁵⁰ This perspective emphasises the role of adjustments like BSL in addressing the role of the social model in framing systemic inequities and challenges faced by BSL users. ¹⁵¹ This, in turn, highlights institutional and cultural barriers over individual deficits which have emphasized how BSL’s recognition as a linguistic and cultural minority status has contributed to ongoing issues on equity and inclusion. ¹⁵² Oliver has discussed this as an issue in terms of hearing-centric attitudes, and he stresses the need to recognise BSL as key to cultural and linguistic identity. ¹⁵³

Furthermore, BSL is a form of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), which is regarded as a human right to communication for individuals with speech and language disabilities. AAC tools, including sign language, empower individuals to engage fully in various cultural domains and contexts, enabling them to fulfil their potential by ensuring an inclusive environment. ¹⁵⁴ This underscores the critical importance of the BSL Act 2022. Ensuring access to BSL is essential to prevent marginalization and uphold the principles of dignity, equality and inclusion.

The British sign language act 2022

It is known and accepted that ‘…English is the de facto official language’ in the UK ¹⁵⁵ and is the preferred language for around 87,000 people in the United Kingdom’s Deaf community. ¹⁵⁶ The UK government’s language adopted in the UK has been said to be ‘cross-cutting and disorganized’. ¹⁵⁷ This has made the ‘voice’ of BSL signers ‘extremely hard to discern’ ¹⁵⁸ In addition, BSL’s minority status as a language is problematic. ¹⁵⁹ Historically, the recognition of BSL as an official language in the UK has yet to happen and it does not appear in any official constitutional document or legislation, ¹⁶⁰ although it has been legally recognised in Scotland. For the Deaf community, the legal status of BSL has been a significant step in terms of access to its use as it is the ‘…primary form of communication for nearly 90,000 residents of the United Kingdom, with around 150,000 users in total’. ¹⁶¹ The introduction of the BSL Act 2022 has been a significant step in ensuring legal recognition for BSL users by enhancing the rights of Deaf individuals who rely solely on BSL as their first or primary language.

The Deaf community are now entitled to have BSL legally acknowledged as an official language in the UK, which may, in future, improve access to an experience ‘whilst preserving the architecture of the [EqA 2010].’ ¹⁶² This is a positive step for BSL users in breaking down societal barriers, paving the way for inclusion and access to services. It must be noted that the BSL Act 2022 itself does not provide a legal obligation to make BSL a mandatory requirement to enact reasonable adjustments under anti-discrimination law. ¹⁶³ However, the introduction of the BSL Act 2022 has raised the importance, awareness, and profile of Deaf culture in the UK in terms of access to an experience. It is hoped that this new approach in determining the reasonableness of an adjustment will assist in breaking down societal attitudes and barriers in transforming attitudes towards individuals with a hearing impairment for whom BSL is their primary language, and, ultimately, improve access to experiences enjoyed by all in the Deaf community. Ensuring that BSL is available as a reasonable adjustment not only ensures compliance with the EqA 2010 but mirrors societal values of equity and inclusion. It does this by linking disability and cultural participation which extends to seeing this as a fundamental human right and, therefore, should be mandatory in ensuring accessibility and equality in cultural and educational environments.

The BSL Act 2022 will now clarify the requirement for proactively promoting BSL as a legally recognised language by placing a duty on the secretary of state to report on the effectiveness of the BSL. ¹⁶⁴ Enactment of the BSL Act 2022 will also have an impact on areas other than entertainment, such as education and healthcare services. It will also contain guidance ¹⁶⁵ for service providers to ensure their statutory obligations and legal duties are met by ensuring access and improvement to experiences and participation in everyday life, and wider public awareness. ¹⁶⁶ This may reduce the uncertainty concerning the duty but, arguably, it may not remove the inherent uncertainty of the duty for BSL users wishing to access an experience. The introduction of the BSL Act 2022 may, in some cases, assist in raising the profile of the anticipatory duty in terms of access to an experience by ensuring legal protection and using the law (the BSL Act 2022) to determine the reasonableness of an adjustment.

Although the BSL Act 2022 is now in force, challenges remain. More needs to be done to ensure government and organisations focus on improving the experience of Deaf people by reassessing how they communicate with the Deaf community. ¹⁶⁷ In addition, addressing the shortages of BSL interpreters needs to be a priority. The increased demand for BSL interpreters requires investing resources in recruiting and training interpreters. ¹⁶⁸ A consistent increase in the publication of data will enable governments and organisations to reflect on good practices and identify areas for improvement to ensure the government and organisations are accountable. ¹⁶⁹ In addition, raising awareness of the BSL Act 2022 is crucial to ensure Deaf individuals have access to the services and information they require. ¹⁷⁰

Extending or stretching the duty where the core service is an experience: Implications of the BSL act 2022 on determining reasonableness

The current limitations of the EqA 2010 in determining the reasonableness of an adjustment where it concerns the provision of BSL may arguably be stretched due to its legal recognition. Although this is not a mandatory requirement, its status may strengthen the legal requirement for the provision of a BSL interpreter to be regarded as a reasonable adjustment. ¹⁷¹ Whether this will improve access to an experience for the Deaf community is yet to be seen. The BSL Act 2022 will now provide some guidance or extend the duty for service providers and users in the hope that it will provide access for those wishing to attend live concerts. However, as discussed earlier, it does not place a legal obligation or make it a mandatory requirement for service providers to make reasonable adjustments to ensure access under the current legislation. This will ultimately be a decision for the courts in determining whether a service provider has done enough to discharge their anticipatory duty under the EqA 2010 by removing the substantial disadvantage. ¹⁷² It will arguably stretch, or even extend, the current limitations of the duty by taking reasonableness to another level in determining the threshold of an adjustment which will challenge our understanding of reasonableness differently in the context of an experience. How effective this will be is yet to be established; only time will tell. What we do know is that it is highly likely that any requirement for a BSL interpreter where the core service is an experience will be deemed reasonable for discharging a service provider’s duty according to the Little Mix decision. ¹⁷³ This is further enhanced by the BSL Act 2022 making it an official language in the UK. ¹⁷⁴

Special considerations or special treatment and making reasonable adjustments where the core service is an experience

It is argued that gaining access to an experience where the individual wishes to participate requires a different approach to assessing reasonableness under the EqA 2010. ¹⁷⁵ This is much different from making reasonable adjustments to enable a disabled individual to access premises or a building. Recognition of BSL as an official language and the legal obligation for the Secretary of State to promote BSL under the BSL Act 2022 is not enough. A legal duty should now be placed on service providers to make reasonable adjustments where the Deaf person is a BSL user wanting access to an experience; this requires ‘special treatment’ or ‘special considerations’ to transform attitudes towards BSL users and ensure access to experiences for the Deaf community. Perhaps a government-funded scheme like the Access to Work scheme for employers would provide some financial support or incentive for service providers in future to make reasonable adjustments where the core service is an experience. ¹⁷⁶

Flexibility v certainty: Reasonable adjustments to an experience

Interestingly, and more importantly, access to an event where the core service is an experience further adds to the uncertainty and complexity of the anticipatory nature of the duty. Although some uncertainty remains, there is flexibility in determining reasonable adjustments. However, this has not helped the adoption of a consistent approach to determine the reasonableness of an adjustment in attempting to discharge a service provider’s anticipatory legal duty to make reasonable adjustments, ¹⁷⁷ as demonstrated in the Little Mix ruling. Before the Little Mix decision and the BSL Act 2022, there was no guidance for service providers in assessing the reasonableness of an adjustment where the core service was an experience. The Little Mix case has arguably set the requirement and threshold for ensuring BSL provision as a reasonable adjustment in such terms. This will hopefully be strengthened by the introduction of the BSL Act 2022. The ruling in Little Mix provided some clarity concerning the reasonableness of an adjustment in ensuring access to an experience shortly before the enactment of the BSL Act 2022, the aim of which is to enable deaf people ‘…to lead fulfilled and independent lives’. ¹⁷⁸ Following this decision, it is evident that more needs to be done to transform societal attitudes about inclusion and access by educating society about the proactive nature of the anticipatory duty and the practical implications of the duty where service users require access to participate in events which call for ‘special treatment’ or ‘special considerations’. As Lawson and Orchard point out, the low profile of the duty has not assisted service providers ¹⁷⁹ and, in this case, the Deaf community wishing to access an experience. It must be noted that it will take time to raise the profile of the duty by promoting and facilitating BSL as a language, although it will not make it a mandatory requirement under the equality law. ¹⁸⁰ Providing clearer guidance contained in the BSL Act 2022 for service providers will limit the uncertainty of the duty in practice. Its application to an experience is limited, although it provides some guidance for service providers and BSL users. This decision will contribute to transforming attitudes in terms of access to services for Deaf disabled individuals, particularly where the core of the service is an experience. This will then ‘empower Deaf people who want access to services, without them having to go through lengthy discussions or seek out legal action,’ ¹⁸¹ as was the case with the Little Mix dispute.

On the other hand, wider measures, such as the introduction of the BSL Act 2022, may limit flexibility but will provide clarity for disabled individuals wishing to access an experience. This will then assist in changing attitudes, enabling access to services generally. Lawson and Orchard indicate that incorporating measures to determine certain steps should always or never be regarded as reasonable to assist service providers in adhering to the legal requirements. ¹⁸² Ensuring regulations for interpreting the reasonableness of an adjustment for service providers is considered to be useful. ¹⁸³ Such regulations should include the provision of a BSL interpreter in different contexts (e.g., live indoor entertainment and live outdoor events such as festivals) and should include ‘special considerations’, such as access to the whole event. Service providers should not ignore the impact of the BSL Act 2022 in ensuring the provision of an interpreter for an experience as this will ultimately have an impact on assessing reasonableness. Now the BSL Act 2022 is in force, service providers responsible for events that include an experience have no choice but to consider the legal status of BSL by considering other factors that are not contained in the Code of Practice, which they may not have considered in determining the reasonableness of an adjustment concerning access. What this could potentially mean in practice is that the courts should or may consider whether a service provider has adhered to the relevant provisions under the BSL Act 2022, such as promoting BSL or recognising BSL in their assessment of reasonableness under the EqA 2010. ¹⁸⁴

Effectiveness of the duty now assessing reasonableness: Little mix and the BSL act 2022

As can be seen in live entertainment, it is often difficult to determine when the duty is discharged where the core service is live entertainment or, to put it another way, where the experience is the core of the service. These are situations that require a different approach to determining reasonableness. Therefore, it is hoped that the Little Mix decision will assist in clarifying when an adjustment may be deemed to be reasonable. BSL is not referred to specifically in the EqA 2010; therefore, it is very much a case of judicial interpretation of the decisions in case law ‘… to determine what constitutes a “reasonable adjustment”’. ¹⁸⁵ Lawson and Orchard has suggested carefully drafted regulations or standards for specific types of steps or situations, including those from the Deaf community needing access to an experience. ¹⁸⁶ These recommendations, to some extent, have arguably been implemented following the introduction of the BSL Act 2022 in terms of recognising BSL as a language. In addition, the requirement to report and provide guidance on the use of BSL will strengthen BSL users’ legal rights. ¹⁸⁷ This means that there is some guidance for certain groups of the community, in this case, the Deaf community, which is useful for service providers in terms of access to live entertainment where the core of the service is an experience. This is much different to physical access to premises or access to transport, which is the current focus of the case law and literature to date in this area, and which provides certainty to some extent. ¹⁸⁸

The Little Mix decision is further evidence of the weakness of anticipatory duty not working effectively in practice in terms of access to an experience. The drafting of the EqA 2010 has not assisted with claims concerning the anticipatory duty as it is silent in determining reasonableness. ¹⁸⁹ It does not stipulate a minimum requirement (similar to Norway) to provide access to services for disabled individuals but rather imposes a legal duty ¹⁹⁰ through the reasonable adjustment duty to ensure ‘…a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard normally offered to the public at large’. ¹⁹¹ Uncertainty and confusion remain, and this decision adds to the confusion and uncertainty in terms of a live experience, particularly the Deaf community accessing a service. Interestingly, the ruling has clarified the legal obligation to an extent, although it is unclear how far the duty has been and will be stretched in terms of ‘special considerations’ or ‘special treatment’ regarding a service provider’s duty to ensure access to an event where the core service is an experience. Arguably, it has clarified the extent to which a service provider must make reasonable adjustments for BSL users requiring such access.

It remains unclear whether the legal reasoning in this decision would apply to experiences in different settings such as festivals, which are different in comparison to single-stage concerts. The Code of Practice provides some guidance in assessing what is reasonable in all circumstances. However, this will differ in each case and, therefore, is case-specific. ¹⁹² This arguably muddies the water, which ultimately adds to the uncertainty and complexity of the duty generally but, more importantly, in terms of accessing an experience. It is a continuous struggle to change attitudes and preconceived ideas about disability in terms of the lived experience of Deaf individuals, especially where the core of the service is an experience which should be enjoyed by all. This makes it difficult for the Deaf community to participate in public life; thus, Deaf service users wanting access to an experience continue to be excluded from mainstream activities enjoyed by the public at large. ¹⁹³

Although there is legislation now to ensure the provision of BSL to enable those from the Deaf community who rely on BSL to participate in public life, having a separate Code of Practice may enhance visibility, ¹⁹⁴ outlining special considerations, such as those mentioned in the Little Mix ruling, as the current statutory provisions and guidance contained in the Code of Practice have been proven to be insufficient regarding an experience. It is early days to review the effectiveness of the BSL Act 2022 in ensuring access for the Deaf community and, ultimately, transforming attitudes. However, what is clear is that following the Little Mix county court decision, it is almost certain that the provision of an interpreter for a live concert will always be considered a reasonable adjustment to make or provide under the EqA 2010. ¹⁹⁵ This has been further strengthened by the enactment of the BSL Act 2022, making BSL an official language, the profile of which has led to the requirement of the secretary of state to report on its promotion and facilitation. ¹⁹⁶

Conclusion

The requirements in terms of accessing a live experience are more complex where the core service is an experience. Clear guidance has long been needed for those from the Deaf community and service providers to ensure proactive steps are taken to ensure access to all where the core of the service is an experience. It is hoped that the Little Mix decision will provide some guidance and clarity and will assist service providers in ensuring full access. In addition, the BSL Act 2022 may strengthen the requirement to provide BSL as a reasonable adjustment under the EqA 2010.

Ensuring access to a live experience is problematic for service providers and much different from access to premises (physical features) and access to travel (such as a bus service). More needs to be done to ensure Deaf disabled individuals are not excluded from mainstream activities, particularly the entertainment industry. In practice, the reasonable adjustment duty seems to operate better in the employment sector even though problems remain. ¹⁹⁷ If the law remains unclear, more cases are likely to follow if there are no special considerations undertaken, although, as noted earlier, access to the legal system is limited due to the cost of bringing a claim and the likelihood of success.

Although the Little Mix case is instructive in providing some guidance to service providers for indoor live concerts in terms of the threshold for making reasonable adjustments, there may be limitations as to how this duty operates in different settings; for example, where the live event takes place outside, such as an outdoor festival. This inevitably calls for service providers to consider special considerations beyond what is contained in the Code of Practice by being creative in exploring adjustments to ensure full access to the experience. If this is the case, the law may have to assess and reassess the reasonableness of an adjustment by proactively making reasonable adjustments on a case-by-case basis. Further considerations to those adjustments included in the Code of Practice will assist in breaking down barriers, and challenging attitudes and perceptions regarding disability, leading to greater inclusion for the Deaf community wanting access to an experience. ¹⁹⁸

The introduction of the BSL Act 2022 in the UK should assist in determining the threshold to make reasonable adjustments clearer to service providers, highlighting the legal status. Service providers should, therefore, now be proactive in making or seeking reasonable adjustments to ensure the provision of BSL to enable access. Service providers must now (although this has always been the case) anticipate any potential adjustments in advance for those wanting access to events by considering special considerations. This would involve ensuring the provision of BSL for events, although this has not been incorporated into the EqA 2010 or contained in the Code of Practice. This not only applies beforehand to a service provider who wishes to offer a service but is highlighted in the Code of Practice as a continuing duty. ¹⁹⁹

The BSL Act 2022 will encourage or, in some cases, force service providers to provide access by ensuring the provision of a BSL interpreter, not only for events that involve an experience but across all services. This will promote access for the Deaf community that uses BSL as a main form of communication and transform attitudes by going a step further. Although BSL access has improved, access to services remains an issue for those with a hearing impairment who are not BSL users. Poor service announcements on trains, along with broken hearing loops, are evidence that more work is required and should go beyond enabling access not just for those who use BSL but also for those from the Deaf community who do not use it as a main form of communication. These barriers still exist and are problematic for those requiring access to services. Acknowledgement of these barriers has led to more awareness and made access for Deaf users a priority on the government’s agenda, as seen by the BSL Act 2022 recently receiving royal assent.