I have difficulty in understanding why BSL is required by non-deaf persons: BSL is the language best suited to deaf:deaf communication; unless one is very proficient, as are some non-deaf BSL users and all deaf persons due to early learning and continuous practice, then signing will be relatively slow, much slower than text.
Until the 1950's in the UK , the dominant method of intra deaf communication was fingerspelling, and those who were proficient could communicate very fast by today's signing standards, as some users still do, and faster and more accurately than signing without spelling; signing was ancillary to fingerspelling, with perhaps 100 signs for terms (now the basis of what we call BSL) in every day use.
With improved education standards post 1945 and with the late 20thc/early 21c wide-spread use of tv subtitles, email, sms texting, social media on the internet, and internet access to news and current affairs, English language comprehension and understanding in the deaf community expanded to a level equivalent to that in most of the hearing community.
I appreciate that such views would be controversial on a site such as this, but I would be very interested in the thoughts of those who have an opinion on that subject.