Debate contribution: Sign Language Bill
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 4 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Sign Language Bill
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4625732
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Given the sign language Bill's cross-cutting nature, I have received Executive approval for my officials to engage formally with the Office of the Legislative Counsel for the drafting of clauses for a Bill that will recognise and promote British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language. Engagement with the Office of the Legislative Counsel is ongoing, and the drafting of clauses is well advanced. Therefore, it is my intention to bring a draft sign language Bill to the Executive for approval at the earliest opportunity. The sign language Bill will have a significantly positive and beneficial impact on the local deaf community. I look forward to delivering legislation that will improve the lives of many by enabling greater access to information and services that society at large takes for granted. My Department is investing in increasing British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language interpreting capacity. That is vital in order to increase the accessibility of public services, which will be a central aim of the Bill. As the legislation is cross-cutting in nature, however, I will seek Executive approval for the central allocation of the resources necessary to deliver on the policy intent of the legislation.
195 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.85).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.86 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.14 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:28 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.