Debate contribution: Sign Language Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Kellie Armstrong on 18 February 2025.

MLA: Ms Kellie Armstrong
Party at the time: Alliance Party
Date: 18 February 2025
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Sign Language Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4806634

Text

I thank the Minister and congratulate him on bringing forward this long-awaited Sign Language Bill. As many in the House know, I have moderate hearing loss and am a double hearing-aid wearer. As a member of the deaf and hard of hearing community, I welcome the confirmation that British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language will be formally recognised as languages in their own right through this legislation. That formal recognition is important for all who use BSL or ISL. I pay tribute to all the campaigners who have lobbied for so many years for their first language to be recognised. I thank all those involved in promoting and supporting sign language across Northern Ireland. I will specifically mention John Carberry —
— a great guy who explained to me why some people use Irish Sign Language and others use British Sign Language: years ago, people were sent to school in Dublin and therefore learnt Irish Sign Language, whereas, in more modern times, a lot of young people have been sent to school in England and have learnt British Sign Language. Thanks very much to John, whom I have met on many occasions and who is so encouraging and helpful to those of us in the community. I thank Majella McAteer and Adam McCormick — I declare an interest in that Adam McCormick is a cousin of my husband — of the British Deaf Association for all their work. I recognise the work of Damian Barry, who contributed to the 10-year roadmap and its review. I also thank Jordanstown School — or, to give it its full title, Jordanstown, the Northern Ireland School and Centre of Excellence for Children who are Deaf or Visually Impaired — which I was lucky enough to visit, and the pupils who highlighted why the inclusion of people who are deaf and hard of hearing must be improved across all public services and throughout society. As a seasoned member of the Communities Committee — a good way of saying that I have been here a while — I look forward to the Committee Stage, when we will consider the 15 clauses in detail. Today, at Second Stage, I will raise some queries about the main principles of the Sign Language Bill. That is not to say that I disagree with the Bill — I absolutely support it and look forward to its progressing — but there are some issues that I would like to understand better. In clause 2, the Bill proposes that it is the lead Department's duty to promote:
"the greater use and understanding of British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language".
It includes an obligation to ensure the availability of classes for:
"close families, guardians and carers, to learn (or improve proficiency in)"
BSL and ISL. While those provisions are very welcome, I would like to understand better what is meant by the term "promote". What will the strategic plan and measurement of success be to determine "greater use and understanding" of BSL and ISL? Without mention of investment, it is difficult to ascertain how successfully that will be delivered. In clause 2(2), the Bill highlights the need to provide classes. It specifies the need to support the "families, guardians and carers" of children who are deaf. I agree that we should provide much more access to learning, but I would have preferred a more holistic approach to sign language classes to ensure that all of society is better able to communicate with people who use BSL and ISL. Making access equal for everyone will go a long way to reducing the isolation and loneliness of adults who have hearing loss in later life or who have had their hearing damaged through accident or injury. Promoting and providing learning to all would enable people to retain communication with others, reducing the isolation and social exclusion experienced by so many of our older adults. During a briefing to the Committee, officials pointed out that classes would be open to everyone. However, by specifically naming support for families and carers of children, the Bill does not convey that to me. Clause 3 uses the term "prescribed organisations"; not "proscribed", which is something completely different and refers to banned terrorist organisations. It is "prescribed organisations". I raised that issue with officials. I have to say that that terminology is unusual. It is difficult to locate a definition of the term "prescribed", and the Bill does not specify clearly enough which organisations those will be. In order to ensure that every organisation that is required to take reasonable steps understands that it is included under the legislation, I will need to know more than what has been provided to date. I am a great believer in keeping things simple and transparent, and I may consider an amendment if it could improve the clarity in that regard. Clause 3(2)(b) provides a "Get out of jail free" card for organisations that have taken account of affordability matters when determining how their respective circumstances comply with the provisions of the Bill. I do not believe that affordability is an acceptable excuse for failing to provide sign language communications. If an organisation is required by law to recognise sign language as a language of Northern Ireland, it should have made provisions to ensure that communications are available in the languages of Northern Ireland, so I look forward to drawing out more detail on that clause during Committee Stage. While clause 4 confirms that all Departments are automatically included in regulations and that a list of prescribed organisations will be included in regulations, as explained earlier, there needs to be a clear rationale for who will appear on the list and who will not. I feel that this reference in clause 4(4) is too loose:
"persons or groups exercising functions of a public character."
For example, will a privately owned care home, a private domiciliary care provider or a charity-operated nursery be required to offer or facilitate sign language? Clause 5(3) confirms that guidance will be provided and that that guidance will be developed in consultation with the prescribed organisation and:
"at least one person or group appearing to the Department to be acting on behalf of the deaf community."
While the intention of the clause is not to exclude people who are deaf, it would be more user-friendly to include a requirement to co-design and co-produce guidance with an appropriate cross section of people who use BSL and ISL. I believe that it would be helpful for all the guidance — all that great work — and the reviews of the guidance to be laid before the Assembly. I would also like to know what the process will be should a prescribed organisation not provide reasonable steps in line with the guidelines produced. With whom will deaf people raise concerns when the guidance has not been followed or if the guidance does not meet the need? What penalties or repercussions will there be if the guidance is not followed by a body that is listed in the regulations? I will move to clause 7. I am concerned that, as the lead Department, Communities will not be able to confer specific functions on Northern Ireland Departments. That is outlined in clause 7(3)(a). That is disappointing: it would be progressive to, for example, require Education to provide a GCSE or equivalent in sign language or require Health to ensure that sign language interpretation is available in labour wards when a women who is deaf is giving birth. I have a recent example of a family who use sign language but were not provided with communications in their first language — BSL — while the woman was giving birth. The lack of availability of an interpreter meant that that family had a very traumatic experience. Had staff had access to training and the ability to use sign language, it would have been a more inclusive experience. I would like to know whether the Department is prepared to include in clause 9 the publication of an Executive sign language strategy and action plan to ensure that the report outlined in clause 9 can be scrutinised against set objectives by the Assembly and the public. Finally, I have gone into some detail on the clauses, and I have done so as I believe that we have the opportunity to deliver legislation that will create a more progressive and inclusive society for people who are deaf or hard of hearing and especially those who communicate through BSL and ISL. I look forward to hearing from the Minister later and to working on the legislation during Committee Stage and future stages.

1,444 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification