Debate contribution: Sign Language Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on 18 February 2025.

MLA: Mr Gordon Lyons
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 18 February 2025
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Sign Language Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4806697

Text

I sincerely thank all the Members who contributed to the debate for their remarks. I am thankful to the Chair of the Committee and for the contributions from other Committee members and Members of the Assembly. It is fair to say that, today, the deaf community in Northern Ireland has brought the Chamber together. There have been so many positive comments flying about, that it has been like a love-in in here. I can guarantee you, though, that it will last all of five minutes
but for that period, you have brought us together and we are very thankful. I have to say that it was really great to see everybody here today. In particular, a short time ago, I looked up at the Gallery, and there were some children there, laughing, smiling and signing to one another. That is really great to see, and I want to make sure that this place is as accessible as possible. I thank Pam Cameron, who worked with me in 2019 and 2020 to write to the then Speaker to encourage greater accessibility to this place for those from the deaf community. As a result, we have interpreters, who come along and make this place more accessible. I am very pleased that that is happening. I thank all those in the Gallery today. I am not sure whether this is appropriate — we do not normally do it — but I do want to thank the officials, because it has been a labour of many years to get us to this point. We are very grateful for that as well. I listened carefully to the points that were made by Members during the debate. I start by thanking the Chair for the comments that he made on behalf of the Committee and reminding us of the event that took place in June in the Long Gallery. It was a reminder for us of the reason that we are here today. He also, rightly, acknowledged the patience of the deaf community. This Bill has been a long time coming — too long — but I am glad that we are finally at this stage. He recognised the importance of the Bill and that the Committee stands behind its general principles. I thank Mr Kingston for his support and, importantly, for outlining what sign language actually is and how important it is that we make progress on it. I also thank Kellie Armstrong for her comments and, in particular, for the fact that she recognised many of the individuals who made today possible. She mentioned Jordanstown School in my constituency, which I had the pleasure of visiting last year. It was a fantastic visit, and it is a truly wonderful school that does fantastic work. Ms Armstrong asked a number of questions. Although she is supportive of the Bill's general principles, she has a number of questions, which will be answered throughout the process, and we will be happy to address those. However, just to address some of them now: she particularly asked what "promote" actually means and whether I could give a definition of that. We will produce best practice guidance. That will be co-designed with the deaf community, through the sign language partnership group. She will find that, as with so much of the Bill — the bodies that it applies to, best practice and definitions — that will be done alongside the deaf community because it is particularly important that its views are noted in that regard. She also asked how the legislation's success would be measured. That will be done through the five-year review. It will be an independent report in collaboration with Departments, the deaf sector and the sign language partnership group. A number of Members raised the issue of the five years. That was to give time for the legislation to bed in and to properly review it. However, I am more than open to considering amendments to that or, perhaps, looking at what we can do one, two or three years in, rather than a full review, although that can be considered. We could also look at the possibility of doing an initial report, perhaps an internal one, as to how the legislation is working. I hope that those who are in the Gallery and watching online today will see that this is actually part of the legislative process. We do not just present something on the table and decide whether to say yes or no. We debate and we try to make improvements. I am happy to do that. As regards the "prescribed organisations", again that is something that we will develop in collaboration with the community and other interested stakeholders. Kellie Armstrong also made a comment in relation to cost, and I understand where she is coming from: we do not want to make the cost a barrier or to use that as an excuse.
However, there are examples of how it may be unnecessary for us to provide certain services in some circumstances. For example, I am sure that the deaf community might like an interpretation of some of the significant announcements that we make in the House, such as what my colleague Mr Givan has been doing in relation to the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme or what I have been doing in relation to the winter fuel payment scheme.
No offence to Mr Muir, but the Radioactive Substances (Fees and Charges) Scheme (Northern Ireland) 2024, which the Minister released last year, may not be as high up the public agenda. It is about balance and what is reasonable, and not all information needs to be provided. We need to consider the key information that improves access to public services. That is what we will be looking at doing. I mentioned the need to ensure that we liaise closely with those who will be most affected by the legislation. There are not necessarily any penalties attached to the Bill. However, there is a statutory duty to comply, and there will be avenues of redress, as always, if people fail to meet their statutory duties. I welcome Robbie Butler's comments. He said that the legislation needs to deliver "real transformative change", and I absolutely agree with him. I have no intention of passing a Bill that just says "Sign Language" on the cover; it needs to make a difference and ensure that we have access to information and public services. He also mentioned the importance of rural proofing, and I am interested in that as someone who represents a rural constituency. When I went to Action Deaf Youth, I met young people who had travelled from Cookstown to avail themselves of those services. I hope that, through the provisions that we put in place, those services can be extended beyond Belfast. He mentioned the need for proper accreditation for interpreters, and that will be covered in the Bill as well. Mr McGrath was very positive. He made some good comments, so that is one for the history books. He said that it was important that we were here to legislate, and the leader of the Opposition is always keen to point out that we need to legislate more. Well, today, we are doing that. Straight after this, I will move the Further Consideration Stage of the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Bill, and I have already taken through the Defective Premises Act (Northern Ireland) 2024. There are lots of examples of legislation that I have brought forward, but he is right to mention that it is good to make legislative changes today. I am more than happy to work with colleagues in the Departments of Education and Health as he outlined. He importantly raised the issue of the news bulletins, and that was a regressive step. We should see how we can ensure that people have access, but, more than that, we need to normalise sign language. The news bulletins were a part of daily life for those in the hearing community as well, and that has now gone. Carál Ní Chuilín is no longer in her place, but I agree with what she said about the work of officials and the perseverance of the deaf community over the past number of years. I thank her for her comments about the sign language at the start of my contribution. It is important that people can have that sort of access. I thank Cheryl Brownlee for her contribution. She clearly recognised today's significance. For me, the phrase that stood out from her contribution was "equal footing", and that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to make sure that everybody in Northern Ireland can access information and services on the same basis. I thank Sian Mulholland for her contribution. She clearly highlighted the importance of implementation, and I am very keen on that. I want the Bill to be passed as quickly as possible. It will be great to have the Act in place, but we need to make sure that we have the follow-on from the legislation as well. Whether schools will be included is a decision that will be made when we look at the prescribed organisations. The Member also mentioned the shift in practice that we need to see and the importance of early intervention, which is something that we are responsible for, and do, in the Department. Early intervention in whatever area can make a real difference. Mr Brett talked about the real impact that we can make in this place, and I think that we can. Today is a good example of that. He is sitting beside Mrs Dodds, who introduced the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill, which I was able to take through the Assembly and enact when I was Minister for the Economy. The now Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2022 and this Bill are two good examples of how we can make a difference in Northern Ireland. Mr Brett went on to say that he is often critical of me. He has never been critical of me to my face, so perhaps he is critical of me to others, because he is always telling me what a good job I am doing. He is an excellent advocate for his constituency, and he always brings me issues, with which I endeavour to help him. I very much appreciate his kind words, and he is right: today is a good day for Northern Ireland. It represents further delivery, which is what we want to see in this place. He is absolutely right about the consultation. We will be engaging with service users, and it is very important that we do so. I thank Joanne Bunting for her contribution and for her history of involvement with the issue. The story that she told about her personal experience highlights so much of what we are trying to fix today, which is people's embarrassment and their shrugging of shoulders because they have become so used to the isolation that comes with using sign language. That is what we want to change. We want to make sure that people have access to information and to services. In doing that, we can make sure that we deal with the isolation that so many people so often feel. Danny Donnelly welcomed what we are trying to do through the Bill. He made a number of points on which I will come back to him directly. The Bill's objectives line up with the objectives in our disability strategy and with the Department's wider ambitions. It is important to note, however, that what we are doing through the Bill is different from some of the other equality legislation that is in place. Before I conclude, I will return to my reasons for introducing the Bill. The deaf community advises us that disability legislation is not the appropriate instrument by which to ensure access to information and services through linguistic and cultural recognition. The Sign Language Bill does that. The deaf community advises us that disability legislation does not support the promotion of the rights of the deaf community to develop deaf culture. The Sign Language Bill does that. The deaf community advises us that disability legislation does not, through the promotion of BSL and ISL, provide for classes for deaf children and their families. The Sign Language Bill does that. The social exclusion of sign language users is a pervasive issue that affects their ability to participate fully in society, and, despite sign language's being a legitimate and rich form of communication — a language — many deaf individuals continue to face significant barriers that hinder their involvement in everyday activities. Moreover, societal attitudes often contribute to the exclusion of sign language users. Misconceptions about deafness and sign language can lead to discrimination, stigmatisation and a lack of awareness of deaf individuals' capabilities and contributions, and that can result in limited opportunities for them in the workforce and hinder their overall social integration. In summary, the social exclusion of sign language users is a multifaceted issue that is rooted in accessibility barriers, communication challenges and societal attitudes. To foster an inclusive society, it is essential to address those challenges by promoting awareness, by providing resources and by ensuring that sign language is recognised and valued as an integral mode of communication. The Sign Language Bill does that. The Bill tells us that BSL and ISL are languages. When we accept that, we can foster that inclusive society, thus ensuring that sign language users can fully participate in it, and address the feelings of isolation and frustration to which I previously referred. Moreover, the societal attitudes that often contribute to the exclusion of sign language users, through misconceptions about deafness and sign language that may lead to discrimination and stigma, can be eradicated. I hope that I have dealt with all the issues that Members raised. I am sincerely appreciative of the support around the Chamber for the Bill. It is not the end — there is more work to do, and I will be open to any improvements that people come forward with — but today is a good day and a positive step forward. I commend the Bill to the House.

2,379 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