Debate contribution: Sign Language Bill: Extension of Committee Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .
- MLA
- Mr Robbie Butler
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 11 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Committee Business
- Heading
- Sign Language Bill: Extension of Committee Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4855622
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Chair of the Committee for Communities for that update. It was a very worthy and worthwhile update, and I welcome just about everything that he shared. I particularly like the way that he set out in detail how the Committee will consult the deaf community and the way in which deaf people will be included in that consultation in their own language. Will the Committee Chair help me with a couple of issues? There is no doubt that the impact of this legislation will be that young people will, potentially, see the best and most effective change in their life outcomes. Has the Committee had any talks, at this stage, on how it can engage with members of the community who are under 18 and ensure that they have a voice? It is also about our elder community. We had a debate on that subject two weeks ago: a private Member's motion that was brought by Claire Sugden. We must ensure that we are not forgetting or neglecting our obligations towards our elders and older members of the community who are deaf. They could provide essential testimony as to the impacts and their life experiences. I understand and accept that, whilst it seems like a long extension to request, it is much better that we get it right than get it done.
225 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: 0.04 (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 (0.86).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:15 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.