Member's statement: BSL Interpreters: Healthcare Settings
Member's statement by Ms Cara Hunter on .
- MLA
- Ms Cara Hunter
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 21 October 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- BSL Interpreters: Healthcare Settings
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5197183
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I rise to speak on the important issue of the lack of access to interpreters in our healthcare service for those who are in the deaf community. I recently spoke with a young woman who spoke about how both of her parents are deaf and have struggled profusely to get appropriate access to the NHS and to their local GP. That really is due to the challenges and the lack of training that we have seen for some of our healthcare workers. She highlighted the fact that, sadly, that is a common issue across the deaf community and across the North, and she raised with me the fact that, many times, deaf parents have to rely on their children to make important phone calls on such things as mortgages and banking issues. She said that, right across the public sector, we really struggle with appropriate email services and in ensuring that we are reaching out to those in the deaf community. She highlighted one incident from a few weeks ago where her father, who has type 2 diabetes, was very ill. They rang ahead to the local hospital to ensure that a BSL interpreter was provided, and, when they landed at the hospital, they became aware that, sadly, there was no interpreter and that, again, it would fall on the shoulders of both children to try to interpret to healthcare staff. I really think that that is absolutely unacceptable. Lots of time was given for the arrangements to be made, and, sadly, it was three hours before an interpreter arrived at the hospital. I have to highlight that concern as a matter of equality. We all have a right to equal access to healthcare. She also noted that the signposting and awareness of and public messaging on BSL interpreters was minimal. Access to interpreters for different languages for newcomers to our community was highlighted, and she felt really strongly that BSL and sign-supported English were not adequately signposted or that the public messaging was not appropriate. Following her father's attending hospital, she reached out to her GP to try to get things set up there for a BSL interpreter. The family was told that the GP did not know who to call or how to access that, and, again, it fell on the shoulders of the children to interpret for their parents. I am asking the Health Minister to reassess how we go about supporting people in the deaf community to access healthcare to ensure that each and every citizen — every constituent — has an equal right when getting the help that they so rightfully deserve.
437 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: 0.05 (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 (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| 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 13:31 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.