Debate contribution: Sign Language Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on 24 March 2026.

MLA

Mr Gordon Lyons

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

24 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Sign Language Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5463088

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move amendment No 1:

The amendments that I have tabled to clause 2 do not alter the intention of the Bill; rather, they refine and strengthen it. Clause 2 places a statutory duty on my Department to actively promote British Sign Language (BSL), Irish Sign Language (ISL) and deaf culture across Northern Ireland. That includes ensuring access to sign language classes for deaf children and young people and their families or carers. The clause transforms recognition of the languages into practical action, ensures increased visibility, awareness and understanding of BSL and ISL not just in public life but in wider society, working in partnership with the deaf community. That is where meaningful change begins. A priority of the Bill is ensuring early access to sign language, which is vital for communication development, educational progress and family relationships. Making early access a departmental responsibility will remove barriers and ensure consistent and equitable support for families. The amendments were tabled following constructive engagement with the Committee and deaf organisations that deliver classes, and through legal refinement by the Office of the Legislative Council (OLC). The amendments guarantee that classes will be free of charge, now and for future generations. The age threshold will rise to include young persons of up to 25 years of age, reflecting developmental, educational and transitional needs. The Queen's University Belfast report on free sign language classes for deaf children and families, which was commissioned by my Department, demonstrates that early exposure to sign language improves communication, social development, educational attainment and emotional well-being. Families learning together and being able to do so without financial barriers creates the strongest foundation for children's confidence and development. Free access would prevent inequality by ensuring that support does not depend on a family's ability to pay. Economic analysis by the British Deaf Association (BDA) found that early acquisition of sign language is an investment in children and young people, and, for the public purse, every £1 invested in early British Sign Language provision yields up to £14 in lifetime benefits, boosting education, employment and health outcomes for deaf children in society. That demonstrates that early years sign language support produces long-term personal, social and economic gains. That is the case for British Sign Language, as well as for Irish Sign Language. Amendment No 2 is consequential to amendment No 3. Following the Committee's request that my Department consider amending the age threshold for family classes from including those under 19 years of age to including those of up to 25 years of age, my officials engaged with the National Deaf Children's Society (NDCS), which strongly supports raising the age threshold to include those under the age of 25, noting that language and communication development for deaf young people continues into their early 20s. Families remain central to communication support, even as young people transition towards independence. The period from 19 years of age to 25 years of age includes major transitions such as the move to further and higher education or training and employment, all of which create new communication pressures. Many statutory frameworks already recognise extended needs beyond the age of 18, including the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 and support for education and training up to the age of 24 under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. In England, the Children and Families Act 2014 provides special educational needs and disability support up to the age of 25. The NDCS therefore regards raising the age threshold as being consistent, fair and aligned with modern developmental pathways, and its services extend to those aged 25 for precisely those reasons.

The amendments ensure that families will never face financial barriers when seeking essential sign language support. Deaf children and young people up to the age of 25 can access classes that directly support communication development, educational participation and healthier family relationships. The provision aligns with best practice across comparable children's services. The Bill delivers practical, meaningful support to those who rely on early and ongoing access to signed communication. For those reasons, I tabled an amendment to clause 2 that inserts "free of charge" into the duty to provide sign language classes and an amendment that replaces references to "deaf children under 19" with "young persons who are deaf under 25 years of age". Those changes strengthen the Bill, reflecting evidence from Queen's University Belfast, deaf organisations, Action Deaf Youth, the British Deaf Association and the National Deaf Children's Society. They ensure that families and young people receive the support that they need during the most critical developmental years, and they ensure that the Bill keeps pace with the real needs of deaf children and young people and their families. I come now to amendment No 4, which will be moved by Kellie Armstrong. Clause 2 places a statutory duty on my Department to actively promote BSL, ISL and deaf culture across Northern Ireland. As I have made clear, a key element of that is ensuring access to sign language classes for deaf children and young people and their families and carers, especially during those crucial developmental years. I have therefore sought to embed that principle in primary legislation and have secured Executive approval for that provision in the Bill that I introduced in February 2025. I do not oppose support for adults who become deaf: on the contrary, as I will explain. However, the Bill is about sign language promotion, not broader disability policy. The issue of providing classes for those aged 25 and above who become deaf was raised during Committee scrutiny. My officials advised the Committee that primary legislation was not required to offer the classes. My Department already provides accredited BSL and ISL qualifications across Northern Ireland; taster sessions across schools and the voluntary and community sector; and classes for children of deaf adults. It does all of that without primary legislation. My officials' engagement with deaf sector organisations and Health and Social Care (HSC) sensory support indicates very low demand for classes for deafened adults. My officials were advised that many adults who become deaf already rely on a first language and do not wish to adopt a new language. There is, therefore, demand for modern assistive technologies — hearing aids, implants, captioning, speech to text — to meet many communication needs. Practical adjustments such as lip-reading or clear speech are often preferred to learning a full new language. Many deafened adults do not identify with the signing community. However, where there is a wish by some deafened adults to explore sign language, they may attend classes in further education colleges.

I do not necessarily believe that those changes will come about, because those who find themselves in the situation of becoming deaf later in life already have English or another language as their first language. As I have just said, the demand is low. Where demand exists, it is for modern assistive technologies. I recognise that the Member is shaking her head, but that is the evidence that we have. That is what we have been told. I know that she has a different viewpoint on that, and I know that her experience is one that she will speak to, but this is coming from direct engagement with deaf sector organisations. It is coming directly from Health and Social Care sensory support, which has told us that there is very low demand and that people want to see investment in hearing aids, implants, captioning and speech to text. We often talk in this place about the importance of co-design and listening to the experts. That is what I am following in this instance. I am happy to give way to Mr Donnelly, if he wants to come in.

We are digressing, but I assure the Member that that is an issue that I have looked at. I have looked at the evidence, and I suggest that it is not as clear-cut as the Member thinks it is. Regardless, on this, I am going on what the experts have told us about what we have in front of us. The Member has a different view, and she will be able to explain that. There is a difference between deafness acquired late in life and deafness that has been there since childhood; and, secondly, it is what people want. I concede that some people would like sign language classes — that is why provision for those has been made — but I do not believe that we need to put that into primary legislation now. I enter into this genuinely, and I am content to listen to what the Member has to say and the evidence that she brings forward. We will engage in that in a genuine way. It is also worth pointing out that many deafened adults do not identify with the signing community, as I have said, but there will be an opportunity for that to be explored further. This is a Sign Language Bill that is designed to recognise both sign languages and to improve the lives of the deaf community; it is not intended to replace existing disability legislation. It is based around the culture and languages of the deaf community. However, choice and identity are at its core. My Department takes seriously its duties with regard to promoting BSL, ISL and deaf culture as widely as possible across society. Therefore, as a result of the discussions with the deaf sector and the Department of Health, my Department will fund a limited pilot programme of BSL and ISL classes for deafened adults and their families to assess the demand for such classes and to explore curriculum need. The lessons learned from the pilot will be shared with deaf organisations and Department of Health officials to consider the merits of access to such classes alongside the existing supports as outlined. Subject to further discussions with delivery partners, it is anticipated that those classes will launch in the coming weeks. I refer to the reference within the amendment that:

"The Department may by regulations subject to negative resolution provide for a fee to be payable for classes provided under subsection (4)."

For context, although there is a reference to fees in clause 10 — fees that my Department has no intention of collecting presently — I have agreed to the Communities Committee's request to amend clause 10 from negative resolution to affirmative resolution, given the potential for the collection of fees. The negative procedure stipulated in amendment No 4 to directly impose new fees would be inappropriate for the same reasons, and it should be considered only under the affirmative process. For the reasons that I have outlined, I do not believe that such classes require provision in primary legislation. Furthermore, the suggested statutory procedure for imposing fees is inappropriate. I move now to clause 4 and the further amendment from Kellie Armstrong. As the Bill stands, it is unnecessary, as the "Chapter" referenced in clause 4(5) is chapter 1, which the clause is in. However, it can be seen as consequential if the Member's amendment is successful. I have outlined my opposition to the Member's amendment at clause 2, and I have outlined my view that, if that amendment is carried, for the purposes of consistency, affirmative resolution is the appropriate route. I also refer to my agreement to the Committee's request to amend clause 4(5) to replace regulations by negative resolution with affirmative resolution. The Member is, of course, part of that Committee, and she made it clear that she is not in favour of the use of negative resolution. That brings us on to amendment No 6. Clause 4 provides the Department with the statutory powers to list in regulations the public bodies that will be required to take the reasonable steps outlined in clause 3. The amendment is technical in nature and clarifies how the Department must, by regulations, list public bodies as prescribed organisations for the purposes of the Bill. The Committee had requested that, rather than listing public bodies as prescribed organisations by negative resolution, the Department should use affirmative resolution. My officials were of the view that that is an administrative duty and that negative resolution would provide a proportionate level of scrutiny for such an administrative exercise and would also expedite the listing of public bodies to ensure that they are subject to the duties of this —.

Is it just amendment Nos 1 to 5?

In that case, I will move on to amendment No 22. I apologise to the House for that. I thought that amendment No 6 was in group 1, but, if that is not the case, I will move on and make a few brief comments about amendment No 22. Membership of the deaf community needs to be factual in order to work everywhere else referred to in the Bill. Key rights to access services and information correctly turn on the actual use of or reliance on sign language. Therefore, this is not about a hypothesis, an abstract or a potential benefit from using sign language but, rather, is about guaranteeing access to services for deaf or deafblind people who normally rely on BSL or ISL in the present. Deaf or deafblind sign language learners now — for example, deaf children — may well become users who rely on sign language in the future and would automatically have rights under the Bill at that point. The amendment would undermine the intention and purpose of the Bill, as it would place sign language users who rely on BSL or ISL and those who could hypothetically benefit from sign language in the future on an equal footing under defined membership of the deaf community. That is not the intent of the Bill. If I were to learn sign language, I could get a future benefit from that. However, I should not be in the same category as those who rely on it. That is the distinction, and that is the policy intent of the Bill. I am happy to give way to the Member, if she wants to comment on that, but that is the case. That brings me to the end of group 1.

2,370 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:15 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.

Challenge this classification