Debate contribution: Sign Language Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on 24 March 2026.

MLA

Mr Mark Durkan

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

24 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Sign Language Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5463292

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I speak today on behalf of the SDLP. We are the official Opposition, but, on this occasion, there will be no opposition from us to any of the amendments. It would be great to see us all in agreement on something, because that does not happen in here often. As Members have said, this is important legislation. It is of immense value. It matters, and it will make a real difference to people's lives, as it will make things that little bit easier and fairer for them. It is good to be reminded that that is exactly what this place is meant to be about: we are meant to be delivering improvements for the people whom we represent. I thank the officials and all who have put so much work into the Bill to date. In particular, I commend the officials for their engagement and for their willingness to listen to and take on board most of the Committee's suggestions. I thank everyone who took the time to respond and contribute along the way, especially the deaf community, whose input has been vital. As a result, what was good legislation is now on the verge of becoming better legislation. For most of us, understanding and being understood is something that we take for granted. We move through our daily interactions without giving it a second thought, but that is far from being the case for so many in the deaf community. The consequences of not having access to the right support can be dire. Recent reports have highlighted deeply concerning cases in which interpreters have not been available in healthcare settings, resulting in misdiagnoses. In some instances, individuals receiving a cancer diagnosis felt that they were left trying to grasp life-changing news without the support or understanding that they needed. Receiving that kind of diagnosis is extremely difficult in any circumstances, but not being able to comprehend fully what it means makes an already distressing experience completely traumatic. Many individuals find themselves relying on family members or friends to interpret at GP or hospital appointments. They are giving up privacy just to understand information about their health. The same barriers present themselves across education, in the justice system and in access to welfare: they are everywhere. That is the reality that the Bill seeks to confront by stamping out the inequalities that jeopardise access to the basics and allow people to be left behind. Too often, those inequalities come at the cost of people's independence.

It is in that context that I turn to these amendments. We welcome the progress of the Bill and its clear commitment to promoting and protecting both British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the work of the Minister and my Committee colleagues on that. In particular, I pay tribute — this is also probably unusual here — to a Committee colleague from a different party, Kellie Armstrong, for her efforts to date on the draft legislation. I hope that the Bill will set out a clear direction and help to inform the kind of society that we want to build. We support the Minister's amendments, which, for the most part, address concerns and take on board issues that the Committee raised. They either tidy up or strengthen the Bill and, in many cases, do both. The Bill already makes provision for sign language classes for young people under the age of 25 and their families, guardians and carers. That is welcome and necessary, but we do not think that it goes far enough. Across the North, growing numbers of adults lose their hearing later in life through age, illness or other factors. Those people often find themselves navigating a sudden and profound change in how they communicate with the world around them. Too often, that change can prove isolating: they are no longer able to follow conversations at home; communication in the workplace becomes almost impossible; and socialising becomes too anxiety-inducing. Without access to the right support, those individuals risk becoming invisible and, ultimately, suffering a much lower quality of life in their later years. The Bill does not make sufficient provision for those individuals. We hope to have that addressed by the end of the debate. Legislation of this kind should not be framed too narrowly. Amendment Nos 4, 5 and 22 in the name of Ms Kellie Armstrong seek to address the gap directly by extending access to classes to all those who need them or would benefit from them. Amendment No 4 also provides the Department with the flexibility to introduce a fee for those classes on a cost-recovery basis should it choose to do so. That is a sensible approach. The Minister, in his opening remarks, cited low demand as the reason for not wanting or needing to put those changes in the Bill, but has stated his intention to roll out a pilot project to ascertain demand. If we are serious about breaking down barriers, those barriers need to be broken down for everyone; not just people who are born into the deaf community but those who come into it later in life. On the subject of sensible approaches, amendment No 3 further addresses that gap by providing more inclusive language that acknowledges those who acquire hearing loss later in life. Taken together, these amendments are relatively minor but extremely meaningful. They recognise that deafness happens for a variety of reasons and that communication needs can arise at any stage of life, and they aim to ensure that the Bill reflects that reality in a way that is both practical and forward looking. I understand entirely where Ms Armstrong is coming from on, and where she wants to go with, amendment No 22. I am not going to steal her thunder on it. It is bizarre that I am speaking on someone else's amendment. It is very much her amendment, and she will soon explain it, but I support her aim. I do, however, acknowledge the Minister's concern here as well. I encourage him to work with the amendment's proposer, the Committee and the sector to come up, at Further Consideration Stage, with a form of words that is somewhere in between "who normally use" and "who will benefit from using". I appreciate that there has been a discussion about what should or should not be prioritised at this stage, but legislation should set out a clear direction of travel. These amendments do just that. They provide flexibility to the Department, introduce safeguards around costs and expand the scope of the Bill to include people who would otherwise lose out. We cannot claim to be breaking down barriers with the Bill if we leave some people standing behind such barriers.

If we are serious about inclusion, we have to include everyone who needs or will need that provision.

1,148 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:16 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