Debate contribution: Sign Language Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on 24 March 2026.

MLA

Mr Robbie Butler

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

24 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Sign Language Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5463310

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The Ulster Unionist Party places on record its thanks to the Communities Committee staff and all those who have contributed to the work on the Bill, including the Minister and departmental staff. In particular, we recognise the valuable input from stakeholders and especially the many members of the deaf community who took the time to provide evidence and to share their lived experience, because that is what this legislation should, ultimately, reflect. Crucially, we also recognise the work of the Committee staff team who, as a number of Members have already mentioned, ensured that members of the deaf community were able to engage with the Committee Stage in a meaningful and impactful way. That engagement has clearly helped to shape the Bill in a meaningful way, and much of what is before us today reflects that excellent work. I turn to the group 1 amendments, "Sign language classes and definition of 'deaf community'". We broadly welcome the intent behind the amendments in group 1. At its core, the Bill is about access to sign language and getting that right early, which makes all the difference. Amendment No 1 puts beyond doubt that classes are to be provided free of charge. That reflects what was always understood, which is that cost should not be a barrier, particularly for children, young people and their families. Amendment No 3, which extends the definition of young people to persons under 25, is also sensible. It reflects the reality that support does not stop at 18 and that the transition into adulthood is a key period. Amendment No 2, which updates the wording in clause 2 from "deaf children" to "young people who are deaf", may seem minor, but it matters. The language that is used in the Bill will shape how it is delivered in practice. Ultimately, though, the test will be whether it delivers real and meaningful outcomes. Amendment No 22 proposes to shift the definition in clause 11 from those "who normally use" British Sign Language or Irish Sign Language to those "who will benefit from using" them. Again, that is a significant change. While we understand the intention behind it, the wording "will benefit from using" is much broader and less clearly defined. It moves away from those who rely on sign language in their day-to-day lives and potentially opens the scope of the Bill to a potentially much wider group. We are certainly listening to that part of the debate today. We are concerned that that will create uncertainty about who the Bill is intended to cover and potentially risks diluting its focus. We consider that the use of the phrase "who normally use" is a more grounded and workable definition for the purpose of this legislation. Those who lose their hearing later in life could still be captured in the original definition, should they come to use sign language in their day-to-day lives. That said, amendment No 22 is trying to address a valid point, particularly for those who lose their hearing later in life. That is why we see greater merit in amendment No 4, which seeks to address that gap in a more targeted and practical way. Amendment No 4 recognises that there is a cohort of adults who are not currently provided for in the Bill. Through age, illness or trauma, people can find themselves having to relearn how they communicate, often at a difficult point in their life. Some provision is available, which is welcome, but access is not always consistent or clear. There is a strong case that that group should not be left without structured support. Amendment No 4 provides flexibility and includes the potential for fees to be charged but with the safeguard that costs cannot be exceeded. On balance, therefore, we are content to support Amendment No 4, but we are clear that responsibility will rest with the Department to ensure that adequate resources are available so that implementation will not adversely impact on delivery or access, nor will it divert focus from priority groups or create unintended barriers. As detailed already, amendment No 5 is simply consequential: it follows from amendment No 4 and ensures that the Bill remains technically correct, so we are content to support it. I will address group 2 in turn.

715 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