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 5463314

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am absolutely delighted to be in the position to introduce and progress the Bill. Our deaf community has been waiting for it for years and years, and I am delighted that we can progress it further in the Chamber today. I have been humbled to witness at first hand the life-changing difference that early access to family sign language learning makes to families and their deaf children. The Bill requires all prescribed organisations to:

"take all reasonable steps so as to— (a) ensure that information and services provided by the organisation are as accessible to individuals in the deaf community as they are to individuals who are not in the deaf community".

That statement seems simple and obvious on paper, but, in practice, it represents a sea change for the people most closely impacted on by the changes that the Bill will bring. I thank Members for their support for the amendments that I have tabled, and I thank the Committee for the way in which it has dealt with them. I will take a little bit of time to explain my position with regard to Kellie Armstrong's amendments. First, I thank her for her interest in the Bill and for the enthusiasm that she has brought to the work. We all have the same outcome in mind, which is to make sure that people have access to the support that they need so that they can communicate effectively. That is where we all want to end up. I have some concerns with the amendments that she has tabled, however. The first one relates to classes. I hope that I have outlined to the House the concerns that I have. They are not because I do not believe that classes should be in place for those who want to avail themselves of them. I absolutely do. In fact, classes are provided through our colleges that people can take part in and pay for, in the same way that amendment No 4 states that there should be classes for which the Department can charge fees. However, the evidence that we have received indicates that there is low to no demand for such classes. I accept that the Armstrong family may be an exception to that.

I will happily give way.

I know that there is demand for sign language classes and that many people take them up. Do not misunderstand me: that is not what I am saying. I refer specifically to people who become deaf later in life. Often, sign language classes are not what they want.

The Member is absolutely right to raise the issues with people getting access to appointments through the health service, and it is correct that she do so, but the organisations with which we have engaged and spoken to have told us that that is not what they are pushing for. It is not their primary objective. I repeat that the engagement that we have had with organisations in the deaf sector and with health and social care sensory support teams indicates that there is very low demand for such classes.

The Member will know whom I am talking about when I say that I have an official in my Department who has worked in that area for 14 years. That official has evidence of two occasions on which people have asked for classes. One's ask will be covered in what we are already introducing through the legislation, while the other did not come back with any further requests for information. I do believe that demand is low, but the Member is right that that belief should be tested. We should run a pilot programme and see who comes forward. Amendment No 4, however, would mandate through legislation that classes must be provided. What would they look like? Who would deliver them? What would the curriculum look like? The curriculum is a big issue. We know what the curriculum looks like for children and young people and for their families, but what would it look like for the age cohort about which we are talking? Those are all questions that need to be answered, and I think that it is prudent that we find out the answers first. We do not need to put such classes in legislation for us to proceed with a pilot programme. That is what I am putting to the House today. I understand from contributions that have been made that that is probably not where the rest of the Chamber is at, but I do think that it is the prudent move to take. Let us find out what the level of demand is. We did not need to put it in legislation at all to provide any classes, yet that is what we are doing. When exploring the curriculum needs and other needs, I think that it would be prudent for us to explore those needs in the first instance, and that is what I put to the House, while reminding Members that there will be a five-year review of the legislation. I am more than happy to make sure that amendments can be made to the legislation further on down the line, if required. What we are being told, however, is that that is not where the demand lies for those who lose their hearing later on in life. Let us run the pilot programme to find out whether that is the case, because if that demand is not there, we should not be bound by legislation to provide something that is not required. That is my view, but I am more than willing to work through the issues with Members over the next year. I recognise that there are other views, but I hope that Members will take on board what I have said. Of course, if the Member's amendment No 4, is made, we will be accepting amendment No 5, because doing so would make sense, as it is consequential to amendment No 4. I have concerns about amendment No 22, however, because it would change what we are trying to do in the Bill. The Bill is focused on those across society who rely on British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language and on deafblind people who rely on hands or tactile signing versions of BSL and ISL. Amendment No 22 risks diluting the focus of the Bill, and I agree with the Member for Lagan Valley on that. That amendment would change its focus, which is on that small group of people and their families who have, up until this point, effectively been excluded from accessing information and services that the rest of our society takes for granted. The aim of the Bill is to recognise the deaf community of people who depend on sign language and who wish to share their deaf culture and access services through BSL and ISL. I do not think that it is intentional, but I think that the Member's amendment dilutes that by taking the focus away from those who rely exclusively on, or who normally use, British Sign Language or Irish Sign Language. I will give way to the Member.

Of course, that is what we want. Whether or not somebody else is able to communicate with you, if you are a user of sign language, you are already covered, so the amendment becomes meaningless. What we have in the Bill is:

"deaf or deafblind people who normally use British Sign Language or Irish Sign Language for communication".

I think that the point that the Member is trying to make is that there might be others who are not capable of using that sign language. I am happy to take another intervention, because I am not quite clear on what she is saying.

I am more than happy to promote sign language widely. On the definition of "the deaf community", Chapter 4 states:

"For the purposes of this Part" —

and for the purpose of the Sign Language Bill —

"the deaf community comprises all people falling within one or more of the following paragraphs —"

which include —

"deaf or deafblind people who normally use British Sign Language or Irish Sign Language for communication".

That is the group of people whom we are trying to help. The legislation is being put in place to help, first and foremost, the people who depend and rely on sign language. As Mr Butler indicated, that opens it up to a wider group of people. It is not about those who will sometimes use it or may at some stage benefit from using it but those who rely on it. It is about those who cannot get by, cannot get through the day and cannot access public services without it. With the Bill, my focus is on helping people who have not had the rights that the rest of us enjoy and so often take for granted. I want to make sure that those are the people whom we focus on first and foremost when the consultation takes place. Yes, there is a wider cohort of people who may use it in their everyday lives, including, perhaps, those who are hard of hearing. However, for me, the Bill's focus, first and foremost, is on the group of people who have struggled so much and have not had the rights. That is why I will oppose the Member's amendment. I am determined that the Bill will ensure that the deaf community of BSL, ISL and deafblind signers will benefit from increased accessibility to public services; that, through increased visibility, awareness and understanding of languages and deaf culture, wider society will embrace the deaf community; and that the communication barriers experienced by the deaf community daily will be removed.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, has amendment No 22 been taken?

Not at this stage.

OK.

I beg to move amendment No 6:

With the exception of amendment No 18, the amendments that I propose in this group have been developed with the agreement of the Committee. They are largely technical and clarificatory in nature and will improve the delivery of the Bill. Amendment No 6 relates to clause 4, which provides the Department with the statutory powers to list in regulation the public bodies that would be required to take the reasonable steps outlined in clause 3. It is a technical amendment and clarifies the way in which the Department:

"must by regulations list which public bodies are prescribed organisations"

for the purposes of the Bill. The Committee requested that, rather than the listing of public bodies as prescribed organisations being subject to negative resolution, the Department should use the affirmative procedure. My officials were of the view that it is an administrative duty and that negative resolution would provide a proportionate level of scrutiny for such an administrative exercise and would expedite the listing of public bodies to ensure that they would be subject to the duties in the Bill sooner.

The Committee suggested the compromise of adding a public body as a newly prescribed organisation by negative resolution, whereas the removal of a public body as a prescribed organisation would be by affirmative resolution. The Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) advised that it is technically difficult to separate the two things in one clause, using negative resolution procedure for one and affirmative resolution procedure for the other. I am therefore content with the amendment to clarify that regulations on the listing of public bodies may not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Assembly. The amendments to clause 5 are technical and clarify how my Department engages and consults. Clause 5 places a duty on my Department to issue guidance about the statutory duties in the Bill. Before issuing that guidance, my Department must consult each of the public bodies that are listed as prescribed organisations and are subject to the duties in the Bill. Prior to the amendment, the Bill placed a duty on my Department to consult at least one person or group acting on behalf of the deaf community. That was a drafting device intended to emphasise the need for consultation. At the Committee's request, I now propose to increase the number of people or groups whom the Department must consult from at least one to at least two. Amendment No 8 clarifies that each of the persons or groups consulted is:

"representative or cognisant of the views or interests"

of the deaf community. The amendments to clause 7 are technical in nature. Amendment No 10 is a technical clarification, as are amendment Nos 11, 12 and 13. The amendment to clause 7(5)(b) is similar to that to clause 5(3)(b). For the avoidance of doubt, it removes the perceived reliance on a single source for consultation, strengthens the scope of consultations and is consistent with the Committee's request to amend. Amendment No 15 is a technical clarification. Amendment No 16 to clause 8 is technical in nature and clarifies how the Department must engage with the deaf community when fulfilling consultation duties, ensuring that the engagement will be inclusive, representative and balanced across BSL, ISL and deafblind people. Amendment No 17 is a technical clarification. Amendment No 18, which inserts new clause 8A, is also a technical amendment. It brings further clarity to how the Department must consult the deaf community, including references to "part of the deaf community". In advance of today, I shared a draft of the new clause with the Committee, as it emanates from the Committee's request for clarity on how engagement and consultation must involve representatives from BSL and ISL. The amendment therefore ensures balanced input on BSL, ISL and deafblind methods of signing. Officials are exploring options to increase the number of interpreters for deafblind people, which is an entirely different issue to the capacity-building of BSL and ISL interpreters. Therefore, when we need to consult on deafblind issues, we will not necessarily need to consult the whole deaf community, as it may not be relevant to everyone; it is a deafblind issue. When consulting, the Department must actively seek input specific to BSL, input specific to ISL and general input relevant to both languages. That prevents any consultation from becoming one-sided or unintentionally favouring one language group. Clause 8A strengthens the fairness, breadth and quality of consultation and ensures that voices from across the deaf community are heard and reflected in departmental decision-making. It provides clarity and flexibility for officials, reducing the risk of challenge over who was or was not consulted. Amendment No 19 is an amendment to clause 9 that reflects the request from the Committee that a report evaluating the impact of the legislation be:

"laid before the Assembly by the Department".

Amendment No 20 to clause 9 reflects the request from the Committee that a report evaluating the impact of the legislation be laid not more than five years after the legislation's coming into operation and, thereafter, every three years. Clause 10 requires the Department to make regulations to establish a scheme for accrediting teachers and interpreters of BSL and ISL. That will provide assurances about professional competence and safeguarding. There is no intention by the Department to collect fees for such schemes at this time. However, I have agreed to the Committee's request to amend clause 10(5) as there is provision for the schemes to be with or without fees payable. The reference to the potential collection of fees is sufficient to merit the tabling of the amendment.

Amendment No 21 is straightforward. It provides that rather than state "are subject to negative resolution", regulations:

"may not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly".

2,643 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