Debate contribution: Sign Language Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Colm Gildernew on 24 March 2026.

MLA: Mr Colm Gildernew
Party at the time: Sinn Féin
Date: 24 March 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Sign Language Bill: Consideration Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5463419

Text

I will speak to the amendments in group 2, which deal with consultation, conferral of functions, reporting and Assembly control. Amendment No 6 reflects the Committee request to ensure that, when the Department removes organisations from the prescribed list — the organisations that must take reasonable steps to provide information and services and to offer or facilitate the use of ISL and BSL — that is done through the affirmative resolution procedure to ensure maximum transparency. The Committee was content that adding organisations and editing organisations as a result of their changing names, for example, could be done by negative resolution, but the Minister changed both to affirmative resolution. The Committee welcomes that. The evidence that we received stressed that the list's impact depends on having a broad, inclusive and clearly defined list of prescribed organisations that is developed and reviewed regularly with mandatory deaf community consultation rather than done solely by the Department for Communities. Many warned that a narrow or discretionary approach, vague definitions of "public bodies" and limited Assembly scrutiny could allow key organisations delivering public functions across health, education, justice, social care, housing and community services to be excluded, thus undermining equality of access. Respondents therefore called for clear inclusion criteria; regular reviews; accessible publication of the list; an extension over time to non-statutory bodies providing essential public services; and consideration of centralised interpreting or of VRS or video remote interpreting (VRI) models to support consistent BSL and ISL access, particularly for vulnerable groups such as deaf children, older deaf people and survivors of abuse. Questions were also asked about what was meant by the term "public character". The Committee advised the Department to make clear what:
"persons or groups exercising functions of a public character"
means in practical terms in order to mitigate any misunderstanding that it might mean services outside the public sector. The Committee requested amendment No 7 on the basis that there was consensus that consultation on the guidance must be meaningful, inclusive and ongoing, with concern expressed that the requirement to consult:
"at least one person or group"
acting on behalf of the deaf community is too narrow and risks excluding the diversity of the deaf community, which includes BSL and ISL users, deafblind people, children, young people and families. Many called for broader, structured consultation involving multiple deaf-led organisations and sectors and the establishment of a national advisory group or the formalisation of the sign language partnership group. The Committee also advised the Department to make what is meant by the "deaf community" in clause 5 more explicit to ensure that the reference to:
"at least two persons or groups"
does not mean two from the same part of the community. It is my understanding that the Minister has done that through amendment No 18, which is welcome. Amendment No 8 was tabled by the Minister. Again, the Committee takes the view that it strengthens the consultation element and therefore supports clause 5, as amended by the Minister, in that regard. Clause 7 relates to the Department's regulation-making powers, which, we were advised, it does not intend to use at this time. Instead, guidance for prescribed bodies will be used to ensure that they carry out their duties. The Committee was clear in its report that the Department should make full and appropriate use of its regulation-making powers under clause 7 as soon as it becomes apparent that guidance alone is not enough. That will ensure that deaf and deafblind people do not need to identify as disabled to access linguistic and cultural rights. Where clause 7 exempts any public bodies from the duties under the Bill, that should be communicated clearly and in a timely manner to the Committee. The Committee was content with amendment No 9, which will make sure that, where the Department needs to make regulations in relation to, for example, education, it is appropriate that the same regulations will not apply to the Department of Health. The amendment provides for functions that can be conferred on all Departments or on specific Departments, subject to the matter in hand. The Minister's amendment Nos 10 and 14 were tabled after Committee Stage, so the Committee has not taken a view on them. The Committee did, however, consider his amendment Nos 11, 12, 13 and 15 and considered them to be technical in nature. Again, they strengthen the consultation element of the regulation-making powers where guidance does not suffice, and the Committee welcomes that.
Like with amendment No 7, the Committee requested amendment No 16 on the basis that respondents broadly welcomed the inclusion of a statutory consultation requirement before regulations are made, recognising the role of the sign language partnership group in previous engagement. However, the Committee expressed dissatisfaction with the wording:
"at least one person or group ... acting on behalf".
The Committee viewed that as potentially tokenistic, unrepresentative and lacking transparency. Many people whom we heard from warned that consulting a single individual or group cannot reflect the full cultural, linguistic and experiential diversity of the deaf community, including BSL and ISL users, deafblind people, young people, families and regional communities, and risks undermining the Bill's purpose. Respondents therefore called for clause 8 to be strengthened to require consultation with a broad and representative range of deaf-led organisations. The Committee noted, in relation to concerns regarding lack of Assembly scrutiny in clause 7's regulation-making powers, that clause 8 provides that any regulations in clause 7 are subject to the draft affirmative Assembly procedure, which affords the Assembly a higher level of scrutiny of the regulations. Again, like with amendment No 7, the Committee advised the Department to make what is meant by the "deaf community" more explicit to ensure that the, at least, two persons or groups are not from the same part of the community. It is my understanding that the Minister has moved on that with amendment No 18, which, again, is welcome. As was mentioned, amendment No 18, like amendment Nos 7 and 16, came after Committee Stage, so the Committee did not consider it. Amendment No 18 creates a new clause, and the Department advises us that it is technical in nature and intended to bring further clarity on how the Department must consult the deaf community, including through the reference to "part of the deaf community". The officials gave the example that, if the Department needs to consult on deafblind issues, it would not necessarily need to consult the whole deaf community, as those issues may not be relevant to everyone. The amendment also clarifies:
"the Department is in particular to seek to secure input relating specifically to each of (as well as input relating generally to both of) British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language."
That is an issue that was raised with the Committee during the scrutiny of the Bill, and, indeed, we recommended that it be clarified in the EFM. The Department believes that the additional text delivers on that but with explicit statutory weight. The Committee requested amendment Nos 19 and 20, which relate to how and when the Department reports on the impact of the legislation. Respondents broadly supported the statutory requirement for the Department for Communities to publish a report evaluating the Bill's impact, viewing that as a key mechanism for accountability, reflection and identification of ongoing barriers, but they raised concerns about the lack of scrutiny, detail and engagement in clause 9 as drafted. On that basis, the Committee requested that, as stated in amendment No 19, the reports are laid before the Assembly. Respondents highlighted the fact that reports lack mandated consultation with the deaf community and risk becoming tokenistic unless they are accessible in BSL, ISL and English and underpinned by clear, outcome-focused metrics. There was consensus that the clause should specify reporting content, performance indicators and monitoring arrangements, including measures on interpreter availability; service accessibility; and deafblind experiences, education, employment and quality of life. Most respondents felt that a five-year interval was too long, and, based on the evidence that the Committee heard, it requested that, after the first five-year report — in order to allow the time for the legislation to embed, as we heard about from officials — every subsequent report should be at three-year intervals. Therefore, we welcome the Minister tabling amendment No 20. It was noted that, if the clause is not commenced at Royal Assent or shortly thereafter, the first report would take longer than five years to publish. For that reason, we eagerly await the commencement of the clause very close to Royal Assent. Finally, amendment No 21 relates to the Assembly procedure for the accreditation scheme for teachers and interpreters. The Committee requested that that be changed from negative to affirmative procedure based on the evidence that we received during Committee Stage and the level of concerns that were raised regarding that issue. The Committee recognised that there is ongoing work between the Department and the National Registers of Communication Professionals who work with deaf and deafblind people and the Register of Irish Sign Language Interpreters, but we also recognised that there is currently no equivalent body for BSL/ISL teachers or tutors. Accreditation is essential for quality, consistency and public confidence and must be reflective of the North's use of both BSL and ISL, with equal recognition for each. We also heard that hearing-led models risk excluding experienced deaf tutors and undermining linguistic and cultural norms.
There was broad agreement that teachers and interpreters require distinct accreditation schemes with clear accessible pathways, recognition of existing qualifications across the North, Britain and Ireland, and supportive transition arrangements for experienced tutors without formal accreditation. Respondents highlighted acute workforce shortages, particularly of ISL deaf and deafblind interpreters, which call for long-term investment in education, early years provision, training routes, bursaries and career pipelines while maintaining quality over volume. Concerns were raised about the absence of timescales and clarity on deafblind interpreting. There was clear consensus that accreditation must be developed with, by and for the deaf community to raise standards while building sustainable capacity. This is an historic and long-overdue moment for the deaf community in the North. It is about fairness, inclusion and recognition. The Committee for Communities stands fully behind the Bill and supports its progression through its Further Consideration and Final Stages in this place. It is worth noting the remarkable consultation and Committee process that was facilitated by the Committee Clerk and her team, which allowed proper and genuine co-production. That has shown itself in what is a well co-designed and co-produced Bill. Finally as Chair, I say this to all of you who have fought tirelessly for this day to come: thank you.
Your advocacy, resilience and vision have made this possible. I will now make a few brief remarks as Sinn Féin spokesperson for communities. On behalf of Sinn Féin, I want to state how proud my party colleagues and I are to stand here and support the Sign Language Bill at Consideration Stage. The Bill will go a long way towards ensuring that the deaf and deafblind community can play a full and equal role in our society. For too long, their right to access public services in their own language has been denied. Whilst I accept that many challenges remain in delivering full equality for that community, the Sign Language Bill is an important step in the right direction. I addressed much of the detail in my remarks as Chair, so I will not repeat it. I do, however, reiterate my thanks to the community for their input to the Committee Stage. This is their Bill, so it was entirely appropriate that we took the time at Committee Stage to hear as many views as possible and to shape the draft legislation according to their needs. It has been an honour to meet so many people from the deaf and deafblind community over the past year and to learn just how important their language is to them as both a tool of communication and — this is crucial — an intrinsic part of their identity and culture. Indeed, it is a vibrant, beautiful and dynamic part of that culture. I have enjoyed very much the time that I have spent learning sign language. It is something that I intend to continue long into the future. I was very eager to ensure that the co-design process did not end with the introduction of the Bill and that it continued right through the legislative process. I firmly believe that we have done that effectively. Our example of best practice can and should be replicated by other scrutiny Committees going forward. Co-design works. The Bill is an example of what can be achieved when co-design is done correctly. Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

2,134 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification