Debate contribution: Sign Language Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- 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 5463448
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I thank everybody who contributed to today's debate. The Bill has been developed in consultation and partnership with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) community and strengthened, I believe, through constructive engagement with the Committee. It is fair to say that I have had some issues with how the Committee does its job, and I am sure that the Committee has some issues with how I do my job. However, that being said, I think that the Bill is a good example of the Committee working well, listening to concerns, taking on board changes and genuinely working together. I have been impressed by how the Committee has ensured that it has been accessible to those who will be affected most by it. I thank the Committee members and, in particular, Committee staff, who, I am sure, had much work to do in the organisation and set up to make sure that it could happen. I will continue to work with the deaf community and those who have a role in promoting sign language, which has already increased visibility, access and opportunities for people to learn and use it in everyday life. I believe that good work has been done, but it is not the end. I will have more to say at the later stages of the Bill, but, for now, I thank everybody who has helped us to get to this stage and look forward to it passing Consideration Stage.
246 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.17 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
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.