Debate contribution: Sign Language Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on 20 April 2026.

MLA

Mr Gordon Lyons

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

20 April 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Sign Language Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5493794

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move amendment No 1:

I will start by acknowledging the Assembly debate at Consideration Stage and the amendments that were made. During that debate, I spoke about moving beyond symbolic recognition and delivering practical, meaningful change for British Sign Language (BSL) and Irish Sign Language (ISL) users. I spoke about active promotion of sign languages and deaf culture and ensuring that recognition is reflected in how services are delivered every day. Now that the Sign Language Bill has reached Further Consideration Stage, we are closer than ever to achieving those aims. We are ever closer to passing legislation that tells people in the BSL, ISL and deafblind community, "You matter, and you have rights". With the support of the House today, I hope to schedule Final Stage at the earliest opportunity. I am sure that that will be welcomed across the Chamber but, more importantly, by the deaf community, which has shown remarkable patience, for which I am very grateful. I can tell you that the deaf community is already engaging with my officials in the planning of an event to mark the final stage of the journey towards the Bill's enactment. That will mark the realisation of that community's long road to statutory recognition of its languages and culture. The Bill has been scrutinised, refined and changed following Committee scrutiny, with 19 amendments agreed with the Committee and approved by the House at Consideration Stage. I will now address my eight amendments before the House today. The amendments have been drafted to deliver on the three amendments approved by the Assembly at Consideration Stage: amendment Nos 4, 5 and 22, which were tabled by Kellie Armstrong MLA. The House will be aware of my concerns that those amendments, to varying degrees, can be considered to impact on the nature of the Bill. My officials and I have been contacted by members of the deaf community and its representatives, who highlighted the fact that they share those concerns. My officials subsequently engaged with the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) to assess whether some further amendments were necessary. Before us today is the OLC refinement, which aims to better accommodate those amendments. Today's amendments do not seek to interfere with the agreed Assembly position but, rather, seek to address some drafting inconsistencies and align an issue of procedure. I will address my amendment Nos 1 to 4. They make technical changes to improve the structure of clause 2 following the amendments made at Consideration Stage. At Consideration Stage, amendment No 4 to clause 2 added provision for classes for adults who become deaf aged 25 or over and their families and carers. It also dealt with the matter of charging for the classes and outlined that the regulations in that respect should be by negative procedure. Amendment No 5 was consequential to the approval of amendment No 4. Members will note that the amended wording changes the fee-paying regulations from negative procedure to affirmative, and I understand that Ms Armstrong took the point about consistency across the Bill. Therefore, my amendment Nos 1 and 2 pave the way for the rewording of clause 2. My amendment No 3 is mainly a restructuring of clause 2(2) so that the whole clause flows neatly together from the headline promotion duty as outlined in clause 2. However, the issue of whether fees can be charged or not is tied expressly to the particular category of classes. As I have stated, the issue of the statutory rule procedure change from negative to draft affirmative, as trailed in the Consideration Stage debate, is also dealt with in amendment No 3.

My amendment No 4 is consequential to amendment No 3 in that it omits duplication of text that is dealt with in amendment No 3. As I stated at Consideration Stage, work has continued with deaf organisations on the development and launch of a pilot programme of classes for adults who have become deaf aged 25 or over and their families and carers. Subject to demand, those classes will be available in BSL and ISL. I will now move to my amendment Nos 5 to 8. At Consideration Stage, amendment No 22 had the effect of changing the definition of membership of the deaf community at clause 12 from:

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

to

"deaf or deafblind people who will benefit from using British Sign Language or Irish Sign Language".

Members will be aware that that amendment has been the cause of unease across the deaf community. My officials have been contacted by various deaf people and organisations, including the British Deaf Association (BDA), which outlined its particular concerns on the matter. The amendment has caused confusion amongst some who struggle to be clear on its reference to people who will, or will potentially, benefit from using sign language in future and how that will be assessed and/or assured. The Bill was drafted to accommodate people who are already deaf and who use and rely on sign language. For example, under "Department's manner of engagement" at clause 9(1)(a), it states:

"a reference to persons or groups appearing to the Department for Communities to be representative or cognisant of the views or interests of the deaf community includes persons or groups appearing to the Department to be representative or cognisant of the views or interests of part of the deaf community".

That is factual. It does not refer to persons or groups who appear, or who will appear, to the Department for Communities to be representative or cognisant of the views or interests of the deaf community; it is grounded in those who are deaf at that moment in time. In future, if that changes, the wording remains relevant and appropriate. I refer to the BDA's concerns. It states that the amendment presents an:

"existential challenge to the deaf community",

and continues:

"Where people with hearing loss wish to adopt sign language, they are very welcome. However, the revised definition of those 'who will benefit from using sign language' is a very broad one. It could be argued that all deaf people fall into this category. At a stroke, therefore, the Assembly has massively increased the size and character of the deaf community without appropriate engagement with the community."

That is what the BDA had to say. During Consideration Stage, some Members suggested that they would welcome some refining of the wording of the amended clause. On that basis, and to allay concerns from the deaf community, my officials sought the view of the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) on whether it was possible to revisit the wording of amendment No 22 while fully respecting the Assembly's intent in approving amendment No 22. That is reflected in my amendment Nos 5 to 8. My amendment No 5, which inserts after "who" the words "at any time use, or", addresses normal present and future use. My amendment No 6 leaves out "will" as my amendment No 7 inserts "ever" before "benefit", which accommodates that future "use of" as referenced in my amendment No 8. I am sure that everyone is following along with me and understands entirely what I am saying. I believe that my amendment Nos 5 to 8, which reword amendment No 22 from Consideration Stage, provide a sound way forward that ensures that rights under the substantive provisions are provided to people who have actual needs for the time being; rights that may have been perceived to have been removed or diluted. The references to those who, at any time, use or will ever benefit from use of BSL or ISL also fully reflect the intent of amendment No 22, which was carried by the House. Therefore, for the reasons that I have set out, I ask the House to support my amendments. I thank Members for their time and for the work that was done to ensure that the Bill could proceed to this point. I commend my amendments to the House.

1,343 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:26 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