Debate contribution: Sign Language Bill: Further Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Kellie Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Kellie Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 20 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Sign Language Bill: Further Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5493866
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you very much, Minister, for giving way. I appreciate what has been said so far. Having held over 50 meetings with members of the deaf community in advance of tabling amendments and having listened throughout the Bill's Committee Stage as a member of the Communities Committee, I know that the issue had been raised by a significant number of people who have hearing loss and who are left out of both the deaf community and the hearing community. I agree that scrutiny is very important. I just wish that the Department had been able to understand that a little more during Committee Stage. It then might have been able to table an amendment at Consideration Stage. However, we have got to a stage where we have an inclusive Bill that accepts the whole of the deaf community, and for those of us — the thousands of us — who will need sign language, that there have been programmes about, and older people, that will come forward. That includes people who have had chemotherapy, people who have lost their hearing through meningitis, and veterans who have lost their hearing because of the noise and bangs that come from shooting ranges. There are a lot of us out there.
208 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: 0.05 (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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.85).
- 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 | 0.12 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.12 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 15:26 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.