Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I welcome Karen McCallion and Aidan Stennett from the Northern Ireland Assembly Research and Information Service (RaISe). Karen, I believe that you will give the initial opening statement, so please go ahead. Thank you.

Ms Karen McCallion (Research and Information Service): Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, members. Thank you for your time today.

As members of the Assembly's Research and Information Service, Aidan Stennett and I will provide an overview of the Sign Language Bill, as introduced in the Assembly on 10 February. We will each brief the Committee on the details of the RaISe Bill paper, which is in members' packs. After Aidan has briefed you on the Bill's financial implications, we will take questions.

To assist the Committee in examining the Bill, we will aim in our research briefing to highlight key legislative provisions, implementation considerations and comparisons with similar legislation in Great Britain and Ireland. We will also explore potential areas for further consideration, such as consultation, practical implementation and enforcement. The Bill has the potential to be a significant step forward for sign language users in Northern Ireland, as it aims to enhance accessibility, cultural recognition and legal rights. Implementation success, however, depends on effective policy execution and stakeholder engagement, so we will focus on those areas in our briefing.

The Sign Language Bill is an enabling Bill, meaning that its detail is left to delegated, or secondary, legislation. The detail will be added through regulations. That potentially raises questions about oversight and clarity on how the provisions will be applied in practice. The absence of detailed provisions on implementation could therefore bring up some areas for further scrutiny, such as the extent to which the Bill enhances sign language rights beyond the existing legal frameworks for disability and whether the reliance on regulations provides sufficient clarity on public-sector obligations.

On consultation and community engagement, the most recent public consultation on the Department for Communities' sign language framework, which included draft Bill proposals, took place in 2016. The sign language partnership group (SLPG) was involved in the Bill's development, but it does not currently have a statutory advisory role. Committee members may therefore wish to consider whether the absence of a more formal consultation process could impact on the Bill's effectiveness and on how DFC will ensure that there is continued engagement with more than one representative from the deaf community after the Bill is passed.

The Bill is important because, unlike for other linguistic minority groups, deaf individuals must navigate disability frameworks for basic communication rights. The Bill shifts that approach towards linguistic and cultural rights, aligning Northern Ireland with best practice in neighbouring jurisdictions. The fact that there is an absence of enforcement mechanisms may require further consideration, however, as might the practical implications of moving sign language rights out of a disability framework and the means by which public bodies will be held accountable if accessibility obligations are not met.

I will provide a bit of context on the real-world challenges of sign language accessibility. For healthcare, according to a Health and Social Care Board (HSCB) evaluation report published in 2021, deaf patients can experience delays in accessing interpreters, and that can affect their ability to give informed consent. According to the report, a reliance on remote communication services may put vulnerable groups at further risk of not engaging with health services. A 2023-24 Consortium for Research in Deaf Education (CRIDE) survey report detailed how there had been a 38% decrease in the number of qualified teachers of deaf children between 2011 and 2024 and how the number of children reported as being deaf had increased from 1,238 in 2011 to 1,603 by 2024. For employment, deaf applicants and workers may struggle to access interpreters for job interviews or workplace training. A 2019 report on enhancing access to justice for deaf people in Northern Ireland showed that police officers and legal professionals who were interviewed as part of a survey believed that deaf people were less likely than hearing people to use legal services such as solicitors and to report a crime. For public services, difficulties with consistency among local councils in accessing real-time sign language interpretation has been evidenced. Members may wish to consider whether the Bill should include minimum standards for accessibility in key sectors such as healthcare, education and justice, as well as the extent to which the existing public-sector accessibility gaps were assessed by the Department prior to drafting the Bill.

We will draw members' attention to some of the Bill's key provisions. Clause 1 states there will be official recognition of British Sign Language (BSL) and Irish Sign Language (ISL). The Bill grants official status to BSL and ISL. There are more details about that on page 15 of our paper.

Clause 3 deals with the duty on prescribed organisations to take "reasonable steps" to provide information and services. Although services are to be provided at no extra cost to sign language users, the clause also takes into account affordability and practicability. Again, there is more detail on that on page 19 of our paper. Clause 5 sets out that the Department for Communities is to issue guidance. Under clause 6, the meaning of "reasonable steps" is to be left to departmental guidance rather than being defined in the legislation.

Clauses 7 and 8 set out the procedures under which DFC will make regulations. Members may wish to consider how doing that may limit scrutiny of the Bill now and in the future. That is also detailed from pages 25 to 29 of our paper. Clause 9 requires the Department for Communities to publish a report every five years. Clause 10 provides for the accreditation of BSL and ISL teachers and interpreters. Different types of teachers, such as teachers of early years and teachers of deaf children, are not explicitly differentiated in the Bill. Potential areas for consideration include whether the Bill provides sufficient clarity on public-sector responsibilities, the level of scrutiny that the use of delegated legislation, through regulations, offers Members of the Assembly and the extent to which departmental guidance will ensure consistent service provision.

On cultural and social recognition, the Bill recognises deaf people as a cultural and linguistic minority by moving away from using a medical model of deafness and supporting the promotion of deaf culture and identity. The Bill therefore adopts a cultural and social model of deafness that aligns with international best practice. The absence of funding commitments, which Aidan will describe in more detail in his presentation, and of structured obligations for cultural promotion are notable. Potential areas for further consideration include whether the Bill should contain a statutory duty for cultural promotion and the alignment of the Bill with other government strategies on minority languages.

For comparisons with GB and Ireland, you will find a table on pages 53 to 55 of our paper. The table compares provisions in the Northern Ireland Sign Language Bill with those in similar Acts in Scotland, Ireland and GB. On promotion, for example, Northern Ireland's Bill follows the models in the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 and the Irish Sign Language Act 2017 but does not include some of the enforceability measures that are in both Acts. Whereas Ireland mandates for free ISL interpretation in public services and Scotland requires a national planning framework, the British Sign Language Act 2022 focuses more on promotion than on the enforceability of accessibility rights. The Northern Ireland Bill sits in the middle of those examples. Potential areas for consideration are the benefits of having statutory sign language services similar to those in Ireland and whether a national strategy, as used in Scotland, can support the implementation process.

On public-sector obligations, the Bill does not specify which public bodies will be subject to accessibility duties. That will be determined by regulations. Public bodies may interpret "reasonable steps" differently, leading to inconsistencies in service provision as a result of how that is noted in different sign language action plans. There is no penalty or enforcement mechanism in place if a public body fails to comply. Potential considerations are whether the Bill should include explicit statutory obligations for public bodies and the risks associated with leaving compliance entirely to departmental guidance.

As I said, clause 9 deals with the five-yearly evaluation reports. That is covered on page 30 of our paper. The clause requires DFC to publish a report every five years, but no specific evaluation metrics are included in the Bill. How does the timing of the cycle in other jurisdictions compare? In England and Wales, after an initial annual period of reporting, there is a three-yearly reporting process. In Scotland, it is a six-year cycle. In Ireland, there was to be a report no later than three years after the Act was enacted and every five years thereafter. The Northern Ireland Bill has a five-year reporting cycle but does not specify which data should be collected. At Second Stage, the Minister indicated an openness to having a shorter initial reporting cycle. Potential further considerations include whether evaluation metrics should be specified and the advantages of having a shorter initial review cycle to ensure early assessment of any implementation challenges.

On education and language promotion, the Bill promotes early years sign language education but does not establish a long-term strategy for teacher training. Potential areas for consideration are the extent to which future teaching resources have been planned for or modelled by the Department to support the provision of sign language classes and the level of coordination with the Education Authority (EA) on sign language provision.

Clause 10 details the accreditation of teachers and interpreters. That is on page 34 of our paper. The Bill introduces mandatory accreditation, but the process and the enforcement mechanisms are not specified. In 2004, there were five qualified interpreters in Northern Ireland. That number has increased to 39 in 2025. In education, over 1,600 children rely on just under a total of 50 qualified teachers of the deaf. Use of the negative resolution procedure means that regulations on accreditation could be changed without there being a full debate. Potential scrutiny points are a sufficiency of teacher and interpreter training resources to meet demand and whether a statutory review of interpreter and teacher numbers should be included in the Bill.

On enforcement and compliance, the Bill relies on voluntary compliance from public bodies. Ireland's ISL Act allows for legal recourse should public bodies fail to provide interpretation services. The absence of an explicit complaints mechanism may leave sign language users without a means by which to challenge non-compliance. Potential considerations include whether the Bill should introduce an independent monitoring body and the need for clearer accountability mechanisms for public bodies.

On implementation challenges, the Bill leaves many of the details to delegated, or secondary, legislation through resolution, which means that scrutiny will be limited after the Bill is passed. The discretionary nature of the term "reasonable steps" may lead to unequal access across public bodies, while the shortage of trained professionals may limit the Bill's effectiveness in practice. Potential considerations include the extent to which DFC will monitor and intervene if public bodies do not comply and whether mandatory compliance checks should be included in the legislation.

To summarise, the Bill provides important recognition but raises questions about enforceability. Its effectiveness will depend on its implementation and the supporting regulations. Potential considerations are the impact of the Bill on public services and accessibility. Aidan will provide further detail on that in his presentation. Other considerations may include how ongoing monitoring and accountability can be ensured and whether additional safeguards are needed to ensure effective delivery.

Thank you very much. Aidan will now take over.

Mr Aidan Stennett (Research and Information Service): Thank you, Karen. As Karen said, I will look at some of the Bill's implications for the public purse. Commentary on that begins on page 34 of our paper. I will comment on the public finance context in which the Bill is progressing. The Committee heard from the Department earlier about how challenging that context is. It is also a time of increased focus across the Executive on Budget sustainability. In that context, the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) includes limited financial information. It notes that the Bill is an enabling Bill and states that it will have "no immediate financial implications" but that costs could be incurred in the future when the Department uses the powers that the Bill provides. As Karen noted, the Bill provides the Department with powers to make regulations in three key areas: the list of prescribed organisations; details of the accreditation scheme for translators and teachers; and for purposes that the Department considers appropriate. As I said, the EFM notes that using those powers may incur costs but provides no indication of what those costs may be.

The Bill's reliance on secondary legislation may limit the Committee's capacity to scrutinise costs in the future. At this point, there are a number of knowns that provide indications of the Bill's potential impact on the public purse, but there are also some unknowns that ensure that a full assessment of impact is not possible at this time. In evidence to the Committee on 6 February, the Department stated that it spent:

on current programmes for the deaf community. It also stated that it would:

but added:

Furthermore, it suggested that the Bill would have implications across the public sector.

Against that, there are a number of unknowns. As has been noted, we know neither which public bodies are to be designated as "prescribed organisations" nor the full contents of the guidance that those organisations will be required to follow. In addition, the extent to which public bodies currently provide information and services to the deaf community in an accessible way is unclear, so we do not know the level of improvement that will be needed to bring them up to the standards that the legislation requires or the costs associated with making improvements. There is also some uncertainty over the number of BSL and ISL users in Northern Ireland. The EFM relies on a 2015 estimate of at least 5,000 sign language users. The Department told the Committee on 6 February that it has "struggled to determine definitive numbers", which, in turn:

Finally, it is unclear how prescribed bodies will interpret the term "reasonable steps" when discharging their duties under the Bill and how that interpretation will impact on any costs.

That is everything that I wanted to cover. I have probably raised more questions than provided answers, but we are happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you, Karen and Aidan. I will use some of my learning from the taster session to say that I support the Sign Language Bill.

I thank you for the detail in your presentation. It touched on a lot of points that I picked up on during my reading of the Bill. It has significant Henry VIII powers that we will have to consider.

I was particularly concerned about the use of the words "affordability" and "practicability" and their potential to hollow out the impact of the Bill. I have concerns about the ongoing identification of the public bodies. I also have concerns, like you do, about the ongoing engagement, which seems to be limited. I think that only one organisation is referred to, which seems pretty basic. That is something that we will want to look at. As you said, the Minister stated that he may be open to looking at the review period. We have waited for so long that we do not want to delay further any tweaks or changes that need to be made. You have set out a number of issues that tally with my thinking, as well as a number of things that I had not thought of, so I really appreciate your input.

Mr Kingston: It is a very helpful RaISe paper, as always. You highlight the fact that the Bill is about linguistic and cultural rights rather than being a disability accommodation. It is also about the quality of communication. As you said, it is about ensuring that, if people require engagement with law and order agencies or with a solicitor, there is high-quality communication available to them.

I am concerned about prescribed organisations not being defined in the Bill. There is reference to all Northern Ireland Departments being included as public bodies, but what about beyond those? That is a fundamental. As you said, "all reasonable steps" will be open to interpretation. Another issue is the lack of enforcement provisions.

A lot of the consequences will take time to roll out. I do not see in your paper examples of what is done elsewhere. I expect that technology will play a significant role in the implementation of the provisions. Realistically, you will not have an Irish Sign Language person and a British Sign Language person in every public building in case somebody comes in. I am sure that it will have to be a service that is accessed online. Can we get some examples of what is done elsewhere?

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Brian, there is some information on that.

Mr Kingston: Is there?

Ms McCallion: It starts on page 53.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): It is on page 53. Other issues may arise on which we can seek further RaISe input. There is a table on pages 53 to 55 that covers comparison with other jurisdictions.

Mr Kingston: OK. I will get a look at that. I would like to see more practical examples.

The briefing paper states:

in sign language and in English or other languages. Is that term in legislation elsewhere? It could be argued that, unless somebody is standing there who can do ISL or BSL, something that is "equally accessible" is not being provided.

Ms McCallion: Different approaches are taken in the other jurisdictions. The British Sign Language Act focuses on government communications in GB. In the paper, there are links to the reports that look at the increase in communications translated into BSL. The Irish Sign Language Act mandates free interpretation for all public bodies. The British Sign Language (Scotland) Act has been implemented through a national plan that the Scottish Government created following the passing of the Bill into law. The public bodies listed in the schedule to that Act must provide their own plan for sign language provision, which is reviewed every six years. There has been one review of provision so far, and it all follows a national framework.

There are different approaches taken in each jurisdiction. Appendix 1 to our paper contains a comparison of the different approaches taken in legislation. The Northern Ireland Bill is different in that it is an enabling Bill. Most of the detail about public bodies has not been added, because we do not yet know the organisations that will be listed. Departments are mentioned, but we do not know the list of prescribed organisations. We have tried to refer to how things are done in other jurisdictions under each clause, where we had the information.

Mr Kingston: We will have plenty of time to work through it, anyway.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): We have had a taste of why we need an appropriate amount of time to work through the Bill. It is a framework Bill that will require a lot more fleshing out.

Ms K Armstrong: From reading through your paper, I am glad that I covered quite a bit of the stuff that you have now raised concerns about when I spoke at Second Stage. I have never heard the term "prescribed organisations" used in legislation in my time here: is it used by anybody else?

Ms McCallion: I had a look back, and the only thing coming up was from the early 2000s. Even then, that was not set out. From what I could find, the short answer is "No".

Ms K Armstrong: It seemed to me to be antiquated language that does not really explain anything. I am a great believer in making it simple so that people can have a clear understanding.

Did you do money comparisons with the other legislatures?

Mr Stennett: It is not something that I looked at or the paper. I focused on the immediate Northern Ireland impact, but we can explore what is available.

Ms K Armstrong: It depends on what we are going for, of course.

The current legislation states that the Department for Communities cannot instruct another Department to do things. Is that the case, or can we add things? For instance, we talk about the Department for Communities having to provide classes, but, to be frank, the Department of Education should provide classes as well. Can we amend the legislation to put in something like that?

Ms McCallion: Not being a legal expert, I am not sure how that would work. It is interesting that the Bill states that in one clause, while another states that it is not possible to instruct other Departments. That is another example of the ambiguity running through the Bill as a whole.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much. As always, the questions that are provided are fantastic. We have a lot of stuff.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): We can drill down into some of the evidence with the Bill Clerk and the Bill Office, and we will schedule that once we issue our call for evidence. That is valid.

We may come back to you for some information in the meantime. For now, that has been a really good start. Thank you.

Ms McCallion: Thank you.

Mr Stennett: Thank you.