Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): We now have a briefing from the British Deaf Association (BDA) on the Sign Language Bill. Before we begin the session, I welcome the engagement thus far with the deaf community at our events on the Bill, at which the role of the Committee and how to engage with us has been outlined. I take the opportunity to highlight the fact that the last of those events takes place tomorrow, Friday, at 11.00 am in Banbridge leisure centre, and I encourage attendance from as many Committee members and members of the public as possible. Once again, I acknowledge the Committee staff's work to facilitate our extensive consultation process.

I welcome the following representatives to the meeting: Dr Robert Adam, who is chair of the BDA; Ms Majella McAteer, who is the BDA manager here in the North; and Mr Tom Lichy, who is the BDA's head of policy and research. Hello, all. Robert, I invite you to make a brief opening statement, please, before we move on to questions from the members. Thank you.

Dr Robert Adam (British Deaf Association): Thank you very much. I will stand to make my presentation. My name is Robert Adam. I am the chair of the British Deaf Association. I am so honoured to be here. It is such a meaningful day, after such a huge journey for the deaf community here in Northern Ireland. Thank you so much for your work and engagement with the deaf community here and for your work on the Sign Language Bill. Importantly, the Bill recognises Irish Sign Language (ISL) and British Sign Language (BSL). It represents an incredible opportunity for us, and it is a momentous day for us. Thank you for the invitation.

I will now switch to using British Sign Language. I will introduce my colleagues. Majella McAteer is to my left. Majella has led all the work in Northern Ireland. She has worked with the BDA for the past 28 years, so I can say that Majella knows more than anybody else when it comes to matters in the North of Ireland.

She understands everything about the deaf community in Northern Ireland: all the stresses and all the celebrations.

Like me, Majella is bilingual, using BSL and ISL. Today, I think that she is going to use BSL. Tom Lichy is also here. He is the head of policy and research at the BDA. Tom does all the heavy thinking, looks at all the complex issues that we face and helps the board and staff understand the landscape and how policy changes can be made that will improve the lives of deaf people in the real world.

I will share with the Committee what it is like to be a deaf person. Deaf people have two things in common. One is that we use sign language. All sign languages are beautiful, expressive languages that use body language, facial expressions and hand movements. Sign languages are natural and indigenous languages from different countries throughout the world. Here, we are very proud of our languages, which are BSL and ISL. We face barriers and challenges day and daily. People are not intentionally being horrible or difficult, but there are difficulties and challenges out there. I cannot hear, so I cannot hear my GP's advice. Unlike everyone else, I cannot go to my work and attend a staff meeting without accommodation being made. I cannot phone my council and say that my bin was not collected this morning. Information on government websites is not in my language.

Deaf people are very important members of society. We are not silent. You may not be able to hear our voice, but that does not mean that we are silent. Information in society is not something that we can take for granted like others can. Rather, we have to ask and work really hard to make our rights become a reality and to get information in a way in which we can digest. We want more than mere access, however. We want respect for our language and for it to have legal recognition, and we want public bodies, by law, to allow us to communicate with them. We want more than that: we want to contribute to society. We are citizens who pay our taxes, so we have a right to equality and to the same standards of living as others. We want to become politicians like you. We want to become civil servants. We want to become leaders. There may be some young deaf people watching today who want to get into politics. We want to work with others to create change so that people can achieve their potential and live like anybody else. We are passionate about teaching sign language to families of deaf children. Doing that is so important. Language is key, and it begins in the home.

We bring our lived experience as deaf people, and we have expertise based on that lived experience. Our vision is that deaf people will be designing, delivering and evaluating this change and that it will be made in conjunction with deaf people. We want to make sure that we have rights to opportunities and to life experiences, and we want to contribute all that we can to the deliberations. Thank you for the opportunity to give an opening statement.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you. I have a couple of questions, after which I will bring in Committee members. I remind members that Hansard is in the Senate Chamber to report on this item of business.

Are there any aspects of the Irish or Scottish sign language Acts that you would like to see replicated in the Sign Language Bill?

Ms Majella McAteer (British Deaf Association): I will respond to that. Northern Ireland is unique, because, as you can see today, it has two different sign languages in operation: British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language. If you look at different areas — England, Scotland and Wales — you will see that they have one. Their Acts started out as private Members' Bills. We are very grateful that the Executive have introduced the Bill, meaning that we are coming in with a stronger foothold. It is therefore a different context. Tom, you probably want to say something at this point.

Mr Tom Lichy (British Deaf Association): I agree that Northern Ireland's position is unique. The Bill is an amazing opportunity for us to include both communities — those using ISL and BSL — and respect both equally. We need to show how people here are really using four different languages — English, Irish, ISL and BSL — and how they can work together cohesively to create a better future for the entire community.

Ms McAteer: As people who live here, we want to have our rights recognised through having our own local legislation.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): That came across strongly in your opening remarks. I was reminded of the famous James Connolly saying:

and absolutely right you are to have that respect for your languages. I agree with your remarks about their beauty and expressiveness. We are very lucky to have not one but two sign languages here.

On clause 2, you state in your submission:

Do you feel that targets and timelines should be included in the Bill, or does that action need to happen after the Bill is passed?

Ms McAteer: If we look at what is happening across the whole community, we see that capacity needs to be built into the community in order to deliver on that issue. As deaf people, we face daily barriers and restrictions in our lives. We need to see some capacity building in order to ensure that people know how to create solutions and understand what those solutions will be. That co-productive approach is needed. We therefore need that capacity in order to be ready to deliver on that issue.

Let me give you an example. I was seconded to the Department for Communities for three years. It is a lovely model of best practice to have someone with lived experience working in the Department. Moreover, I gained a lot of experience about how Departments work. That approach is so beneficial.

Mr Lichy: We need to respect here how the concept, as envisaged by the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS), will be delivered when the legislation is in place. I will make two points. First, I would like to see a commitment being made. As Robert said, sign language issues need to be designed, managed, delivered and evaluated by deaf signers. Secondly, we would like to see a commitment to making that really happen by having a timeline of perhaps four or five years and a pathway for developing capacity in Northern Ireland with the deaf community.

Sorry, there is a third point. Article 4.3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) states that national Governments should collaborate closely with the representative organisations of the disabled people whom they are willing to serve. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) recently announced that the definition of "representative" needed to be clarified. It said that the "representative organisation" means an organisation with members of whom a majority are disabled, staff members at all levels of whom a majority are disabled and board members of whom a majority are disabled.

In our case, that means the majority being deaf signers. One UK-wide organisation representing disabled people would match those criteria. In Northern Ireland, that does not have to be the BDA. There are other organisations here that match the criteria successfully. At the end of the day, however, we need to respect the criteria, and I would really like for that specific definition to be in any agreement that is made.

Ms McAteer: The Department for Communities recently held a briefing. It was on 11 April, I believe. It talked about the sign language partnership group, which is a really fantastic resource, because not only deaf people but representatives from a range of Departments sit on it. Its task is to review the definition, to increase the group's membership and to include more deaf people on it to ensure that the whole pathway and journey towards getting the necessary legislation in place is smooth and effective.

Mr Lichy: You are an example of creating legislation. In the past, people had good heart and good intentions but did not achieve their aims. Around 15 years ago, the UK Parliament passed legislation to support the development of a telephone relay service, which is a system to support deaf people to make phone calls. At the time, it was called Typetalk. It was created through an Act of Parliament, and, back then, when Typetalk was launched, it was a fantastic initiative. I remember thinking the first time that I used it to make a telephone call, "Finally, deaf people have access to the phone". I had a huge piece of tech that I laid my phone handle on top of, and I then got through to an operator. I think that the operators were based in Liverpool, and they would speak on my behalf. The operator was a hearing person who would take the phone call and type the information back to me. It was fantastic. I loved it.

Years later, as technology was improving and evolving, we had the internet come along, and mobile phones were dispersed. Typetalk was incompatible with mobile phones. It was fixed telephony. As a result of the Act, the rules were set in stone. The people who were managing the delivery of those telephony services and who were evaluating them were all hearing people. They did not use sign language. They did not rely on the service that they were evaluating, so their motivations around evolution and technological changes were different. For that reason, the whole system became an issue. If you therefore include the concept of deaf leadership in your planning for deaf management, that means that, with technological and societal changes, deliveries can evolve alongside them more quickly and more cost-effectively.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you. My final question before I being in members is on clause 5. You stated that there needs to be greater clarity around the definition in clause 5(3)(b) of:

As you point out, that could be open to interpretation. Do you feel that "one group", as framed, is too few. If so, what would be a better number? Indeed, how do you think that "one group" should be defined or framed in order to be effective?

Ms McAteer: I will respond to that. One person may give you only one perspective. How that translates to real life is complicated, is it not? You could also have an individual who is not part of the mainstream deaf community but who is deaf and uses sign language, but the deaf community will not have a voice, because that individual will not know them. We therefore need to be open to having adaptations, depending on the experiences of the range of people out there across the entire deaf community. We need to be able to be representative of that whole community. It is a difficult one to negotiate, but there needs to be some clarity provided so that there is representation for everyone. Everyone needs to have a voice. Every deaf individual needs to have a voice. Somehow, we need some kind of mechanism in place. If somebody, for example, in their local area wants access to a museum, not everybody will know about that, so how do we clarify that definition and get the mechanism in place?

Mr Lichy: I want to ensure that my answer matches your question. Will you repeat the question for me, please?

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Do you feel that the framing of:

is appropriate in the legislation, or should clause 5(3)(b) be framed differently in order to ensure appropriate feedback?

Mr Lichy: Thank you. I refer to my previous point about the criteria in the UNCRPD for how to define a "representative organisation". I can repeat my previous point. Is it worthwhile my doing so?

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): No, we have noted that point. Thank you.

Before I leave that issue, Tom, I will seek clarification on the point that you made about the technology. We are arguably in the wave of a new series of developments with AI, as part of the internet but also beyond it in some ways. Does that need to be future-proofed, and do you think that there is sufficient space in the Bill for it to be able to move with those developments?

Mr Lichy: You are absolutely right to ask. The BDA has done a lot of work on BSL AI: sign language AI. We have just released a discussion paper on sign language AI. There are positives and negatives involved. It could be an amazing tool for our community, but, again, there are concerns, such as control and ownership of the tools by people who potentially do not sign. The legislation does not need to talk specifically about technology, but on the point about the criteria for deaf leadership within that, if you insert that in the Bill, I am confident that we will be able to support the deaf community in Northern Ireland to take ownership of and manage it and incorporate the technology into our daily lives into the future.

Dr Adam: May I also respond, please? I wish to add to that. At the moment, there is no real AI technology that is safe. In Departments, some people think, "This is a great option. It will be quite cost-effective", but what I will say is that there is no safety in that area of technology at the moment. You will find that out only if you speak to the right people, and those people will be deaf people who will be able to evaluate the technology. Sometimes, people think that it is cost-effective, but when it comes to language and access, we need quality. Such questions can always be answered in consultation with the deaf community as a whole.

Ms McAteer: I will add to that as well. There are companies that are producing AI-type language models. I was at a Disability Action meeting just a few weeks ago about AI at which there was quite a lot of discussion. The companies that are creating that technology need to have an ethical framework. Part of the ethics comes from making sure that sign language users are involved in order to make sure that what is being produced is correct. We are only a little bit down the line at the moment, but AI is progressing very quickly. There are lots of developments, but we know that it needs to be monitored. It is a long way off being adequate, so decisions on its use need to be very much made in collaboration with the deaf community.

Mr Lichy: I support Majella's point. The deaf community has an interesting relationship with technology. On the one hand, we have a history of technology being forced on us and run by non-sign language people. There is a concept of how deaf people should behave when using technology that has been forced on us. On the other hand, there was some research done about how quick the deaf community is to adopt new technology, including subtitles, Typetalk and the texting mechanisms in mobile phones. The deaf community loves to embrace new technology when it is under our control and when it matches what we need.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you. I will now bring in Committee members.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you for coming to the Committee today. I was very interested to hear you say that you want your rights to become a reality, so my question is about clause 3. How do you feel about the inclusion of affordability as one of the deciding factors for whether sign language will be used? Should that reference in clause 3(2)(b) be removed?

Ms McAteer: Let us go back to the provision that requires prescribed organisations to create sign language action plans. It is important to include deaf people in those discussions and agreement, so that those organisations do not make any decisions without their input. Therefore, we will look at the priorities for what is needed, tangible timelines and how deaf people can monitor those action plans, and we hope that that will become a regular occurrence. Colleagues, what do you think?

Mr Lichy: Majella raises an important point. Consultation with the deaf community on what to focus on should be the priority. In Northern Ireland, it could be the total government and council expenditure on sign language access. The discussion with the deaf community and leaders should be on whether the money is being spent in the best way or whether there are more cost-effective measures that are more suited to our needs. We do not want other people to decide what we need.

Dr Adam: On an everyday basis, if a deaf person goes to the dentist, a care home or their place of employment, they will have access needs. To say that providing that access is not affordable does not wash with the deaf community. We have rights, including access rights, and they should be seen.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you for that. I share the concern that the Bill gives organisations the opportunity to consider affordability before co-production. I do not understand whether we are asking for the action plans to include detail on the financing of communications. I do not see the value of clause 3.

You also talked about public services. Some of those public services are delivered by private companies. The potential list of public bodies will, therefore, not include private companies. Do you have any suggestions for how we could improve the Bill to ensure that that communication is delivered?

Mr Lichy: We can provide various examples of interpreter provision from around the world. Robert Adam may know more about that. In Scandinavia, there is a specific number of hours for interpreting every year. A deaf person can use some of their allowance for anything that they please. In Australia, there is a different system, which supports the deaf community's involvement in, for example, local sports clubs. They can also use an interpreter appointment for a school appointment for their child or for a job interview. There are many different examples of interpreter provision from around the world. We have discussed the specific matches to meet the needs of deaf services in Northern Ireland, and that needs to be further explored.

Dr Adam: I want to respond to your point. If a public body commissions a private company to carry out a service, responsibility for the accessibility of that service lies with the public body. Regardless of whether the private company can or cannot afford the service, we still expect the public body to be responsible for providing access.

Ms K Armstrong: It might, therefore, be worthwhile to include, as well as "public bodies", "any organisation that is delivering a service for a public body".

Dr Adam: Yes. I absolutely agree with that.

Ms K Armstrong: The Bill talks about the provision of support for deaf children's families, carers and guardians, but it is silent on deaf schools. Should we incorporate in the Bill an element of support for deaf schools, given that it recognises sign language as a language and a culture but is silent on education in sign language?

Mr Lichy: I am wary of specifying deaf schools because we are looking at a disability framework, and this is a language Bill. I am supportive of including support for signing schools. Sign-language-medium education methods could be open to all deaf children, children of deaf adults (CODA) and those children who prefer education through sign language. That could be an option.

Ms McAteer: Schools nowadays quite often bring in classroom assistants who are deaf so that, in mainstream school settings, deaf children have that level of support. In general, there is a lot of work to be done in schools, but access is improving a bit. We have a long way to go, and there is a legacy issue there. However, given the list of prescribed organisations, surely the Department of Education has an obligation to look at its services on a daily basis, because they are front-line services. It may take a long time to work on some of those issues, but they need to be addressed.

Mr Lichy: Historically, one of the biggest issues for the deaf community has been education and early years education. The BDA was set up 135 years ago by a group of deaf people who were concerned about deaf education. After many years, those concerns remain, so I agree. Thank you for raising that imperative issue. It would be advantageous to have that in the Bill.

Dr Adam: The BDA was established by an Irishman. It is very important that I put that on the record.

Going back to something that Majella said, we have classroom assistants who can sign, but we would really like to see deaf-qualified teachers in the school system. That is what we really need to aim for.

We are looking at the legislation and what will it do. Legislation on spoken languages looks at the vitality and promotion of the language so that the language community can thrive and the language can become a subject that people want to learn. It is about the vitality of the language. Sign language is not included in the education system. Perhaps you could do something totally unique in Northern Ireland by including a provision in the legislation to ensure that sign language becomes part of the education system. It would be wonderful to see that happening here in Northern Ireland. You could put yourselves on the map as a world leader in deaf education if you did something really unique in the area.

Ms K Armstrong: Robert, you mentioned the word "promotion". The Bill, as it stands, does not define how sign language will be promoted. It states what it may do, but it does not define what promoting it will mean. Would you like us to define that in the legislation?

Ms McAteer: It is about recognising human rights, because language is a part of human rights. It is about respecting our language, which we use every day. This is not about tokenism; it is about accepting that this is our life. If there were no interpreters, we could not communicate with one other here today. However, because there are interpreters in the room today, we all have the opportunity to communicate with one other. In the deaf community, we talk to one other all the time in sign language. We chat day and daily with one other. We want our human rights to be respected and acknowledged. If you look at other countries that have a sign language Act, you see that there are choices. We want choices.

We want to have those choices on the basis of sign language. We live in a visual world, and we want to have that recognised and acknowledged.

Dr Adam: The promotion of sigh language will be done through government initiatives and the development of a profile for it. That will be done by ensuring effective education on sign language, teaching the families of deaf children, and their friends and networks, how to use sign language. For example, a lot of people know Rose, who was on 'Strictly Come Dancing'. She has become an important figure for us because her profile is so high on the national stage. We can see what is going on. Even the sign for "thank you" is now out and about. The Chair used it earlier, and I really appreciate that. That would not have happened five or 10 years ago. That is the promotion of sign language. It is about having it visible in society, and you are providing the framework and structure for that to happen. It is about all of us working together on that.

Ms McAteer: Within three days of Rose winning her award on 'Strictly Come Dancing', Google had more than 200,000 people looking for sign language classes because everything was connected. You could go through the metrics and see how many people were trying to learn sign language as a result of what Rose did on 'Strictly Come Dancing'.

Mr Lichy: Thank you for picking up on the term "promotion", which is crucial. Our language is not just a communication tool; it is a fully fledged language that has its own culture, history and heritage. It is probably better for that part of the action plan to be devised in collaboration with deaf-led organisations and those that can really break down what can be done to promote the language and what deaf people would like to see.

I noticed one gap. We garnered feedback from the parents of deaf children who were interested in learning sign language in order to communicate with their new babies. When they meet teachers of the deaf or audiologists, the feedback and opinions that they receive on sign language are extremely negative. In Great Britain, that is a potential breach of the Equality Act 2010. The Act does not apply to Northern Ireland, so we have identified a possible legislative gap there. What would happen if a family or those working closely with early years services received a negative opinion from professionals about sign language? What would be the possible implications of that, and what can we do to improve such situations?

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much for your presentation. People like me take it for granted that we will not experience the communication difficulties that you have outlined. How difficult is it for members of the deaf community to seek employment? I read in the papers that you may have to register as disabled to access communication services. How much of a disadvantage is that, and will the Bill go a long way to addressing the communication problems?

Ms McAteer: In Northern Ireland, we are massively disadvantaged compared with wider society. Any problem that someone faces in getting a job is doubly hard for us. Our educational struggles mean that we have lower levels of qualifications, and the communication issue is one that employers automatically do not want to know about. Deaf people who are going into employment have to notify their employer that they are deaf. They can then automatically go through an access-to-work claim, which means that they can go through an assessment. Some employers are aware of that but the amount of work on access depends on where you work. For some charities, you will get it automatically. For some large-scale employers, they expect the employees to contribute to that support. I have access-to-work support, which gives me 16 hours per week of interpreter support for meetings and the whole range of other tasks that an interpreter can do with me.

Do you have anything to add to that, Tom?

Mr Lichy: Deaf people certainly experience many barriers in their jobs and careers because of the system. Obtaining qualifications, being able to access informal networking and taking on voluntary opportunities and apprenticeships can be extremely difficult for us. The national model of having one deaf person in a non-signing work placement creates other issues with microaggressions in the workplace. If you bring an interpreter into the workplace, that is fine; they have formal working hours. However, during the lunch break and the afternoon and morning breaks, deaf people are missing out on information. It can be quite draining for an interpreter to work those long hours. It is imperative that signers work together in the same workplace. I am not saying, "Deaf people only"; it is about hearing people as well. There should be a signing environment in which we share the same language and support each other in the professional workplace.

Dr Adam: It is especially difficult for deaf people who are not in high professional jobs; I do not know a better way in which to word that. If a deaf person works in manual labour, in a factory or a shop, they will never get access-to-work support. They need to be able to get that access-to-work support and to book interpreters, but that is a lot of admin for such a person to have to deal with, if they even get that support in the first place. As Tom said, a lot of that incidental conversation and chit-chat, which is so important, is not there. A lot of key information, including, perhaps, health and safety information, is not being picked up because deaf people in the workplace are very much limited in their access to work. As a result, they are missing out on a lot. There are deaf people who work for Amazon and in the wider gig economy. There are a lot of people who experience those challenges and difficulties in the workplace. It is a massive problem for us.

Mr Lichy: Robert rightly mentioned deaf people's careers. There are huge barriers to their even obtaining a job, to their having the skills in order to operate in the workplace, and to their getting their first promotion, especially when it comes to high-level jobs.

Mr Bradley: This is an absolutely fascinating presentation. It is, perhaps, one of the most enjoyable ones that I have experienced on the Committee. I am a firm believer that success comes only when you bring people with you. If you do things to, or for, people, it seldom garners support or success. Therefore, it is important that sign language users be engaged on and included in any aspect in this area, should that be legislation or advances in technology. I encourage you to remain engaged.

I am keen to see sign language being taught at school to everyone, especially in primary schools, because children have the ability to learn quicker and are more receptive to new things than us adults. What are your thoughts on sign language being taught to all children as part of the curriculum, irrespective of whether they are sign language users?

Dr Adam: That is a very interesting and topical question. I work in Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh. I train interpreters, teach deaf studies and do a lot of research. I ask my interpreting students, "Why did you get into sign language, and why do you want to be an interpreter?". They may say, "I went to school with a deaf person, so I learnt some sign language when I was at school". You can see that embedding the language and experiences with schoolchildren has lasting effects and can contribute to the deaf and interpreting economy, and, obviously, then, wider society. Those are professional jobs. Teaching children language in school, specifically sign language — BSL and ISL — can massively increase opportunity.

Ms McAteer: I absolutely agree. Cregagh Primary School, which is here in Belfast, has about 15 deaf children in its deaf unit.

The headmaster is extremely committed. He brings a tutor into the school one or two days per week to teach sign language to the hearing students, which makes the whole environment inclusive and means that those deaf and hearing children can communicate with ease. That is a fantastic model, because deaf children feel respected and empowered. We are also looking at increasing interpreter capacity. Recently, we have been looking at the BSL GCSE in England, and we hope to see that happening and then being rolled over to here as well. There are plans in the pipeline; we just need to make sure that they happen.

Mr Lichy: Thank you both for that. I agree with both statements that were made. I will go back a little bit. Educating all children in sign language at school is a wonderful model that I support. It is about the acquisition of language and the connections that children make through language. Linked to having deaf children in mainstream schools, it would be marvellous if all hearing children could learn BSL to level 1 or level 2, but I do not want to miss the concept of language fluency. Deaf children also need to be with their peers who have signing fluency and a high level of language acquired so that they can mix effectively, express themselves and have adequate structure in their thoughts. Doing that in school might be too late. Sign language should be provided the first day that those children are born or the day that they are recognised as being deaf.

The NHS is rolling out more genetic testing and diagnostic technologies, and antenatal services do genetic analysis for all babies after birth. In the future, there could even be a pre-birth screening, so that when a woman is pregnant, the child in her belly could be identified as being deaf or not. That would mean parents having a great opportunity to start learning sign language immediately and their children having sign language before they enter school. The attitude of parents should be positive from the day that their child is born. It is so important to have deaf involvement in the early years sector.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I now come to our Deputy Chair, Nicola Brogan. I also have an indication from Maolíosa. He will be after Nicola, and then I will come to Brian. This is a brilliant session, but we are, as ever, under time pressure. I ask members to take that into account.

Miss Brogan: Thank you, Chair. I thank the witnesses for attending the Committee meeting this morning. I agree with Maurice that it has been an excellent briefing. We have all learned a lot and now have a better understanding of the challenges that the deaf community faces and the opportunities that are there. I hope that, as Robert said in his opening remarks, young people from the deaf community are watching and feel inspired by your contributions. I hope that the Sign Language Bill, and the fact that we are talking about it and the challenges facing the deaf community, removes some of the barriers for the deaf community, because that is certainly deserved.

Robert, in your opening remarks, you referenced the fact that any change to law or policy must be made in conjunction with the deaf community. Do you feel that, so far, your voice and the voice of the British Deaf Association have been heard on the Sign Language Bill?

Dr Adam: I think that Majella is probably best placed to respond to that question, because she is based in Northern Ireland.

Ms McAteer: We have the sign language framework, which is separate to the Bill. Work on that started back in 2004. That was when sign language was officially recognised, but, obviously, at that point, it was just recognition. Essentially, we wanted more than the mere recognition that our language exists. Deaf Answers was then commissioned to create a roadmap to find evidence and get feedback from the deaf community, professionals and a number of people to see what we wanted to have set up. That is where the idea of sign language legislation came from.

Scotland, England and the South of Ireland have their legislation, but we have not had ours. That is why we went out to consultation in 2016. A lot of people were involved in that consultation. It was the first time ever that Facebook was used, and the BDA did that in conjunction with DFC, or the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure as, I think, it was then. We had 360 videos from the deaf community, through which they told us what they wanted. That was very strong evidence.

That journey has been ongoing. The sign language partnership group is also there now. We understand that, for different reasons, that has stalled along the way in the past 10 years, but now we are seeing it moving, and it is great to be here in this position.

Miss Brogan: That is good. I am glad that you feel that you have been able to be part of the production of this, in that case, even though it has taken some time. At least we are on the right track now.

As regards the Bill, I want to ask about clause 5. We have talked again about the consultation part and the Department liaising with other groups, but another part in clause 5 mentions:

Do you think that "have regard" is strong enough, or should Departments and prescribed organisations essentially be compelled to follow the guidance?

Ms McAteer: To go back a little bit, I think it will be up to the "prescribed organisations" to develop action plans, and so a lot of that will need to be done in conjunction with the regulations. Again, that will need the deaf community to be involved at every stage, contributing to it, because deaf people understand their lived experience and know what their priorities are. It all needs to be done collaboratively.

Mr Lichy: I agree with your point. The word "regard" is potentially not strong enough. I am not standing to guess which strong word should be used. I respect your experience and the advice from civil servants on any matters such as this. However, the history of Governments across the UK in consulting, getting feedback and then ignoring it — its becoming a tokenistic exercise — has happened, so I understand the concerns that you have raised there.

Miss Brogan: I agree with that. We need to be mindful of and careful of that. I thank you again for attending today. It has been really worthwhile and very powerful, so thank you, and thank you, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you, Deputy Chair. We now come to Maolíosa, who is with us on Zoom. Go ahead, please, Maolíosa.

Mr McHugh: Fáilte romhaibh uilig.

Is deas bualadh libh arís.

Go háirithe le Majella. Bhuail mé leat in Strabane,

when you were there at the consultation meeting that we had.

Ms McAteer: We did indeed meet. It is nice to see you again.

Mr McHugh: It is ironic, given the amount of discussion that we have in relation to language, its culture and the importance of its visibility, that it is in this Bill that, in many ways, we highlight the importance of language and the fact that it is not a threat to anyone, but it enriches us all when we can communicate with one another. I hope that the Bill — I am not yet convinced — will create an environment that will allow, in particular, those who do not have sign language or depend on sign language to embrace it and that there will be a greater understanding throughout the wider population. In fact, I thought that Maurice's recommendation that it be included in the school curriculum was excellent as well.

To what extent do you believe that the Bill will make a positive contribution to a greater understanding in the wider community? This responsibility is in relation to the needs of the deaf community, but in particular, to being able to directly communicate with them as well or, basically, to understand them. One does not have to be fluent in sign language, any more than one has to be fluent in Irish, to understand, at times, the importance of communication.

Ms McAteer: For best practice guidelines, we need to look at what is happening across all the public bodies. Strategy will be involved in how this will be launched, the commitments that will be made and how to ensure the presence of the legislation. I believe that, once it goes live, you will be surprised on the day at what happens. There will be a crowd of deaf people outside on the hill cheering, a lot of people, and this will be very visible. It will be a massive event for us to celebrate. We will feel that we have achieved something in Northern Ireland.

Dr Adam: We are coming back to what we have discussed already. It is about promotion: promoting through action plans; teaching sign language in schools; ensuring that deaf children, their families and support networks have that; and ensuring that the media incorporates BSL and ISL.

Ms McAteer: Things like 'Strictly Come Dancing' show what a profile can do. Perhaps including more deaf people in these competitions in the future would be a good idea.

Mr Lichy: I will add to the point on engagement, which is linked to your previous questions. You can create a plan, a wonderful concept, but then the implementation becomes the priority. Through some feedback, we know that implementation through co-production sometimes works and sometimes does not. We have had co-production projects at the BDA across the UK that were aimed at the deaf community, and we have struggled. We had one partner, a community representative, using sign language and then the local authority, council worker or government representative not being a fluent signer. Having two chairs, two co-partners, who do not have a common language between them, creates a barrier and therefore that causes problems.

On the other side of the project, we have time spent educating non-signing people, so the project fails to move on because we have these education pieces that need to be done first. The Welsh Government are currently doing a co-production project called the BSL stakeholder group, which is led by a deaf person. I am the chair, with a civil servant representative from Wales. He is a fluent signer and deaf. I must say that, for the first time in my life, a co-production project is working exceptionally well, moving quickly and effectively and achieving its aims. That is one element that you could aim to achieve.
With respect, you should have more background documentation supporting these endeavours. In Departments, you should have a deaf signing person who learns about the internal work of the team. That certainly can be delivered if that sort of person is put into place.

Mr McHugh: Finally, for the Bill to be effective, does it require a ring-fenced budget not only for the promotion of the Bill but for the development and understanding of sign language?

Ms McAteer: I do not know how your government budgets work.

Mr Lichy: We certainly welcome the opportunity for the deaf community, and deaf professionals, to have more involvement in the economic process, making spending decisions and having assessments of the best and most effective use of money. A framework on that would be fantastic.

Ms McAteer: To be honest, there needs to be investment. We have talked about deaf leadership, and that capacity building will require funding. There are many developments. Family Signing in the Home in Northern Ireland has been one of the best projects ever. It has been running for over 10 years. You can have accredited routes for parents of deaf children from level 1 up to level 6, certifying that they are learning sign language. That is being delivered by another organisation. The BDA is delivering a 10- to 20-week programme. This is sign language in the family environment in the home. We had a deaf child recently who was being taxied to school, and they brought the taxi driver into the family's at-home sign language session so that the taxi driver could communicate with their deaf child. It is an investment that works. That is realistic.

Dr Adam: Life is not free. If we want to develop these things, we have to put aside money to pay for them.

Ms McAteer: We have the potential to be a world leader if we put the right kind of investment in place.

Mr Lichy: Let me go back: the BDA has commissioned academic research from a think tank called RAND that is extremely informed on matters of economy. It has created a huge economic model on how sign language can be beneficial to the economy and what the implications are of making changes in expenditure in different areas that are linked to sign language. The work is not finished, but we are extremely excited about its results. They should be released later this year, and we would be happy to show you the results.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): The point on resource is well made. My interest in signing predates my becoming an MLA. I applied three times to courses in my local college to learn sign language, and, on each of those three occasions, the course was oversubscribed. That tells me that demand was already outstripping supply at that time. We hope that, as a result of the Bill, that demand will grow, with expectation, rightly, growing. I have not been able to get back to it since I became an MLA, but it is on my to-do list. The expressiveness and beauty of the language are what attract me to it.

Mr Kingston: Thank you all for your attendance. It has been informative and educational for me and, I think, all of us. Tom, you talked about a gap in equality legislation for deaf children. Will you explain that again? Clause 2 of the Bill talks about the provision of classes:

Will that address the gap? Will you clarify whether you think that something else will be missing?

Mr Lichy: I was referring to the Equality Act 2010. Part of the section on additional public-sector responsibilities talks about encouraging understanding between disabled and non-disabled people. A professional who is working in a local authority or within NHS services might make a critical statement, in their professional capacity, about sign language. For example, parents have been told that their doctor has said, "If your child learns sign language, it will never learn to speak". That is completely incorrect. From research, we know that that is simply not true.

Dr Adam: Absolutely. May I add to that, on the background? Most children who are diagnosed deaf are in a medical setting. Generally, here, that is the NHS or a local health centre, but it is a medical setting. As a result, people will come at this through a medical lens. They will probably say, "We are so sorry your child is deaf". Those comments give a misconception of that deaf child and their future. That is where we do not have that legislation here. Within the Equality Act, that is something that you cannot say. You cannot give mythical information such as, "If your child learns to sign, they will not learn to speak". That is incorrect. That is where it safeguards that sort of narrative.

Mr Lichy: There are two elements of misconception. The criticism of sign language generally — parents now raise complaints, due to the Equality Act, over discrimination against sign language, and also hearing and deaf segregation. There is another issue, which is not really linked to the Equality Act. A lot of new research is emerging that shows that, if babies learn sign language early, it supports their speech skills later. Therefore, there is no reason to exclude sign language from their initial language development. There is a fear over speech, but it is actually the opposite: sign language supports speech. There is myriad evidence to back that up.

Mr Kingston: I think you are saying that there should not be any suggestion or recommendation against the learning of sign language. Is that right?

Mr Lichy: Yes. Thank you for taking me back to my original point. I apologise for going off a little bit there. It is about the embedded criticism of sign language. How do we protect our language? How do we protect our deaf people and deaf children? How do we protect our hearing parents from those negative attitudes towards deafness and sign language? The public generally are very positive. The staff working in the NHS and in early years are really positive people, but we know from the front-line experience of parents trying to learn and understand what is the best option for their deaf babies that there are implicit issues. It does not seem that the legislation covers the issues inherent in the early diagnosis of deaf children.

Ms McAteer: It comes down to informed choice. Sign language should be one of the choices that parents are given when their baby is diagnosed as deaf. That information should be provided at the point of diagnosis. Within the framework and, hopefully, within our legislation, an early years pathway will be developed. The hope is that that will be included there.

Mr Lichy: One way of potentially revising that element could be to add a line stating that professionals working within government and local authorities have accountability to be fair and supportive of all languages.

Dr Adam: To summarise, I have met so many deaf people who say, "Oh, I wish I'd learned sign language when I was smaller. I wish my parents knew sign language." The problem was that they were not fortunate enough to meet a person to give them that opportunity. That is really a summary of that.

Mr Lichy: We call that language deprivation. For a hearing child, language deprivation is exceptionally rare — it almost never happens — but for a deaf child, it is extremely common. Language deprivation is real, and that is due to the systemic focus on the teaching of spoken language and withholding sign language until the child then fails to speak, and then offering it as a last-minute addition. It is the consequences of accepting failure to give sign language to these deaf children. You do not want those parents to feel that they have failed. They are only human; it is the wrong sort of intention. It should not be like that. All deaf children should be given all the tools of language to be able to read, write, speak and sign. Give deaf children everything.

Mr Kingston: Clause 5(3) states:

but only

That seems to be poor wording. How is the deaf community organised in Northern Ireland? Prescribed groups will be listed. Should deaf community groups be listed? Is it a complicated picture or is there a fairly representative structure? Is it yourselves? Is it the BDA?

Mr Lichy: Again, I would say to follow the UNCRPD criteria as to what a representative organisation or person is. How do you identify these people and organisations? For the UK, the deaf and disabled people's organisations have their own interpretation of the UNCRPD criteria, and both frameworks are extremely useful aids for DFC to identify which groups are best placed to be honest representatives and really reflect the authentic views of the deaf community.

Ms McAteer: I will add the sign language partnership group. There are many, many deaf organisations and deaf individuals represented there. Its constitution is going to be reviewed and revised with the hope of bringing in more deaf people to the sign language partnership group. That is ongoing work, so there will be changes there to coincide with the Bill going through. That is positive.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Officials will follow up with Cregagh Primary School to ensure that engagement is offered there.

The other thing that I want to briefly touch upon is the inclusion of what are known as Henry VIII powers in the Bill. They would allow the Department to make regulations, and they provide the Department with some flexibility to do that. However, they might mean that there would not be the same level of scrutiny. Do you have any concerns around the level of Henry VIII powers contained within the Bill?

Ms McAteer: I can understand that there are concerns around that. However, the Department for Communities is very well known within Northern Ireland to the local deaf community. If you look at the rest of the UK, and the government structures there, you will see that, normally, the legislation has been under Departments such as the Department for Work and Pensions, which is very remote. This has also been under the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. The fact that it is in this structure, alongside other languages, means that there are experts there who have been working with the deaf community for over 20 years and who are taking that responsibility on and that there have been officials working on it since 2004 and looking at and addressing the issues. Of course, we need to ensure that deaf people are actively involved throughout the process. If we moved to another Department taking this on, we would be reinventing the wheel and starting from scratch. The Department for Communities has a relationship with the deaf community and a leadership involvement with it.

Mr Lichy: The legislation that is proposed in Northern Ireland is simply amazing. It is the first of its kind. Why do I say that? In Scotland, we have legislation through a private Member's Bill. The same happened in the UK legislation, and the current Welsh proposal of legislation is also through a private Member's Bill. A very similar process for all three. Here in Northern Ireland, it is completely different. This has full government backing and is unique in its way. We cannot get everything right the first time. I do not know whether you remember me mentioning the example of Typetalk earlier. The legislation caused that technology to be frozen; it could not be updated or adjusted. That specific situation would justify Henry VIII powers, because it would allow the Department for Communities, through experience and learning, to make adjustments as and when.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I have a final, brief question. Are there any amendments to the Bill that you would like to see? That is a brief question, but the answer might not be as brief.

Dr Adam: We would be delighted to see something about the education of deaf children to ensure that language acquisition is ensured for them. That is what could make the biggest impact on the deaf community and wider society in Northern Ireland for BSL and ISL: the acquisition of their language and ensuring that that happens effectively.

Mr Lichy: I completely agree with Robert. It is imperative that, from the day of recognition, deaf children, deaf babies and their families are given sign language for the best outcomes in their future. If we allow that language acquisition, there is huge potential for change for deaf children and the future of the deaf community.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you all. This has been an excellent session. It has given much food for thought. Like you, the Committee strongly welcomes the Department's bringing the Bill forward. I ask you to continue to encourage everyone in the community to engage through the process to inform and educate us on how we can make this the best Bill that it can be, to create a situation in which people are not saying, "We are sorry to hear your child is deaf", but rather, "We will ensure that there will never be discrimination against your child"; and that they experience the full range of activities that the rest of us enjoy. Thank you for that.