Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): We welcome the following to the meeting: Laura Murphy-Sloan and Alex Leslie, directors of Adapt NI. Laura, you are going to make some opening remarks, and then we will go to questions from members.

Ms Laura Murphy-Sloan (Adapt NI): Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence. Before I begin, I will share a bit about who we are, if that is OK. My colleague Alex and I are both hearing. We co-founded Adapt NI in July 2022, following the closure of the only face-to-face employment service for deaf people in Northern Ireland. We are a small but committed team of five, working NI-wide. Two of our team are profoundly deaf, and one of them is deafblind. Our advisory group is made up of members from the deaf and hearing loss communities.

We established Adapt NI because we witnessed a serious and growing gap in employment services. We have seen at first hand the impact that that has on people's lives, not just on their job prospects but their well-being, mental health, financial security and overall independence. We do not come here to criticise or cause delay: actually, it is the opposite. We are incredibly grateful for the work that has brought us to this point, especially the work of the sign language partnership group (SLPG). What has happened over recent years? It is a snowball effect. There is more deaf awareness, more learning of Irish Sign Language (ISL) and British Sign Language (BSL) and more recognition. We would like to contribute ideas that, we feel, could strengthen the Bill, and we say openly that everything that we suggest should ultimately be shaped and led by the wider deaf community, whom we are proud to stand in support of.

Why do we feel that employment must be a core pillar in the Bill? While clause 2 promotes the use of BSL and ISL and encourages cultural and educational support, it does not include employment. Our initial evidence and, hopefully, today's evidence highlights the need for employment to be explicitly added, with long-term duties to support accessible recruitment; workplace interpreters; Workable (NI)'s skill set, which we deliver; style services; and training. We strongly believe that the Bill must include a dedicated permanent clause on employment. Yes, we have the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) and section 75. They offer legal protections, but they are not enough, and this is why. The DDA is limited. It is reactive; protections kick in only after disadvantage has occurred; it asks for "reasonable adjustments", but that is open to interpretation, which often leads to underprovision or delays; and it does not promote BSL or ISL — it just responds to complaints. It does not require systematic or strategic change, especially in public-sector workplaces. Section 75 can be broad and policy-focused. It promotes equality but does not enforce practical BSL or ISL access in the workplace; it does not apply to private-sector employers, for whom many deaf people work, unless they are delivering on public-service contracts; and it relies heavily on equality impact assessments and voluntary compliance, not practical daily support for deaf employees. Although those frameworks are important, they are not sufficient to address the persistent employment gap experienced by BSL and ISL users.

The legislation gives us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to embed language rights into all aspects of life, including work. A dedicated employment clause would make clear such proactive duties as accessible recruitment, signed training and workplace inclusion. It would also support funding for interpreters and technology NI-wide and ensure parity with the rest of the UK, especially in relation to access to work. It would promote public-sector leadership in inclusive employment, make workplace BSL and ISL awareness training standard and provide clarity beyond "reasonable adjustments", with clear expectations for inclusive practice. Recognition of BSL and ISL is important, but it means little if people cannot use their language in the workplace or if barriers continue to block access to jobs, career progression and independence. At Adapt NI, we support people who are ready and willing to work but cannot attend interviews because there is no interpreter; people who are in jobs from which they cannot progress, because support is piecemeal; and people who face employers who want to help but do not have training or tools. We have some proposed wording that we can share with you.

Our second one relates to a representative regulatory advisory board with reference to clauses 5, 7 and 8. We feel that there is a need to ensure that consultation is real, structured and representative. We feel that the current requirement to consult:

is not enough, as the deaf community is diverse, with different experiences, identities and needs. A one-size-fits-all approach does not really speak for everybody, so we strongly recommend the creation of an official advisory board made up of deaf BSL and ISL users across Northern Ireland. We would hope that that would be voted on by the community, would be regulated and transparent and would be reviewed or refreshed annually or biannually to reflect changing needs and ensure accountability. That would give the community a real voice in shaping how the Bill is implemented and evaluated so that consultation would not just be a tick-box exercise but a living, democratic process.

Finally, on person-led access to communication, we believe that there is a need for personal, flexible access to communication. Clause 3 focuses on making public services accessible to BSL and ISL users, but it includes a loophole that allows public bodies to consider cost and practicality. It is really important that we try to fill that gap. Currently, deaf individuals are limited by Access to Work rules. For example, if they work fewer than 16 hours, they cannot access Access to Work. For some people, it could be their first job or maybe just getting into the workplace. That includes the interview process. We would support a person-led communication allowance whereby individuals could book interpreting or video relay services for life moments that matter, supporting independence, dignity and full participation in society.

We know that, some day, our services will not be needed. We look forward to that day, but we are not there yet. To get there, we need the legislation to support us and, more important, the community whom we serve. We thank you again for the opportunity to contribute and sincerely hope that our evidence is received in the spirit in which we give it: respectfully, constructively and with the aim of helping Northern Ireland to lead the way in inclusion and language-based equality.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you. That was really useful. There were some really practical suggestions. It was interesting to hear your perspective. I have been struck overall by the value that there has been in the co-design that has taken place to date on the Bill. It really threads through all the work. Maintaining that principle and reiterative process as we go forward with the Bill and in many other areas is of huge value and importance.

On your concerns about clause 5, your paper makes the specific point that a diverse community cannot be represented by one stakeholder. That has come up as a theme quite often. I suppose that the other side of that coin is that frequent wide consultation can delay action. Where do you see the balance on that? How can the Bill be improved to take account of your concerns in that respect?

Ms Murphy-Sloan: We hope that some kind of advisory group can be put together that involves the deaf community; something that is voted onto, so that it has representatives from different parts of the deaf community. Maybe it would be an annual voting procedure, but it would also give opportunities for people who are deaf to take on that responsibility and experience. It would create future opportunities for them, as well as being part of something so big.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): You have highlighted concerns around the requirement to take "reasonable steps". Does that phrase significantly weaken the Bill? Should that phrase be clarified or strengthened by the Department? If so, how would you like to see it strengthened?

Ms Murphy-Sloan: It is the word "reasonable". Maybe we need to expand on that slightly, including how. What is "reasonable"? "Reasonable" is open to so many different perspectives: it depends who is reading the "reasonable" statement. If it is a small business, what is reasonable for that small business may not be reasonable for a larger business that has a lot more finances in place. It is about trying to fill that gap, especially when it comes to someone who is going for an interview. Obviously, we are coming at this very much from an employment perspective, but, if a small business does not have the finance to fund an interpreter, who will fill that gap? Let us find a way and put a provision in place so that it is still reasonable for somebody to apply for an additional fund to put that in place.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK. The final one from me before I go to members relates to clause 2. You have highlighted the fact that you are concerned that it does not go far enough to ensure access to services. When it comes to any strengthening of the Bill in that respect, do you want to see it placing more statutory duties on public bodies? What should those be?

Ms Murphy-Sloan: Our issue is really that the Bill promotes BSL and ISL — cultural and educational support — but there is a complete lack of employment. We have come today to say that we see employment as a core pillar of opportunity for the Northern Ireland deaf community. I know that we have additional legislation in place and that we have the DDA, but we really need to see this as important. Employment is a key area in Northern Ireland for everybody, so it should be seen as a key area for the sign language users and the deaf community as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you very much, Laura.

Ms K Armstrong: I agree that employment is a key area. Given the fact that Northern Ireland has the highest number of people with disabilities who are out of work, we absolutely should focus on it. Are you aware of any legislation or regulations in the rest of these islands that reflect what you are talking about, such as support for people in employment, not just education but wider life skills? Are you aware of anything that we can look at?

Ms Murphy-Sloan: It is noted in the other Acts. In Scotland it just says "access to work", but employment is still on there. It is really important as a starting point and to lead by example. This is a fresh, new Bill that is coming through, so perhaps we can have employment on there. If there is anything that we can support with, we stand ready to help.

Ms K Armstrong: The Bill talks about the provision of support for children and people around them. That could be family, friends or teachers. I started to lose my hearing in later life, and it would be much more beneficial for me if my work colleagues had access to appropriate training so that I could communicate better with them. If we were to consider adding in a part on employment, should we look to replicate the provisions relating to children for the workplace, so that there is access to training? That would mean not just that the person can attend employment and be included as a full member of the workforce but that their colleagues' communication would be improved.

Ms Murphy-Sloan: We do that daily. We deliver training to businesses, employees and colleagues Northern Ireland-wide. We see that as a key part of raising awareness Northern Ireland-wide. Yes, absolutely. It takes everybody; it is not just for the deaf person to say, "I have hearing loss" or "I am deaf". It is very much for us to be more proactive in the approach. The environment needs to change, and that is the whole-society approach that we should take to changing the environment.

Ms K Armstrong: The Bill does not define what promotion will look like. At the moment, the Department for Communities is investing through councils in employment hubs, particularly with a view to looking at access to employment for people with disabilities. Given that you have said that there could be a difference between a large and small employer, should we consider supporting and helping employers by giving them access to information and awareness about deaf communication and about how the company should adhere to legislation to help them at a localised level? Might it be useful for the Department for Communities to consider using those employment hubs to also help the employers?

Ms Murphy-Sloan: Any awareness is good awareness. It is very much about trying to change the landscape. As I said, we work Northern Ireland-wide as a team of five. We get to as many employers, businesses and organisations as we can. The more people who raise awareness, the better.

Ms K Armstrong: You also said in your paper, which was very interesting to me, that government:

May I suggest a change to that? It could say, "Work away and use not-for-profits but fund them fairly". I know that Adapt NI has issues with funding and has had issues with funding. Should something be built into the legislation to require fair recompense for organisations that provide the supports?

Ms Murphy-Sloan: That should fall under "reasonable adjustments". I will give you an example about us, if that is OK and if you have a couple of minutes. We self-funded Adapt NI to set it up. We deliver SkillSET, which is a pre-employment and training programme, and Workable, which is an in-work support programme to support people to retain employment. A lot of people do not fit into either of those categories. We support them, because it is the right thing to do. Not-for-profit social enterprises pick up a lot. With our training, communication costs twice as much as the training, but that is what you do. Maybe if there were funding opportunities for people to make sure that they have that support in place, that would be brilliant.

Ms K Armstrong: If they do not, they sit unemployed and miss out on the opportunities of employment.

Ms Murphy-Sloan: We still support them, because it is the right thing to do.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you. That has been really helpful.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): That focus on work is really interesting in the sense that it overarches so much of what we do as an Executive, let alone the Department for Communities. The phrase that I always contest, "economic inactivity", is almost judgemental. In fact, we would be much better off calling it what it often is, which is "economic disadvantage": people being partially or fully locked out of the opportunity to engage in work. That is the approach that we should be looking at, so that is welcome.

One question from me is in relation to clause 7, which sets out some of the regulations that the Department may make. We have talked about the language of that, but are there other regulations that you would like to see or that could be included in the Bill?

Ms Murphy-Sloan: I have nothing to add. Do you have anything?

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK. If there is anything further, you can always include that as a follow-up.

That has been a really useful perspective on the Bill, I have to say, and one that has probably not focused on or been brought as clearly yet. It adds real value to our considerations in that respect, and I thank you very much for bringing that to Committee today. Are there any other questions, members, before we move along?

Mr Kingston: Does your organisation get support from the Shared Prosperity Fund? Have you experienced the cuts that other groups have?

Ms Alex Leslie (Adapt NI): Yes.

Mr Kingston: That is an issue that we continue to highlight. Right, OK.

Ms Leslie: That funding is only for this next year. It finishes in March.

Mr Kingston: Right, yes.

Ms Leslie: Again, it will be a case of, "What's next?"

Mr Kingston: Yes. And you have not heard yet?

Ms Murphy-Sloan: Not yet. We had to go to our advisory group to decide what we were going to do. Two weeks before, we found out that our team was going to continue, and we were trying to support them to look for other work, because we do not want anybody to be held back. We do not want to give fixed-term contracts, but that is how you are stuck in the nature of this work. They stayed, and we were then able to get the one-year extension. However, it is a very uncertain delivery. It should be permanent. We are the only people delivering this to the deaf, hearing loss and tinnitus community. It should be a permanent provision. There should always be access to employment and training. Hopefully, we have been able to give that evidence today.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Absolutely, and very effectively. Thank you very much. Good luck with the rest of your work — very important work it is as well.