Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I welcome to the meeting the following representatives from the Royal National Institute for Deaf People (RNID): Teri Devine, associate director for inclusion and employment; and Mariette Mulvenna, development manager.

You are both very welcome this morning.

Teri, I invite you to make a brief opening statement before we move on to questions from Committee members.

Ms Teri Devine (Royal National Institute for Deaf People): Thank you, Chair. We thank the Committee for inviting us along to have the opportunity to give evidence on the Sign Language Bill.

As the Chair said, I am the associate director for inclusion and employment at the RNID. I have been there for too many years, shall I say. I joined in 2001. I am also on the British Sign Language Advisory Board at Westminster and am a CODA — a child of deaf adults — so sign language is my first language. I also have a unique perspective from having worked on all four sign language Bills across the UK. I was involved with the Scottish Bill initially in 2015 — you can tell from my accent that I am Scottish — and then with the Westminster Bill. Consequently, I became a member of the BSL Advisory Board. I am currently working on the Welsh Bill and the Northern Irish one. That is a brief introduction from me. Mariette will now introduce herself.

Ms Mariette Mulvenna (Royal National Institute for Deaf People): Good morning, everyone. I am a development manager for the RNID. Like Teri, I have worked for the RNID for an incredibly long time. I started in 2002. I was educated in Dublin, and my first language is therefore Irish Sign Language (ISL). I am now bilingual, using BSL and ISL. Thank you so much for having us here today.

Ms Devine: We recognise the work that the deaf community in Northern Ireland has done on campaigning for the Bill. It is really important to the whole community. We also recognise the role that the Department for Communities and the Minister for Communities have played in introducing the Bill. The RNID, along with other charities that represent deaf sign language users, campaigned for the Scottish Bill, which became the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015, and the Westminster Bill, which became the British Sign Language Act 2022. We also support the Welsh Bill and the Northern Irish Bill, which we hope will be successful.

The RNID fully supports the Sign Language Bill and its goal to recognise and promote sign languages, which include BSL and ISL, in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is uniquely lucky, because its Bill is the only Executive-led devolved legislation on sign language. That gives it the opportunity to go a lot further than other, similar legislation in the UK, because the other Bills were private Members' Bills, so they could not carry the same weight as the Executive-led one. The obligation that the Bill puts on the Department for Communities to promote:

particularly by making sign language classes available to deaf people, their families and carers, is a huge step forward in ensuring better access to sign language. Furthermore, the accreditation scheme for interpreters and sign language tutors should help the Executive better understand the workforce that is available to support deaf sign language users in Northern Ireland and, in turn, address any shortages.

Overall, we hope that the consultation with the deaf community that is outlined in the Bill is extended to its implementation as well in order to ensure that the needs of the deaf community in Northern Ireland are kept front of mind. The deaf community therefore has to be front and centre in everything that we do here.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you. You have great breadth of experience to bring to the Committee this morning, which I very much welcome.

The Committee has heard concerns that the requirement in clause 8(1)(b) to consult:

before laying a draft of regulations is too limited. Your written submission expresses support for the clause as drafted. Is at least one person or group enough, especially if the same person or group is used frequently?

Ms Devine: No. As much as we have written yes, that is more about the community being consulted, as I said, we would like consultation to be extended to the Bill's full implementation so that the Department meets every part of the community as much as possible, where it is feasible to do so. All deaf people are different, and they all have different needs. There are different levels of need in the community, so we would expect the consultation to be extended.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you. The fact that two sign languages are involved indicates that.

Ms Devine: Absolutely.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Your written submission also cites alarming research from last year that found:

them. Can you give some examples of how that manifests itself, Teri? How will addressing that be a key indicator of the Bill's success?

Ms Devine: One of the things to which the Bill refers is educating families to have sign language. One of the biggest barriers for deaf people in everyday life is accessing information or services wherever they go. It is therefore about their being able to access everything in everyday life, whether that be shopping or education. It is about educating the public as well, because if people do not know how to approach or communicate with a deaf person, there is an automatic barrier. We want to reduce barriers and undertake an education process. It is therefore fantastic that the Department for Communities has said that it will provide family sign language classes. That is brilliant and really important, because Northern Ireland is the only place in the UK that will provide them. The Bill, however, should primarily be about raising public awareness so that deaf people can access services every day.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you. Mariette, do you want to add anything?

Ms Mulvenna: Are you asking me to comment on the question, Chair?

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Yes, on the question about stigma.

Ms Mulvenna: Certainly. I agree with what Teri said. I am a deaf person, and I face barriers daily. Those barriers are linked to stigma and could be overcome through there being very basic deaf awareness among the general public. That would make a massive difference. I am talking about simple things, such as people adding gestures to their communication. That can certainly make a difference to how people communicate and thus help the deaf community feel more included in society.

I will give an example. One of my children had to go to hospital. It was an emergency. The doctor had BSL level 1 and used gestures to help reassure me. They signed their name and told me their role: that they were the doctor. That was reassuring to me, as a mum, in a setting in which I could have felt quite lost, with a child in those extreme circumstances.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you. That is very useful.

Do you believe that the Bill will address that? Should that indicator be reported on as part of the reporting requirements in clause 9, along with the prescribed indicators that you mentioned in your submission?

Ms Devine: I will double-check what we said in our submission.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): While you are checking that, what I am really asking is whether that is something that we should also include as an indicator when measuring the Bill's success.

Ms Devine: Yes, I think so. If we are to prepare a report that evaluates the impact of the Bill, it should include that as an indicator. It would be a real positive to try to measure whether the deaf community feels more accepted in the wider community.

Ms K Armstrong: I will go through some of the clauses. Clause 2 is about the promotion of interests. Although it refers to accredited teachers and to learning for deaf children and their families, it does not state anything further about how promotion will happen. Is there anything in any of the other devolved nations' Bills that has been good at outlining what promotion by government should look like?

Ms Devine: On promotion work, the Westminster Bill initially stated that a report should be provided on the activities that Departments are doing every five years. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions then agreed to do a report every year that stated what the activities were so that the progression of what was being delivered for British Sign Language at Westminster could be seen.

It is slightly different in Scotland, where each public authority has to produce a development plan. All have a responsibility every year to develop their own plan that states what they are going to do. They then get the deaf community to look at their plan. Some public authorities will not have done that, and they will be told, "You haven't done the plan yet". In the case of the public authorities that have produced a plan, however, their plan will be looked at, and they will be told, "That's all right. What you're doing is good". A lot of what the different public authorities can do comes down to budget, but there are ways in which to do their plan.

Ms K Armstrong: On the subject of budgets, I am concerned that "affordability" is mentioned in clause 3. I do not think that putting affordability above inclusion is the way in which to go. Do you think that affordability is a reasonable excuse for not taking reasonable steps?

Ms Devine: It depends, because there is a need to be pragmatic. There is a journey to go on to establish what services the deaf community uses in Northern Ireland. The providers of services that are used most often, which means that they can afford to provide them, are the ones on which you want to put pressure to deliver the services. There may be smaller Departments that do not have the budget to take reasonable steps but that also have no demand on their services from the deaf community, so it is about being pragmatic and asking whether services should be provided when the money is not there to do so.

There are ways around that. As a central service, you could establish a video relay service (VRS) that all the Departments can use and that is managed centrally. That is what happens in Scotland, where there is a VRS that the community, Departments and public authorities can use. The Health and Social Care Directorates use it. In fact, it is now at the stage at which deaf people can use a VRS to order a pizza, if that is what they want to do, because it is about their full inclusion in life.

There are therefore methods that can be put into place to support the affordability element.

Ms K Armstrong: Clause 3 talks about "all reasonable steps", but such steps are not listed in the Bill. Those will come later, through regulations.

Ms Devine: Yes.

Ms K Armstrong: Would it therefore be more appropriate to start by pointing out what is considered unreasonable? I mean, for example, if people go to an accident and emergency department, they should expect to find someone there who has a level of sign language. The same should be true if people go to a dentist. Are there certain activities in life for which we would say, "There is legislation in place now, so you cannot use affordability as an excuse. It is now written down that you have to have taken reasonable steps, although there are some areas in which interpretation has been provided"?

Ms Devine: Absolutely. We very much consider health to be one of the key areas in which interpreters have to be provided, and they have to be suitably qualified. Legal services is another area in which you have to have interpreters at an appropriate level who are undergoing continuing professional development (CPD) and have the qualifications. It is particularly key in health where somebody's life is at risk, and they want to make sure that they are getting the right information about medication or something like that. It has happened in the past that parents have brought their child to the hospital, and the child has had to interpret for the parents, "Your mum has cancer", which is completely inappropriate. I was told of an example last week of someone who went to a hospital that had an interpreter, but the interpreter was a trainee, and she said, "The jargon's too much for me. I should not have taken this job." It is therefore really important that there is a qualified interpreter to do the work.

Ms K Armstrong: That goes back to clause 2 and the requirement to have accredited people, but "accreditation" is not defined in the Bill. I would not expect it to be, because the definition could change. That, again, is to be done through regulations. How vital therefore is it that the deaf community be involved in setting what is acceptable accreditation?

Ms Devine: It is really important, particularly in Northern Ireland, because you have two sign languages, and the qualifications for ISL are quite different from those for BSL. It is therefore important that you have accreditation that you accept for both. Interpreters travel up from the South to support people in the North, so having accreditation that recognises both sign languages is important. The community can tell you what accreditation is really important to them.

Ms K Armstrong: Finally on accreditation, we are committing to providing sign language classes for people who are around deaf children, and we are doing that in order to provide accreditation for teachers and training for the wider public, especially adults with acquired hearing loss later in life. My worry is that, in order to teach, people have to have a teaching qualification and a sign language qualification, when it is the sign language qualification that is key, because it is about the language. Do you think that the Bill will help with that, or is it very unclear?

Ms Devine: It is important that people have both a teaching qualification and a sign language qualification. The fact that someone can sign does not mean that they can teach, and there are frameworks in place for teaching. The qualification does not have to be like a schoolteacher's qualification. There are tutor teaching qualifications that are slightly different, and they allow deaf BSL users to teach sign language. It is therefore important that teachers have those qualifications, because it will ensure that the student's learning is appropriate and suitable for the future. Unfortunately, there are quite a lot of cowboys, as we would say, who teach BSL and ISL who are not qualified to teach, so people are paying for a service but are not getting the same quality of training.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you.

Ms Devine: You are welcome.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): In general terms, across key services, is it better to have a wide range of staff who have some awareness or to have people who are specialists in the role and can be drawn on?

Ms Devine: Having both is important. We would say that anybody who works on the front line should have a level of deaf awareness but, if you have a service that provides a specialist service for deaf people, particularly sign language users, there should be somebody there who has a level of qualification.

If they do not have that level of qualification, it is about having a framework in place so that suitably qualified interpreters can be brought in to do the job for them, and that has to be timely as well. Somebody who has an appointment should not have to wait two weeks to get an interpreter. There therefore needs to be a framework in place to be able to book interpreters, which is why I suggested a central system for booking interpreters.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Is having a complaints procedure an important part of legislation such as this?

Ms Devine: Yes. One of the things that we find in the deaf community is that people do not complain. The reason that they do not complain is that it is so difficult for them to do so. There is no process in place. Take the current 'Pathways to Work' Green Paper at Westminster. The entire Green Paper has been translated, but there is no process in place for a deaf person to sign back the response. It has to be done in written format, which is completely inappropriate. It is therefore about thinking about things like that and about what you can do to make sure that deaf people have full access.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you for your assistance so far. It has been really useful. Finally, clause 7 is titled "Department may make regulations". Clause 7(6) states:

Is "may" strong enough in that sense, or should we consider the use of the word "must" or some other form of words?

Ms Devine: You need to give yourselves some space. The regulation might need to change in the future. Things change. Nothing stays constant, and you need to give yourself that space. Saying "must" restricts you a bit more, whereas saying "may" will allow you to make a change.

Mr Kingston: A lot of the our legislation is enabling legislation. It can be strengthened over time, so we often have the debate about "may" or "must". At least it is providing the means for regulations to be made.

Clause 2 deals with promotion of interests. Clause 2(2) refers to:

A previous witness told us about situations in which deaf children and their families are sometimes encouraged at an early stage not to learn sign language, as doing so may discourage the children from learning to lip-read. The intention is to support development of their spoken language. I think that that was the context. That, however, discourages children from learning sign language, which will ultimately be their first language.

There should not be a presumption against learning sign language at an early stage. It should not be prohibited, because the witness described that as language deprivation for the children in their first language if early access to and encouragement of sign language has not been provided. Does either of you have a view on that? Are you aware of examples of language deprivation through the not-early-enough provision of sign language?

Ms Devine: We always advocate for total communication for children. Give them every tool in the box so that they can learn and improve their education opportunities. Give them sign language and speech therapy, and, as they get older, they can decide for themselves which way they want to go and whether they want use sign language and be part of that community or whether they want to be oral. It is therefore about giving a child every possible tool in the box and not depriving them so that they have access to a language altogether.

If you look at education attainment rates, you will see that deaf children, particularly, cochlear implant wearers, are assumed to be able to hear when they are in a classroom. They cannot, so they miss out on quite a lot. They have deaf fatigue etc, so the attainment rates are lower for deaf children when they leave school.

Children who have sign language and get the appropriate support in school do better at attainment. As I said, it is about giving them every tool in the box.

If they have cochlear implants and sign language, it gives them that extra communication skill. Do you agree, Mariette?

Ms Mulvenna: I agree. When I was growing up, my parents were encouraged not to use sign language. They were told that it would not be worth it. When I look back on my life, I see the barriers that that created. Those other children who are not learning sign language at a young age — their reading age, post 16, is coming out at roughly 10 years old, which is not enough. The evidence on the importance of learning sign language at a young age speaks for itself.

Mr Kingston: We will look at whether there is somewhere in the text where we could insert wording to make that point.

Ms Devine: I can certainly take that away and give you something in writing.

Mr Kingston: Let us know if you have a view on that.

Ms Devine: Yes.

Mr Kingston: At this stage, our role is to ensure that the text of the Bill is appropriate.

Ms Devine: I can certainly take it away, have a look at the text and do a written submission, if that is agreeable.

Mr Kingston: That would be helpful; thank you.

Ms K Armstrong: Finally, compared with the other pieces of legislation, is there anything that is not included here, but which was a good thing elsewhere, that we could consider?

Ms Devine: I do not think so. To be honest, I am very impressed with the Northern Ireland legislation, having looked at the others. The support that will be given to children and families is absolutely amazing. That does not happen elsewhere, and it is important. The fact that you are looking at training more interpreters and tutors of sign language is also important. That does not happen elsewhere; they do not have the frameworks elsewhere to do that. That is where the Executive have the extra weight; because the others were private Members' Bills; there was no money behind them to support them to do anything like that. I know that you are looking at the VRS in Scotland. The provision of the VRS is the one good thing that came out of Scotland. Your Bill is comprehensive in comparison with the others.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Mariette, do you wish to add anything to Teri's comments?

Ms Mulvenna: No, that is fine. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you, Teri and Mariette. That has been useful information for us at Committee Stage. Thank you for your attendance.

Ms Devine: Thank you for your time.