Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I welcome the following representatives to the meeting: Déirdre Vaughan, who is the government relations adviser, and Jacqueline Melville, who is head of policy and influencing here in the North. You are very welcome. Déirdre, I understand that you will make a brief opening statement before handing over to Jacqueline, and then we will go to questions from members.

Ms Déirdre Vaughan (National Deaf Children's Society): Thank you so much, Chair and members of the Committee. To start off, on behalf of the National Deaf Children's Society (NDCS), I thank you for the opportunity to provide evidence today. Just so you know, Jacqueline and I are both hearing. We work as part of a wider staff team of hearing and deaf colleagues, as well as colleagues who are children of deaf adults and parents of deaf children.

We warmly welcome the introduction of the Sign Language Bill, which offers a meaningful opportunity in this mandate to achieve lasting, positive change for deaf children and their families, now and in the future. The introduction of the Bill marks an important milestone, not just for deaf children, their families and the wider community, but, we believe, for us as a society, striving to better embed equality and respect in our laws, policies, public services and everyday lives. The Bill is long overdue but most definitely to be welcomed.

By way of introduction to National Deaf Children's Society, we are dedicated to supporting deaf children and young people and their families. Across Northern Ireland, we work with, and alongside, a diverse population of deaf children, and we support all deaf children and families, regardless of level or type of deafness or the mode of communication that they choose to use. All our work is guided by the principle of informed choice: that is, making sure that deaf children and families have access to unbiased information and support to make the decisions that are right for them. That includes promoting access to sign language as a key option. We acknowledge the Department's ongoing work on sign language and for consulting and involving a range of organisations on this. Our evidence today has been directly informed by our ongoing work with deaf children and families and by our consultations on sign language in 2016 and 2021 and our recent 2025 survey.

I will hand over to Jacqueline, who will highlight the key themes that members may wish to consider during Committee Stage. Thank you.

Ms Jacqueline Melville (National Deaf Children's Society): The Bill is ambitious in many areas. We particularly welcome commitments to ensuring access to sign language classes for deaf children and families, access to information and services in sign language, accreditation of tutors and interpreters, and duties to promote sign language. Those provisions can make a significant and important difference in the lives of many deaf children and families who use, or wish to use, sign language. However, it is perhaps unsurprising that there are areas where we at NDCS would like to see the ambition of the Bill extended further, or where we are seeking clarification to make sure that the Bill will deliver for deaf children. Deaf children are not a homogenous group: each child, with their experience of deafness, wider circumstances and needs, is unique, and their journey with sign language will be individual. That is important when considering how the Bill might work in practice, and there are three areas we would like to highlight.

First, inclusion. Deaf children's relationship with sign language can develop and change over time. The Bill's provisions should be available to deaf children, regardless of their age, their level or type of deafness, or the point that they are at in their sign language journey. The Bill uses different phrasing at times in regard to sign language, such as where its use is "necessary" or "convenient" or where an individual will "rely" on sign language. The strongest and most poignant thing from our most recent survey was the potential of the Bill to progress inclusion, equality and respect for all deaf children who use sign language. The phrasing in the Bill should not inadvertently or unintentionally restrict the group of deaf children and families who can benefit from its entitlements. To ensure that, there should be a clear and consistent definition that recognises the evolving relationship that deaf children may have with sign language.

Secondly, impact. To create meaningful change, the Bill must extend across deaf children and young people's lives. That means ensuring that the range of prescribed organisations in the Bill genuinely reflects the settings that are important to children and families. Again, our engagement has underlined the fact that settings across early years, education, play and recreation, as well as areas such as family support, health and social care, public transport, employment support and justice should be addressed. Thinking about the broader policy framework for children, the children's strategy and the Children's Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 define clear outcome areas for children's well-being across all areas of their lives. Those outcome areas could provide a useful basis from which the Bill's list of prescribed bodies, as well as the sign language plans that prescribed bodies could be required to develop, could be framed.

The third area is implementation. The Bill's implementation must be robust. We are mindful that much of the detail of the Bill will come through regulations and guidance. A clear time frame for those should be in place, and the process around them should allow for proper consultation. That should of course include Assembly scrutiny, but also consultation with deaf children and families. We are concerned that, in relation to regulations and guidance, the Department "must consult" only:

The language used in the Bill should not inadvertently restrict consultation with deaf children and young people. The views of deaf children and families should also inform reporting on the Bill. Reporting should have a clear focus on reviewing the effectiveness of the legislation and guidance and identifying recommendations for improvement. An interim report to be completed before the five-yearly reporting cycle begins would be welcome. Effective implementation will require awareness-raising about the Bill and its duties, as well as resourcing.

Finally, we invite the Committee to meet some of the deaf children and families alongside whom we have the privilege of working. Thank you for your time this morning. We are happy to answer any questions that you might have.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you. That was really useful, as was your written submission. Your written submission states:

and that deaf children here in the North:

That means that children and their families will be navigating interaction with multiple agencies and support services on an ongoing basis. Clause 3 states:

are equally accessible. You note the need for a high threshold in that regard. Will you talk a little bit about what that high threshold might mean in practice and how it might be reflected in the Bill?

Ms Melville: You have touched on one of the key points. It is about taking a step back and thinking about the arrangements that need to be in place to support the good implementation of the Bill. It is about thinking about the diversity, complexity and richness of the population of deaf children and families across Northern Ireland and making sure that two things are in place. The first is robust routes to the identification of deafness, understanding that currently, for the majority of children, deafness is not identified through the newborn hearing screening programme. It might be through that route, but the majority of children are older; they may be of compulsory school age before deafness occurs or is identified. It is about having strong identification in place and, following from that, having services wrapped around children and families holistically so that there is a strong pathway that links with their tailored support for their individual needs, which can pick up on additional special educational needs and mental health needs, as well as embedding that access to informed choice that Déirdre touched on. It is also about making sure that children and families have unbiased information and evidence so that they can make the choices that are right for them. Sign language needs to be part of that.

On reasonable steps, we appreciate the enabling approach being taken in the Bill and recognise that detail will flow through from regulations into best practice guidance and statutory guidance, but it is important to aim for a high threshold. It is not about minimum standards; it is about what should be done to meet the needs of children and families. Déirdre, you might want to come in a bit more on that.

Ms Vaughan: Your response covered the question. The deaf community, including the wide range of children with mild or moderate hearing loss, which is the majority of deaf children in Northern Ireland, need to be included in any consultation around the high threshold.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you.

I see from your website that the Scottish Government have responded positively to proposed amendments to recognise British Sign Language in their new education legislation, which is thanks in part to the 400 deaf children and young people who wrote to the Scottish Parliament's Education Committee. We have seen great examples recently at this Committee, and at the Public Accounts Committee, on which I sit, of young people engaging in the development of legislation and the value that they can bring to that. We will certainly want to consider what you said about engaging with some of the young children whom you represent. That would be a great opportunity for us. Do you have any other positive examples of children engaging on legislative development?

Ms Melville: Our colleagues who focus their work on Scotland are delighted with the developments and recognition in the legislation in Scotland. It provides a powerful example of how the views, experiences and needs of children and their families should be shaping legislation. We acknowledge the Department's ongoing dialogue and engagement with a wide range of organisations and bodies across deaf children and families and the wider deaf community, and we want to see that continue.

It is important that the Bill, as we said, does not almost inadvertently restrict the good practice that is developing. The experiences of children and families need to be at the heart of the development of the Bill and right through regulations, development of guidance, and further through to the reporting on how effective the legislation is. We have really valuable insights from children and families through our consultation on what they would like to see the Bill deliver and what is important for them. Part of that possibly speaks to the promotion of sign language. One of the consistent themes among children and parents has been the potential role of education, and work in early years in education, to bring sign language more into the curriculum and for it not just to be a vehicle to increase the use of sign language but to increase acceptance, understanding, inclusion and improved deaf awareness in society. We are not where we should be on that for deaf children and their families in Northern Ireland. Whilst the Bill obviously has a focus on linguistic rights and sign language, it also offers the potential to move us on much more for deaf children.

Ms Vaughan: All our evidence today is informed by our consultation with deaf children and their families, and they are excited about the promise in the Bill. If you look at workforce as well — building a bank of tutors and interpreters — they are telling us that that is a great opportunity for deaf people to become involved by becoming tutors and bringing valuable lived experience. There is a range of opportunities there for deaf children.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much for your presentation. You were speaking about sign language and the curriculum. I agree that that would be a fantastic way to spread knowledge of sign language and using sign language. Children are sponges, so they will love to see something practical and physical that they can do. It was raised with me in another evidence session that, if we bring sign language into the curriculum, that is not the only thing that schools should do, because a child who uses sign language is probably more proficient than the rest in the class, because they are only starting to learn. What can we do? It is that thing about deaf school and mainstream school. Have any children made any comment about having a preference for being in mainstream or having deaf school? How do we take that forward to achieve the best possible outcomes for young people?

Ms Melville: We come back to informed choice. It is about ensuring that children and families have access to a wide range of options and are able to make the choice that is right for them. Wherever deaf children are in the education system, it is vital that their right to education should have tailored support based on individual needs. In Northern Ireland, over three quarters of deaf children are in mainstream education settings, around 21% are in special schools, and smaller numbers of deaf children are in schools that have a dedicated resource provision attached to the school or in the one specialist school that we have for deaf and visually impaired children in Northern Ireland. It is about finding ways to build on the positive momentum of the Bill in order to achieve progress in a wide range of settings. Education is such a clear example of where that momentum exists, and those opportunities should be taken to promote inclusion. That is really important.

Ms K Armstrong: We talk about taking opportunities for inclusion. Clause 5 states:

Is that strong enough?

Ms Melville: That is a good example of where strengthening the language in the Bill might be helpful to ensure that there is due regard to the statutory guidance. We want to see high-quality guidance that is informed by the experiences of deaf children and young people. Again, we are back to setting a high threshold for prescribed organisations to meet across all areas of children's lives.

Ms K Armstrong: On the timetable, the Bill can go through as an Act and sit on the statute books, but it will not do anything until a lot of the regulations have been made. I am aware that, if we go out to consultation with the deaf community, that will need time in order to make sure that the regulations — they will not be a done deal, because they will be organic — have at least some sort of strength. Should we be pushing for some sort of timescale for the regulations, or is it better not to do that because of the consultation needs?

Ms Melville: That is where a balance has to be struck between being pragmatic and ensuring that the Bill is delivered and is directly informed by the experiences, expertise and insights of those whom it will most affect. Like many others, our first consultation with deaf children on the legislation was in 2016. They are no longer children; that was nearly a decade ago. Déirdre touched on the excitement and the sense of hope and pride that children and families have about the legislation. We would like to see it delivered for deaf children and families in this mandate while there is the momentum and strong Executive support from all parties. We do not want deaf children and families to have to wait longer.

Ms K Armstrong: Clause 6(2) states:

I am a great believer in having a baseline that you have to include. What is listed there is not bad. It is not everything, but it is not bad. It is a start. Should there be a baseline, even before we go out to consultation with the deaf community? Instead of "offer or facilitate", should it state, "You must provide, as an outcome of this Bill, communication in British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language"? Is there a baseline that we should start from, and should we get that going? I am a little bit concerned that there are too many references to "may", "might" and "could" instead of "must" and "shall".

Ms Melville: Yes. For us and our focus is on deaf children and families, we think that it might be helpful to explore ways in which to embed the Bill, the regulations or the guidance a little bit more in the wider policy framework for children and young people. That will then address some of the concerns about the prescribed organisations being too narrow in focus and not being in the settings that are important to deaf children and their families or about the guidance not fully addressing all the areas that are important to children and families. Again, this is about our wanting to ensure that the Bill delivers meaningful change in children's daily lives.

Ms K Armstrong: My final question goes back to this thing on promotion and how we get that out. I watched very closely when health and safety legislation was brought in across Northern Ireland. It was promoted in a very determined way throughout Northern Ireland so that all employers would know. If we take the same route, we can actually have holistic, cross-Executive, cross-departmental promotion of sign language. It will not just be that, if you need it, you will get it on request; it will be a natural part of work. Should there be a little bit more in the promotion section to outline guidance on how that will be done or when it will happen — on a regular basis, hopefully?

Ms Melville: The Committee and the Assembly are probably better placed to judge whether it should sit in the Bill or come through regulations or guidance.

Our main concern is about having it there and that the opportunity to give further definition and clarity to promotion is taken. We have talked about education and deaf awareness initiatives. It is also about making sure that prescribed bodies are aware of their duties and that members of the wider deaf community are aware of the obligations that prescribed bodies should meet on their behalf.

There is important learning from other jurisdictions that have legislation in place. For example, in Ireland, around 30% of designated bodies were not aware of the legislation and their new duties. It is important that, when the Bill becomes legislation, all the building blocks are in place so that children and families start to see the positive difference in their lives.

Ms Vaughan: On promotion, I will circle back to our consultation with the deaf community. Promotion equals inclusion. One of the key and most poignant themes was the need to reduce that sense of isolation and difference among deaf children and to promote equality and inclusion. If you are thinking about a promotion piece in the school context, yes, it is about a greater use of sign language in schools at all levels of the curriculum, but it is also about deaf awareness. The dream is for a child to go to school and find not only that those in their immediate circle know sign language but that the teachers, classroom assistants and dinner ladies might have a bit of sign language. All those sort of promotion duties in schools break down those barriers. It is crucial, and that key theme keeps emerging.

Ms Melville: In our recent survey about the Bill, we asked about positive change, and there was, of course, support for access to sign language interpreters and information in sign language. However, the changes that attracted the greatest support, particularly from parents, related to staff and other children being able to use sign language.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much for your presentation. It was very interesting. My questions are about education, and they follow the same lines as Kellie's. There should be an understanding of sign language, especially at primary-school level, which promotes inclusion and social acceptance. It is about recognising that people have a difference and showing how to deal with it. If children who are deaf could communicate with their teachers and peers in a classroom setting or in the playground when they are having fun, it would promote their development. My question is along the lines of Kellie's. How do you get the message across that not only deaf children but those who have no hearing difficulties need to be educated from primary-school level in order to be able to use and understand sign language so that they can communicate? As you said, it breaks down barriers. Children naturally become friends with anybody and everybody. It would help them to communicate, build friendships and break down social barriers. Who knows where it could lead to in later life?

Ms Vaughan: As you said, it is about inclusion and promotion. As Jacqueline said, three quarters of deaf children are in mainstream settings. They might be the only deaf child in their school. A sense of difference is already baked in. If we were to include sign language in the curriculum at an early level for the whole school so that there is deaf awareness and awareness of sign language, it would speak to that, and, as you said, it would break down barriers. That can be built on in secondary school. We are working towards the introduction of a sign language GCSE as well. There are lots of things that you can build on, but you are right: it is so important to start at an early level.

Mr Bradley: My granddaughter is learning Spanish and Mandarin at her primary school. Her teacher explained it to me simply like this: when she graduates to the next level of schooling, she will already have a head start. If you were to learn sign language at primary school, you would have a head start.

Mr Kingston: I am interested in the definition of "the deaf community" in clause 11. I do not know whether you have the wording of the Bill in front of you. For the purpose of the Bill, the deaf community seems to be described as, basically, anybody who uses sign language, whether they or a family member is deaf, so it would include people who have full hearing. How does that tie in with clause 2(2), which states that the Department should ensure the "availability of classes" for "deaf children", meaning, I presume, children who are deaf — who do not have full hearing? Is that definition sufficient? Should it include children whose parents are deaf or use sign language? My reading of clause 2 is that the requirement to provide classes would not apply to children born to parents who use sign language. Clause 2(2) seems to be the only place in the Bill that refers to "deaf children" rather than "members of the deaf community", as clause 11 describes them. By my reading of that clause, anyone who uses sign language is a member of the deaf community, so clause 2 does not provide for hearing children whose parents are deaf. They would learn from their parents, of course, but they should be provided with classes.

Ms Melville: Yes. We read clause 11 as including children of deaf people; it would include the category of children of deaf adults. It is important to recognise that the Bill is ambitious. One aspect of that is in its seeking to be inclusive. The definition of members of the deaf community in clause 11 is, for us, very much for the purpose of the Bill as a sign language Bill. We welcome that specific focus, and it is one area in which a clearly defined entitlement flows from the Bill, which is for deaf children and their families to access sign language classes. The acquisition of sign language piece — opportunity to learn; availability of classes — is key.

Something that was touched on in the previous session and that we both, as hearing people in our roles, always remember is that sign language has a difficult history — it has been undermined; it has been marginalised — in which advice to families discouraged the learning of sign language, and there was really poor understanding of the fact that sign language is a valid part of the language-rich environment that all children need. That history is changing, and there is good progress, but those things did not happen so long ago: we work with school-age children's parents who remember being discouraged, at the point of their deafness being identified, from learning sign language. It is important for the acquisition piece — letting children have access to sign language — to be in the Bill.

That brings us back to the need for pathways to be in place to, when deafness is identified, route children and families to holistic, tailored support that includes being given clear information about communication options including sign language and access to classes. I am not sure whether I entirely answered your question.

Mr Kingston: We will check with officials in due course. Most of the Bill refers to "members of the deaf community". Only clause 2(2)(b) refers to:

Children of a deaf adult should also be entitled to free classes. That might need to be clarified.

I mentioned that a previous witness highlighted the discouragement — I think that is what you were talking about — of learning of sign language. Is there a form of wording that should be included in the legislation to prohibit discouragement? Is "prohibit" too strong a word? The intention would be to "prohibit" discouragement of learning sign language for a deaf child. Sometimes, health professionals or the parents decide to encourage the child to speak more, learn to lip read and use implants to help with limited hearing. The previous witness described that discouragement as "language deprivation", and that all forms of communication help to develop those skills. The discouragement of learning sign language should be prevented.

Ms Melville: NDCS puts informed choice at the heart of all its work with children, young people and families. It is about the importance of children and families having a meaningful choice, and access to the infrastructure to support them and the professionals, about the communication mode and language that is right for them. We are mindful that it changes and evolves, and we have already touched on that. It is important that it is in line with the child's wishes as they grow and develop.

When we think of the families whom we work with, sign and spoken language is important for some families. Some children's needs and wishes will change over time, and that might be because of progressive deafness. There may be certain listening environments where sign language is much more appropriate and supportive to them. It might be because the young person's deaf identity is growing and their connection to the deaf community and culture is becoming increasingly important to them.

For NDCS, it is about making sure that the language in the Bill supports the choice. The Bill should contain a recognition that a child and family's relationship with sign language may evolve. There should be no risk of interpretation or implementation of the Bill being restrictive and making assumptions that, for example, a child and a family should have decided by the time that they reach the first year of compulsory school, when we know that the majority of children referred to the Education Authority's sensory service are already school age at that stage.

Mr Kingston: I hear what you are saying. Can I ask one other question, Chair, if we have time?

You mentioned some statistics about schooling, and three quarters of deaf children are in mainstream schools, and 21% are in special schools, such as Jordanstown School. Is that still the case?

Ms Melville: We describe Jordanstown School as the specialist school for deaf and visually impaired children in Northern Ireland.

Mr Kingston: Can you tell us how the education is enabled for the three quarters of deaf children who are in mainstream schools? Are they children with partial hearing or are they fully deaf? How does that work in practice?

Ms Melville: It can be a mix. Again, NDCS wants to see school choices and placements driven and informed by individual choice. The child's needs should be catered for individually in each school, particularly in mainstream schools. In special schools, the Education Authority's sensory service will have been with those children since birth, or the earliest point of identification, to support families, and part of its role is to ensure there is tailored support for the child and the family and progress is being achieved. The sensory service also has a role in advising and supporting mainstream and special school settings to make sure that staff have the training, equipment and general ongoing advice to the school so that it can do whatever is necessary to ensure that each deaf child can fully participate in their education and the wider aspects of school. It is not just about classroom time; it is about lunchtime and extracurricular activities, and that theme came out in our engagement with children and families.

Ms Vaughan: There was a quote in the most recent survey from a parent saying that their child was excluded from taking part in extracurricular activities just because the child was not able to communicate. That is where we see that the Bill has an opportunity to speak to those needs as well.

Mr Kingston: Do children who are using sign language in mainstream schools have interpreters?

Ms Vaughan: Yes. We have some data from a Consortium for Research in Deaf Education report, which is referenced in our evidence, and, at the moment, 1% of deaf children mainly use sign language in education and 2% use spoken English with signed support. It is a small number at present.

Mr Kingston: During their time at school, would they have someone who can interpret for them? Is that how that works in practice?

Ms Melville: In practice, it really depends on the individual child. The point that you are making about access to that specialist workforce, if you like, who have some language skills and the appropriate level of sign language to support a child, whether they are in an early years setting or in an exam year, is really important. That is one of the reasons why we think that the legislation's speaking to the accreditation of tutors and interpreters is also very progressive. We are mindful of the work that the Department has done and continues to do on building the infrastructure so that, not only do families and children have access to learning family sign language and sign language but there is support and access for tutors and interpreters to progress. That will need to keep being developed and built over time as part of the implementation.

Ms K Armstrong: I just want to come back to clause 11 around the definition of the deaf community. Is there a better definition than that, as what has already been included in the Bill is really quite convoluted? Is there anything a bit simpler being used elsewhere?

Ms Melville: Oh, that is a good question. With regard to the detail in that clause, for us, that is about the Department wanting to seek to be inclusive, and that is obviously important. It is maybe something that we could go away and look at.

Ms K Armstrong: I will look at it too because I would be excluded from it, and I am deaf. I have moderate hearing loss, and I am not included in the deaf community in that. It talks about children and:

and

It does not talk about adults who have acquired hearing loss and double-hearing-aid wearers. I just think that, somewhere, there must be a better definition.

Ms Vaughan: It goes back to that inclusion piece. You are entirely right: it needs to be recognised that deaf children and deaf people's relationship with sign language can evolve over time. Most children in Northern Ireland, as I referenced earlier, have mild to moderate hearing loss. They may not need sign language at the start of their journey, but that may change, through choice, deterioration of hearing or whatever, and that needs to be spoken about. You are right that there is a bit of inconsistency in the language throughout the Bill. Some phrases say "necessary or convenient" or "rely on". Necessary and convenient is possibly stronger but it would be better if that was consistent throughout the legislation.

Ms K Armstrong: If there is another definition from your organisation, it would be really helpful to see that.

Mr Kingston: It is almost like a definition of the sign language community, effectively. I know it is a Sign Language Bill but, at times, it feels as though it clashes with other definitions.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): We could also take some advice from the Bill Office around the language, the meanings and the options for some of that language — the "may", "must" and the plural of communities. In fact, I noted what you said in your submission about the culture of deaf children, and I am sure that deaf children are actually at the fore in creating that. Probably, like many other things where there are cultures, there is not just one, and that is to be as inclusive as possible. I think that we should take a look and get some further advice on how that might be better reflected.

OK. That has been a really interesting session. One of my questions would have been about the five-year reporting, and we have heard, in some of the other evidence sessions, that it takes time to establish what exactly is happening. The concept of an interim report is a very useful addition to that consideration, because, obviously, you want to adjust the tiller, if necessary, at the earliest possible stage.

Ms Vaughan: Totally. We do not have a problem with the five years, because, obviously, it allows for data to be gathered over that period that would be very valuable. However, there is no harm in having an interim report just to pick up, as you say, any issues or problems at an early stage so that they can be addressed. That would be a good idea.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you. The other thing that I was very conscious of as you were talking was the whole issue of inclusion and the concept of, "You need to see it to be it". I was actually reflecting on the BBC's decision to remove signing from its midday news. The Committee has raised that several times. That was a really poor decision, I have to say, because it was one opportunity for people to see sign language being used in a mainstream setting. Often, I would have watched the bulletin again because, first of all, it was more interesting with signing, and, perhaps, you might hope to pick up a little bit of sign language, or whatever. It was just one occasion in the day. The idea to put it on late at night now, at the bottom of the screen and all that, is a poor one. The Committee has raised that. It is pertinent to the discussion that we have had today.

Thank you very much. We will be in touch with you about some of the issues that have been discussed. I appreciate your written submission and your evidence today, which has been really useful. It is a really important perspective to include the voice of children specifically. The Committee really appreciates that. Thank you.