Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I welcome Aidan Stennett from the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe) to brief us on the detail in his paper. Aidan, please go ahead and brief Committee members, and we will then move on to questions.

Mr Aidan Stennett (Research and Information Service): Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everyone.

I previously briefed the Committee back in February on the costs associated with the Sign Language Bill. Members will recall that, at the time, I noted that the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) contained limited financial information. The EFM notes that the Bill is an enabling Bill and states that it will have "no immediate financial implications" but that costs could be incurred in the future when the Department implements the powers that the Bill provides. During that presentation, members had questions about the cost of sign language provision in other jurisdictions, and that is what today's briefing will explore, with a focus on Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland.

It is perhaps best if I begin with some caveats. It is difficult, if not impossible, to compare the cost of provision across jurisdictions, and there are two reasons for that. First, sign language provision in each jurisdiction is different. That is explained in greater detail in the RaISe Bill paper that the Committee received in February. Secondly, the Northern Ireland Sign Language Bill is, as I said, an enabling Bill. We do not know, for example, which public bodies will be designated as prescribed organisations, nor do we know the content of the guidance that those organisations will be required to follow. We are therefore really not clear about what we are comparing. In that context, direct comparison between jurisdictions should be treated with caution. Instead, this briefing will try to identify categories of cost that have occurred in other jurisdictions.

I will look first at the UK example. The Bill that became the British Sign Language Act 2022 was introduced:

It also placed a requirement on the Secretary of State:

and to issue guidance on the use of BSL.

At the time of the Bill's introduction, the UK Government stated that the Act would impose no new costs. Although the Bill did require government bodies to report, that was not viewed as being additional to the requirements that had been previously set out under the Equality Act 2010 and the public-sector equality duty in that Act. Since the Bill was enacted, the UK Government have issued three reports on how Departments have used BSL. The latest one was published in July, and that report, like the two that preceded it, did not include any detailed financial information. The reports reveal — this may be interesting to the Committee — that not all Departments have produced sign language communications. That was largely as a result of departmental functions, with those with limited customer-facing roles less likely to produce BSL materials.

I will now look at Scotland. The British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 required listed bodies to develop plans and to raise awareness of BSL. Cost estimates at the time of the Bill's passing anticipated that the Act's provisions would result in a yearly cost of £755,000. The largest proportion of that cost — £530,000 — was attributable to the development and reporting of BSL plans by listed authorities.

The Northern Ireland Bill does not include a direct provision for prescribed organisations to produce plans, and it is not clear whether that will be a feature of the guidance that the Department for Communities is to draw up in the future. The Bill includes provisions for the Department to report on the legislation's progress every five years. Other categories of cost that may carry over to Northern Ireland from the Scottish example include staffing costs at departmental and public-body level and the costs of engaging with the deaf community.

I will now look at Wales. The Welsh Bill — the British Sign Language (Wales) Bill — was introduced in July 2025, subsequent to the Bill paper that RaISe prepared for the Committee.

As introduced, the Bill contains provision for the Welsh Government to:

as well as to publish a national strategy and report on progress made on that strategy; provide guidance for public bodies; and appoint a BSL adviser and panel.

Costing information that the Welsh Government produced estimates that the Bill will have a total cost of between £3·8 million and £4·1 million over a 10-year period. The largest proportion of that cost is attributable to funding to appoint a BSL adviser and panel. That cost is not transferable to the Northern Ireland context, given the Bill as it stands. The Welsh example suggests that the Welsh Government anticipate that there will be some costs associated with the development of guidance. In the financial information, that anticipated cost is combined with the cost of providing a national BSL strategy, so it is not possible do disaggregate the two. The total cost of developing the strategy and the guidance is estimated at £106,000 over 10 years.

Finally, I will look at the Republic of Ireland. As members are aware, the Irish Sign Language Act 2017 was commenced in December 2020. In 2021, a report reviewing the operation of the Act was published. The report did not include any explicit information on the costs of meeting the Act's provisions. It did, however, note that only 20·9% of public bodies surveyed had ring-fenced funding for Irish Sign Language (ISL) provision. In the Republic of Ireland, the Citizens Information Board provides funding to agencies with ISL responsibilities, including the Regulatory Centre for Irish Sign Language Interpreters (RISLI), which is a centre that provides the registration system for interpreters. That is somewhat similar to provisions in the Northern Ireland Bill for a scheme for accrediting teachers and interpreters of BSL and ISL. In 2023, RISLI had a budget of just under €250,000.

A review of questions and answers in the Oireachtas revealed other categories of cost that may be applicable in a Northern Ireland context, depending on the content of the final guidelines that are produced. Those include things such as providing ISL interpretation at departmental events, funding a home tuition scheme, training staff in ISL and providing ISL in court services and for an Garda Síochána. Similar to the GB example, the review of questions and answers revealed that some Departments in the Republic of Ireland reported that they had limited ISL provision owing to their role requiring limited interaction with the public.

Thank you, Chair. That is all that I wanted to cover. I hope that that is useful to the Committee. I am, of course, happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): It is useful to get that context and to get a handle on what some of the figures may be. They are substantial figures, but we are going to have to invest more as a result of the Bill. That is the situation that the Bill will create, and it is to be welcomed.

Before I bring in members, I note that you made a point about some UK bodies or Departments not doing anything because they feel that they are not customer-facing. That is relevant to the Bill, in that it relates to the criterion that, where it is reasonable and practicable for Departments to do so, they must, so they will almost self-regulate. That is not a question as such but more a comment to say that that concerns me. As we go through the legislative process, I want to compare and contrast how that might impact on the implementation of the Bill. For example, my concern would be that people might say, "We are not customer-facing, so we will just turn our face against interpretation," and that could lead to problems down the line or to people not seeing the improvement that they hope to see. As I said, it is not a question, Aidan. Rather, it is something that sparked an interest in me and that I will pick up on again as we go through the Bill.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much for your presentation, Aidan. We do not have the figures for the financial outcomes from the Bill as it stands. There is, however, a duty in the Bill for all prescribed organisations to take reasonable steps. Clause 3(2)(b) states:

My concern is that we have seen from the other jurisdictions that not everywhere is putting sign language interpretation in place. By having something like that in the Bill, does it not already give those prescribed organisations an out? They could say, "It is too expensive to provide".

Mr Stennett: We are getting into a bit of legal interpretation on that one. I do not think that I can answer that. It may be a good question to direct to the Department.

Ms K Armstrong: Did you not find that matters of affordability came up in any of the other jurisdictions?

Mr Stennett: I did not come across it, but that does not mean that it is not an issue. I was not specifically looking for it. I was looking at —.

Ms K Armstrong: This is an enabling Bill, so we could go completely daft and throw a load of stuff into it that would cost a clean fortune. I would be quite happy if there were a deaf primary school and a deaf secondary school in every council area in Northern Ireland, but that would cost a lot of money. If the Committee tables any amendments to the Bill, there will be financial implications. I wonder how far we can push this in order to make sure that it is inclusive and meets the needs of people who require sign language, whether that be British Sign Language or Irish Sign Language, while considering affordability. We want the provision to be good, as opposed to just being provided. Did anything about how other Governments have had to consider that balance arise from your research?

Mr Stennett: No. It did not come up. An interesting point from the Republic of Ireland example is that not all Departments had ring-fenced budgets but also that — apologies, I am just scanning the document — 31% of bodies were unaware of the ISL Act and that only 36% stated that they were fully compliant with it. There is therefore an awareness question to be asked of the organisations that are going to be subject to the legislation. Moreover, there is a budgetary question in the context of the wider Budget situation, which is quite tight.

Ms K Armstrong: My concern is that we have the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 here. An organisation would therefore not be able to get away with not putting in, say for instance, ramps, but the affordability measure in the Bill means that it could get away with not providing interpretation for sign language.

There seems to be nothing in the paper that states what the repercussions were for the organisations in the South that were unaware of the ISL.

Mr Stennett: I think back to the paper from which that came. The paper did not go into very much detail. It was a survey, but I am very happy to look at it again for the Committee.

Ms K Armstrong: That would be interesting. I am concerned that, in the Bill, the Department for Communities does not have the ability to force anything on to any other prescribed organisation. The affordability issue then comes in. To me, if I were in any other Department with a tight budget, I would say, "Leave that. We cannot afford it". There has to be something in the Bill, however, that shows the deaf community that it is as recognised as any other part of society and, as such, will be provided for. It would be interesting to learn what the repercussions are for other Governments if their Departments do not deliver. That would be good to know.

Thank you very much, Aidan. Your paper is really good and really useful.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): The paper becomes more and more useful as we go on.

Can we learn anything from Wales? We are dealing with two sign languages here, but it occurs to me that Wales is dealing with two core spoken languages. Is there additional cost involved there? Can we ensure that similar costs here are seen to be reasonable, given that there are two clearly defined forms of sign language? I gather that the Welsh Bill is at an early legislative stage. What are your thoughts on that, Aidan?

Mr Stennett: I really am not sure about the policy side of that Bill. It is not really my area of expertise, but I am sure that it is something that we as a service could look at for you.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): For now, your paper provides a template from which we could estimate some costs or get an idea of them.

Mr Bradley: Thanks very much, Aidan, for the informative paper. I have a couple of off-the-cuff questions. What provision is there in the Republic of Ireland for BSL? Can you perhaps delve into that to determine what the costs are? Moreover, what are the costs for us here to develop two sign languages when the one in common usage across these islands is BSL? Kellie made a valuable point about whether people will use the cost of providing something as a reason not to provide something. It would therefore be useful if we had all the figures in front of us. Having a standard sign language across all the islands would be the way forward. If we are making provision here in Northern Ireland for Irish Sign Language, what provision is being made in the Republic of Ireland for BSL?

Mr Stennett: Chair, we are again straying into stuff that is beyond the scope of the paper.

Mr Bradley: Apologies for that.

Mr Stennett: The purpose of the Irish Sign Language Act was to promote Irish Sign Language. The information in the Bill on the cost of promoting two sign languages in Northern Ireland is limited. There is no costing information provided, so I cannot comment at this stage.

Mr Bradley: The cost to the Assembly of providing services is something that we will need to consider down the line. This is a great place for giving away money, but it is not ours to give away. A wee bit of housekeeping needs to be done here, not just on what we are talking about now but right across the Assembly. If you were to be in the Chamber for four weeks, you would think that this place is coming down with money, given the speed with which we give it away. We do not have it to give away, unfortunately. Thanks, Aidan.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thanks, Maurice.

Mr Bradley: Sorry, Chair. That was a bit off the cuff.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): No worries. For me, one of the acknowledged key strengths of the Bill is its approach to including both sign languages. If people are vulnerable because of additional communication needs, the fact that they are then a minority within a minority makes them more vulnerable if anything, so including both sign languages is to be welcomed. The cost argument is valid and is absolutely one that we must always take into account. Given the discrimination that people potentially face, however, it is absolutely valid that we look at the benefits of opening up services in a fair and equitable way. Yes, they will come with a cost. We will hear much more about the Bill as we go through Committee Stage. Do members have any other questions?

Mrs Cameron: It is useful to have this information. As a new member of the Committee, I am really getting up to speed on the Bill. Is there any reference in your paper to the cost of building capacity in order to deliver sign language services? We know how under pressure those services are currently. There is heavy burnout among interpreters, and a lot of reliance is placed on the same people. There is therefore clearly a huge need to educate so that we have the capability to deliver proper sign language services in both languages, and rightly so, to ensure that people are not left out in the cold, as they are currently. I am passionate about the issue. There is an entire deaf community that has been ignored, sidelined and left with no access to basic information. That is just not right. I therefore welcome where we are at with the Bill and look forward to seeing progress made. Is there anything in your paper that directly relates to the possible cost of building capacity?

Mr Stennett: There is limited information on those costs. There are a couple of examples from questions and answers in the Oireachtas. The Department of Education and Youth introduced an ISL home tuition scheme, which has an annual budget of €300,000. The Irish Passport Service employed two members of staff to provide ISL interpretation and training for additional members of staff, but no figure was attached, unfortunately. There are small examples available, but the information is limited. Overall, there is quite limited information about spend.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Pam, are you content?

Mrs Cameron: Yes.

Ms K Armstrong: To follow up on Pam's point, the explanatory and financial memorandum does not include any figures for costs to the Department. Can we ask the Department whether it now has any figures?

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): It may have been working on the figures.

Ms K Armstrong: It may have been. It would be useful to know the Department's thinking on the cost of the Bill. Its repercussions further down the line will be a different matter, because the cost of providing front-facing staff to provide interpretation or sign language services in other parts of government will increase as time goes on. At the moment, however, there are no costs provided in the EFM. Can we do a comparison?

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Are members content for us to ask the Department for an update on costs?

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Do members have any other questions for Aidan?

Ms K Armstrong: No. The briefing was very good.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Aidan, thank you very much. I appreciate that we all strayed beyond the remit of your paper. That was done out of curiosity, and it is no reflection on your briefing. Your work has prompted some further questions for us, which is good. The briefing will be a very useful resource as the Bill goes through its remaining stages. Thank you, Aidan.

Mr Stennett: Thank you.