Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I welcome Iain Greenway, Tommy McAuley and Gerard Flynn, who are from the sign language policy and legislation branch in DFC. The team are no strangers to the Committee. I invite Iain to brief the Committee on the Department's amendments before we move to questions from members.

Mr Iain Greenway (Department for Communities): Thank you, Chair and members. It is good to have reached this stage on this important Bill, and we appreciate the joint working that there has been with the Committee. We have sent through drafts, via the Office of the Legislative Counsel, of departmental amendments, all but two of which were discussed and debated in various Committee meetings over the autumn.

There are two departmental amendments. One is deeply technical and is about allowing flexibility should we want to do something with three Departments and so on. I suspect that that one will not hold us back too long as it is just about flexibility. The other one copper-fastens in clause 2 the fact that the sign language classes will be free. Technically, it is a small number of words, but it is obviously of significant importance for those who draw on those classes.

We have been backwards and forwards on the other amendments through various correspondence and hearings. I do not intend to take any more of your time before we get into a detailed discussion.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK. Thank you. Before I move to members' questions, there are some things that I want to note. I welcome the addition of "free of charge" in clause 2 for the classes; that is useful. On clause 4, there is now higher Assembly control over the addition and removal of organisations from the prescribed list. However, for expediency, the Committee was content for any additions to be made by negative resolution procedure, which we understood to be part of the rationale. Why does the Department prefer draft affirmative procedure for that?

Mr Greenway: The First Legislative Counsel says that it is technically very difficult to separate the two things in one clause and use negative resolution procedure for one and affirmative resolution procedure for the other. We had committed that the removal from the list would be by draft affirmative procedure, so we have rolled with that for additions.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you for that clarification. On clauses 5 and 8, again, I welcome the increase in the number of persons or groups that the Department should consult with. Will you confirm that the term "deaf community" in that clause includes those who use ISL and BSL and the deafblind etc? In reality, all those groups would need to be consulted, rather than two groups, as per the amendment, from either the BSL or ISL community.

Mr Tommy McAuley (Department for Communities): Yes, that has always been our MO, and it will be going forward. Indeed, as we have previously explained, in working up a framework, we are consulting BSL and ISL users and deafblind citizens, so it will be reflective of those individuals and groups.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Why did you decide to make the changes to clause 7?

Mr Greenway: That is the amendment that replaces "on behalf of" with:

Mr McAuley: Yes, we thought that that would give more clarity and detail. Instead of just acting "on behalf of" the deaf community, the persons or groups should reflect and be cognisant of the views of the deaf community. We have reached out to members of the Committee for suggested amendments and we have tightened up our wording where we felt it appropriate to do so, which, we think, reflects the Committee's thinking. We hope that it does.

Ms K Armstrong: Bear with me on this. I am not convinced that we have covered it correctly. I am talking about the change from "deaf children" to "young people who are deaf". I have no issue with that, but the Committee had thought that as many people as possible could be included as part of the deaf community. We had considered adding different types of people. The classes will be free of charge, which is very welcome, but access will be limited to young persons who are deaf and their families. The Sign Language Bill is about promoting and making sign language available, but it seems that those free classes are linked only to young persons and their families, and not to other people who have lost hearing through age or illness. Will you clarify whether or not you think that those people are already covered?

Mr Greenway: It is important to say that the first line of clause 2(2) states:

The generality of the section is around promoting and other discussions that we have had in the past. This is saying that children who are born deaf have a particular challenge in communicating, engaging and being part of society beyond that that may occur to others who have lost their hearing over time. That is not to in any way deny the impact that that has personally or in communities, but there is a proven issue with younger people's educational attainment and their connecting to the school system, education and so on. We are saying that we have a specific need to address that and feel that doing so is so important that we want to embed it in primary legislation — the Bill, which will become an Act — without prejudice to the generality of sign language action plans etc.

Ms K Armstrong: You are saying that, rather than excluding others, it is heightening the availability for children who are born deaf. We had thought about the children of deaf parents, who have the same educational issues as children who are born deaf, because communication methods within their households are different. By not referencing the children of deaf parents, are they —?

Mr Greenway: I will let Tommy come in on the point about the children of deaf adults (CODAs).

Mr McAuley: As you will know, CODAs have been defined in the Bill as members of the deaf community. There is a different angle regarding CODAs, in that there will be a familial language within the home. Generally, but not always, that is a sign language.

As Iain said, clause 2(2) begins:

We have funded sign language courses for CODAs, so we do not need primary legislation to do that. We believe that access to family sign language for young people up to the age of 25 is an absolute priority. That is why we think that it belongs in primary legislation. There is access to courses, subject to budget, of course. We have already funded and engaged with CODAs to supply courses; indeed, the majority of our interpreters in Northern Ireland are CODAs, so there is a sign language base there. The most recent CODAs course that we funded with Hands That Talk was, at level 4, similar in standard to A-level plus. That sets them up with their natural family language, and they can fast-track through it. At the same time, you increase the capacity and cohort of future interpreters and teachers.

Ms K Armstrong: I accept that, but, as we know, the deaf community comprises people of all ages. We want to see improvements for children as does the deaf community, which has highlighted that in our consultation. I have a concern, however, that we are missing those who have lost their hearing due to illness or injury. It is a wee bit of age discrimination. We have had evidence from the deaf community about older people who live in nursing homes and have lost their hearing. Those people are living in isolation and have very little communication with others. If they had access to a form of communication, such as sign language, their lives would vastly improve. I agree that we need to keep young people in the classes, but is access to them not being extended purely due to cost?

Mr McAuley: We did not have to put in families, parents and support workers of deaf children, but we chose to on the basis of the feedback that we have been getting. We have received an independent review of our programme for family signing from Queen's, which endorses the benefits and absolute necessity of the courses being not only available but free. That was factored into our decision to include "free" in the amendment.

As part of our funding criteria, we have personal development programmes to redress academic underachievement among deaf people, so we can already do that. We do not feel that it is necessary or appropriate to put it in primary legislation. We keep repeating ourselves, but for deaf children and young people, there is no language without the classes; there is no other show in town. We are well aware of the negative impacts. I think that the Committee is aware of this, but I draw your attention to the finding in the British Deaf Association report that for every pound invested in early years sign language provision, there is a £14 benefit.

Ms K Armstrong: I am not arguing with that. I am just thinking that there is no report on old people and isolation, their level of depression and mental health problems and their lack of access to services, including health services, due to the fact that they are no longer able to use language because they have lost their hearing. We have, rightly, included children in the Sign Language Bill. Why can we not include adults who have lost their hearing due to illness or injury?

Mr McAuley: The provisions regarding family signing are preventative so that, in the next generation, we do not have people going through that isolation and depression and well-documented behavioural and mental health issues. We can do that now, but, as we have mentioned previously, there is a big demand on all our resources. We have identified that prevention and early intervention are key, which is why we have included families and deaf children in the primary legislation. There is nothing to prevent us providing access to courses, and we have not been stopped from doing so. For example, among the cohort of deaf tutors, many will have gone through courses that we fund. As part of their training, deaf translators and interpreters will have been through courses that we funded to attain their linguistic qualifications. We do that, but we just think that it is a necessity and priority to protect families under the legislation.

Ms K Armstrong: I understand that, but I am concerned that we are leaving out a section of the community whose lives would be fundamentally changed by having access to sign language classes. We may agree to differ on that one. We have an ageing population. I understand completely what you are saying, but it seems that the provision in the legislation is based on what money is available now. This is legislation. The money situation could vastly change — we wish — in the future.

Mr Greenway: I will add one point to what Tommy said, Kellie. That part of the legislation is saying that, for the reasons that Tommy set out and you mentioned, we feel that young people are so important that we are placing a particular priority on them in the Bill — the primary legislation. That is without prejudice to the generality and to the duty of the Department to promote, and the sign language action plans bring forward guidance and best practice. It is in no way excluding anyone; it is saying that that provision is so important that we feel that it belongs here. I accept that that is a matter of judgement and that there may be differing views.

Ms K Armstrong: To be honest, I just do not like ageism being brought into anything. I absolutely support the children side of it. We know how beneficial and life-changing this will be for children, but we are not recognising the impact that it would have on older people who have lost their hearing. As someone who will be completely deaf in the next 20 years, that is difficult to understand. There are people who are being prepared for having no hearing, and, thankfully, I am one of them. There are others, however, who lose their hearing after reaching pension age and therefore do not qualify for personal independence payment or anything like that. Their experience is very different. To be honest, Chair, that is my main point at this stage. There are other areas where I do not agree with the Department, but I have absolutely no issue with many of the amendments.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Does anyone else have any further questions?

Mrs Cameron: It is more of a comment. Thank you for the work that you have done. I get where Kellie is coming from, but I do not think that she is right about there being ageism. What we are really talking about is problem-solving for the future.

Ms K Armstrong: To be honest, I speak with older people all the time who have no way of communicating. They are not included.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Members, we will move into closed session, but we will welcome officials back to the table for the formal clause-by-clause scrutiny when we come back into public session.