Finian McGrath (Dublin Bay North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Irish Deaf Society, members of the deaf community and the interpreters to the Gallery. I thank Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, Senator Mark Daly and the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality for their amazing work on the Recognition of Irish Sign Language for the Deaf Community Bill 2016. I also commend members of the committee for their considered report on the formal recognition of Irish Sign Language, ISL.

Like the committee, I recently met with the Irish Deaf Society, as well as other groups and individuals from the deaf community, to listen to their concerns, experiences and objectives. I am keenly aware of the priorities of the deaf community and, in particular, the problems relating to ISL. We have about 5,000 users of ISL in the State. It is fair and appropriate that public services provide this group with interpretation services at no cost to the user when questions of statutory entitlement are at issue.

Our discussion of this issue is particularly appropriate as we move toward ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. As Members will be aware, the Government is committed to ratification of the convention. It is working on finalising the details of the necessary legislation to remove the final legislative barriers to that ratification. We hope to be in a position to publish this Bill in the near future. We also intend to ratify the convention's optional protocol at the same time as the convention itself is ratified.

Interpretation services for deaf people on a State-wide basis are provided by the Sign Language Interpreting Service, SLIS, established by the Citizens Information Bureau in 2007. The SLIS is a voluntary not-for-profit organisation in the form of a limited company, which promotes, represents, advocates and ensures the availability of quality interpretation services to deaf people. The overall vision is to ensure deaf people can easily exercise their rights under the Equal Status and Disability Acts, as well as being able to access their rights and entitlements to public and social services. The SLIS has a board of directors comprising representatives of key national stakeholders such as the Citizens Information Bureau, DeafHear and the deaf community. SLIS receives State funding directly from the Citizens Information Bureau. In 2016, it has an allocation of €275,000. It is generally acknowledged the SLIS does superb work in its provision of an extensive range of services, and that it intends to build on its current capacity is clear from its statement of strategy document 2015 to 2020. In particular, the service intends to increase availability of interpreting services in key areas of daily life, particularly where deaf people are exercising their rights or entitlements. It is important in the context of this discussion that we acknowledge the excellent services that the SLIS provides for the provision of interpretation services. It is my intention to build on and develop this capacity.

Prior to the publication of the Irish Sign Language Bill, I had approved a draft of the new national disability inclusion strategy with the following proposed action for public consultation, namely, we will propose legislation to ensure that all public bodies provide ISL users with free ISL interpretation when availing of their statutory entitlements. There will be more work needed to tease out the detail of how this will operate. In principle, however, what is required is a highly focused approach directly on statutory entitlements. We know from our experience with the Irish language and the Official Languages Act that what is really important is developing the capacity to provide services in the language of the customer's choice, and that enacting legislation, or indeed constitutional protection, which the report also alludes to, does not solve the practical service delivery issues that need to be planned for. We need a pragmatic and feasible approach backed up by statutory recognition of the right of users of ISL. We must also ensure we can actually deliver and that the service can be guaranteed in practice.

I note the committee has recommended the Government should fully support the Recognition of Irish Sign Language for the Deaf Community Bill 2016, which passed Second Stage in the Seanad on 19 October. In this regard, I must flag several questions about specific provisions in the Bill. While the Bill's central principle is sound, it seems, however, to take a disproportionate approach to the provision of services for users of Irish Sign Language. Preambles are not a feature of how we draft primary legislation and do not seem necessary. I am not sure anything useful would come from the proposal to impose an obligation on public bodies to develop three yearly action plans for ISL, as contained in section 9. The establishment of a new public body by the Citizens Information Board, instead of letting the board continue to develop an ISL service as it has been doing, does not seem to be necessary. Section 18 includes a provision to offer the annual accounts of the new body for sale. Usual practice is to publish accounts online. It is difficult to see that this provision is necessary.

Section 19 provides for borrowing by the public body established under section 12. Allowing an Exchequer-funded public body to borrow money is manifestly not a good idea. Of particular concern is how the loans would be controlled and paid back. Section 29 provides for 12 months' imprisonment for either offering interpretation services or teaching ISL on a commercial basis without being registered. I fully accept the need for proper standards. However, this approach is unnecessarily punitive and does nothing to address the real issue, namely, the need to develop the availability of ISL interpreters.

The Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment has considered the proposed amendment of section 43 of the Broadcasting Act 2009, as set out in Part 4 of the proposed Bill, in consultation with the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. It makes the point that the proposed approach would remove an important part of the broadcasting regulatory framework from its natural and appropriate statutory locus, namely, the Broadcasting Act 2009.

Section 43 of the Broadcasting Act 2009 already provides for the preparation of statutory rules by the BAI that place a range of statutory obligations on broadcasters. In the case of persons who are deaf or have a hearing impairment, persons who are blind or partially sighted, and persons who have a hearing impairment and are partially sighted, the BAI has adopted access rules that contain specific target percentage ranges in regard to sign language and subtitling that broadcasters are required to comply with and that are revised by the BAI from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

In addition, sections 53 to 55, inclusive, of the Act provide for an investigation and potential enforcement action in circumstances where there has been an apparent breach of a broadcasting rule. It is noted that this latter aspect is not provided for in the proposed legislation. Furthermore, section 43(6) of the Broadcasting Act 2009 provides for biennial reviews of the access rules to be undertaken by the BAI, thereby allowing for potential revisions to be made to the rules. In Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the proposed Bill, however, it is proposed to incorporate a number of percentage targets for the period 2017 to 2019, which appear to have been taken from the current access rules. The Bill seeks to make no provision for any review or potential revision of those targets. As such, the Schedule would become outdated every two years. We should consider this also. It should also be noted that Part 1 of Schedule 1, as currently proposed, omits certain services, such as Oireachtas TV, Irish language television and UTV Ireland.

Finally, from the BAI's extensive and ongoing consultations with user groups, it is evident that quality and reliability of access service provision is as, if not more, important than the achievement of targets as such. This is a quantitative measure only. The BAI's regulatory approach facilitates a far more flexible and consultative approach that takes account of improvements in the quality, reliability and range of the access service provision - for example, increased live subtitling, subtitled Irish content, etc., rather than just quantitative targets, as envisaged in the proposed Bill, thereby providing a regulatory approach that delivers in a more comprehensive and nuanced way on the wishes of users and intended beneficiaries of the services.

All these points will need to be considered very carefully as the examination of the Bill moves forward in the House. I am delighted that the pre-legislative scrutiny process of the Bill will now be complete and that, in due course and in the light of the assessment by the Oireachtas of the Bill's proposals, we can work together to determine what amendments are needed to create the focused right to interpretation I am thinking of and remove some of the other elements that do not seem appropriate, as I mentioned.

For now, the new national disability inclusion strategy I mentioned is quite relevant. The strategy, which it is intended will be in place before the end of 2016, includes a specific action to create a statutory right for a person to receive free Irish Sign Language interpretation services when availing of statutory services. That is an important step in the right direction. In taking this approach, we will still need to tease out in detail several issues, including how statutory services are to be defined and whether advance booking of the service would be required, but this approach would provide a more fruitful way forward, focused on meeting real riced in a pragmatic and cost-effective way, than the overly elaborate approach in the Bill. One of the issues the House might consider is whether it is better to build on the existing support provided for the provision of interpretation services by the Citizens Information Board rather than create a new public body, as proposed in the Bill.

I thank all those who have contributed and I look forward to the debate.

See this speech in context