Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I say "Thank you" to the Minister of State, which is also deserved. His clarification and crystal clear statement have left nobody in any doubt as to his position and I welcome them.

I wish to respond to his earlier contribution with a few points. He spoke about 5,000 users of ISL but the figure is actually 40,000, with 5,000 members being hearing impaired, deaf or hearing challenged. Their extended families and friends are an important and essential part in developing the same communication skills as the 35,000 hearing people for whom ISL is a part of their daily lives.

On behalf of the committee I welcome the signalled publication of the Bill, for which we have been waiting earnestly for some considerable time and which will allow for ratification, at long last, of the UN convention on the rights of people with disabilities. We earnestly hoped it would be concluded this year and I am anxious that the deadline might not be met. It would be a disappointment, not only to myself but the all the members of the Committee on Justice and Equality, if it were not met. Everything should be done to progress it and we are ready to play our part.

The Minister of State noted what was being done behind the scenes in the way of the provision of ISL interpretation when members of the deaf community avail of their statutory entitlements. Other elements of the Minister of State's address, however, gave rise to concerns, and while he has gone a significant way to setting those aside, there are still concerns. The Minister of State paid particular attention to the importance of the capacity to deliver and made this a priority rather than bringing forward the clear intent to recognise ISL, which would force the delivery of the essential outworking of the implementation measures. It came across as a chicken and egg situation, in which we would never get to where we wanted to be. There is a need for a pragmatic and feasible approach, backed up by statutory recognition of the rights of users of ISL, and the ideal situation would be to have these in tandem. The critical line we must cross is the formal recognition of Irish sign language and whatever is not in place by that stage can then be worked on and delivered. I have no doubt the members of the deaf community, having achieved formal recognition of ISL, will be patient for some little time at least.

We will then be able to see the outworking of the hope and promise of that formal recognition.

I wish to make a few small points because from the list given by the Minister of State it seemed as if there were a litany of reasons we would not see the Bill progress. I have analysed each of them. The Minister of State commenced by stating that the central principle of the Bill is sound, which is important, and I welcome that comment. He went on to state, however, that it seems perhaps to have a disproportionate approach to the provision of services for users of Irish Sign Language. My question in response to that is what would he expect and why would we not take that approach? If he were dependent on Irish Sign Language, I would expect that he would have a disproportionate approach to the provision of services. Why should the users not expect, hope and aspire to the very best and the most that can be achieved?

On the Minister of State's comment that the preamble, in terms of the structure, does not seem necessary, that is a technical matter in my opinion. In regard to the position on imposing an obligation on public bodies to develop the three-yearly action plans, I, and colleagues who have spoken, could very well argue the contrary. That is something we can address on Committee Stage. The proposal for the establishment of a new public body by the Citizens Information Board can be discussed. On section 18, which provides for offering annual accounts of the new body for sale, that is not something that I expect is critical. In regard to section 19 which provides for borrowing by the public body, this can be reconsidered. Section 29 which provides for 12 months' imprisonment for either offering interpretation services or teaching ISL - I emphasise the next four words - "on a commercial basis" is critically important. We must have registration and standards. Unregistered people charging for services for which they are not registered or even, more importantly, not qualified in must be discouraged by some level of penalty. As to whether what is in the Bill, as constructed, is necessarily the way to go, that is open to us to discuss.

On Part 4, let us discuss it in regard to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. These points are not impediments or obstacles to the successful passage of this legislation.

See this speech in context