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

I am grateful for the opportunity to deal with the Recognition of Irish Sign Language for the Deaf Community Bill 2016. I am disappointed that despite the best efforts of my advisors and officials, consensus could not be reached on the amendments necessary to ensure that the Bill is practical and reasonable on the one hand, and delivers something of real value to the deaf community on the other. I thank my colleagues and Fine Gael Senators for their support on this issue. We sat down with people and tried to resolve differences.

I would like to say a few words that apply to all the amendments and indeed to every section of the Bill. I promise that my further contributions will not be as long. I ask the indulgence of the House to make this statement now to show clearly where I stand.

This is not an issue on which the House should divide along party-political lines. We should not send an imperfect Bill to the lower House. I outlined my serious concerns with elements of the Bill on Second Stage and indicated that it would require substantial amendments. We have prepared the text of the Government amendments and have shared these with the Senator and also with representatives of the deaf community whom I welcome to the House for this very important debate. These have now been drafted and I have decided not to present them formally until we achieve consensus.

They address the problematic issues with the Bill, which are as follows: the establishment of a scheme for the provision of Irish Sign Language classes to families, guardians and children who are deaf; the provision by the State of a minimum annual quantum of hours for the provision of interpretation services in addition to the provision of Irish Sign Language interpretation while availing of statutory services; the drafting by all public bodies of individual Irish Sign Language action plans every three years; the establishment of a new public body to be known as the Irish Sign Language council; the establishment of a statutory registry of Irish Sign Language and deaf interpreters; the establishment of a register of Irish Sign Language teachers; and the creation of a new criminal offence to allow for the prosecution of a person who is not registered as an interpreter and who provides interpretation or teaching services for remuneration or reward.These provisions are either unnecessary in legislation or are an onerous and disproportionate approach to the provision of the services for users of Irish Sign Language and should be deleted from the Bill.

The model of a scheme to be prepared by each public body appears to be based on the approach adopted in the Official Languages Act 2003. It has proved difficult in practice for customers to know what is and is not available from individual public bodies in terms of Irish language services. As there are some 85,000 persons who speak Irish on a daily basis, and up to 5,000 if one includes family members as users of Irish Sign Language, the appropriateness of the language scheme model is not very clear.

It should also be noted that quality assurance of translation and interpretation services in Irish and other languages is on the basis of non-statutory accreditation and industry standards, and the case for a statutory register of interpretation for Irish Sign Language interpreters is obvious. Creating a criminal offence of offering to be a sign language interpreter when the real problem is a lack of people who actually provide the service seems particularly inappropriate. That is the problem I have with some of the suggestions in the debate.

The Government's approach to amending the Bill is to keep and strengthen the three key features that need to be included in the legislation. That is what I want. When I met members of the deaf community yesterday, I said of course I recognised Irish Sign Language and respected and listened to the rights of all people who are campaigning on this issue.

I am focused on three very simple objectives. I want to ensure the recognition by the State of Irish Sign Language and ensure the statement that users have the right to use it is retained. I want to place a duty on public bodies to provide Irish Sign Language interpretation at no cost to the user when access to statutory entitlements is sought by a person. The third objective is to provide a clear statutory right to use Irish Sign Language in court proceedings. These are the kind of rights I am talking about. The rest of the Bill is, I feel, unnecessary. In some cases, it is actually counter-productive and some parts should be deleted.

In response to the concerns raised by the deaf community, the commitments relating to Irish Sign Language in the national disability inclusion study have been strengthened. In two weeks' time, I will launch a national disability strategy, of which item 1 is Irish Sign Language. Another issue raised yesterday was employment for people with disabilities, which is item 2. I will come back to the House on that matter.

In addition to actions provided for the extension of the Irish Sign Language, remote interpretation services will be extended to evenings and weekends and I support this Bill in order to ensure that all public bodies provide Irish Sign Language users with free interpretation when accessing or availing of statutory services.

There is a new action which ensures that the sign language interpreting service, SLIS, will be resourced to increase the number of trained sign language and deaf interpreters. A quality assurance and registration scheme for interpreters will be established. There will be ongoing professional training and development provided for interpreters. I am trying to introduce these services and implement the right to access them.

I have also asked for a business case and funding requests for the above items, and the provision of a minimum annual quantum of hours for the provision of the interpretation services, in addition to the provision of Irish Sign Language interpretation when availing of statutory services. I will consider these as favourably as I possibly can and I understand that these business plans are on the way.

I very much regret the Bill is being progressed in this way. We should not be dividing on party political lines. We should not pass an imperfect Bill, where Senators lose control of its progress and cease to be part of the discussion on the substantive issues. I ask that the House not finalise Committee Stage today or until we have consensus. If that is not agreed, I may bring amendments to each section of the Bill and its Title on Report Stage. If that is acceptable to the Leas-Chathaoirleach, I would like that to be taken as a formal notice that I do not need to repeat the point on each individual section.