Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I know we are speaking to the amendments but this is the first time in the year and a half I have been in this House that I have been ashamed of how business is being conducted here. I do not think it has ever been heard of for a Minister of State to say that the Government would share draft amendments with every Senator and I do not think that was done in the name of transparency. It was done when it became very clear that the House would be divided and the proposed deletions of those very important sections of this Bill would not be made because this House was going to vote against the Minister of State's amendments. That is when it was decided to pull the amendments. I am absolutely disgusted. I do not want to stay here to keep debating this issue because it is fictional. We are pretending we are discussing a Bill when we are not. This Bill is about recognition but without the parts that will now be deleted on Report Stage, it is tokenistic because we will not have public bodies to prepare and implement action plans on Irish Sign Language. In the amendments sent to Senators, the Government proposed to delete that section. It proposed to delete the section providing for classes for the parents of deaf children. An amendment was proposed to the section permitting the use of Irish Sign Language in legal proceedings and the section providing for the making available of a sign language interpretational service. It was proposed to delete the section introducing statutory targets regarding the accessibility of television programmes. The Government intended to delete the section providing for the regulation of Irish Sign Language interpreters, deaf interpreters and Irish Sign Language teachers and for that purpose the establishment of the Irish Sign Language council and with this provide for the establishment of registers, continuing education requirements, offences, amendment of the Broadcasting Act 2009 and for related matters.

Recognition is not enough and if the Minister of State wanted to bring forward substantial amendments in order that we could produce something of value, he should have. It is not acceptable that he sits here today without doing what he said on the previous Stage he would do, which is to come back on Committee Stage with substantial amendments. He did not do that.