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

My objective in amendment No. 10 is to replace the existing section 1 with a text that strengthens the recognition of Irish Sign Language and links it explicitly to the duty on public bodies to provide users of Irish Sign Language with free interpretation when availing of, or seeking access to, statutory entitlements and services. One key provision of the Bill will be of critical importance in helping to ensure the users of ISL can, in practice, gain access on an equal basis with others to public services. I have listened very carefully to the deaf community on how difficult it can be to gain access to public services and we have crafted this improvement to the Bill, which I hope we can agree to, so as to address that issue.

Amendment No. 11 proposes the deletion of the reference to the fostering, extension and transmission of deaf culture in section 2. There are two difficulties here. The first is a definitional one; it is not clear how one can define "culture" in this context. The second is a more serious objection in that it is entirely wrong in principle for the Government or the Oireachtas to purport to have the right to say any group of people does not have the right to develop its culture or partake in cultural events. People have the right to go about their lives without interference by, or the approval of, the State. If we declare in legislation that the State grants the right to develop culture we could, equally logically, provide for a community not to have that right and this is a precedent we should not set. If we were to insert "we shall not have the right" we would be including a provision that would amount to unconstitutional interference in the right of the deaf community to organise itself and live its life without such interference. It is not necessary to legislate for something that people have an inherent right to do, unless there are special circumstances that impose a compelling logic. There is no need to do so in this instance.

I accept that the Senators might apply the same logic to the rest of subsection 2 and they may have a point in this, but the difference is that we are linking the right to use ISL with the obligation on public bodies to provide free interpretation so the positive statement in the rest of subsection 2 serves a useful purpose. However, it is not necessary to make a similar statement in legislation in relation to the development and transmission of culture and the House should not set such an undesirable precedent. I note that amendment No. 9 has been ruled out of order.