Mark Daly (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State. This amendment would delete the section detailing a very specific number of hours for sign language interpreting services in education. This matter is addressed in the section on the education system that we have just discussed. The issue of access to the service for cultural and social purposes, in which regard there would be a voucher system, will be discussed under amendment No. 17, to which the Minister of State referred and which will be ruled out of order. However, we hope to move it on Committee Stage in the Dáil and get agreement so that we can put on a legislative footing a system whereby the Government would each year have to consider providing a fund in order that members of the deaf community could, for example, attend job interviews and cultural events. Without it, they would be unaware of what was happening because neither they nor the organisations putting on the events could afford interpreters or might not even know that deaf people would be attending. Like what happened yesterday in a different way, organisations are not aware that interpreters are required.Therefore, while agreeing to the deletion of lines 6 to 24 in regard to the Irish Sign Language interpreters, we hope the Minister of State will be able to get his colleagues to support the point that access of Irish Sign Language users to social, cultural and other activities, while being ruled out here, will be agreed to in the Dáil on Committee Stage. This is very important. The purpose of what we are trying to achieve in amendment No. 17, which is ruled out of order, is to ensure access for members of the deaf community who are going to other events. It is not just about access to the State; it is about access to society and to life outside of access to the State, which would form a very limited amount of their access but which is very important nonetheless. While we agree to the amendment, we hope the Minister of State will be able to persuade Cabinet colleagues to put it on a legislative footing. It does not specify an amount but, each year, at least it would have to be revisited at budget time to see if the fund is enough to meet the demand.