Gordon Lyons
East Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Implementing other recommendations will require further legislation that, I trust, will come in the next mandate, but I can confirm that 60 of the recommendations have already been separately addressed by either the Department or the commission. I hope that that answers his questions.”
“Yes, I do and am happy to share those. The issue has been raised in the Chamber and through Assembly questions. My position is that we want to make it simple and straightforward for people.”
“They also introduce greater flexibility in financial reporting, allowing requirements to be tailored more appropriately, reducing burdens on smaller organisations and ensuring that the system can adapt over time through secondary legislation.”
“If they want to constitute as a Northern Ireland-only charity, they are able to do that, if they believe that that will bring certain benefits.”
“That is similar to what we are trying to do with trustees. Even though you leave your position as a trustee or your position as someone who holds an office in a charity or who has employment in the office, the commissioner will still be able to make a determination that says, "Even though you have left, we are still making this order to t…”
“I do not believe that it was. That was maybe picked up wrong. We are happy to look at and explore that, but that is the information that I have on it. Again, we will have the Committee Stage of the legislation, so we can look into that then.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,903 lines we hold for Gordon Lyons, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 119.
“That is the group of people whom we are trying to help. The legislation is being put in place to help, first and foremost, the people who depend and rely on sign language. As Mr Butler indicated, that opens it up to a wider group of people. It is not about those who will sometimes use it or may at some stage benefit from using it but those who rely on it. It is about those who cannot get by, cannot get through the day and cannot access public services without it. With the Bill, my focus is on helping people who have not had the rights that the rest of us enjoy and so often take for granted. I want to make sure that those are the people whom we focus on first and foremost when the consultation takes place. Yes, there is a wider cohort of people who may use it in their everyday lives, including, perhaps, those who are hard of hearing.”
“and for the purpose of the Sign Language Bill —”
“I am more than happy to promote sign language widely. On the definition of "the deaf community", Chapter 4 states:”
“I think that the point that the Member is trying to make is that there might be others who are not capable of using that sign language. I am happy to take another intervention, because I am not quite clear on what she is saying.”
“Of course, that is what we want. Whether or not somebody else is able to communicate with you, if you are a user of sign language, you are already covered, so the amendment becomes meaningless. What we have in the Bill is:”
“That amendment would change its focus, which is on that small group of people and their families who have, up until this point, effectively been excluded from accessing information and services that the rest of our society takes for granted. The aim of the Bill is to recognise the deaf community of people who depend on sign language and who wish to share their deaf culture and access services through BSL and ISL. I do not think that it is intentional, but I think that the Member's amendment dilutes that by taking the focus away from those who rely exclusively on, or who normally use, British Sign Language or Irish Sign Language. I will give way to the Member.”
“I recognise that there are other views, but I hope that Members will take on board what I have said. <BR /> <BR />Of course, if the Member's amendment No 4, is made, we will be accepting amendment No 5, because doing so would make sense, as it is consequential to amendment No 4. I have concerns about amendment No 22, however, because it would change what we are trying to do in the Bill. The Bill is focused on those across society who rely on British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language and on deafblind people who rely on hands or tactile signing versions of BSL and ISL. Amendment No 22 risks diluting the focus of the Bill, and I agree with the Member for Lagan Valley on that.”
“When exploring the curriculum needs and other needs, I think that it would be prudent for us to explore those needs in the first instance, and that is what I put to the House, while reminding Members that there will be a five-year review of the legislation. I am more than happy to make sure that amendments can be made to the legislation further on down the line, if required. What we are being told, however, is that that is not where the demand lies for those who lose their hearing later on in life. Let us run the pilot programme to find out whether that is the case, because if that demand is not there, we should not be bound by legislation to provide something that is not required. That is my view, but I am more than willing to work through the issues with Members over the next year.”
“We know what the curriculum looks like for children and young people and for their families, but what would it look like for the age cohort about which we are talking? Those are all questions that need to be answered, and I think that it is prudent that we find out the answers first. We do not need to put such classes in legislation for us to proceed with a pilot programme. <BR /> <BR />That is what I am putting to the House today. I understand from contributions that have been made that that is probably not where the rest of the Chamber is at, but I do think that it is the prudent move to take. Let us find out what the level of demand is. We did not need to put it in legislation at all to provide any classes, yet that is what we are doing.”
“The Member will know whom I am talking about when I say that I have an official in my Department who has worked in that area for 14 years. That official has evidence of two occasions on which people have asked for classes. One's ask will be covered in what we are already introducing through the legislation, while the other did not come back with any further requests for information. <BR /> <BR />I do believe that demand is low, but the Member is right that that belief should be tested. We should run a pilot programme and see who comes forward. Amendment No 4, however, would mandate through legislation that classes must be provided. What would they look like? Who would deliver them? What would the curriculum look like? The curriculum is a big issue.”
“The Member is absolutely right to raise the issues with people getting access to appointments through the health service, and it is correct that she do so, but the organisations with which we have engaged and spoken to have told us that that is not what they are pushing for. It is not their primary objective. I repeat that the engagement that we have had with organisations in the deaf sector and with health and social care sensory support teams indicates that there is very low demand for such classes.”
“I know that there is demand for sign language classes and that many people take them up. Do not misunderstand me: that is not what I am saying. I refer specifically to people who become deaf later in life. Often, sign language classes are not what they want.”
“I hope that I have outlined to the House the concerns that I have. They are not because I do not believe that classes should be in place for those who want to avail themselves of them. I absolutely do. In fact, classes are provided through our colleges that people can take part in and pay for, in the same way that amendment No 4 states that there should be classes for which the Department can charge fees. However, the evidence that we have received indicates that there is low to no demand for such classes. I accept that the Armstrong family may be an exception to that.”
“That statement seems simple and obvious on paper, but, in practice, it represents a sea change for the people most closely impacted on by the changes that the Bill will bring. I thank Members for their support for the amendments that I have tabled, and I thank the Committee for the way in which it has dealt with them. <BR /> <BR />I will take a little bit of time to explain my position with regard to Kellie Armstrong's amendments. First, I thank her for her interest in the Bill and for the enthusiasm that she has brought to the work. We all have the same outcome in mind, which is to make sure that people have access to the support that they need so that they can communicate effectively. That is where we all want to end up. <BR /> <BR />I have some concerns with the amendments that she has tabled, however. The first one relates to classes.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am absolutely delighted to be in the position to introduce and progress the Bill. Our deaf community has been waiting for it for years and years, and I am delighted that we can progress it further in the Chamber today. I have been humbled to witness at first hand the life-changing difference that early access to family sign language learning makes to families and their deaf children. <BR /> <BR />The Bill requires all prescribed organisations to:”
“I thank the Member for giving way. She is right to highlight the fact that increasing numbers of people are losing their hearing. However, our research and consultation indicate that those people are not coming forward in the same numbers looking for those classes. We do not know the demand for that yet. That is why I am saying that we should do a pilot programme to assess, importantly, demand, the delivery partners and what the curriculum could be. I believe that we are walking into something for which there may not be demand because people are looking for other solutions to the problems that she raises. Is that not an appropriate step to take?”
“<BR /> <BR />That brings me to the end of group 1.”
“Deaf or deafblind sign language learners now — for example, deaf children — may well become users who rely on sign language in the future and would automatically have rights under the Bill at that point. The amendment would undermine the intention and purpose of the Bill, as it would place sign language users who rely on BSL or ISL and those who could hypothetically benefit from sign language in the future on an equal footing under defined membership of the deaf community. That is not the intent of the Bill. If I were to learn sign language, I could get a future benefit from that. However, I should not be in the same category as those who rely on it. That is the distinction, and that is the policy intent of the Bill. I am happy to give way to the Member, if she wants to comment on that, but that is the case.”
“In that case, I will move on to amendment No 22. I apologise to the House for that. I thought that amendment No 6 was in group 1, but, if that is not the case, I will move on and make a few brief comments about amendment No 22. <BR /> <BR />Membership of the deaf community needs to be factual in order to work everywhere else referred to in the Bill. Key rights to access services and information correctly turn on the actual use of or reliance on sign language. Therefore, this is not about a hypothesis, an abstract or a potential benefit from using sign language but, rather, is about guaranteeing access to services for deaf or deafblind people who normally rely on BSL or ISL in the present.”
“Clause 4 provides the Department with the statutory powers to list in regulations the public bodies that will be required to take the reasonable steps outlined in clause 3. The amendment is technical in nature and clarifies how the Department must, by regulations, list public bodies as prescribed organisations for the purposes of the Bill. The Committee had requested that, rather than listing public bodies as prescribed organisations by negative resolution, the Department should use affirmative resolution. My officials were of the view that that is an administrative duty and that negative resolution would provide a proportionate level of scrutiny for such an administrative exercise and would also expedite the listing of public bodies to ensure that they are subject to the duties of this —.”
“As the Bill stands, it is unnecessary, as the "Chapter" referenced in clause 4(5) is chapter 1, which the clause is in. However, it can be seen as consequential if the Member's amendment is successful. I have outlined my opposition to the Member's amendment at clause 2, and I have outlined my view that, if that amendment is carried, for the purposes of consistency, affirmative resolution is the appropriate route. I also refer to my agreement to the Committee's request to amend clause 4(5) to replace regulations by negative resolution with affirmative resolution. The Member is, of course, part of that Committee, and she made it clear that she is not in favour of the use of negative resolution. <BR /> <BR />That brings us on to amendment No 6.”
“For context, although there is a reference to fees in clause 10 — fees that my Department has no intention of collecting presently — I have agreed to the Communities Committee's request to amend clause 10 from negative resolution to affirmative resolution, given the potential for the collection of fees. The negative procedure stipulated in amendment No 4 to directly impose new fees would be inappropriate for the same reasons, and it should be considered only under the affirmative process. <BR /> <BR />For the reasons that I have outlined, I do not believe that such classes require provision in primary legislation. Furthermore, the suggested statutory procedure for imposing fees is inappropriate. <BR /> <BR />I move now to clause 4 and the further amendment from Kellie Armstrong.”
“Therefore, as a result of the discussions with the deaf sector and the Department of Health, my Department will fund a limited pilot programme of BSL and ISL classes for deafened adults and their families to assess the demand for such classes and to explore curriculum need. The lessons learned from the pilot will be shared with deaf organisations and Department of Health officials to consider the merits of access to such classes alongside the existing supports as outlined. Subject to further discussions with delivery partners, it is anticipated that those classes will launch in the coming weeks. <BR /> <BR />I refer to the reference within the amendment that:”
“We will engage in that in a genuine way. It is also worth pointing out that many deafened adults do not identify with the signing community, as I have said, but there will be an opportunity for that to be explored further. <BR /> <BR />This is a Sign Language Bill that is designed to recognise both sign languages and to improve the lives of the deaf community; it is not intended to replace existing disability legislation. It is based around the culture and languages of the deaf community. However, choice and identity are at its core. My Department takes seriously its duties with regard to promoting BSL, ISL and deaf culture as widely as possible across society.”
“We are digressing, but I assure the Member that that is an issue that I have looked at. I have looked at the evidence, and I suggest that it is not as clear-cut as the Member thinks it is. Regardless, on this, I am going on what the experts have told us about what we have in front of us. The Member has a different view, and she will be able to explain that. <BR /> <BR />There is a difference between deafness acquired late in life and deafness that has been there since childhood; and, secondly, it is what people want. I concede that some people would like sign language classes — that is why provision for those has been made — but I do not believe that we need to put that into primary legislation now. I enter into this genuinely, and I am content to listen to what the Member has to say and the evidence that she brings forward.”
“We often talk in this place about the importance of co-design and listening to the experts. That is what I am following in this instance. <BR /> <BR />I am happy to give way to Mr Donnelly, if he wants to come in.”
“I do not necessarily believe that those changes will come about, because those who find themselves in the situation of becoming deaf later in life already have English or another language as their first language. As I have just said, the demand is low. Where demand exists, it is for modern assistive technologies. I recognise that the Member is shaking her head, but that is the evidence that we have. That is what we have been told. I know that she has a different viewpoint on that, and I know that her experience is one that she will speak to, but this is coming from direct engagement with deaf sector organisations. It is coming directly from Health and Social Care sensory support, which has told us that there is very low demand and that people want to see investment in hearing aids, implants, captioning and speech to text.”
“<BR /> <BR />My officials' engagement with deaf sector organisations and Health and Social Care (HSC) sensory support indicates very low demand for classes for deafened adults. My officials were advised that many adults who become deaf already rely on a first language and do not wish to adopt a new language. There is, therefore, demand for modern assistive technologies — hearing aids, implants, captioning, speech to text — to meet many communication needs. Practical adjustments such as lip-reading or clear speech are often preferred to learning a full new language. Many deafened adults do not identify with the signing community. However, where there is a wish by some deafened adults to explore sign language, they may attend classes in further education colleges.”
“I have therefore sought to embed that principle in primary legislation and have secured Executive approval for that provision in the Bill that I introduced in February 2025. <BR /> <BR />I do not oppose support for adults who become deaf: on the contrary, as I will explain. However, the Bill is about sign language promotion, not broader disability policy. The issue of providing classes for those aged 25 and above who become deaf was raised during Committee scrutiny. My officials advised the Committee that primary legislation was not required to offer the classes. My Department already provides accredited BSL and ISL qualifications across Northern Ireland; taster sessions across schools and the voluntary and community sector; and classes for children of deaf adults. It does all of that without primary legislation.”
“Those changes strengthen the Bill, reflecting evidence from Queen's University Belfast, deaf organisations, Action Deaf Youth, the British Deaf Association and the National Deaf Children's Society. They ensure that families and young people receive the support that they need during the most critical developmental years, and they ensure that the Bill keeps pace with the real needs of deaf children and young people and their families. <BR /> <BR />I come now to amendment No 4, which will be moved by Kellie Armstrong. Clause 2 places a statutory duty on my Department to actively promote BSL, ISL and deaf culture across Northern Ireland. As I have made clear, a key element of that is ensuring access to sign language classes for deaf children and young people and their families and carers, especially during those crucial developmental years.”
“The amendments ensure that families will never face financial barriers when seeking essential sign language support. Deaf children and young people up to the age of 25 can access classes that directly support communication development, educational participation and healthier family relationships. The provision aligns with best practice across comparable children's services. <BR /> <BR />The Bill delivers practical, meaningful support to those who rely on early and ongoing access to signed communication. For those reasons, I tabled an amendment to clause 2 that inserts "free of charge" into the duty to provide sign language classes and an amendment that replaces references to "deaf children under 19" with "young persons who are deaf under 25 years of age".”
“Many statutory frameworks already recognise extended needs beyond the age of 18, including the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 and support for education and training up to the age of 24 under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. In England, the Children and Families Act 2014 provides special educational needs and disability support up to the age of 25. The NDCS therefore regards raising the age threshold as being consistent, fair and aligned with modern developmental pathways, and its services extend to those aged 25 for precisely those reasons.”
“Following the Committee's request that my Department consider amending the age threshold for family classes from including those under 19 years of age to including those of up to 25 years of age, my officials engaged with the National Deaf Children's Society (NDCS), which strongly supports raising the age threshold to include those under the age of 25, noting that language and communication development for deaf young people continues into their early 20s. <BR /> <BR />Families remain central to communication support, even as young people transition towards independence. The period from 19 years of age to 25 years of age includes major transitions such as the move to further and higher education or training and employment, all of which create new communication pressures.”
“<BR /> <BR />Economic analysis by the British Deaf Association (BDA) found that early acquisition of sign language is an investment in children and young people, and, for the public purse, every £1 invested in early British Sign Language provision yields up to £14 in lifetime benefits, boosting education, employment and health outcomes for deaf children in society. That demonstrates that early years sign language support produces long-term personal, social and economic gains. That is the case for British Sign Language, as well as for Irish Sign Language. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2 is consequential to amendment No 3.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Queen's University Belfast report on free sign language classes for deaf children and families, which was commissioned by my Department, demonstrates that early exposure to sign language improves communication, social development, educational attainment and emotional well-being. Families learning together and being able to do so without financial barriers creates the strongest foundation for children's confidence and development. Free access would prevent inequality by ensuring that support does not depend on a family's ability to pay.”
“A priority of the Bill is ensuring early access to sign language, which is vital for communication development, educational progress and family relationships. Making early access a departmental responsibility will remove barriers and ensure consistent and equitable support for families. <BR /> <BR />The amendments were tabled following constructive engagement with the Committee and deaf organisations that deliver classes, and through legal refinement by the Office of the Legislative Council (OLC). The amendments guarantee that classes will be free of charge, now and for future generations. The age threshold will rise to include young persons of up to 25 years of age, reflecting developmental, educational and transitional needs.”
“The amendments that I have tabled to clause 2 do not alter the intention of the Bill; rather, they refine and strengthen it. Clause 2 places a statutory duty on my Department to actively promote British Sign Language (BSL), Irish Sign Language (ISL) and deaf culture across Northern Ireland. That includes ensuring access to sign language classes for deaf children and young people and their families or carers. The clause transforms recognition of the languages into practical action, ensures increased visibility, awareness and understanding of BSL and ISL not just in public life but in wider society, working in partnership with the deaf community. That is where meaningful change begins.”
“Absolutely. The tourism offering in Northern Ireland was talked about frequently, particularly the links that exist between the United States and Northern Ireland. There was a high level of interest in that, and there is a huge opportunity during this 250th year. Numerous people were asking about what we have on offer and what people can come and see. This work has sparked a bit of interest, so we are going to capitalise on that. I encourage the Member to get in contact with Tourism Ireland. In fact, I encourage all Members to get in contact with Tourism Ireland. I am delighted that it recognises the importance of that, but we should continue to make the case for that sort of tourism that is based on our ancestry. I encourage people to go to the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland as well.”
“In the 18th century, people from Ulster had great success in the United States. I believe that that could be the case again in America this summer. Unfortunately, they will have to go via Italy first this time, but I join the Member in wishing our football team well. However, let me say this: in his question, there is an opportunity for us to consider how there can be sporting connections between the United States and Northern Ireland as well. On Saturday evening in Belfast, I spoke to 130 US investors who have contributed to Carrick Rangers football team. We want to see more of that. It is about showing the opportunity that exists to invest not just in tourism and jobs but in sport. As Communities Minister, I will continue to do that.”
“I thought that it was funny when President Trump cracked that joke, but not as funny as the reaction to it. It has perhaps been a comfort blanket for some on the other side of the House. The Member asked me whether I had considered a merger. I do not know whether he means a merger between the UK and the Republic of Ireland — we could certainly consider that — but, if he is talking about a merger between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, I can assure him that I have no intention whatsoever of exploring that one further.”
“That will look at the possibility of more cultural exchanges, through which we can support our young people to go over there to learn and then come back, and other links that can be explored. It is important that we get real benefit out of this. I see it primarily as getting an advantage in heritage tourism, such as the work that we are doing through the Public Record Office, but there are many other things that we can do to keep those connections, and that can only be good for Northern Ireland through jobs and investment as well.”
“Yes, absolutely. I am proud to have been the Minister who has done so much to promote the contribution of the Scots Irish and the Ulster Scots. That story was not well known, but, at the event that I hosted on Capitol Hill, we had numerous senators, congressmen and congresswomen who were talking about it. That promotes interest in Northern Ireland, which can only be a good thing, and I welcome it. However, if it is to have a real legacy, it cannot just be about one year. We need to keep telling the story and making the contribution. I have therefore engaged with the America250 commission about legacy projects to see how we can ensure that the close connections that have been developed can continue.”
“Of course we mentioned the war in Iran when I was engaging with others in the US Administration and in Congress. It was a topic of conversation. Ultimately, however, I will do what I am in control of, which is promoting Northern Ireland.”
“As I have said time and again, this is not about any one president. Rather, it is about building relationships, regardless of who is in the White House. When I was the Economy Minister, I engaged with the Biden Administration, and I have done the same with the Trump Administration. As I have set out, my goal was clear: to highlight the connections that exist between this place and the United States, and that is what I did.”
“Here we go again. He cannot get over Donald Trump. He is obsessed with mentioning this issue. As I have said —”
“I discussed that matter when I was in Savannah, Georgia with Patrick O'Donovan, my counterpart in the Irish Government. We should absolutely take advantage of those opportunities to work together, if it helps us to tell that story. That is certainly what we will be doing through our tourism promotion agencies. I am delighted that Tourism Ireland was at the event that I hosted on Capitol Hill and is promoting America250 because it recognises the value of the initiative and sees it as a way of attracting people to the island of Ireland, but to Northern Ireland in particular. That is something that I welcome. <BR /> <BR />I noted that, in his remarks, the Taoiseach mentioned John Dunlap and Charles Thomson, who were from County Londonderry and County Tyrone and were very much Ulster people. I will continue to promote that.”
“The America250 commission is an independent bipartisan commission that is not under President Trump's direction or control, and neither are we under the direction or control of the America250 commission. It is up to us to put on our own programmes, because we are here to highlight the connections that exist between Ulster and what is now Northern Ireland and the United States, and we make no apology for doing that.”
“If the Member were to read the Declaration of Independence, she would recognise that some of the concerns that were expressed were about the King not granting Royal Assent to documents. That does not happen any more. There were multiple Representation of the People Acts, which, again, went some way towards dealing with some of the issues that existed at that time. If it gives her some comfort, that is fine, go ahead, but Northern Ireland, despite the efforts of Mr Sheehan and others, is part of the United Kingdom.”
“No. Please be assured that if I need any history explained to me, Emma Sheerin is absolutely the last person whom I would go to for an explanation. Does she want to know the difference? We are a part of the United Kingdom. We have elected representatives whom we send to Parliament. Our constitutional position is protected by the principle of consent, and we are a voluntary political union of nations, which is very different from that which existed in the 18th century in America. In fact, many of the grievances that those in the United States had at that time are grievances that we would all share now. There were grievances that have been sorted out by legislation and by custom and practice.”
“She has been very loud in the Chamber over the past few days, but it is OK. Let me take this opportunity to explain. We are not a colony; we are part of the United Kingdom.”