NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY Tuesday 16 October 2007 Ministerial Statement: Private Members’ Business: Ministerial Statement: Private Members’ Business: Adjournment: The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Outcome of the Proposed Irish-Language Legislation Consultation Process Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure that he wishes to make a statement regarding the outcome of the consultation process for the proposed Irish language legislation. The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure (Mr Poots): I have placed in the Assembly Library copies of a report summarising the responses received during the consultation of March to June 2007 on the proposed Irish language legislation. The main focus of that second consultation was to ascertain public opinion on a possible legislative framework for Irish language legislation. The draft framework proposed the creation of a duty on public authorities to prepare a language scheme specifying the measures that they would take on the use of the Irish language in the provision of their services. The establishment of a new oversight body — an Irish language commissioner — was also proposed. The commissioner would have the function of approving and overseeing language schemes. In addition, it was proposed that a person would be able to use Irish in legal proceedings in courts and tribunals sitting in Northern Ireland, subject to the provision of notice and the interests of justice. Finally, a draft provision was also included enabling certain statutory forms to be made available in Irish. A total of 11,000 written responses were received, as well as petitions containing 629 names. Of the total number of respondents, 7,500 — 65% — indicated support for some form of legislation. Over 4,000 — 35% — of all respondents were against any form of legislation. Approximately 80% of responses were submitted in the form of a pro forma, drafted by individuals or organisations to assist themselves and others. I thank all the individuals and the 168 organisations who responded to the consultation. The sheer number of responses confirms the strong and divergent views on this issue in the community. It is my intention to publish all the responses on the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure website by the end of the calendar year, in line with departmental accessibility guidelines. Among those in favour of the legislation, there was a divergence of views as to the form that it should take, with the majority advocating a rights-based approach. Those who opposed the legislation raised several concerns, including the significant resource consequences of implementing legislation, its potentially divisive repercussions and concerns that the proposed legislation was a political concession in the context of the discussions at St Andrews. With regard to costs, in 2006-07, Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) Departments and the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) incurred expenditure of £20·62 million on a range of Irish-language projects and translations. That figure includes £10·3 million from the Department of Education for Irish-medium education. It does not include expenditure incurred by the Northern Ireland Court Service or by local councils on Irish translations and linguistic-diversity projects, nor does it include resources — that is, salaries and running costs — deployed by the various Departments in arranging the commitments associated with the £20·62 million annual expenditure. Members will appreciate that it is difficult to estimate the cost and resource issues that could arise from Irish language legislation. For example, a rights-based framework would likely have greater costs than a language-scheme framework. Equally, it is difficult to estimate the cost and resource requirements of a language-scheme framework without clarity on the content and extent of a typical language scheme. Officials in my Department undertook a high-level exercise to estimate the cost of implementing a language-scheme framework, which was the indicative legislative framework set out in the consultation document of 13 March 2007. For the purposes of that exercise, the estimates were based on the assumption that the legislation would be applied across all Departments and the NIO in the financial year 2008-09, and drew, where possible, upon estimates based on experiences in Wales and in the Republic of Ireland. For example, if Northern Ireland were to have an Irish-language commissioner’s office similar to that in the Republic of Ireland, the annual running costs would be approximately £500,000. The translation service for the Houses of the Oireachtas costs approximately £600,000 per annum, compared to £1·28 million in the National Assembly for Wales. It is estimated that almost £200,000 per annum would be required to provide simultaneous translation in Irish for the Court Service, and a similar amount for tribunals. In respect of the 11 Departments and the NIO, it is estimated that, in 2008-09, if each were to deploy two dedicated staff members, each fluent in Irish, to develop Irish-language schemes, monitor their implementation, give advice and arrange translations, the annual cost would be approximately £927,000. The printing and design of forms to facilitate Irish-language schemes in the 11 Departments could cost approximately £309,000, and advertising costs could be in the region of £931,000, based on a 20% uplift to take account of the increased advertising costs for Irish. It is important to stress that those broad estimates concern mainly the 11 Departments. Those Departments employ 22,973 civil servants, as opposed to the wider public sector, which employs 111,128 in local government, health trusts, education and library boards, and various NDPBs. If estimates of the cost of implementing a language-scheme approach in the 11 Departments were to be extrapolated across the wider public sector, and if, for example, the agreed language schemes required public bodies to provide bilingual services, the costs would clearly be significant. Members will be aware of current pressures on public expenditure in Northern Ireland. In light of that, it is highly debatable whether our community is prepared to contemplate the level of expenditure that would be required to introduce even a modest form of Irish-language legislation at this time. There will always be competing priorities for public expenditure; however, can the additional potential cost be justified in comparison with the investment that is needed for infrastructure, health, and other vital public services? Furthermore, bearing in mind that approximately £20·62 million per annum is currently spent on Irish-language projects and translations, I doubt whether the legislative route will be necessarily the most cost-effective way of achieving the aims of enhancing and protecting the development of the Irish language. My purpose in publishing the summary of responses to the 13 March consultation paper by way of this statement is to afford Members an opportunity to offer some initial views on the matter. I intend to fully engage with the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure before bringing the matter to the Executive. Having reviewed the responses to both consultation processes, and having reflected carefully on all the relevant issues, I remain unpersuaded that there is a compelling case for introducing Irish-language legislation at this time. My first reason for making that decision is that, in view of the political sensitivities on linguistic and cultural policy issues, it is clear that the proposal to introduce an Irish language Bill is divisive in our community. The proposal has given rise to highly politicised claims and counterclaims. As a community, we are faced with the challenge of finding new ways of managing our rich cultural diversity. Indeed, that challenge is enshrined in the duty that was placed on the Executive by the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006 to: “adopt a strategy setting out how it proposes to enhance and protect the development of the Irish language” and to: “adopt a strategy setting out how it proposes to enhance and develop the Ulster Scots language, heritage and culture”. The UK Government signed the European Treaty for Regional or Minority Languages on 2 March 2000. The resulting charter was ratified on 27 March 2001 and came into force on 1 July 2001. That is an international convention that was designed to protect and promote regional and minority languages. In Northern Ireland, it applies to Irish and to Ulster Scots. The committee of experts that is examining the implementation of the charter in the UK has recommended the development of a comprehensive policy for the Irish language. It is my assessment that the proposal to introduce Irish-language legislation at this time is unlikely to command the necessary support in the Assembly on the grounds of being incapable of securing sufficient consensus. If we reflect on the introduction of language legislation in Wales, the Republic of Ireland and Scotland, experience there clearly shows that giving legislative effect to linguistic policies needs to occur in a depoliticised manner that is capable of commanding broadly based community support. The two consultation processes that have taken place on the proposal to introduce Irish-language legislation, and the ensuing public commentary, clearly demonstrate the lack of community consensus on the issue. 10.45 am Furthermore, given the sensitivities involved, if the development of the Irish language is to be enhanced and protected, it would be counterproductive to go down the legislative route. The proposed legislation is unlikely to command sufficient consensus in the community at this time, so, if it were to be advanced, it could damage good relations, increase polarisation and entrench suspicions and patterns of antipathy. That could seriously undermine the efforts of those in the Irish-speaking community who genuinely want to see the language developed in a depoliticised and wholly inclusive manner. Based on a high-level cost estimate, the introduction of even a modest language-scheme legislative model would have significant resource implications. Mindful of the constraints on public expenditure, and, in particular, the pressures in my Department alone, I cannot reconcile the likely opportunity costs of introducing legislation and other spending priorities. If our aim is to achieve the tangible outcomes of enhancing and protecting the development of the Irish language and facilitating those who wish to use Irish in their dealings with the public sector, I consider the legislative route to be a disproportionately costly method of achieving positive outcomes. The legislative requirement placed on the Executive to adopt a strategy to enhance and protect the development of the Irish language offers a more cost-effective and proportionate alternative. I have carefully considered the proposal in annex B to the St Andrews Agreement to “introduce an Irish Language Act” and the consultation processes on which the previous Administration embarked. I fully acknowledge that there are those in the Northern Ireland community who have a close affinity with the Irish language and have legitimate aspirations to secure its official recognition and protection. The enhancement and protection of the development of the Irish language is an important matter for Northern Ireland, as is the enhancement and protection of the Ulster-Scots language, heritage and culture. However, I remain unpersuaded that a compelling case for progressing legislation exists at this time. There is insufficient community consensus, and there are potentially significant costs. Moreover, there is a real possibility that legislation could undermine good relations. In so doing, it could prove counterproductive to those who wish to see the language developed in a non-politicised and inclusive manner. In publishing the report that summarises the responses received to the consultation exercise that ran from March until June 2007, and in outlining in my statement my current assessment of the proposal to introduce an Irish language Bill, I trust that I can assist the Assembly’s deliberations. I will be most interested to hear Members’ views. I am scheduled to discuss the matter with the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure later this month, after which I will prepare a paper for discussion by the Executive. Mr Speaker: Before the Minister takes questions, I remind Members that they are to ask questions, not make further statements. I shall allow Chairpersons of Committees some latitude. The Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure (Mr McElduff): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ar maidin tá faill déanta sa Ghaeilge sa Tionól seo. Drochscéal ar fad atá i gceist agus drochshíniú ón Aire. Agus is mór an trua sin. The Minister will know, a Chathaoirligh, that, both on Friday afternoon and yesterday, in my capacity as Chairperson — Cathaoirleach — of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, I attempted, through my Committee staff, to contact the Minister by telephone and email on more than 10 occasions. I wanted to secure a meeting with him so that he might respond to developing speculation in the media about the content of this morning’s statement. I will not go on at length, but, suffice it to say, the Minister demonstrated neither confidence nor courtesy, effectively giving the Cathaoirligh of the Committee the runaround. I was told he might be available to meet me in the afternoon but, of course, that meeting never came to be. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order, Members. Mr McElduff: Speaking in a personal capacity, I wish to say that this morning’s announcement constitutes a mistake. It is a retrograde step that sends out a negative signal to the growing Irish-language community in the North of Ireland. The Minister is missing a major opportunity to prove that he is capable of being, and willing to be, a Minister for all the people. I am suspicious of the Minister’s view that: “it is highly debatable whether our community is prepared to contemplate the level of expenditure that would be required to introduce even a modest form of Irish-language legislation at this time.” Is the Minister placing the Irish-language community in the North of Ireland outside of his community? Is his definition of “community” exclusive of the Irish-speaking community in the North of Ireland? If it is, it strikes me that the term “Minister of Culture” is an oxymoron when it is applied to the post’s incumbent. One consultation was not enough. When the Minister did not like the outcome of the first one, he decided to carry out a second. Is it the case that the total percentage of responses, over the two consultations, in favour of Acht na Gaeilge — an Irish language Act — was 75%? Does the Minister agree that, as with the Welsh example, the best way in which to depoliticise the Irish language is to place such rights at the heart of legislation? Is iad sin mo cheisteanna, a Cheann Comhairle. Mr Poots: The Member spoke of placing the Irish language at the heart of people’s rights. Individuals have rights in this country. The first such right is the right to life, and, thereafter, there are a series of other rights. I am not denying anyone the right to speak in the Irish language. We do not necessarily need Irish-language legislation to enable the Irish language to flourish. For example, there is Irish-language legislation in the Republic of Ireland, yet use of the Irish language is diminishing there. In Northern Ireland, we do not currently have an Irish language Bill, yet it has been told to me by a number of sources that use of the Irish language is growing here. Introducing a Bill will not, of itself, necessarily encourage or increase the use of the Irish language. Members must reflect on that and take a considered view of the situation when deciding how they want to take the issue forward genuinely. When I refer to the community, I refer to the entire community. I am referring not to Irish-language speakers, Ulster-Scots speakers, unionists or nationalists, but to the whole community. Irish-language speakers are part of that community. There are those in the Irish-speaking community who are very keen to see the issue progressed in a way that is not politicised. I have had the privilege of meeting people who are involved in the Scottish Gaelic-speaking community. The difference between the situation in Scotland and that in Northern Ireland is that, in Scotland, language is not a political matter. Language does not necessarily represent a barrier there. Members opposite, in particular, but also people outside of the Chamber, must reflect on that fact and determine how they can take the matter forward in a non-political way. Mr McCausland: I thank the Minister for his statement, which clearly demonstrates that an Irish language Act would be divisive and extremely expensive. Does the Minister agree that the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, to which the United Kingdom Government are committed, provides a good framework for advancing both minority languages in Northern Ireland? Will the Minister, in considering the matter further, take account of the situation in Wales, where there is growing concern, particularly in the business community, at the cost of implementing the provisions that some activists are demanding? Mr Poots: The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages is a European directive, so we must abide by it, even if we do not wish to. Indeed, through our actions, we are more than abiding by it. We do not need to introduce legislation to work within its framework. Therefore, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages is the context in which we must work and the means through which we can identify how to make progress. Mr McCausland talked about the costs of language schemes in Wales, where such legislation has been enacted. The costs that I identified were at the lower end of the scale and were for a language-based rather than a rights-based scheme, which would be considerably more expensive than a language-based scheme. Mr McNarry: It is regrettable that the Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure did not consult with the Deputy Chairperson about his concerns, either last Friday or yesterday. I welcome the Minister’s statement. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has the Floor. Mr McNarry: Clearly, the fact that last week’s Ulster Unionist’s motion on the Irish language was defeated has demonstrated that the House was both deeply divided and reflective of public opinion. Will the Minister confirm the Assembly’s authority on the matter by asserting that the powers to introduce an Irish language Act will not be transferred to Westminster, allowing it to be imposed on us? That would be counterproductive to local democracy and would further undermine the good relations that he and I know must be made in this matter. Mr Poots: This is a devolved matter. If Westminster wished to take back devolved matters, under the Sewel guidelines, this House would have to vote in favour of Westminster’s making such a decision. Members may wish to look to other places, but I say that they should look to this House to ascertain how we can make progress on this and other contentious issues. It will be a test of the Assembly — and of the willingness of Members — as to how we can work with one another for the benefit of the wider community in the months ahead. Mr D Bradley: Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Leis an fhírinne a dhéanamh, a Cheann Comhairle, níl mórán iontais orm ins an mhéid a chuala mé anseo ar maidin mar bhí an fógra déanta cheana féin an tseachtain seo caite ag an tUas McNarry anseo ar leathanach tosaigh den ‘News Letter’, só ceapaim go bhfuil poll áit éigin i long na Ranna Cultúir, Ealaíon agus Fóillíochta, agus b’fhéidir gur chóir don Aire paiste a chur ar an pholl sin. Mr Speaker: Order. Let us have the question. Mr D Bradley: To translate, I was just saying that I was not really surprised by what I have heard in the Chamber this morning, given that Mr McNarry made the announcement last week on the front page of the ‘News Letter’. It looks very much as though there is a hole — [Interruption.] Mr McNarry: I will give you a copy, and that will keep you abreast of things. Mr D Bradley: Thank you. Mr Speaker: Order. A Member: What is the question? Mr D Bradley: There is a hole in the good ship CAL, and perhaps the Minister should seek to fix the leak in the future. The Minister seems to understand the cost of everything and the value of nothing. He uses the financial issue to cover up the fact that he has given in to pressures — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the Member to take his seat. I have continually tried to give Members some latitude. I said repeatedly at the start of the debate that statements should not be made to the Minister; we should have questions. Mr D Bradley: My question is that, given that the Minister has abdicated his duty to implement the promises made by the two Governments in the St Andrews Agreement: “to introduce an Irish Language Act reflecting on the experience of Wales and Ireland”, will he now advise the British Government of that abdication and ask that the matter be dealt with at Westminster? Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Mr Poots: I have no responsibility over decisions that the Governments of the Republic of Ireland and the UK make. I make that completely clear. This House is its own master, and this House will make the decision. For years, some Members on the opposite Benches were shouting “Brits out”, but now they want the Brits in to make this decision. I can assure the House — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister has the Floor. 11.00 am Mr Poots: I can assure the House that at no time during any talks was the DUP consulted on an Irish language Bill or legislation. If the Member cares to read the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, he will find that there is no reference to proposals for Irish language legislation. Dr Farry: The Alliance Party saw some potential in an Irish-language scheme as a means of trying to find common ground, albeit with a very light touch. What efforts did the Minister make to try to find common ground in the polarised debate between those, on the one hand, who want a rights-based approach and those, on the other hand, who want no legislation whatsoever? With respect to costs, what consideration was given to pooling resources in a central Government unit, rather than duplicating translation services across all 11 Departments and the rest of the Northern Ireland Civil Service? Given that the Minister is now withdrawing proposals for an Irish language Act, is he prepared to come back to the Assembly with plans for a comprehensive language Act that will address not only the cultural demands of speakers of Irish and Ulster Scots but the real needs of those people who speak non-indigenous languages in Northern Ireland and who find it difficult to access services? Mr Poots: Consultation has not finished on this issue. If the Member had listened to what I said, he would know that I am going back to the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Executive Committee. The Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure is a microcosm of the House, and I can think of no better place to find common ground. If that Committee can identify an agreed way to proceed, I, as Minister, will be happy to work with it. I look forward to the Committee’s proposals and discussions, under Mr McElduff’s chairmanship, after which we can consider how to progress the issue in the way that the Member outlined. Mr Shannon: I welcome the Minister’s report on the Irish language Act. It is good that we are discussing the matter, which is one of the biggest issues in my constituency of Strangford, from where the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure received 600 responses to its consultation. The issue gets people’s hackles up, and the costs are horrendous. The Minister mentioned costs. Can he confirm that the Northern Ireland Office costs are £20 million? He also mentioned £500,000 for the language commissioner’s office, and that it would be £1·2 million if compared to the National Assembly for Wales. For the 11 Departments, he mentioned: “annual costs … £927,000 … printing and design … £309,000, and advertising costs … of £931,000”. It sounds a lot like that Abba song: “Money, money, money … It’s a rich man’s world.” In this case, it is Sinn Féin’s world, but it is not in the mind, or in the world, of ordinary people. How much, per annum, will it cost the Civil Service and other public bodies if an Irish language Act is imposed? Mr Poots: In 2006-07, all Departments and the NIO incurred costs of some £117,000 on Irish translations; the overall costs for translations were over £1 million. All Departments and the NIO spent £3,484,000 on linguistic diversity projects. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure spent over £3 million on the Irish-language broadcasting fund and £3,556,000 on Foras na Gaeilge. The Department of Education spent £10,303,000 on Irish-medium education, and the Department for Employment and Learning spent £100,000. If Members suggest that the Government are not committed to Irish-language funding, those figures show that that is not the case. As regards additional commitments for Irish-language translation, we would be looking for an anticipated £1 million over the next 10 years. For Foras na Gaeilge, we would be looking for almost £12 million over the next 10 years. For the Irish-language commissioner’s office, we would be looking for £7,600,000 over the next 10 years. For the translation service, based on what is happening in Wales, we would be looking for a further £16,916,000. For the Court Service, we would be looking for £2,117,000. For tribunals, we would be looking for £2,117,000. For printing and design, we would be looking for £3,385,000. For advertising and publicity, we would be looking for £10,193,000, and for an Irish language branch, we would be looking for £10,150,000. Totting all that up — and this is for the language scheme route, rather than the rights-based route — we would be looking at costs over the next 10 years of £291,538,000 for the Northern Ireland Civil Service and Northern Ireland Office alone. They account for 22,000-odd civil servants. If it were extrapolated out to local government, NDPBs and other functions of government, there would be 111,000 people, so the figures could be increased fivefold if we were to go down that route. That is the extent of what is being asked of me. When Members ask me to consider doing this, I have to look at the costs and the value of it. At the same time, there are other pressing and vital issues being raised by Members on a weekly basis on the Floor of this House. Mr Adams: Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle, agus tá mé buíoch díot agus tá mé buíoch den Aire, ach caithfidh mé a rá fosta níl iontas ar bith ormsa. Tá cúpla ceist agamsa. An bhfuil eagla ar an Aire roimh an teanga? Is leis an Aire an teanga. Is le achan duine an teanga seo agus bealach amháin nó bealach eile beidh Acht na Gaeilge ann. I have just a few questions for the Minister, a Cheann Comhairle. Does he agree that it costs the same to provide English-language services as it does to provide Irish-language services? Does he agree — and perhaps he will reflect on this — that he did a disservice to two languages this morning? He did a disservice to the English language, in the perverted way in which he tried to put forward spurious reasons for his judgement this morning, and to the Irish language. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order, Members. Order. Mr Adams: Does the Minister accept that the way to depoliticise Irish-language rights is to make them an administrative matter? Will he take the opportunity to spell out to us how he intends to deliver on the commitments that he and his party made in relation to the Irish language in the St Andrews Agreement? Will he accept, finally, that, one way or another, there will be an Irish language Act? Mr Poots: As regards equivalence of costs, translation comes at a price, and I have identified that price very clearly. I have identified the lower level of costs that would be accrued, as opposed to the higher level of costs. In education, I understand that there are around 4,000 children in the Irish-medium sector. The costs there are clearly higher than those in the mainstream, and if the educationalists in the Chamber want to look at that matter, they will see that it costs more money to educate children in the Irish-medium sector than in the mainstream. That is a choice for another Minister to make, but she has to make that choice within the budget that is applied to her. That should be reflected upon when we come to making budgetary decisions. I understand that the Department of Education needs substantially more money than it currently has in order to deliver many of its key priorities. Certain Members opposite could greatly assist in depoliticising the use of the Irish language. When they speak in broken Irish in the House, it does nothing to encourage the wider community. Rather, it persuades people to resist the Irish language. It does not benefit Irish-language activists who genuinely want to make progress in a depoliticised way. I have spoken to people in the Irish-speaking community who have made it clear that they wish that the language issue were not politicised, because it should be a purely cultural one. Members across the Chamber must reflect on that point, because the more that they politicise the issue and try to ram it down people’s throats, the less likely it becomes that individuals will be encouraged to think that the Irish language should be developed and preserved on the basis that it is important culturally. The approach that has been taken by the leader of the party opposite has been most unhelpful, particularly in the House. Lord Browne: I congratulate the Minister on the way in which he has conducted business on the subject. Given the legislative restrictions contained in The Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2007 that determine what can be taken from the Consolidated Fund, as well as our limited ability to raise further moneys, will the Minister clarify whether the introduction of an Irish language Bill would have a detrimental effect on spending on arts and sport? Mr Poots: Were an Irish language Bill to be introduced, my Department would have to bid for substantially greater funds. If we did not receive those extra funds, that would have a detrimental impact on the arts, sport, and everything else for which the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has responsibility. If we were successful in bidding for that extra funding, it would have a detrimental impact on other Departments, as that money would have to come out of their budgets. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages identifies terms of value for protecting and enhancing languages. The suggestion by some Members this morning has been that Irish-language legislation is the best way in which to achieve that. I am open to listening to a convincing argument, but none has yet been made. However, I look forward to hearing the Committee make its case, and to agreeing a way forward. Mr K Robinson: I am sure that members of the public who are watching and listening to the debate will have been horrified to learn of the sums of money that are already being expended on the Irish language. It may have come as a surprise to Members, too. Doubtless, patients who are lying on a hospital trolley would be mightily comforted to look up and see a sign in Irish that told them that they were lying in a hospital corridor. I am sure that the parent of a child with literacy problems, who attends a school in one of the working-class districts about which the Minister of Education tells the House that she is concerned, would want to see a reading-recovery teacher in that school rather than an Irish-language sign at the end of the school’s street. At one stage, on hearing the sums of money that the Minister cited, I thought that we were to get two stadia. Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to come to his question. Mr K Robinson: I am coming to the question, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree that Sinn Féin has succeeded in scoring a spectacular own goal, and that its strident approach has scuppered what might have been accepted had it been genuinely presented as one form of cultural diversity in our community? Mr Poots: I will allow Members to make their own judgements on what Sinn Féin has done. I am prepared to continue to speak with people in the Irish-language community, and to others, to identify a way in which to ensure progress in Northern Ireland. 11.15 am What members of other parties do is up to them. However, I did indicate in my response to Mr Adams that, very often, people do not help themselves. Mr P Ramsey: Will the Minister agree that deep anxiety, concern and frustration will be felt by Irish-language groups across Northern Ireland as a result of his statement? Bearing in mind the Minister’s comment that the two consultation processes to date led him to believe that an Irish language Act would not command community consensus, does he agree that there is deep worry and suspicion that the second consultation process was contrived to enable troops to gather momentum in opposition to the first consultation process? Why was the second consultation process necessary, when the first one commanded 93% support for an Irish language Act? The Minister gave a commitment that he would make himself available to the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure on any Thursday. Why, then, did he not feel that it was appropriate, good manners and respectful to bring his statement to the Committee for discussion? The Minister talked about securing consensus from the Committee — failing to discuss this issue with the Committee is not a good way of doing that. Given that legislation exists to support the Welsh language in Wales and Scottish Gaelic in Scotland, and given Northern Ireland’s current constitutional status as part of the UK, why does the Minister not consider that an exception should be made in Northern Ireland for the Irish language? Mr Poots: The Irish-language community has lost nothing today. The money that was on the table is still on the table. I have not taken away the level of expenditure on the Irish language that currently exists. Let not the message go out that I have decided, in a sectarian or bigoted way, to move against the Irish-language community. I have reflected on a consultation process that indicated that clear divisions on this issue exist in the community. A previous contributor indicated that I introduced the second consultation process because I did not like the results of the first one. That is absolute rubbish. I inherited a situation in which the second consultation process was under way. In fact, I was under pressure from people outside of this House, such as Jim Allister, to stop the second consultation process. He must have been satisfied by the outcome of the first consultation process because he did not want the second one to proceed. It is clearly evident that the second consultation process, in conjunction with the first one, identified clear community division on this issue. When there is clear community division, it is unlikely that there will be consensus in this House. As for working with the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, I am scheduled to attend the Committee meeting on 25 October 2007 to discuss this matter in detail. The figures have been drawn together, and the analysis has been completed. The normal protocol for a Minister is to bring those matters to the House, which encapsulates everyone who was elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am happy to go into this issue in much greater detail with the Committee, and to discuss it with the Committee to ascertain the best way forward. I look forward to illumination from that body. Mr Brolly: Go raibh maith agat. The Minister must be aware of the message that he is sending out, not only specifically to Irish-language organisations, but to all organisations in the North who are involved in cultural matters. Most Gaelic cultural bodies and sporting bodies are committed by their constitutions to the promotion of the Irish language. That includes the GAA and Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Eireann — the Dublin-based organisation that looks after traditional Irish music and other cultural matters, and which will be appearing in the Long Gallery tomorrow night or the night after that. So there is a huge community outside those specifically Irish-language organisations that will take great offence at the statement, and the Minister will certainly hear from them. If I could make another point before I ask the question — Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to put his question. Mr Brolly: I will. The Minister is being a bit disingenuous regarding costs, particularly with respect to Irish-medium education. As Mr Adams said, youngsters will be educated in any event. The Minister should have given figures for the difference in costs between Irish-medium and English-medium education. Is the Minister fully aware of the impact that his decision will have beyond Irish-language groups? Mr Poots: I am not sure that I am fully aware of the impact that my decision will have. However, I am fully aware that any decision I make will have a tremendous impact on the wider community. For example, while more than £20 million is being spent on the Irish language, when I took office, my Department was spending zero — no pounds — on sign language, which benefits people who cannot speak, who have only that language, and can choose to speak no other language. On 6 October, I was in Dungiven, which is in the Member’s constituency, and I had a tremendous evening with the Hands That Talk group. My sympathies are clearly with those who have to communicate in a language that is exclusive to them and who are unable to communicate in any other language. Taking £20 million from the Budget and pouring it into Irish- language schemes would have an impact across the community. Whatever my decision, there will be an impact, and I must consider these issues in the round. The matter is still open for discussion in Committee. I have identified the costs, the results of the consultation process and the difficulties. If Members can demonstrate to me that those difficulties are surmountable, I am open to hear what they say. Lord Morrow: I congratulate the Minister on his positive statement, which will send out a clear message. No-one would understand why he should commit to expenditure of £291 million over the next 10 years on the Irish language. That language is its current position because of the attitude of the folk opposite who have sought at every turn to politicise it. Will the Minister assure Members that he will not bend to political pressure such as that which comes from the other side of the House? The Members opposite may have got an assurance at St Andrews, but they must go and talk to those who gave them that assurance. They got no assurance from this side of the House, and they had better face up to the fact that their dream is falling apart at their feet. Will the Minister assure the House that the money saved will be spent effectively and in a way in which the whole community can benefit? I am thinking of soccer, rugby and activities in which both sections of the community already participate. Mr Poots: I find pressure readily absorbable. People can apply pressure if they wish. As regards spending, I cannot spend this money in any other way because I do not have it in the first place. I do not think that the Government has that money because during the comprehensive spending review, and at the Executive Committee meeting last Monday, every Minister was outlining how more money is needed for his or her Department. Perhaps the Ministers of the parties opposite would identify which part of their Budgets they would like to see cut so that this scheme could be implemented. If they could demonstrate that, Members on this side of the House might be able to take some of their cries more seriously. Ms J McCann: The Minister quoted many figures in his statement. Does he accept and acknowledge that the £10·3 million of Department of Education money that he mentioned is, in fact, ordinary education costs and not additional costs, and that that money would be spent on children’s education anyway, regardless of the language in which those children are taught? Mr Poots: I accept that an element of those costs represents ordinary education costs, but certainly not all of it. If I wanted to open a school for 12 children in my area, I would be told to go away. However, if someone wants to open an Irish-language school for 12 children, it seems that that can be achieved. The reason that that situation is most aggravating lies in examples such as the one in my constituency, where four schools that were to amalgamate, with more than 100 pupils among them, were all closed, yet a few weeks or months later, new schools are being opened with as few as 12 pupils on the enrolment list. Obviously, double standards are being applied. If a child happens to be taught in the controlled sector, that child will be discriminated against. Children in that sector have less funding per child than children who are taught in the Irish-language sector or, indeed, in the integrated sector. It is clear that preferential treatment is being given to those who are taught in Irish-medium schools, over and above those who are taught in other education sectors. Mr Easton: I welcome the Minister’s statement. Does he agree that any Irish-language group or Irish-speaking person would not want cuts to front-line services, such as education and health, in order to pay for an Irish language Act? Does he further agree that the fact that only 75,000 people out of a population of 1·7 million can speak the Irish language means that that would have been a waste of taxpayers’ money? Mr Poots: I have laid down a challenge. I look forward to other Ministers stepping up to the table to indicate the reductions that they can make in their departmental spending in order to enable me to go ahead and produce the finance for that measure. I do not believe that people want a reduction in health services, infrastructure not being developed and promoted, or the economy taking second or third place. They want the country to progress. The Celtic tiger was not based on the Gaeltacht, but on the economy. Northern Ireland must identify with that by moving the economy forward and, therefore, by releasing more funding to develop education, health and the other areas that most require it. Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. De réir gach dealraimh is é an rud atá againne inniu ná leithscéal i ndiaidh leithscéil agus fáthanna nár chóir rud ar bith a dhéanamh mar mhaithe leis an teanga Gaeilge. The Assembly has been given excuse after excuse as reasons not to advance the Irish language. However, I seek some clarity from the Minister. In his speech, he referred to the European Charter that applies to Irish and Ulster Scots, and to the report of the Council of Europe committee of experts. Can he confirm whether he has now rejected that report? Mr Poots: I can confirm that the answer is no. Ms Anderson: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Bearing in mind that the Welsh language has been protected by the Welsh Language Act since 1967, Scottish Gaelic is now protected by legislation, and Irish is protected constitutionally in the rest of Ireland, does the Minister agree with Eamon Ó Cuív’s assessment that the North is the missing piece of the jigsaw? Does the Minister care about the reaction or feelings of the Irish-speaking community? Does he care about the effect of his statement on the wider community? 11.30 am Mr Poots: I have taken the wider community into consideration in looking at this situation. It is important that we consider the views of the wider community. As I have said, the Irish-language community has not lost anything today. There are those who have suggested that legislation was the best way forward on the matter. I have outlined the issues that surround that — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister has the Floor. Mr Poots: I have outlined the financial issues that surround the proposal. I have also outlined issues relating to community support and the communities that are opposed to any legislation, and the difficulties therein. Looking at the issue for the wider community shows that there are very clear difficulties. If Members cannot see those difficulties, it is they who have a problem, not me. As I said earlier, the Irish-speaking community appears to be growing in Northern Ireland, where we do not have an Irish language Act, and declining in the Republic of Ireland, where there is legislation. Therefore, there are people in the Irish-language community who will not be particularly dissatisfied if Irish-language legislation is not introduced. An Irish language Act would not necessarily help the language. Training and Employment Places Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours —[Interruption.] Lord Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it not the convention in this House that, while you are on your feet, everyone else should be in their places? I see that some Members have not yet learned that rule. Mr Speaker: I thank Lord Morrow for raising that point of order. [Interruption.] Order. I ask Members to take their places. The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours for this debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes for the winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. Two amendments to the motion have been received and are published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of each amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes for the winding-up speech. Ms S Ramsey: I beg to move That this Assembly expresses its concern at the dearth of training and employment places for disabled children and young people; and calls on the Minister for Employment and Learning to undertake an immediate review and produce an action plan to address this issue as a matter of urgency. Go raibh maith agat. I welcome the opportunity to bring this issue before the Assembly and to put the focus on young people with special educational needs, disabilities or learning difficulties. I also welcome the Minister to the debate, and I welcome his personal commitment to dealing with the issue. Young people with special educational needs are a group about which it is difficult to get accurate statistics. In 2005-06, there were 53,000 children and young people with special educational needs attending school. That number has more than doubled in the past 10 years. All indications are that that figure will continue to rise. The issue is particularly important because disabilities affect so many young people, who will face many hurdles in their lives and who need and deserve our support. I have a number of questions to ask the Minister during the debate. I would be grateful if he could ask his officials to respond in writing, if it is not possible for him to provide answers in the time that has been allocated to the debate. In 2006, the Minister’s Department, in conjunction with a number of other Departments, published a report on this issue. It recognised that there are real difficulties in ensuring that children and young people with statements of special educational needs can realise their full potential in school and achieve their goals, whether in training, education or work. Too many disabled young people still find themselves, having left school, without access to the kind of employment and training that can allow them to have fulfilling lives. For some disabled young people, the lack of appropriate training and places at day care centres means that they spend the majority of their time at home with nothing to do. Some develop associated mental-health problems. Too many parents remain concerned that their children will not be able to access further education or training, or that the opportunities that are on offer will not allow them to develop their independence. On leaving school, many young people with learning difficulties or disabilities find that there is no clear path of transition to employment ahead of them. In fact, they often experience multiple layers of discrimination and disadvantage. That means that they have many barriers to overcome to achieve their potential and find suitable employment — barriers that those without disabilities or special needs would struggle to overcome. Those young people find that there is a lack of full-time vocational training and employment options that lead to meaningful paid employment. In a recent Barnardo’s survey of young disabled people, the following barriers were identified: lack of choice in post-school options; lack of accessible colleges; low expectations for young people with disabilities; fewer opportunities to gain recognised qualifications; lack of co-ordination among agencies that work with young people; lack of suitable equipment or adaptations to meet their needs; and a view that there was a policy of cost above need. Many young people said that they felt that they were pushed into courses in which they had no interest. Administration courses were often cited as those that they were most likely to be offered, even if such courses did not suit their needs. Many young people then dropped out and some failed to find an alternative option. Some young people said that they were not permitted to select the college or course of their choice because the building was inaccessible or the necessary support was not available. Some who had a day care place rather than a training or employment place said that they felt neglected and ignored, with little sense of a hopeful future. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that the scope and level of aspirations among disabled 16-year-olds are similar to the scope and level of aspirations among other 16-year-olds. However, by adulthood, a sharp change is evident, with only half of disabled young people reporting that they received the education, training place or job that they wanted. The failure to provide access to the type of training, education and employment places that young disabled people need is also linked to poverty. At the age of 26, disabled people are more than four times as likely to be unemployed or involuntarily out of work than non-disabled people. They are likely to have lower levels of educational qualifications and are more likely to have not fulfilled the employment aspirations that they had set for themselves 10 years previously. However, the research clearly demonstrates that poverty of aspiration is not the main barrier for disabled young people, but the need for additional support, information and opportunities. Many disabled young people have identified as a major problem the failure of training courses to provide industry-recognised qualifications, which means that they will have spent time on qualifications that have no currency in the real world. A number of reports commissioned by the Department for Employment and Learning have confirmed that that is a problem. A report on educational provision for students with learning difficulties and disabilities found that improvements have been made since 2001, but that a number of problem areas still need to be addressed. Those areas include the need for colleges to review learning-support structures; the need to ensure that provision exists across curriculum areas; the need to provide broader access to accredited courses; and the need to initiate a process of effective whole-college staff development in special needs. Can the Minister advise the House how each of those recommendations has been taken forward, and what progress has been made? That report further suggests that, although current further education links are satisfactory in the majority of cases, provision would benefit from a review of the value and outcomes of existing courses developed for that pupil population. Can the Minister advise the House on how that matter is being taken forward? As well as further education colleges, a number of voluntary organisations, such as Mencap, the Cedar Foundation and Barnardo’s, to name but a few, provide training and support for disabled young people. Such organisations provide training, employment and ongoing personal support. However, most of them are dependent on short-term — usually European — funding, and it is difficult to develop services when funding is constantly at risk. Those types of services can provide young people with the additional support and resources that make a real difference. I ask the Minister to undertake a full review of all provision available in training and employment, further education and the voluntary sector, to assess its effectiveness and determine any other requirements, and to put in place an appropriately funded action plan that will provide young disabled people with the kind of quality choices and training support that will improve their lives. Two amendments have been tabled, and I accept the Ulster Unionist amendment, for which I thank David McClarty and John McCallister. The SDLP amendment merely restates the Sinn Féin motion; it is an amendment for an amendment’s sake. Go raibh maith agat. Mr McClarty: I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after “Assembly” and insert “expresses its commitment to securing training and employment opportunities where appropriate for young people with disabilities; and calls on the Minister for Employment and Learning to review the provision of such training.” It has been well said that the true test of the value of a society is how much care it takes of its weakest and most vulnerable members. All of us in the Assembly have a responsibility to see that that duty is carried out. I congratulate the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning for tabling the motion, and I thank her for accepting my party’s amendment. However, we are concerned that the motion has the potential to be too narrow in its focus. It is important to remember that training and learning courses and further education college places may not always be the most appropriate choices for children and young people with disabilities. In dealing with the transition of young people with disabilities beyond school, it is necessary for other Departments and agencies to fulfil their responsibilities. Although I make that point, I also acknowledge that there is a significant need for governing bodies of further education institutions to provide sufficiently for the needs of students with a learning disability, where appropriate. That is important. The results of the Northern Ireland survey of people with activity limitations and disabilities, which was conducted throughout 2006 and 2007, showed that among children, 6% were noted as being affected by a disability, there being a greater prevalence among boys in comparison with girls. Eight per cent of boys aged 15 years and under had a disability, compared with 4% of girls of the same age. The latest Disability Rights Commission briefing, based on the UK-wide labour force survey of April to June 2007, shows that half of people with disabilities are in work, compared with four fifths of non-disabled people. As 9% of those aged between 16 and 24 years of age have a disability, such a figure can be seen to imply that a significant number of disabled young people are out of work. The chances of getting a job are also significantly reduced, as 25% of people with disabilities have achieved no qualifications, compared with 10% of non-disabled people. A review of the provision of employment and training places by the Department for Employment and Learning would go a long way in addressing those facts and statistics that are of such concern. Since the motion refers to that Department, it is worthwhile pointing out some of the commendable measures that that Department is undertaking on those issues. In 2006-07, an additional £4·7 million has been made available in further education for the provision of extra auxiliary aids and services and special staff training. Almost £1 million has been allocated to special needs projects in further education in 2006-07. Furthermore, an inclusive learning project has been established throughout further education. Young people can now access mainstream further education with additional support; special provision is available if mainstream education is not suitable. Personal development programmes such as Training for Success and Skills for Work are tailored for trainees with disabilities. The Department for Employment and Learning is in the process of establishing an expert group to ensure that the programmes meet, specifically, the needs of disabled young people Those programmes take forward work, which 26 training organisations have been involved in for the past few years, to ensure that the provision meets the needs of disabled young people. 11.45 am Finally, the Disablement Advisory Service (DAS) has a programme called Workable NI, which supports people with disabilities to work in a wide variety of jobs. There is a clear liaison and referral service between the Department’s careers service and DAS. That is of great benefit to children and young people with disabilities and their families, and I commend the Department for that. The motion calls on the Minister to produce an action plan to address the dearth of training and employment places for children and young people. I conclude by referring to an important document that has been published by the Department: ‘Department for Employment and Learning: Disability Action Plan: 1 April 2007 - 31 March 2008’. The action plan outlines measures to: “● Promote positive attitudes towards disabled people; and ● Encourage participation by disabled people in public life”. Much of that is related to the realm of employment and learning. Therefore, it can be seen from the document that the Department is working hard to address the issue. I accept that we have much more work to do on the matter, and I have every confidence that the Minister and his Department will deliver for those children and young people with disabilities who depend on, and can greatly benefit from, training and employment provision. Mr Attwood: I beg to move amendment No 2: Leave out all after ‘concern’ and insert ‘at the inconsistency of transition support and the limited choices available to disabled young people moving towards training and employment; and at the lack of mainstream training and employment opportunities that meet the individual needs of all disabled young people leaving school; and calls on the Minister for Employment and Learning to develop a strategic plan, in consultation with disabled young people and their parents, for the commissioning of services jointly with other relevant Departments and for the delivery of effective support.’ I welcome the debate, and I acknowledge the assistance provided to us by the organisations in the disability sector. I ask Sue Ramsey to reconsider the SDLP’s amendment because the people who assisted me to draft the amendment did not do so for the sake of it. I take what they said as the best advice and I urge the House to do likewise. They would like to offer some further direction to the Minister in those matters. Therefore, in addition to developing a strategic plan, which is common to the motion and the amendments, the plan should be developed in consultation with — Ms S Ramsey: The Member will appreciate that Sinn Féin proposed the motion because of its concerns at the lack of training places for disabled children and young people. This morning, I was faced with two amendments and, in my view, the SDLP’s amendment is no different from the motion. I take on board the arguments that have been made by the Ulster Unionist Party. If the organisations that Mr Attwood referred to had concerns about the Sinn Féin motion, he could have come to me to work out an arrangement. Sinn Féin does not want to split the House on the issue. Mr Attwood: I concur with Sue Ramsey that the issue is not one of division or contention. The House should not, and from our point of view will not, divide as the substance of the motion is not in dispute. However, people with knowledge of the disability sector, genuinely, and in good faith, looked to build on the substance of the motion to say that there should be consultation with disabled young people and their parents, and that services should be commissioned jointly with other relevant Departments. The Government need joined-up thinking and strategies when the disability sector in the North is being considered. Therefore, although the SDLP will not split the House on the matter, I urge all parties to consider that those directions to the Minister would be useful additions to the motion. I am mindful that the disability community is diverse. There are different views on how to address the needs of children and young people with disabilities, particularly on whether they should be integrated into the workplace or develop opportunities in a separate environment. Each view has value and merit, but I will not start a debate on that. Rather, based on the advice that the SDLP has received, I wish to map out the issues of concern that my party believes exist in the disability sector. I shall address, therefore, the transition from school for young people with disabilities. I will highlight five areas of concern, to which the Minister, in due course, may respond, in writing if necessary. First, in comparison to non-disabled young people, disabled young people face limited choices when making the transition from school. Based on SDLP Members’ experiences in their constituencies, that is self-evident. Therefore, it is necessary to test the accessibility and relevance to young people with disabilities of the opportunities that are available in vocational training, further education and higher education. As has been outlined, the Department has developed some good and sensible initiatives. However, those opportunities must be tested to determine their appropriateness for young people with disabilities. Secondly, although the transition-planning process is set out in a code of practice, accessible information is needed on that process and on the choices available to young people. The delivery of a transition-planning process remains, in part, inconsistent. Such inconsistency is perpetuated by the lack of monitoring of the process across Northern Ireland. Ambiguity remains on the role of transition officers in the education and library boards. Therefore, the availability of information is critical in allowing disabled young people input into the process and in making them fully aware of the opportunities that are available to them. Thirdly, the SDLP has been advised that there is no strategic plan on how to fund the specialist transition-support services for young people with disabilities, who require significant preparation and support in moving to adult life. Currently, support services are tied by funding to particular geographic regions or impairment-specific groups. Transition support should be universally available to all young people with disabilities, including those with complex and multiple disabilities. The fourth area of concern relates to the report of the transitions interdepartmental working group, which was published in 2006. That was a welcome initiative but, in the view of some in the disability sector, it has not resulted in significant progress. They maintain that there appears to be little active cross-departmental collaboration or joint working. It is hoped that the ongoing review of special educational needs and inclusion may provide a vehicle for progress when its proposals are announced in 2008. However, at the moment, responsibility remains with the Department of Education, the Department for Employment and Learning, and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. They should review their roles in the transition process to ensure that disabled school leavers receive an effective service. Finally, the Department for Employment and Learning has an ongoing responsibility to deliver a range of provision, including vocational training and employment programmes that support the economic independence of people with disabilities. The principal programmes, as has been mentioned, are Workable (NI) and Training for Success, which are in the early stages of delivery. Their success in meeting the needs of people with significant disabilities will be tested in the coming year. I suggest to the Minister and to the Committee for Employment and Learning that they monitor the new programmes as they evolve and develop over the next 12 months. I will try to address other matters, particularly vocational training, during the course of the debate. However, for now, the SDLP will not divide the House on this matter. That would be an inappropriate mechanism to employ on a matter that will attract cross-party support. I suggest that, in the course of the remaining one and a half hours of the debate, each party considers that the motion could be enhanced by offering the Minister some direction on whom to consult, in and outside Government. In that way, enhanced support for disabled children and young people could be better achieved. Mr Spratt: I welcome the Minister’s commitment on this important issue. I also thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning for proposing the motion. It is the responsibility of Members to ensure that we provide an education, training and employment framework within which everyone can achieve more independence and fulfilment in their lives. Many disabled people in Northern Ireland believe that they do not have the same opportunities as able-bodied people. The Department for Employment and Learning must make the provision of such opportunities a priority in order to meet the needs of everyone in our society. The Department has set out the criteria that govern special educational provision in the further education sector in the Further Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. We are told that further education institutions must have regard to the needs of students with learning disabilities who are over compulsory school age. Furthermore, the Department states that provision for students with learning difficulties is a key element of the Government’s drive to increase participation and widen access. On paper, the Department has the right mindset, but it is necessary to call for an immediate review to ensure that there is delivery on those words and that the necessary provision is in place for the community. If we are to move forward with improved access, it is necessary that those colleges that are examples of best practice be used as models for others in the sector. There must be an increase in the provision of courses, with appropriate and nationally recognised accreditation. There is no doubt that the training is of the highest quality, and the commitment of staff in the further education sector is unquestionable. That is reflected in the general positive participation of students who have disabilities. However, we will push forward with staff training to ensure that there is an even higher standard of delivery in the future. The provision of places is below the level required, and it is, therefore, important that an immediate review, such as this motion calls for, should be undertaken. The necessity and priority is to increase the employability, confidence and independence of those who have learning difficulties and disabilities. That can only benefit everyone involved. Members on this side of the House support the motion and amendment No 1, as proposed by Mr McClarty. We look forward to the Minister’s undertaking a review and producing an action plan to tackle these problems at the earliest opportunity. I hope that there will be no Division on the amendments. I hope that all Members will unite and send out a message to those folks who are less fortunate than ourselves that we intend to better their position in future Committee deliberations. I know that the Minister will do everything in his power to address the issue, and we look forward to that. I support the motion and amendment No 1. Mr McCarthy: No one disagrees with the idea that there should be more opportunities for training for disabled children and young people. This is not only a matter of equality — which is a vital issue — but of economic necessity. Despite the Northern Ireland economy facing a shortage of skilled workers, too many people of working age are either on the unemployment register or are economically inactive. Disability Action Northern Ireland states that there are some 300,000 people with disabilities in Northern Ireland. Many economically inactive people want to work, but they need support to close the skills gap between what they can offer and the needs of business. The challenge in narrowing that gap is magnified for people with disabilities. 12.00 noon Although I broadly support the motion, I am not sure that I can support all its provisions. For example, there is a risk that a review might last ages, cost millions of pounds and produce more recommendations that may — or may not — be implemented in the long term. For similar reasons, if an action plan is produced, it must be done within a tight timescale and remit. Although a short, focused project that leads to an action plan might have some benefits, this is not an area where there is any great mystery about what needs to be done. Action is needed rather than more glossy documents. Moreover, this is not an issue that the Minister for Employment and Learning can tackle on his own. The Minister of Education has a key role, because of the importance of schools in providing training opportunities for children with disabilities and other young people. I hope that Sinn Féin is not phrasing the motion in order to provide political cover for one of its Ministers, who must play a vital part in advancing this agenda. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment also has a key role to play in ensuring that training links not only with aptitudes and interests of young people but — Ms S Ramsey: I was going to let the Member’s comment about Sinn Féin pass, but the more I thought about it, the more I needed to respond. If the Member reads the motion, he will understand that it is the Minister for Employment and Learning who must take the lead on this issue. There are other Ministers who have responsibility, such as the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and, as the Member stated, the Minister of Education. However, it is the Minister for Employment and Learning who provides training places for young people with disabilities. The Member must not focus on the Minister of Education. Mr McCarthy: I thank the Member for bringing that to my attention. She acknowledges that I am saying that more than one Department has a vital interest in advancing the issue. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment also has a key role to play in ensuring that training links with the needs of business as well as the aptitudes and interests of young people. It is wrong to raise the hopes of young people with disabilities — or anyone’s hopes — by training them for jobs that do not exist. Instead of a lengthy review, there should be a highly focused strategy led by the Minister for Employment and Learning that also involves the relevant Ministers and their Departments. Although the Alliance Party agrees with the substance of the motion — and I thank my colleagues from Sinn Féin for tabling it — it feels that a different approach is more likely to deliver improvements for children and young people with disabilities. We all want to see improvements. I support the motion and both amendments. Mr Newton: It is appropriate that the motion is debated. My colleague Jimmy Spratt has indicated how DUP Members will vote — if that becomes necessary. People who suffer from disabilities in Northern Ireland need socially inclusive and sustainable alternatives to traditional, separate day services. Such people should be given full access to a wide range of community-based educational, vocational and social opportunities. That is not to detract from the valuable work that is being done, which I will mention. Those who suffer from disabilities should not be disenfranchised and segregated. I support initiatives that promote person-centred planning methods; approaches that facilitate access to mainstream further education; and vocational opportunities that provide young people with real qualifications that have equal status to those acquired by their more able-bodied fellow students. It is the responsibility of the Minister for Employment and Learning to smooth progress and facilitate access to increased college-based learning support, and, therefore, the delivery of education and training for disabled children and young people. I commend two organisations in the Province: the Cedar Foundation, and Ulster Supported Employment Ltd (USEL). The Cedar Foundation is an award-winning organisation that works in partnership with community-based organisations, local institutes of further and higher education, training organisations, a range of statutory and voluntary organisations and, importantly, the private sector, to deliver the community inclusion programme. I urge the Minister to look carefully at the programmes that are in place due to the work of the Cedar Foundation — however limited they might be — and to increase the awareness of the needs of disabled people in the wider community and in further education. The Committee for Employment and Learning was concerned about training and employment opportunities for disabled young people, and it invited representatives from USEL to give evidence at one of its meetings. I believe that Jimmy Spratt was in the Chair for that meeting, but I might be wrong. USEL has grown from what were originally workshops for the blind, and it has a long tradition in Belfast and throughout the Province. The organisation was invited to provide evidence on the work that it carries out. It has an excellent ethos and can-do attitude, and it provides manufacturing training and development opportunities to those with disabilities. The skills training provided by USEL offers those who gain expertise and knowledge to move outside of that organisation and into full-time private-sector employment. That gives the people dignity and responsibility, and enables them to prove their full worth in a competitive business environment, making them fully independent and appreciated members of society. USEL is a charity, so although it provides manufacturing training, it is restricted in that it cannot apply for support from Invest Northern Ireland for its manufacturing training and development places, and it is, therefore, restricted in what it can offer. That obstacle was mentioned by USEL representatives in their evidence to the Committee. The core focus of USEL is to assist its employees, and that is the ethos that Members have talked about. Examples that have been quoted by Members require us to think positively about how to address these issues. There will be different opinions on how that can be done, or how to provide the best service and opportunities, but Members’ thinking must always be towards ensuring that the potential of the individual is maximised. Mr Ross: The motion highlights an important issue: equal opportunities for those who have a disability. It is important to state that improvements have been made and that it is not all bad news, but that does not mean that further improvements are not necessary. It is important that disabled people have the opportunity to further themselves and achieve greater independence and fulfilment in life. Good education and training opportunities are important for all children and young people, particularly those who are disadvantaged by a disability. A sound educational start provides the best building block in life, and an incomplete or substandard education or training means that young people will have fewer qualifications and fewer job opportunities. Statistics show that disabled people are twice as likely as non-disabled people to have no qualifications, and there are fewer disabled people of working age in employment than able-bodied people. We must also improve the retention in training of those disabled young people, and overall, there should be better skills training through the various Pathways to Work programmes, for example. Not all courses are available to people with a disability or learning difficulty although, through the learning support funds, students with a learning difficulty can participate in a number of mainstream courses. A sound learning support service should be attached to all those courses for students who require it, and staff need to be given specific training on special-education issues. Many teachers, lecturers and other staff have little or no training in special needs, which makes things difficult for them. Efforts must be made to root out employment discrimination and reduce disability disadvantage in employment by ensuring that young disabled people are given the same opportunities as their able-bodied counterparts. As my party colleague Robin Newton said, the Committee for Employment and Learning recently had the privilege of meeting with USEL. That company has been around for over 40 years and is the largest employer of disabled people in Northern Ireland. It employs a disabled workforce that earns a proper wage and produces commercially competitive produce. As well as running its own factory, USEL supports more than 1,000 people with disabilities and mental-health conditions in hundreds of mainstream jobs throughout Northern Ireland. It is through that kind of practical support that disabled people can improve their employment prospects and live more fulfilling lives. The Department’s role must be to enable disabled people to get into employment, but more of them need to be in high-profile jobs. It is also important that when disabled people get jobs, they stay in them. Just as teachers and lecturers need more training in special needs, the same applies to employers. A key message from the Committee meeting with USEL was that employers need training and advice on how to deal with disabled employees and the different challenges and situations that may arise. Today’s motion is important because it highlights the issue, and I give my support to the amendment tabled by the Ulster Unionist Party in the hope that the whole House can unite behind it. Mrs M Bradley: Members will agree that there are concerns for families from the day and hour that their young people are diagnosed with a disability and that frustrations are abundant throughout the education of those children. The decision to fight for the education of a son or daughter in a suitable establishment is not an easy one to take. Nonetheless, there is often a sense of relief for many parents when their children are finally accepted into the system even though, due to underfunding and ever-increasing demand, it is constantly in financial dire straits. For many years prior to my participation in politics, I worked with young people and adults with learning difficulties and various disabilities. I worked as a carer in a purpose-built hospital, which was one of the first of its kind in the Western Health and Social Services Board area. I witnessed, at first-hand, the desperation and determination of individuals to lead a normal life in a society that was very difficult and not accepting. Help was needed then to promote acceptance; and, unfortunately, in today’s financially restrictive health and education services it is even more important to provide a vehicle for the personal development of each disabled person. At the weekend, I had a phone call from a very proud mother telling me how her daughter had won two gold medals and two bronze medals at the Special Olympics in Shanghai. That parent’s pride was palpable, and I have no doubt that that was one of the proudest moments of her life. Unfortunately, if the general rule of natural law is played out, parents will predecease their children, which is the next worry for a parent after having secured education for the child or young person. The question: “How will they cope after I am gone?” has been asked by many of the parents I have spoken to and worked with over the years. In order to ease that burden, young people must become as independent as possible, particularly those without siblings — they should be able to cope with day-to-day tasks without the active supervision of a carer. In today’s society, it is even more important that the threefold spectrum of requirements and expectations is acknowledged by all Departments, and each should participate in achieving the aims and objectives of each interested party. So, who are the interested parties? According to research carried out in my area by one of the north-west’s most proficient special-needs establishments, the interested parties are the parents, the service providers and, most importantly, the young people themselves. There can be no more powerful vehicle for achieving fulfilment than that which lies — sometimes dormant until provoked — within all disabled young people. 12.15 pm Those young people have told us, in a paper presented to the Special Olympics international symposium on disability, that they want to be allowed to stand on their own two feet, but they want support to try different things until they get the right job or the home that is best for them. We can see that happening in many of our bigger retail establishments, where it is obvious that there are members of staff with disabilities. However, those disabilities are lost in their sense of achievement and acceptance by their fellow workers as contributing individuals. Where do we go, and what must be done, to help young special-needs individuals to achieve and exist as independent members of society? They say that they want partnerships between agencies, and that parents should work together to assist them in achieving their goals. They also want the creation of more opportunities to allow them to enter the workforce at an acceptable level, if that is applicable and beneficial for them. There is a need for greater encouragement and funding of transitional projects and an increase in the support networks that already exist. All Departments should acknowledge that the right to say yes or no is a fundamental right of any individual. The right to control their future and to become a fully participating party in any transitional planning process is a big issue for any young disabled individual. They also need support and assistance, not to be controlled and cared for in departmental terms. I could list many more requirements that those young people have. However, they cannot get the help that they need without the assistance of their families, teachers, classroom assistants and interdepartmental workers, who strive to provide for them, even when funding is consistently cut and school places limited. I hope that the motion has prompted a great deal of thought among us all. I hope that, when we leave here, this will not be just another debate, but that we will see some action, and not just promises from the teeth out. I support the motion and both amendments. I welcome the Minister for Employment and Learning to the Chamber, and I hope that the other Ministers who hold the budgets for our children will be generous in looking after them. Mr Shannon: I thank the Members who tabled the motion and the amendments. I hope that Members can unite behind the thrust of the proposal. I will be supporting the amendment from the Ulster Unionist Party. In 2003, DEL (Department for Employment and Learning) produced statistics that showed that over 20% of working-age people in the Province had a disability, whether physical or learning. Ten and a half per cent of the 18 to 30 age group have disabilities, and yet they come nowhere near that number in higher and further education. That is a startling statistic. There are those with moderate learning difficulties who can seek employment and fulfilment in skills that are more practically focused, rather than literary subjects. That is one field that DEL must begin to put time, effort and money into developing. A major skills pool is lacking, and apprenticeship applications are down, meaning that there are fewer young people to fill that gap than there were a few years ago. The situation is getting worse. A young man in my constituency consistently misbehaved in class and was thrown out of more lessons than he sat through. After much pressure from his parents, it was found that this was happening because the boy had a learning disability. That frustrated the boy, and his frustration was acted out through bad behaviour, resulting in him being placed in many schools — and he was moved from a brave few. His parents pushed and persisted, and their son was taken out of mainstream education and enrolled on a vocational course. He began his training as a joiner, and in his first year he was named joiner of the year in his class. That is a success story, and there are many similar success stories that could be repeated many times if DEL would give young men and women who do not excel with words and numbers the chance to excel with their hands. Vocational skills are just as important to any nation as learning skills, and the lack of young people applying for those apprenticeships to foster skills is very worrying. After being approached by parents who felt that their children would do better in vocational education than academically, I asked the Minister about the number of apprenticeships in the manufacturing industry available in Northern Ireland for the past three years. The answer may not have been what I was looking for. Statistics for Ards Borough Council or for the Strangford constituency were not available. However, the answer showed that the number of apprenticeships fell from 1,027 in 2004-05 to 988 in 2006-07. Given the need for skills in the Province and the amazing difference that a successful apprenticeship or a new skill can make to the life of a young person who may have consistently failed in the three Rs, I do not understand why those figures fell. Recently, I met David Hatton of the Engineering Training Council who told me that, 10 years ago, there were 1,000 applicants a year for apprenticeships. That figure has dropped dramatically to between 250 and 300 a year. I have digressed slightly, but that is a worrying drop in the number of young people applying for apprenticeships, and an aggressive approach must be adopted before a point of no return is reached. I could say much more on the subject of apprenticeships, but I will leave that for another day. I wish to draw Members’ attention to the success that has been achieved in my constituency by those with learning difficulties and disabilities. There are many charity shops in Ards town that not only donate their profits for the help and betterment of others, but play an active role in encouraging people with mental disabilities to take jobs, such as looking after a book section or sweeping the floor. Those jobs may not be big, but they are jobs and, importantly, they give those people a start. Jobs enable those employees to gain confidence around other people. Often, confidence is what they lack. Employment offers those people a chance, and the employer gains a willing helper. DEL should be working to enable more young people to undertake those types of activities — that is its remit, and it is not doing enough to accomplish it. The Minister and many Members are aware of the example of Daisies Café at Ards Hospital, in which disabled young people have been given the jobs of baking, and serving tea and coffee. That is a café that, regrettably, my waistline knows well. My colleague Iris Robinson takes a special interest and visits that café regularly. Obviously, she does not eat the food that I do. Mrs I Robinson: It does not show. Mr Shannon: It just shows on me. That café has had success after success in training young people and enabling them to go on to further jobs. My colleagues will present statistics that outline how the Department has not been keeping up to date. However, I urge the Department to recognise that current standards are insufficient and to step up its efforts — sort out an apprenticeship scheme, become more involved in organising placement schemes and assist young people with activities to better themselves and the community in which they live. Members have seen the results of such efforts — it can be done, and, therefore, I urge the Department to act now. I support the thrust of the motion and the UUP amendment. Mr Speaker: Members will be aware that the Business Committee has arranged to meet as soon as the Assembly suspends for lunch. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm, and to return to the debate after lunch. The sitting was suspended at 12.23 pm. On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair) — 2.00 pm Mrs I Robinson: The subject of the motion overlaps with some of the responsibilities of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and that is what I want to highlight. Objective 3 of the report ‘Equal Lives: Review of Policy and Services for People with a Learning Disability in Northern Ireland’, which is part of the Bamford Review, is: “To ensure that the move into adulthood for young people with a learning disability supports their access to equal opportunities for continuing education, employment and training and that they and their families receive continuity of support during the transition period.” Sections 5.7 and 5.9 of the report detail the need for better provision in further education and employment for those who have learning disabilities. My colleague Alderman Jim Shannon has already mentioned a success story in my constituency that is worth highlighting as having a particularly thriving outcome. Daisies Café, which is situated on the Ards Hospital site, provides an alternative form of day care for people with learning disabilities and mental illnesses through training and employment opportunities in a commercial environment. The staff of Daisies Café take pride in providing its many regular customers with freshly cooked food using only the finest and freshest ingredients. That description may sound like an advertisement, but I hope that Members will bear with me. A different menu, developed to meet the needs and preferences of customers, is available daily. A wide range of food is available to corporate customers for business meetings and events, as well as for meetings of clubs and other organisations. Daisies Café has extended its programme of work to include outside catering for parties and occasions. Behind the enterprise was a vision of providing alternative day care, training and employment to help those who otherwise may not have had the opportunities to gain the skills, self-belief and confidence that they need to take their place in the community as equals. In 1999, the statutory and voluntary sectors worked together under a peace-initiative project to identify an alternative to day care in Northern Ireland. The aim was to provide opportunities for day care as well as training and employment in the community for people with a learning disability or mental illness. Social firms already in operation in Europe provided several useful examples. A social firm is an ordinary business that provides goods and services under normal business terms and conditions. The fundamental difference is that a proportion of its trainees require a carefully planned, supportive working environment because of mental ill health or other disabilities. Extensive research that included visits to Finland, Holland and Germany was undertaken to develop a model that was suitable for Northern Ireland. Discussions were held with service providers, staff and trainees on trading, recruitment, and training as well on as the roles of directors and staff. A proposal was drawn up and shared with the local health and social services trusts as a new concept in day care for adults who require support to access the labour market. The development of the proposal coincided with a greater public awareness of equality issues and a growing demand for acceptance and social inclusion of people with learning disabilities or mental illnesses. A suitable location was found on the Ards Hospital site, and extensive renovations were carried out to satisfy the rigorous building and environmental health regulations that must be met by all catering facilities. Action Mental Health and the Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust led the partnership that developed Daisies Café. Other organisations have provided ongoing and critical support to ensure its continuing success. In particular, the Ards and North Down peace partnership boards have enabled Daisies to become a successful social firm that contributes to the local economy and provides day care, training and employment for residents of both boroughs. Daisies Café has won awards for its service and business achievements, and it was showcased at the Tate Modern in London as part of The National Lottery’s tenth birthday celebrations. Over the seven years that Daisies Café has been in existence, the number of permanent staff has risen from two to five and the average number of trainees to 15. Its success shows what can be achieved when the needs of those with learning disabilities are taken seriously and they are assisted to live fuller lives. Mr Deputy Speaker: I expect Daisies Café to have an influx of new customers after that, and, indeed, I hope that it does. The Minister for Employment and Learning (Sir Reg Empey): I thank the Members who have taken the trouble to take part in this debate and to make their points. The tone of the debate has, so far, been very constructive, and as Mrs Robinson mentioned, there are cross-cutting issues. This is not a stand-alone issue for one Department; a number of Departments are involved, and it is important, therefore, that, as far as possible, a joined-up approach is adopted. I wish to set out some points, and then deal with the issues that have been raised by Members. My Department is committed to the provision of appropriate training and employment opportunities for disabled young people and adults. The aim of the Department for Employment and Learning is to promote learning and skills, to prepare people for work, and to support the economy. Its remit includes the provision of training to prepare young people and adults for employment and to help people, including young disabled people, to overcome barriers to work. The Department is also responsible for the provision of impartial careers information, advice and guidance for young people and adults, with a particular emphasis on 14- to 19-year-olds and those vulnerable to social exclusion. The Department makes, through its Disablement Advisory Service (DAS), a substantial list of provisions. It currently funds a range of training and employment provision. Those include the job introduction scheme; New Deal for disabled people; Access to Work — that is, Workable (NI); Ulster Supported Employment Ltd; residential training at Parkanaur College; the condition management programme; and the work preparation programme under Pathways to Work. The careers service also works with young people in schools. In particular, the career advisers attend transition-plan meetings for year-10 pupils with special educational needs and provide subsequent annual reviews. They work with a range of professionals and contribute to the transition plan by providing impartial information, advice and guidance on the range of educational, training and employment opportunities that are available. Training for Success, a professional and technical training provision for Northern Ireland, commenced on 3 September 2007. The focus of that new provision is firmly on the individual young person and his or her needs and aspirations. Training will be flexible in duration to meet the needs and abilities of the young people. The Department is committed to endorsing flexibility in respect of the training time permitted to enable young people with disabilities or additional needs to realise their full potential and to achieve targeted qualifications. The new provision includes a job-ready strand, which is designed to enable participants to progress to higher-level training, further education or employment, by providing training to address personal and social-development needs, where necessary, including essential skills training. Additional specialist support services are available to any participant with an auditory, visual or other physical disability. I have decided, because of my commitment to those young people, that a group with expertise in dealing with young people with disabilities and additional support needs will be established. That group will keep the Training for Success provision under review, and highlight any areas to be addressed — I know that a number of Members called for that. I have some other measures to announce during the course of my remarks. The Department is also committed to improving access to further and higher education by students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. It provides funding for further education colleges to support the enrolment of students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities on mainstream courses. Funding for such students is incorporated in the further education funding stream mechanism. That ensures that colleges are able to meet the cost of students with disabilities who may require an extra level of support. As part of the Further Education Means Business review of funding, the Department, following consultation with the further education sector, agreed to ring-fence funds to ensure the sustained provision of education to students with learning disabilities who require a discrete learning environment. The funding of £1·5 million in the current academic year is an increase on the previous year’s £1·2 million. That increase is to allow the colleges to address specific issues that were raised during the consultation, such as the need for additional classroom support in discrete classes. An additional support fund has been increased from £1·1 million to £1·5 million in the current academic year, and that is available to provide further technical and/or human support, such as braillers, specialist software and signers. Further education colleges collaborate with adult day centres to provide discrete training and development opportunities for young people aged 19 and over who have left special schools and who might benefit from further educational provision. However, further education colleges cannot provide the close supervision, nursing or other personal care that some young people with disabilities require. In 2005-06, the number of students aged between 19 and 25 with learning difficulties and/or disabilities who were enrolled in further education increased by 751, compared to the 2001-02 academic year. There are now 1,549 such students and, of those, 693 — 45% — are taking discrete courses, and 125 — 8% — are on courses that are delivered in such places as day centres. The remainder are in mainstream further education classes. The Department, in co-operation with the Association of Northern Ireland Colleges (ANIC), is currently undertaking a review of the nature and extent of special-needs provision throughout the further education network to determine how provision might best be improved in the context of the further education remit. That matter was raised by some Members during the course of the debate. That review, with the co-operation of ANIC, will enable us to continuously assess how things are going, because the cohort with which we are dealing will have different needs as we progress. The same provision will not be required at all stages — those needs will change, depending on the students who are coming forward. As for higher education, the Department makes funding available for the disabled students’ allowance, which is administered by the education and library boards. The disabled student’s allowance helps to pay for extra costs that students may incur while studying, as a direct result of their disability, mental-health condition or specific learning difficulty. Those allowances can help with the cost of a non-medical personal helper, items of specialist equipment, travel and other course-related costs. Through the disabled student’s allowance, the Department funds the register of support providers, which is a register of professional and non-professional support workers who are recruited and trained to assist students with disabilities. The register, which is administered by the University of Ulster, is available to all disabled students in the universities, university colleges and further education colleges with higher education provision. The Department also funds the Let’s Work project at Queen’s University, Belfast, which is aimed at students and graduates with a disability. A specialist careers adviser offers individual careers guidance and information sessions, supports access to work placements and part-time work, and provides workshops on job skills and options after graduation. Moreover, the Department pays the universities a widening-access premium for students with disabilities. That is based on the number of full-time undergraduate students in receipt of the disabled students’ allowance. Capital funding must be mentioned. Since April 2000, the Department has allocated over £14·5 million to colleges to improve access for young people with disabilities. In 2006-07, that amounted to £943,000 and, in the current year, £1 million has been set aside with that specific aim. In addition, over the past three years, the Department has made available an extra £12·1 million for further education colleges, and some of that funding is being used to provide additional auxiliary aids and services, as well as extra staff training. 2.15 pm Special support services are available to young people who have an auditory, visual, or other, disability. Financial support of up to £1,000 is available to suppliers, enabling them to buy specialist support. The Department refunds the cost of taxis to and from a supplier’s premises in those situations where it has been decided that public transport is unsuitable for a young person who has a disability or additional needs. Twelve projects receive a total of £8·9 million of European social fund assistance. That funding will last for two years and will end in March 2008. It was awarded through open competition to projects that have limited funds. Three of those projects — Barnardo’s, Disability Action Northern Ireland and Triangle Housing Association Ltd — are aimed specifically at young people who have significant learning disabilities. Assistance to those projects totals £830,000. I will deal, in no particular order, with specific matters that Members raised. Although he is not in the Chamber, Jim Shannon mentioned apprenticeships. The Department does not limit the number of apprenticeships that are on offer: numbers depend on employers’ uptake of training for their own employees. The uptake for Training for Success is about 90% of that for Jobskills at the same time last year. We expect that uptake to pick up in the next three months, and we are initiating additional marketing campaigns to promote professional and tactical training and apprenticeships. Mr Newton, who, I also regret to say, is not in the Chamber, mentioned Ulster Supported Employment Ltd (USCL) and The Cedar Foundation. I intend to meet representatives of the foundation in the next week or two, and I visited USEL’s workshops in Belfast a couple of weeks ago. I was immensely impressed, and even moved, by the work that goes on there. Excellent products were being made. People had worked there for a long time, it was the centre of their lives, and they were doing an excellent job. I do not know whether the Committee has visited USEL’s shops yet, but I urge it — and other Committees — to do so. Members would be very impressed were they to see USEL’s work in action. Indeed, that organisation has some excellent plans. Given that USEL is a non-departmental public body, my Department is its core funder. That is the reason that it has no access to Invest NI funding. However, perhaps the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and I can discuss that. Several Members referred to the transition into employment from school. The Department had 14 actions on which it was supposed to follow up. I received a report on those on 3 September, and, after reading it, it seemed that two of those actions had not been provided for fully. Action has, therefore, been taken to ensure that we meet all our targets and that we follow up on all the actions on which we are required to move. I am optimistic that within a short time we will be in a position to describe fully how we will implement that report. When moving his amendment, David McClarty spoke about how we treat people in our society. The relative unanimity of the debate indicates that Members believe that a society is marked out by how it treats those who are less fortunate and those who are disabled. Listening to Mary Bradley’s contribution, it is clear that she has had hands-on experience of the matters that are being debated. One could not help but feel the strength of passion in what she was saying. In moving the motion, the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning referred to several matters, including European funding and the review of training in the voluntary and further education sectors. That review will take place, and I have authorised it already. Alex Attwood referred to the appropriateness of some of the provision and to what he regarded as inconsistencies in it. Those comments are of concern to me, because my Department prides itself on ensuring that, no matter where people live in Northern Ireland, they have as much access as possible to services. We could all have been in different places or been born into the world with disabilities, so where one lives should not be a barrier. As I have said, we are looking at the transport issue. I take on board what the Member says. I shall look at it and decide whether the Department is satisfied that there is consistency. There is certainly supposed to be, because, when we provide funding to colleges and other bodies, we expect that to be the case. Jimmy Spratt talked about the provision of opportunities being a priority, and that is the rationale behind what we are trying to do. Mr McCarthy said that a review could take ages and cost millions, but I can assure him that neither will be the case. Reviews are ongoing. There will always be reviews, because, as I have said, the cohort that is coming through at any point in time changes. What we fix today in order to achieve a balance will not necessarily survive a change in the make-up of the cohort that requires help. I will inform the House of the outcome of the reviews, and the Committee for Employment and Learning may wish to include the matter in its work programme in due course. Robin Newton mentioned access to mainstream further education for disabled children and young people. In so far as we can encourage that, we shall. However, we must take account of the fact that, sadly, some of the folk who are coming forward require such extensive help that qualified medical help must be made available. That is why we take places in Parkanaur College; there are 15 residential places there, which ensures that people have their physical needs properly catered for. It is not always possible to incorporate disabled students into mainstream further education, but one would wish to do so if it were possible. I think that the word “segregation” was used during the debate, and that is a word that we want to try to avoid. However, there are cases in which specific, qualified people are required to look after those young people. I shall give Members one final piece of information in which they will be interested. In providing training and employment support, the Department is making every effort to give young people the best chance. I am pleased, therefore, to report that the Department is currently offering extensive support in this area. I dispute the suggestion that there is a “dearth” of provision, because, as far as the Jobskills programme and other initiatives are concerned, there is no limit on the number of places. However, I agree that it is vital to ensure that provision meets the needs of particular client groups. For that reason, an expert group has been set up to keep the Training for Success initiative under review. Moreover, the Department has already begun work on commissioning a scoping study to ascertain the full extent of the Department’s current provision for disabled young people and adults. When that study is completed, any gaps in provision of training and employment opportunities for disabled young people and adults will be identified. Consideration will then be given to how those gaps can be plugged. I will endeavour to keep the Assembly involved, and I hope that the announcements that I have made about reviewing provision will satisfy Members that my Department is taking the matter seriously. Mr Attwood: I thank the Members who contributed to the debate. There were 10 contributions, and I cannot do justice to the range and quality of those contributions in five minutes. I particularly welcome the Minister’s announcement on three issues: the scoping study; the review involving ANIC; and the expert group that will consider, among other things, how the Training For Success programme is working for those who are the subject of the debate. I say to the Minister, and this point was touched on by Alastair Ross, that there are a number of requirements needed to ensure that the Training For Success programme for young people with disabilities measures up. Those requirements include the need for in-service training; achievable goals; communication support; extended training time; and the need to ensure that training providers are providing quality of opportunity and access. We trust that the expert group, which will monitor how those issues develop, will consider some of those requirements. A number of broad themes emerged during the debate. Jimmy Spratt, Robin Newton and Iris Robinson invoked best practice in the further education and commercial sectors; for example, in a place such as Daisies Café. USEL, more than others, certainly to the knowledge of the Committee for Employmen |