Debate contribution: Disability Strategy: Public Consultation
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 9 December 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Ministerial Statement
- Heading
- Disability Strategy: Public Consultation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5295628
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First, I thank the Member for his kind words about Seán. I was at an event that paid tribute to him last week at City Hall. I have no doubt that he made a significant contribution to the document through his work in the groups. I pay tribute to him and to the work that he carried out. It was great to meet his family and his son, Ollie, last week. I am very grateful to him for that work. The Member may have been a little bit wrong when he said that he had not met anyone who thinks that the Act is not fit for purpose, rather than fit for purpose. I do not think that it is fit for purpose. That is why we need to do more work on it, and that will be done. There is a commitment, as I said in the statement, to review that. I hope that there is not any misunderstanding. We will take that forward.
As I said, the forum will be composed entirely of deaf and disabled people. We want as broad a representation on it as possible. There are many people involved in the disability sector. I want it to be broad, because I want to hear the views, the expertise and the lived experience of those involved. We do not have the details yet on the exact process for that. It will also depend on the feedback from the consultation. However, the forum will have a key role not only in monitoring and holding us to account but in bringing forward new ideas as time progresses, because it is a 10-year strategy.
Absolutely. I have said that I want representation to be as broad as possible so that we hear those views. As I said, there are differing circumstances in rural and urban areas. Those need to be taken into account. We want it to be as comprehensive as possible in taking in all those views. I certainly hope that we have some representation from South Down as well.
There has been extensive engagement not just with the Department of Education but all Departments because it impacts on so many areas of life. Of course, that engagement has happened through the groups that have been set up. We have been clear that we want to make sure that we help people fulfil their full potential, and that includes children's educational experiences. I encourage people to look at the document and to respond to it and to the commitments that we have made to see what needs changed and what can be improved. It will be a genuine consultation process. If the Member would like to see any further issues included in it, we would be happy to hear from her.
A very happy Christmas to Mr McNulty as well.
I hope that Santa comes. I hope that the Member has been a good boy this year. That is maybe to be determined. Maybe he can ask Santa for a new phone
if he is not able to find his. The Member asks a relevant question. It is important that we have a step change and that staff, be they in the public or private sector, understand the needs and concerns of deaf and disabled people. Those are changes that we look forward to bringing through, but, of course, there will be a requirement, whether for the Civil Service or elsewhere in the public sector, to understand the changes that will be implemented and the things that they can do to make it easier for deaf and disabled people. You will see some of those come through in the action plan, specifically, but, if the Member thinks that there is anything missing, I encourage him to respond to the public consultation.
I am pleased to hear that that group has been set up in Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, and I wish it well as it carries out its work. Of course I would like to see the regional disability forum engage with other stakeholders as it carries out its work and monitors the implementation and development of the strategy. It would be useful for them to take into consideration the views of others, particularly when it comes to ensuring that the needs of all deaf and disabled people are met, because there are significant differences in some of the challenges that are faced, especially between urban and rural areas. That is where the expertise of the group that he mentioned in Mid and Antrim Borough Council can be useful. I welcome its establishment, and I hope that other councils can look at that example. One of the reasons why it is so important is that we need to raise awareness and visibility, and we need to be better aware of the small things that we can do every day to improve the opportunities, experiences and life chances of those who are affected. I welcome the establishment of that group and his support for the strategy.
We have the disability at work strategy in place, because opportunities should be open to everyone. Work is an opportunity — it is a good thing — and people should not be prohibited from working because of their disability. That is why we have put that strategy in place and why we think that employers should make reasonable adjustments if that would help people enter the workplace. That is why we are putting through JobStart to help people, many of whom have disabilities, get into work. I want to be clear: I am not taking the approach that the Labour Government have taken and pulling the rug from under people. I want to help people get into work and improve their life chances. The Member will be aware that I have not seen the documentation that he talks about, but of course we will engage. This is a consultation process: we are going to hear from people. Having put other strategies in place, I understand that, when you go out for consultation, there will always be those who will say, "Why isn't x in?", or, "Why do we not have y or z in the document?". This is the opportunity, through the strategy, for people to give us their feedback and views. I met many of the stakeholders last week. It is fair to say that there is broad welcome for the strategy; that people are pleased that it is in place, that they have been listened to and that we are now going to be able to start collecting data; that the disability forum is in place; and that there will be a review of the legislation. Many of the other 58 commitments in the strategy are to be welcomed. If there are more, of course we will listen, engage and take on board what we can, because we want something that genuinely meets the needs of disabled people. That is why the process is in place. We will be happy to listen to all.
No, it does not, because I want to ensure that we have more houses in Northern Ireland that are suitable for those who require them. We do not need to ensure that all houses are built to the same standard. Doing that would increase the cost, and, over the lifetime of the house, there might not be anybody living in it who requires those expensive changes. I want to make sure that we have sufficient houses that are properly constructed and adaptable for those who need that. I would rather make sure that we have more houses overall that meet the needs of disabled and non-disabled people than have fewer houses that are built to a certain spec that is not necessarily needed for everybody. It is a common-sense thing to do. We can keep doing things the way that we have always done them and wonder why we do not get different results. I am prepared to do something differently to meet the challenges that we face.
1,343 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.05 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.86).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.10 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:07 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.