Trevor Clarke
South Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“For recruitment to the current Youth Assembly and on the basis of research on the youth demographic in Northern Ireland, a minimum of 10 young people with disabilities were sought in order to be representative of the data. Of the 90 young people appointed to the Youth Assembly, 18 have a disability.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Youth Assembly regularly uses social media to promote its work, and, when preparing for a new mandate, targeted multimedia recruitment campaigns are used to engage young people and encourage participation.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Assembly Commission also has an apprenticeship and placement framework that provides the opportunity for people with a disability to avail themselves of short-term supported placements.”
“In 2025, 770 tours were delivered and the number of events hosted in Parliament Buildings almost doubled to 583. <BR /> <BR />Our Education Service promotes its programmes to schools and colleges through an annual September mail-out, outlining provision for the relevant Key Stages, including a focus on inclusive engagement for children wi…”
“Mr Speaker, I may require an extra minute to answer the question. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Member for her question. The Assembly Commission's school work experience programme is facilitated through a partnership between our internal education services team and an organisation called Futures For All, a social mobility charity.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I may need an extra minute to answer the question, and I thank the Member for it. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly Commission's public engagement strategy 2025-27 aims to increase awareness, improve understanding and enable participation in the work of the Assembly.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,151 lines we hold for Trevor Clarke, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 19 of 24.
“<BR /> <BR />As I said in my earlier remarks, officials talked about the groups' high reserves. We learned in the past about Translink's high reserves, but they never decided to rob Translink of its reserves. We have groups here who lost one third. In my comments as Chair, I referred to the DATS organisation, which provides a service to people who have severe disabilities and require specialist driving assessments. Its entire budget was removed. It is an awful indictment of the Minister and his officials that they removed that from such vulnerable people. The entire budget line of transport groups linked to that organisation was also removed. Despite the Minister receiving such a small cut to his £344 million budget, he has decided to attack the most isolated and the most vulnerable — the people who deserve support the most.”
“It is time that he delivered against his stated objective of providing transport services designed to give people with disabilities and those living in rural areas improved access to work, education, healthcare, shopping and recreational activities and, by so doing, reduce their social isolation. <BR /> <BR />Having spoken as the Chair of the Committee, I want to add some personal remarks as a member of my grouping. During briefings that we had from some of those groups, it was clear that their interaction with the Minister's officials was poor, if not abysmal. The officials left it until the last moment before giving them any indication of their budget. It strikes me that some in his Department have made it very difficult for those groups to survive or to organise their finances.”
“The decision to cut these budgets so severely is a bad one. As you will no doubt hear during the debate, Committee members continue to be critical of the absence of negotiation, the lack of visibility of the level of reductions and the subsequent attempts by officials to try to paint the reductions in a better light. Members of the Committee were unanimous in wanting to bring the motion to the House, we were unanimous in our condemnation of these cuts being brought to bear in the first instance, and we were unanimous in wanting them to be reversed. Simply including a bid in a wish list is not enough. The Minister needs to make these moneys a priority. It is time for him to make a good decision and put the needs of the most vulnerable and isolated to the fore.”
“Without these services, users have little or no access to the health, education, work, social and leisure opportunities that many in the House take for granted. This increases the feeling of isolation. Indeed, the likes of the DATS group, which has had its entire budget removed, is in itself an opportunity for social interaction. In many circumstances, the services being provided are the difference between living independently and living in a residential care home.”
“Whilst he and his officials have continually defended Translink's amalgamation of massive reserves, his officials are miscalculating the level of reserves held by some community transport providers; they have advised them, against the advice of the Department of Finance and Personnel, to use their limited resources, which puts their services further in jeopardy. To those who are disabled, are socially or geographically isolated, or those who cannot afford public transport, the services provided by those partnerships and organisations are often their lifeline to the wider world.”
“The reality also is that his Department has the fourth-highest budget allocation and that one third or more of the community transport budgets have been stolen from the most isolated and vulnerable people. <BR /> <BR />I acknowledge that the Minister has indicated that he intends to bid for £1·5 million to replace the funds that he and his officials have robbed from the most vulnerable and isolated citizens. However, he has allocated that not as a high priority but in his normal wish list of bids. There is an irony that, while he includes the replacement of those funds almost as an afterthought, he is seeking some £9 million in capital bids to support Translink.”
“In those cases, community transport and DATS services are often the only viable solution. <BR /> <BR />The Committee has taken evidence from community transport and Disability Action in recent weeks on the matter. We also afforded the Department the opportunity to justify its case. No doubt we will hear the same from the Minister later in the debate. We will hear, for example, about the pressures that his Department is facing because of budgetary restrictions and about how he is £60 million worse off than last year. He may also state that cuts to services amount to only 20% to 25%. The reality, of course, is that the Department's baseline reduction amounts to £3 million from last year.”
“<BR /> <BR />Our young, particularly those in isolated areas, need those services to access education, work and social requirements. This is ever-increasingly more relevant due to the Minister and his Department's abandonment of the public service obligations as they allow Translink to cherry-pick the profitable routes as it casts asunder rural and less-profitable routes, which enhances the isolation that many people experience. Even in cases where public transport is comprehensive, such as in urban areas, challenges still exist for service users. Many community transport service users do so because they are unable to use public transport due to the distance from public transport pickup sites, physical or mental disability, the need for specialist transport or support, or the cost of commercial public or private transport.”
“The cuts being brought about by the Minister for Regional Development and his departmental officials will reduce operating budgets by up to one third and will mean higher costs for passengers, a reduction in services and increased isolation. <BR /> <BR />We must not underestimate the importance of the Disability Action transport scheme (DATS) and the services provided through the rural community transport partnerships. In many instances, they offer the only transport options when an individual or group cannot use or access public or private transport. We should not make the mistake of thinking that those services are used solely by our senior citizens; our younger population is also heavily reliant on them, whether it is a school, a youth club, a scout group or a football team.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate today. Like most in the House, I entered politics out of a desire to bring good to my community, to help my community and to protect the most vulnerable in our communities. I never expected that, one day, I would witness the most savage, the most callous and the most unjustifiable attack on the most vulnerable, the most isolated and the most exposed in our society. Unfortunately, I am witnessing an attack on the most vulnerable and isolated members of our community as a result of the unjustifiable and draconian cuts to Disability Action and rural community transport budgets.”
“It is those areas that are concerning me today, Minister.”
“I thank the Minister for that answer. I also want to put on record my thanks to the Minister for briefing me and the Deputy Chair yesterday on this and other aspects of what is good news for the north-west. <BR /> <BR />The only bit I am trying to draw attention to today is in relation to the budget. The Minister has outlined the pressures he faces in relation to the £70 million of his capital budget. We went into this project with an estimated £40 million, so there is an extra £6 million in terms of the capital cost. Where is the Minister going to find that additional £6 million? The other alarming part is that his chief accounting officer and the chief executive of Translink have suggested that it does not represent value for money, but you have given them direction to go ahead with it.”
“I thank the Minister for that very fulsome answer. I am sure that, given that he is a Minister representing Northern Ireland, the Minister will, like me, be concerned at the flow of traffic leaving this area to go to Dublin Airport. I am sure that you agree with me that more needs to be done to promote Belfast International Airport and to prevent so many of our residents on this side of the border heading south. What more can be done to try to prevent that flow of traffic to Dublin and to keep people here in Belfast?”
“This has veered into welfare reform more directly, and we are all familiar now with the fact that you will bring the legislation to the House next week. Will you inform the House of the consequences, including those for the rest of your Department, if there is no resolution to welfare reform by next week?”
“Following on from that, Minister, given that the previous questioner's party is holding up welfare reform, which, as you said earlier, is costing us £2 million per week, will you give us an estimate of how much is being lost to staff because they are unable to receive their bonuses because of the stalemate that has been caused by Sinn Féin, which is resulting in £2 million of waste a week?”
“Has the Minister done any work on the likely cost of bringing all the reservoirs up to standard to suit the so-called Reservoirs Bill?”
“I also thank the Minister for his answers. However, Minister, given that there seems to be a reluctance in your Department to fix some of the worst potholes, are you already seeing a rise in the public liability claims for those?”
“I appreciate your clarification. Your party colleague hit it on the head much better. My concern was that your contribution was more about alcohol. I appreciate and accept your clarification that it is not only about alcohol or drugs. There are many aspects. <BR /> <BR />Really, what is key for me in all of this is the need to prevent any stigmatising of this illness. We need to assist people, give them direction and support them wherever we can and encourage our young people. For me, Gary Middleton as a young man should be seen as a peer for young people and someone to look to for securing this debate. It was very courageous of him to do so in his first contribution here today.”
“I accept what the Member says. There is a danger with that. Of course, social media can also be used as a form of bullying. <BR /> <BR />I am trying to be positive and focus on the outcome. Where we get that message, we need to encourage people to be positive. We need to remind people that taking their life will not help those who are left behind. I did not know the individual I read about last week, but I was led to read her story about how the family bravely went to the clergyman and encouraged him to tell the story as it is to the young people it affects. Yes, they may have fixed their problem, but they have increased the problem coming behind them tenfold. They have brothers and sisters, a mother and a father and a wider circle.”
“I will give one way in one minute. <BR /> <BR />We should encourage them to go to each and every agency. If they have not got help from one agency, they should go to another. After one of the deaths in my constituency last year, the young people themselves organised all the aspects from the health agencies, and all the different organisations were there. Some made the criticism that they were difficult to get. We all have a job to do and a role to play. The more we can do to encourage people to seek those organisations out, the better. We should never write them off. I give way now.”
“I would never look at it from the point, as Ross said, that, if someone is on the point of suicide, there is nothing you can do and they have got their things in order; I do not think we should ever stop trying. We should never stop trying, because one death is one too many. Gary referred to his constituency, but this is right across the Province. In my constituency, it was just one after another last year, all of them young people. I definitely would not stigmatise them. They are all going through the pressures of life. You can talk about statistics and you can talk about reports, but what we need to do is try to reach out to these people and not write them off.”
“I wanted to speak today because, when I looked at social media this week, I learned that a young girl in my constituency had committed suicide. I do not believe that she had alcohol or drug problems. She was a young girl, I am sure, who was living with the pressures of life. I have to say that her family were very brave. They said to the minister, "Give a sermon that will help people understand exactly what the family and friends are going through, so as to try to prevent other young people doing the same". What worried me today when listening to the Chairperson was that we are stigmatising. The sooner we can get away from that, the better.”
“I was neither an alcoholic nor a drug addict, but I went for help and sought the help that was required. For me, this typifies some people's attitudes towards suicide, and labelling and stigmatising those who suffer from depression and people who are on the brink of taking their own lives.”
“I join others in thanking Gary Middleton for using this opportunity for his Adjournment topic, and I think that it is fitting, given the topic, that so many Members are present. <BR /> <BR />This is not necessarily a constituency-based concern; indeed, it is a concern across the Province. I did not want to say this, but I have to say that I am glad that it was a young man who proposed the topic, because the tone of the Chairperson of the Health Committee disappointed me. Two other contributions, by Mark Durkan and Raymond McCartney, talked about stigmatising people. Much of the contribution of the Chairperson of the Health Committee was about drug and alcohol abuse and addictions. <BR /> <BR />I suffered from depression about 26 or 27 years ago.”
“I appreciate the Minister's answer. I note that DCAL is fairly active in the area. However, given the direction of your ministerial colleague in DARD, can you give any assurance to those in the fishing sector who have reservoirs — you referred to one — and whose business may now be at risk because of the actions of the Reservoirs Bill? What assurance can you give them that you will help to fund them, given that they may not have the capability to fund themselves?”
“I note that you are lambasting Planning Service. However, you omitted to suggest that your officials got it wrong in the past. They would have been consulted on those applications.”
“I appreciate what the Member is saying about experts. Did he hold the same view when the experts were consulted on planning to permit people to build beside dams? There are experts in the Rivers Agency, and I am sure that there are some still there who dealt with those applications. Those experts said that it was safe to build houses close to the dam.”
“I accept your point and I understand why you would say that the public interest is paramount. However, would you not give any consideration to a situation where it was the Department, by default, that put properties at risk by permitting people to build beside a dam? I know that, as Mr McMullan said earlier, the likely event of that happening in the future is, hopefully, very low. You are right about the risk, but what concerns me is that the Department should, at the very least, foot the bill to make dams safe where properties are at risk, given that it permitted people to build and live in risk areas.”
“I appreciate your comments, and I think that, going forward, that is possibly useful. It is not much comfort to those who already own dams. As I indicated earlier, the Rivers Agency allowed a number of houses, particularly in my constituency and I am sure in other areas. Whilst it may be cold comfort going forward, it is not much comfort or solace for those who are now facing difficulty.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Decommissioning is something that I meant to expand on in my contribution. If we go back to the example of private owners, and I am directing this more at the Minister, would consideration be given to an exemption of the proper regulations for those reservoirs in private ownership? There are cases where people cannot afford to do the work to bring them to the standard that is required now but was not required previously. There would be an opportunity for those individuals to drain those reservoirs, but there is a consequence in that the planning authorities may see a change of landscape. Will the Committee ask the Minister to support an exemption for those individuals so that they can drain their reservoirs to decommission them entirely?”
“That is because another thing about the funding is that all reservoirs that are owned by the public sector will enjoy taxpayers' money being spent to fund and repair them. That is a luxury that I do not think that the Minister has been explicit about, but I look forward to her contribution later. Maybe she will be explicit today and go on record to say that all reservoirs now in private ownership — by consequence, default and fault of her Department — will be funded by her Department to bring them up to an acceptable standard as required in the Bill. To make that somewhat easier, I propose, in this group of amendments, to increase the provision to 25,000 cubic metres as opposed to 10,000 cubic metres.”
“The only reason why some of those in my constituency are at risk is because of the actions of the Minister's Department in agreeing to planning permission. Had the Minister's Department been doing the right thing, she should have refused those on the grounds that it was unsafe and that there was risk of the neighbouring reservoir breaking its banks. <BR /> <BR />When you talk about risk, one of the interesting things for me, as made in my opening point, is that England has much greater reservoirs, but limits such as those proposed in the Bill are not being brought in there. That is the reason why I propose that we change it to 25,000 cubic metres, to at least give some of our private owners an opportunity.”
“So, where there is a reservoir, the consultee will be the Rivers Agency. Where someone wants to build a house within 30 metres of a reservoir, the Rivers Agency should be consulted, and I am sure that it would have been consulted because, on many occasions, the DOE is very zealous, probably overly so, in how it consults. However, I am sure that in cases where there is a large reservoir, it does consult. What confuses me is how the Minister's departmental officials saw fit to approve planning permission for properties close to reservoirs. <BR /> <BR />The interesting thing about all of this is the categories. Again, in speaking to some Members, the low-risk reservoirs that none of us is really worried about are those where properties are not at risk.”
“I have to say that I am very surprised that a man who was involved in local government for so many years, particularly a man from the glens, does not understand how planning works. There are statutory consultees. I remind you that, in some cases, one of those consultees is the Rivers Agency.”
“If he wants to tell me that his Minister has privately given him an assurance that there are millions upon millions of pounds to be spent to bring the private owners' reservoirs in particular up to a standard, given that it was her Department who left those who own those reservoirs at risk now, I am happy to give way. It is because of the Bill that those individuals are facing the financial consequences that they are and that they are going to be out of pocket. I am happy to sit down if the Member wants to intervene. If he has an assurance from the Minister that she is going to pick up the tab in all the cases where her departmental officials made mistakes, I am happy to give way.”
“Sorry, did I? <BR /> <BR />I will come on to the Member's intervention in a moment, but I want to go back to the £2,500. Rivers Agency should have been aware of the £2,500 on the timing for those planning applications, particularly in my area. I have concerns for other areas as well. <BR /> <BR />I will move on now to the other olive branch that has been suggested. I would go so far as to say that the Committee has been sold a pup. There is an olive branch in the legislation by way of a provision that means that they could get compensation to allow them to do works. I chose my words carefully; I said "could". It would have to be enacted. So, it is not by consequence of the Bill that the money would follow. If Mr McMullan wants to make an intervention again, I am happy to give way.”
“I accept your guidance on that. I am not sure whether I named the official, but I accept your guidance on it. I am sorry if I did. If I did, I apologise to Mr Porter.”
“I do not know who they are selling that to, but, in my mind, £2,500 would not go very far for tests on those reservoirs to see whether that would go ahead.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have spoken privately to the Chairman of the Committee, who has given me an assurance that, if the Bill comes in as it stands, there is an opportunity that £2,500 will go to every reservoir owner to have a report done. I am sorry, but I come from the car trade, and I am not as used to exorbitant salaries as some of our civil engineers are. Maybe Mr Porter from the Department would know more about that, given his background in civil engineering. Maybe the man who created the Bill is trying to create some sort of capacity for some within the civil engineering business. It says to me that they are giving out an olive branch to our Committee members to suggest that we will give £2,500 for a report to be done.”
“There is a young family which invested, a number of years ago, to buy the reservoir from the original owner and which, I am sure, will be in considerable debt for a number of years to pay off its investment. That family will have been looking forward to running a small business, but as a consequence of this Bill there is every possibility that those people will be left out of a home. <BR /> <BR />That is because of the bureaucracy within the Bill, of course, but also the incompetence of some officials within the Rivers Agency of this Minister's Department. When they were consulted, they said, "This reservoir is of no risk. Yes, you can build." Some of those said properties are about 20 metres to 30 metres away from a 13-feet clay bank.”
“Many people go there at this time of the year for long evenings to fish. It is a man-made reservoir, which I clearly remember visiting a number of years ago — probably in excess of 25 years ago — when I worked in a garage locally in Randalstown. When it was being excavated, there was not one house near the reservoir; now, there is not one house but eight, all of which had to go through the statutory process of being considered for planning permission. All of them will have gone to Rivers Agency for consultation, and, in every case, the Rivers Agency deemed that the reservoir was of no risk, significance or threat to those properties. <BR /> <BR />Now what have we?”
“One of the consultees on that application was, of course, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, through the Rivers Agency. Not one application, not two but possibly three in that one location were approved. What Rivers Agency said at that particular time was that there was no risk from that reservoir, so that those people could go ahead. What that has actually done, by letting those people go ahead and build downstream, is now, as a consequence of this Bill, leaving that landowner suggesting that his reservoir is a risk to their properties. However, those properties were built many years after the reservoir. <BR /> <BR />Another one in my constituency is the well-known Craigmore Fishery. It is also a large reservoir which will be within the scope of this Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />This is what worries me about this particular Bill, and hence I have proposed the amendment to move from 10,000 to 25,000 cubic metres. Let me take two examples in my constituency. The first, off the Artlone Road, is a fairly small reservoir which comes within the scope of what is proposed today. Within the last 10 years, the person who owned that reservoir inherited it from his father. It is something that has been handed down, so the owner has now been handed down a liability because of how the Department is treating the Reservoirs Bill. <BR /> <BR />However, the thing that intrigues me most about this example is that, a number of years ago, a planning application was made to the DOE for land just downstream from this reservoir.”
“I think it is important that we consider the risk to properties and people in vulnerable areas. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that there are such individuals. However, look at that on a greater scale. Those residing across the water are in much greater risk than we have in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Another thing that I consider, in moving this amendment, is that I have spoken to some of my colleagues and others, who have suggested to me that there was a case where a reservoir in Northern Ireland nearly breached. We have to take that into consideration. It is interesting to note that that particular one was in public ownership. That says more about the public authority and how it looked after that reservoir in Camlough and left people in Bessbrook and Newry at risk.”
“I have thought long and hard about this debate. I was on the Agriculture Committee when the Bill was first mooted. I had reservations then and I have reservations now, in relation to the real impetus as to why it has been brought forward. Given the scope that I had, the least I could do is increase the limits. <BR /> <BR />As you have said in your opening remarks, this is the risk associated with this particular part of the Bill. Departmental officials are present, including one of those who first came to the Committee. One of the things that confuses me is that England has much larger reservoirs, but no one has sought to bring in such regulations there. Look at the topography of England: there are mountain sets and higher landscapes, if we want to talk about risk.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. I agree that many of us would like to see changes at Yorkgate. However, he is aware that someone has made a presentation to his former special adviser about an alternative to the scheme — it is encouraging for Northern Ireland in terms of entrepreneurship — that would save in excess of £100 million. When will the Department take that suggestion seriously and sit down and work out the methodology behind the proposal? Given that the theme today has been the Department's budget, we have an opportunity to save in excess of £100 million.”
“To me, that sounds like water charges. That was in January, and we have had a change of heart today. I am sure that you will welcome that, Mr Byrne.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I am sure that, when you are welcoming all that today, you will welcome the shift by the Alliance Party. Chris was reading into the record, and I want to read something that he said in January this year:”
“I welcome and agree with the Member's point about infrastructure, but I think that, at times, we have to be critical of the likes of NI Water. In our constituency offices, we all probably come across cases where there is a leakage. It takes a considerable time for NI Water to fix it. There is a cost for the production of water. I support the tenor of what the Member is saying, but hopefully he will support my saying that NI Water and many other public organisations need to be more proactive to prevent the waste that they create, which I think we are all familiar with.”
“If you are having a change of heart because an election is coming, that would be welcome, but the tenor of your argument in the past was always in support of the introduction of water charges. I am coming to an end very shortly. I will sit down with a degree of pleasure if you are hinting that you will support the Executive and the rest of the Ministers to prevent water charges being introduced in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />I commend the motion to the House.”