First, I wish to thank the hon. Member for this pertinent question. As I previously informed the House in my reply to a parliamentary question B/842 at the Sitting of 07 October 2025, according to the Ministry of Public Service and Administrative Reforms, there are around 110 persons with disabilities who are employed in the public sector. 110 persons - I am ashamed of this figure. With regards to data for the private sector, I am informed that the Ministry of Labour and Industrial Relations keeps no such record at its level. According to the registry of persons with disabilities kept at the level of the Training and Employment of Disabled Persons Board, which is a parastatal body falling under the aegis of my Ministry, there are only 527 persons with disabilities who are registered with the Board, searching for employment or training. Only around 900 employers are registered with the Board. With regard to part (b) of the question, I wish to add that the Training and Employment of Disabled Person Act 1996 provides that all employers with a workforce of 35, or more, must employ 3% of their staff from among persons with disabilities. The Act also requires the maintenance of registers of persons with disabilities as well as the register of employers. The establishment of a hearing committee to review non-compliance and the possibility of requiring non-compliant employers to be fined. Although the above-mentioned framework was made with good intention, it was a structural failure in terms of implementation. This was the first assessment I made when this Government and me and the Junior Minister took office. No employer was ever fined or prosecuted for not being registered. No employer was taken to task when not complying to the 3% requirement. I am informed that the law and its measures could not be implemented due to various reasons, amongst them are lack of staff and associated resources. The number of trainings conducted over the years has systematically declined; while reporting and compliance mechanisms have in turn remained weak. This is why I call it a structural failure, and this has been going on for 30 years. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when taking office at the end of 2024, I had three options, three ways forward to decide. First, try to apply the existing 1996 law, the Training and Employment of Disabled Persons Board Act, which turned to be a structural failure. Two - the second option was to proclaim the April 2024 law, the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Person with Disabilities Act 2024, voted by the previous regime. I opted not to pursue in this direction. Firstly, given that various NGOs and disability rights activists wanted amendments to be brought before this law is proclaimed. It is not yet proclaimed. Second, precisely the unproclaimed law merely transposes the loose enforcement structure of the previous law in terms of employment related issues. The third option, which I choose, was to integrate the whole issue of employment and employability of persons with disabilities within the context of disability reform pursued by my Ministry. First, the employability of person with disability will be part of the new assessment panel on determining disability benefits. Two, the number of employments of person with disabilities will be changed to be both more flexible as well as ensure social responsibility and caring of employers. Third, the law will encourage employers who meet their legal and social responsibility of caring by granting them support, whereas those who do not comply with disability employment section will have to pay a social responsibility contribution. Non-compliance will result in more effective enforcement structure and more penalties. The above will be included in the phase two of the reform, which will be implemented in 12 months after the start of the phase one of the disability reform. The disability reform, phases one and two, are presently, at this very moment, under consideration by the Ministry of Finance in the context of the coming budget. In parallel, the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2024 will be amended accordingly and proclaimed. I understand that we are, at present, in a transition period, that is, we had a law which dates back to 30 years. We have another law which has been voted by this Assembly, not yet proclaimed, and new laws that will come out and reflect the reform that we intend to do. So, we are presently in a transition period. I do understand that we cannot have a vacuum. So, if the proclamation and amendments of the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2024 will take too much time, then we will have to take remedial action to ensure a minimum compliance with the present law. In this context, I intend to seek advice with the SLO to see what can be done under the existing law to prosecute and take action against employers, even though the staff and the mechanism do not exist. I must say that the caring responsibility towards our citizens with disability should be shared by all, in a collective manner. No one should leave anyone unattended behind. Thus, we will collectively be fulfilling both our national commitments and international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Yes, hon. Member.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is outrageous that only 110 disabled or rather I would say, differently abled citizens of Mauritius work in the Civil Service. However, there is a statutory obligation of employing 3% of a workforce beyond 35 employees, but it is also a statutory obligation that in the absence of such employment provided, be in the Civil Service or private organisation, then in an absence of an exemption provided by the Training and Employment of Disabled Persons Board, these organisations, be it private companies or the public sector or parastatal body, should pay a financial contribution to the board for each employee they fail to employ. Therefore, I would like to know whether there has been such contribution made, be it by the public sector or the private sector for failing to employ differently abled citizens of Mauritius.

My answer to the hon. Member is unfortunately ‘no’.

Yes, hon. Member.

Hon. Minister, I wish to bring to your attention that the law compels organisations, be it the Civil Service, parastatal or private bodies, to provide suitable employment that fits the abilities but also taps the capabilities of the differently abled citizens of this country. I would state this case where for one year, I have been fighting to find an employment and training for one of my constituents who is a deaf and mute person, but I face a situation where the management of state-owned company…

Can we have your question, please?

Yes, I should be able to express the problem to be able to ask the questions.

Briefly.

… comes forward with the argument that the criteria to recruit a mere attendant in the organisation is Form 3 level, whereas the person I was talking about, is deaf and mute. Therefore, there is a mismatch in the criteria to recruit; whether they are normal citizens or citizens with different abilities. So, how is the Minister going to tackle this situation?

All the criteria will be redefined in the amended legislation but if you have a case concerning a state company, then just refer it to me. I will raise it with my colleague Minister, because I think besides legal obligation, all the ministries and the state- run companies have an ethical and moral duty of respecting the least minimum, I would say. Thank you, hon. Member.

The hon. First member for Vacoas and Floréal. INDIAN OCEAN TUNA COMMISSION – MAURITIAN DELEGATION – OUTCOMES & IMPLICATIONS