Debate contribution: Autism (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022
Debate contribution by Mrs Deborah Erskine on .
- MLA
- Mrs Deborah Erskine
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 30 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Autism (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4487597
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
As the proposer of the motion, as well as vice chair of the all-party group (APG) on autism, I express my disappointment at the lack of progress being made on the implementation of the Autism (Amendment) Act 2022. So much work and energy went into ensuring that the legislation had the right content, work done by my party colleague Pam Cameron, who sponsored the Bill, the Health Committee at the time, the all-party group on autism and, of course, Autism NI, which led the lobby for the Bill. The Autism (Amendment) Act is legislation of which Northern Ireland should be really proud. Nowhere else in the United Kingdom, let alone the world, is there single disability legislation that is as comprehensive as this. It should therefore be acknowledged that the legislation must take precedence over any strategies or initiatives that Departments are developing. For example, autistic people should never be shoehorned into strategies that will not be able to offer them the tailored supports that they need. For example, the i-THRIVE programme seems to be a general emotional well-being programme, rather than one that develops proper mental health supports for autistic children. The Autism (Amendment) Act was to provide the basis for a robust autism strategy that would provide lifelong services for autistic people.
It focused on specific areas of support, such as early intervention, training, employment, education and social opportunities, but it seems that, in the past couple of years since the legislation was passed, very little has been done to progress that vital legislation.
An autism strategy has been developed in consultation with the autism community, which is a prerequisite in the legislation, and a number of commitments are outlined in it. However, when I read through the new autism strategy, which was released in December 2023, I was frustrated, because it is clear that it does not truly reflect the Autism (Amendment) Act 2022. In fact, some areas seem to have been completely disregarded. For example, there are no plans in the strategy to address the mental and emotional well-being of autistic adults or to reduce waiting times for autism assessment and treatment services for children. I am sure that we all agree that those are vital services for autistic people and their families. For me, however, the biggest failure and most obvious omission is that there are few to no measurable targets throughout the entire strategy. To put it simply, if we do not have measurable targets, how will we know whether we are turning the curve on any commitments that are listed in the strategy? Various commitments in the strategy have targets set against them with a baseline against which to measure. This is more than just common sense. The need for measurable targets is very clearly stated in the Autism (Amendment) Act. Section 3 states:
"The autism strategy must set out measurable targets against which its effectiveness may be assessed."
In addition, we still do not have an autism reviewer in post. It has been more than two years since the legislation was passed, and the autism reviewer role was a key requirement. Why are we dragging our heels when it comes to that vital role? Minimal funding is needed for the post, and given that the post requires only 10 days per month, I am at a loss as to why an autism reviewer is not in place at this time, particularly as the role should be seen as a key component for the strategy's overall success. The legislation lists the many important functions that the autism reviewer will perform, some of which are:
"(a) to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the autism strategy, (b) to assess the efficacy of the funding arrangements in respect of autism, (c) to keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness of the law and practice relating to autism, (d) to keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness of services provided for persons with autism, their families and carers, (e) to commission independent research on best international practice on autism".
It is clear that we need someone to oversee this, so that we are not looking at the same situation in another two years. The reviewer's main role, as I understand it, is to oversee the autism strategy, but, throughout the autism strategy, as it was published, there are repeated references to its being an advocacy role. I want to make it clear that that is not what the role was intended to be. We already have lots of fantastic autism advocates throughout Northern Ireland, who are very clear on what is needed to support autistic people. This role is very different. It concentrates on monitoring, evaluating and ensuring that the autism strategy is delivered properly this time. I ask the Minister to confirm when the autism reviewer role will begin. Given that the autism strategy is a live document, can we be assured that the measurable targets that are required by legislation will be developed and included in the strategy as a matter of urgency? Today, I want the Assembly to reaffirm its commitment, which was agreed across the Benches in 2022 when we debated the Bill, to full implementation of the Autism (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Again, it is about action and delivery.
883 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: 0.03 (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 (0.97).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.97 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 10:03 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.