Debate contribution: Autism (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022
Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 30 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Autism (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4487649
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As many of you were aware and as Mr Donnelly kindly reminded us, my party colleague, former MLA Dominic Bradley, successfully brought through the Assembly's first piece of single disability legislation: the Autism Act 2011. That was landmark legislation and the first of its kind. It was aimed at addressing the huge gaps that existed in provision in autism services across the North. However, as we all know, there have been many failings since that legislation was passed way back in 2011, and many challenges have been presented to us, including a massive increase in diagnosis levels; funding difficulties, which Mr Boylan referred to; and the fact that we were without an Assembly, thanks to two parties, for five of the years that have lapsed since then. Here we are today with a huge mountain to climb on a number of pertinent health issues. The new Autism (Amendment) Act 2022 and autism strategy give us a chance to get it right this time. One of the areas that I am concerned about in the new strategy and that I will focus on this evening is the lack of outcomes and importance set against the emotional and mental well-being of our autism community. Only last September, the all-party group on autism sponsored an event in the Long Gallery on the need for an autism mental health service for Northern Ireland. As we know from the devastating statistics, autistic adults are nine times more likely to die by suicide and autistic children are 20 times more likely to self-harm, yet we still have mental health professionals who are not trained in autism working with autistic people. In my opinion, that is less than optimal, and, in the opinion of experts, it is downright dangerous. Our current mental health service and mental health screening tools have also been developed for neurotypicals, which is a barrier to autistic people and their families in accessing the appropriate level of support and therapy in the first place. Many of the therapies that are used, such as CBT, are also not appropriate for autistic people. Therefore, with that in mind, it is shocking when you read through the autism strategy to see that there is little to no mention of how we will tackle issues in this area. Autistic people and their families deserve a consistent level of service or, I should say, a consistently good level of service. We need to stop autistic adults and children being pushed from service to service, as that causes avoidable stress, mistrust and anxiety not just for them but their entire family circle. Autistic people need to feel seen, not to feel as though they are too complex to receive individualised appropriate care. The autism strategy mentions an i-THRIVE programme for children, but that is a general programme that is not designed for autistic children, and no research has been completed on how effective it is in supporting autistic children's emotional and mental health. There is no mention either in the strategy of the plans to support autistic adults with their mental health. The Autism (Amendment) Act 2022 inserted section 3(4D) into the 2011 Act. It states:
"The autism strategy must set out how the needs of adults with autism will be addressed, including in particular their needs in respect of ... emotional and mental well-being".
I would like the Minister in his response to outline why there is no focus in the autism strategy on autism-specific supports for children and adults. Be kind to different minds.
587 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: 0.04 (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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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.