Debate contribution: Respite Provision for Adults with Learning Difficulties, Complex Needs and Challenging Behaviour
Debate contribution by Miss Nuala McAllister on .
- MLA
- Miss Nuala McAllister
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 21 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Respite Provision for Adults with Learning Difficulties, Complex Needs and Challenging Behaviour
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4604252
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the DUP for tabling the motion and the amendments. We support all of them and hope that the SDLP amendment will be passed to include children's services. In my first Committee for Health session, I raised the issue of respite services and services for adults with learning difficulties, particularly to ensure that people can remain in their communities. Unfortunately, the consistency of the services — not the services that are offered, although we need to be realistic that the budget for them is not infinite — continues to go downhill. It must be put on record that the staff who work in trust-run and voluntary services do a fantastic job every day and are put under immense pressure. I want to speak a bit about the individuals and their families. Earlier this year and last year, I was contacted by two families in the North Belfast constituency. They had similar circumstances but different backgrounds. One family was an elderly couple who were having difficulties with respite provision for their adult son. They needed that respite provision to look after their own health. At the Committee meeting of 23 May, the adult learning disability team from the Department gave us an update, and we touched a little on the demographic of people who are getting older and are looking after their older children. Again, the urgency of the issue rings true. There is a vast number of vulnerable people out there who require the service, but every one of those individuals has a family that we need to think about and provide with the respite that they need. Aside from respite provision for families, one of the other issues that come up time and again in the Committee for Health, of which I am a member, is the difference in provision between trusts and the difference in provision if you move to another trust area, which is why I support the DUP amendment today. A report that was given to the Committee highlighted the fact that 47 separate services are run across all the trusts in Northern Ireland. There are different types of services, some of which are voluntary, and some of which are specifically trust-run. However, only 10 of the 47 are available on a regionally consistent basis, which is a poor reflection of where we stand when it comes to services for adults with complex needs. We need to have consistency across all provisions in Northern Ireland. At the same Committee briefing, we were told that there will be a public consultation on the adult learning disability model. That consultation has not happened yet. I hope that the Minister can give us an update on where it is. We were under the impression from the briefing that that would form part of the social care collaborative forum's framework. There are a number of work streams in that. This is another one that, I understand, already has or could have a costed implementation plan that was due in the summer. I would like an update, if the Minister is able to provide that. I will move on to transition. One of the areas that we focused on was the fact that 300 children are due to transition in the next two years. Therefore, there must be planning. The British Association of Social Workers (BASW) has said consistently that we need to plan not just for services but for the workforce. I have spoken in the Chamber many times — in March, April and just last week — on the provision of respite services for children. Multiple judicial reviews (JRs) have taken place and ruled in parents' favour on the need for trusts to provide respite services for children with complex needs. I understand the position that the Department may be in when it comes to tackling the workforce issue, given that the staff may not be there. The Minister said that again last week. We need the safe staffing legislation to move forward. We also need to add the likes of the British Association of Social Workers to the social care collaborative forum so that it can feed into that. I have raised many times the issue of respite services for children, and I will continue to do so in the Chamber and in Committee. We need to get answers. The Minister mentioned last week that plans might be in place. Perhaps he could update us on those today.
As I said, we are happy to support both amendments and the motion.
759 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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.99 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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 11:26 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.