Debate contribution: Respite Provision for Adults with Learning Difficulties, Complex Needs and Challenging Behaviour
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist 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 4604302
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I have listened to the debate, and it was truly heartbreaking. The saying that comes into my head repeatedly as I hear the experiences being recounted throughout the Chamber is, "Be kind, for you do not know what battles people are fighting". Whilst we say it quite often, there is no way in which we can measure the depth of despair or the battles that those people are fighting. That is heartbreaking for a number of reasons, and not just on an individual level. Since my political career began, and especially since I became a full-time politician in 2010, the health system has moved to become one where we keep people at home longer. Given what the health estate, our services and our health trusts provide, the pressure on them is mighty, yet it is nearly as if we have completely forgotten about all those people whom we removed from a hospital setting to the home setting. It is as if we have left their families in despair.
It is absolutely clear that that false economy is leading to more casualties and more patients with carers who are burnt out. It is as if we cannot see that. Then, we wonder why people are rocking up to our health estate needing beds in our wards because they cannot cope. When that tragedy happens, what happens to the person for whom that carer was caring? We are multiplying carnage upon carnage. Transforming Your Care: do Members remember that? It has become "Destroying Your Health". That is the stark message that we should take away from the debate. In that regard, we need not only reform but radical change. I will sum up some of the contributions to the debate. I will not get through them all, but I will deal with the proposers of the motion and the amendments. Linda Dillon told us about carers being informed at short notice that their respite was cancelled. Think of the devastation caused to carers who are so focused on caring for their loved ones but who know that, at the end of a week or two weeks, they will get respite, not just for them but for the person for whom they are caring, only for that to be taken away instantly with no concept of when that respite will be picked up again. Those people may have been waiting for that respite for a year. That is truly devastating, and it will tip people who are already in despair over the edge. Linda Dillon said that there needs to be an emergency respite plan for people who fall on hard times or end up having an accident and have to go to hospital themselves. She said that support provision must follow the family even when they move. She mentioned the issue of children attaining adulthood and losing respite provision in the transition from child services to adult services. That is a mighty thing. She called on the Minister to develop a comprehensive plan. Colin McGrath said that the debate was timely. He said that he proposed the amendment with children in mind and that it was children-focused, and we can see that in the text. He related experiences of PSNI interventions and explained why those are usually the wrong interventions. Regrettably, however, they are the only ones. The PSNI is picking up the pieces inappropriately, but it is trying to do the best that it can. One thing that came up across the piece is the diligent work and commitment of the people who provide respite and care for the carers. I must place that on record before my time is up. Alan Robinson, who moved our amendment, explained what happens when families move to another trust area, and he outlined the reasons for the DUP amendment. He talked about the £5·8 billion a year that carers are saving the health service, the estimated value of unpaid care in the Northern Trust and the Western Trust being £1·3 billion and £800 million a year respectively.
I have run out of time. I commend our amendment to the House, and I thank the House for supporting both amendments.
701 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 (0.92).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | 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 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.