Debate contribution: Respite Provision for Adults with Learning Difficulties, Complex Needs and Challenging Behaviour

Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .

MLA
Mr Mark Durkan
Party at the time
Social Democratic and Labour 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 4604329

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the contributors to the debate, and I thank the Minister for the actions that he has committed to taking. Some of the stories shared and facts presented are nothing short of harrowing. It is harrowing that the current system means that some of our most vulnerable citizens are not given the support to live their lives with dignity and that our unpaid carers, who dedicate their lives to supporting them, are being punished. As 'Spotlight' so powerfully highlighted, those families are not OK. In the North, we face a serious lack of respite care provision for adults and children with disabilities. That gap places huge pressure on carers who are already stretched to the limit. The pandemic had a profound impact on those families, and it has served to intensify existing challenges. I have listened to heart-wrenching stories from parents and primary carers about struggling without respite throughout lockdowns. For many households, that monumental shift has had a lasting impact. In many cases, adults and children with complex needs have experienced a marked regression, behavioural challenges and a decline in their overall mental health. Their parents and guardians are broken. Yet, at a time when efforts should have been made to rebuild and increase access to respite, families are being pushed more deeply into despair. Instead of finding relief, they are being left to navigate their struggles alone and feel helpless. It is no wonder that two thirds of unpaid carers suffer from poor mental health. I would wager that, in reality, that number is significantly higher. Respite care should not be treated as a luxury. Since when was a lifeline a luxury? It is deeply concerning that respite capacity has not been fully restored, four years on from the pandemic, and that the children's respite units in four of our five health and social care trusts have been repurposed for residential services, which has left families with fewer options. In my constituency of Foyle, families that rely on overnight respite services at Rosebud Cottages have battled repeated temporary closures. Services are simply not accessible for many who need them, waiting lists are growing and, in some areas, there is no provision at all. Unpaid carers, who save our Health and Social Care system countless millions of pounds each year, are burnt out. They have nowhere else to turn, which begs this question: who cares for our unpaid carers? I echo the appreciation for the staff that has been expressed by some Members. Those committed and selfless individuals work with incredibly vulnerable people, often in incredibly volatile situations, for little reward other than the knowledge of the immeasurable good that they do. Staffing shortages continue to have significant implications for the provision of support packages. Many workers who left during the pandemic have not been replaced, sometimes due to funding difficulties and sometimes due to recruitment. It is not just the provision of short breaks, either; it is day care opportunities too. There is a lack of provision but also, at times, a lack of suitable provision. For example, young adults might be placed with older people with whom they have nothing in common. There are examples of great models in my constituency that provide support and stimulation. Such models need to be looked at and learned from. While direct payments have provided some relief, navigating the process can, at times, feel like an added burden rather than a support. That outsourcing of responsibility from trusts to families has been valuable for many, but the mechanism does not work for all. For some caregivers, who already have so much on their plate, it can feel overwhelming. We desperately need to review and streamline that system and signpost. For parents and carers of children and adults with a learning disability, access to support is an uphill battle at every turn. I often wonder how they have any fight left. From fighting for a diagnosis to securing educational support, school places and respite care, the battles can seem endless, yet our unpaid carers are the warriors and heroes of our day. They deserve our support and respect. The Minister mentioned Alma White, and I know many passionate and determined families in my constituency who will drive that much-needed and overdue change. It is great that there is consensus today that we will also do our best to do that.

734 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.95).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.95Yes
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits1.00
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.00

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.

Challenge this classification