Debate contribution: Respite Provision: South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust
Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on .
- MLA
- Mr Colin McGrath
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 8 April 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Respite Provision: South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4920022
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the Adjournment debate and thank the Member for bringing it. It is an incredibly important issue that we have covered at great length in the Health Committee. It is close to all our hearts, because it concerns some of the most vulnerable in society and those who carry the mantle of caring for them. There are few issues that galvanise the political view across this place as much as this one. I pay particular tribute to the families who spoke out so eloquently in the BBC 'Spotlight' documentary and when they have spoken to us in this place and at the Health Committee. The 'Spotlight' documentary was a remarkable piece of film-making on the challenges that they face and the absolute importance of having respite care. We know that there are specific staffing issues in the South Eastern Trust. We understand, having heard from the Department of Health at the Committee, that, from April onwards, we will see an expansion of existing facilities and the recovery of the beds that have been lost as a result of COVID and other pressures over the years. I have to be absolutely clear, however, and say that, at one point, 499 children across the South Eastern Trust area were waiting for disability services. That includes those who were looking for respite care. In the Belfast Trust, the figure was 34. In the Western Trust, it was 140. In the Southern Trust, it was 180. In the South Eastern Trust, it was just under 500. That, even in its own right, should speak to the fact that some sort of intervention is required to address the imbalance or at least to assess why there is such extra need in the South Eastern Trust. Service provision for those with a learning disability is an issue that is close to my heart. I have done a lot of work on it over the past number of months and years. I have asked the Minister many questions about the learning disability service model that will be published and consulted on. It has been co-designed with trusts. It will have a costed action plan. It will be a bit of a game changer and help embed respite care and put it on a more equal footing across the North. I commend the departmental officials who are getting that document ready for publication. I have met them, and I know that their passion is to make sure that the service that is provided in the community meets families' needs. All of us in the House want to see that need being addressed, as it has not been addressed up to now. There should be an apology to the families who have been let down, an apology to the children who have been let down and a promise that, from this point on, we will get it right.
480 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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | 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 12:22 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.