Debate contribution: Sensory Room: Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children
Debate contribution by Mr Danny Donnelly on .
- MLA
- Mr Danny Donnelly
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 4 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Sensory Room: Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5217206
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for tabling this incredibly important topic for debate and bringing attention to the lived experience of disabled children and their families across Northern Ireland. I got an email from Erin as well, and I wrote to the trust to ask it what services were currently available in Belfast Trust hospitals to support children with sensory needs who attend children's A&E and whether there were any plans to implement such services. The trust replied that, while it understood the requirement for that type of space and its impact, it was awaiting confirmation of funding to purchase a mobile sensory pod, so, currently, there was no specific area. I fully believe that we need to give our public bodies the tools to understand that something like that is about more than just a bottom line on a budget paper and that it is about equal participation in society and the ability to access the same rights as everyone else. It is not an optional addition. As the proposer stated, it is not a "nice to have". It is incredibly important to me personally, because, for the past year, I have been working on consultations with the disability community for the purpose of bringing forward a Bill that would put the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (UNCRPD) into the fabric of public policy and decision-making in Northern Ireland and intends to build a foundation for progress in situations exactly like the one that we are discussing. To ensure that the voices and lived experience of disabled people in Northern Ireland are embedded and to go beyond symbolic gestures or box ticking, the consultation process has been intentionally extended to allow for as much involvement as possible. When I looked at Erin's campaign for the installation of a sensory room around the A&E waiting area, I was struck by what I had heard so many times throughout that consultation process about the need to explain or prove a disability. That should never be the case. There is dismissal, misunderstanding and disregard for the frustrations of a lifetime of sub-par rights or considerations, which are often met with apathy when raised. Adjustments or specific requirements on the basis of disability are treated as optional. As was mentioned, disability protections in Northern Ireland are behind those of the rest of the UK and Ireland and are mainly based on outdated legislation from 30 years ago that is older than the Assembly itself — an Assembly that, in six of the past 10 years, has been impacted by shutdowns and political instability. A consequence of that instability has been the retrogression of disability rights in a number of areas. The sensory room is necessary for children who have sensory processing difficulties, including those with autism or ADHD. As Erin states in her campaign message, the experience of A&E can be overwhelming for neurotypical children, but, for children with high sensory needs, the bright and noisy environment can cause serious dysregulation, which can have a massive impact on their health, especially considering that sensory meltdown can lead to increased body temperature, vomiting and self-harming behaviours. As Cheryl highlighted, that may put parents off attending A&E and result in the sick child not getting timely treatment. The Health Committee recently heard a presentation from a provider of mobile sensory rooms about the benefits to young people and their families in those environments. The Committee wrote to the Minister, and maybe he will refer to it. We recently received a response from him that states:
"Research has indicated that sensory approaches result in a reduction of stress, support regulation and promote self-management and the overall patient experience and ward environment."
It also states:
"One of the primary constraints for future development of sensory rooms is the limited availability of suitable physical space. However, engaging with service user representatives, trusts have been proactive in seeking service user feedback and using this information to inform and co-design resources and services for patients."
It is important that the services are co-designed with families and organisations with specialist knowledge in the area. I have spoken to Erin about the issue, and I would be happy to meet anyone affected by the lack of provision for disability in public services. It should go without saying that disabled people in Northern Ireland deserve better protections and that equality should never be an option. I fully support this debate.
741 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 (0.99).
- 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) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| 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 13:46 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.