A DISABLED youngster is to have her respite care slashed by more than 80 per cent by social services because of a budget crisis.

Emily Riley, aged eight, suffers from cerebral palsy and epilepsy, and has had her 232 hours of respite care per year cut to just 40 hours.

The hours allocated to Emily helped to give a break to her parents Karen and Peter - but now the care she will receive amounts to one hour a week for nine months of the year.

Families of children with disabilities received a letter before Christmas informing them that their respite care services had to be cut and that everybody's individual packages would be reviewed.

The social services department made the cuts to produce a 25 per cent saving. Some families have lost more than 25 per cent of their care, but some less.

Emily, who lives at home in Chapeltown Road, Radcliffe, will now only have time for one swimming session or an hour long trip out each week, away from her family. The time also gives her parents a chance for some quality time together.

Mrs Turner-Riley (44), an export sales manager, said: "When we were told that our hours were to be cut, we couldn't believe it. The respite care is a big deal to Emily. It gives her time to be with an adult who isn't a parent and gives her more independence.

"Emily used to be taken swimming by her carer and this would take the pressure off. I am sure that having less respite care will only cause problems for social services in the future. But we are not the worst case."

Mrs Turner-Riley added: "I am urging people in our situation to write to their local MPs and local councillors and also Children's Minister Margaret Hodge. These people need to be aware of how Bury's most vulnerable people are being treated."

Emily attends Tottington Primary School, which has been adapted to help disabled children and also goes for therapy in Liverpool twice a week, to help with movement. While her hours have been drastically cut, other families have been left with nothing.

Head of social services Ms Eleni Ioannides, said: "The main issue is that no family was ever told that the cut would be 25 per cent. Members were very keen to see that the cuts were not implemented across the board.

"This means that in order to produce the 25 per cent overall saving, some families will lose more than this and some less. We are not claiming that these cuts are easy - clearly some families are losing services that they are used to having.

"However, we are trying very hard to ensure that the most vulnerable maintain the most service. Inevitably some people will be very unhappy with the proportion of cut which is allocated to them.

"There is no other way to bring this budget to within its required spend than to make the cuts - there simply isn't enough money to maintain the current level of provision."