Motion or amendment: Commissioned Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Services
Motion or amendment by Mrs Linda Dillon on .
- MLA
- Mrs Linda Dillon
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 4 February 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Commissioned Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Services
- Assembly identifier
- Document 426691
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Commissioned Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Services
That this Assembly recognises the need for commissioned services dedicated to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); further recognises the need for a regional diagnosis service and specific ADHD mental health services to cater for those with both ADHD and mental illnesses; notes that many people have had to seek ADHD assessments and diagnosis privately at their own expense; further notes that many parents have been unable to access ADHD assessments for their children; calls on the Minister of Health to engage with Health and Social Care Trusts on potential options for a regional ADHD service that encapsulates diagnosis, treatment and mental health support; and further calls for improved awareness of ADHD within government agencies, schools and workplaces.
123 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
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 (0.97).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.97 | 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 09:02 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.