Member's statement: Facial Palsy Awareness Week
Member's statement by Mr Nick Mathison on .
- MLA
- Mr Nick Mathison
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 5 March 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Facial Palsy Awareness Week
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4252326
Read the official Assembly record
Text
This week is Facial Palsy Awareness Week. Facial palsy is a poorly understood condition, sadly characterised by misdiagnosis and delay in accessing treatment. It has wide-ranging impacts on those living with it, both physical and, at times, profoundly psychological. Facial paralysis is, sadly, often assumed to be only a temporary problem that will pass. Patients — disproportionately, that applies to women — are left, at times for months, without even referrals being made, let alone treatment being received. A recent Facial Palsy UK survey found that only one in 10 facial palsy patients felt that their GP understood the impact of their condition. In Northern Ireland, we have no facial palsy service. We have no pathway for these patients, and I have no doubt that if a similar survey were carried out just here, we would not be achieving even close to that one in 10 figure. It has been a privilege for me over the past number of years to work with patient activist Janet Robb on this issue. She has been campaigning since 2017 to deliver a pathway for patients living with facial palsy. By June 2019, I was privileged to be in a meeting with Janet and Health and Social Care Board officials, who gave assurances that a pathway would be delivered for Northern Ireland and, crucially, that an interim in-reach service would be provided to ensure that these patients received treatment while they waited for a proper service here in Northern Ireland. Here, in 2024, work has stopped and started, and those promises have not been delivered upon. We urgently need a pathway leading to a multidisciplinary team across physiotherapy, neurology, ear, nose and throat, psychology and surgery when required. The Health Minister must deliver on assurances previously given. I know that work is ongoing in the Department and that there is a small team of officials who are working hard on this, but this must be expedited and it must be properly resourced. It is no longer acceptable for facial palsy patients to sit on waiting lists across multiple clinical disciplines and then, when eventually seen, to be dealt with by a doctor who is not an expert on their condition. Each one of us in the Chamber will have constituents who are impacted by this little-understood condition. For some, the facial palsy will be temporary and will pass, but, for many, it will be lifelong and debilitating.
I urge every Member in the Chamber to learn more during Facial Palsy Awareness Week about the condition and its impacts, and to act on behalf of their constituents to help deliver progress. I call again on the Health Minister to prioritise delivery of a pathway for patients and an in-reach service with clinical experts while that is developed.
462 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- 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 (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-qualifying 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 | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying 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 | 0.81 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.16 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:43 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.