Member's statement: ADHD: Services and Support
Member's statement by Mr Peter McReynolds on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter McReynolds
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 10 September 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- ADHD: Services and Support
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4517221
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I rise today to speak on a topic that I have raised several times in the Chamber, and that is attention deficit hyperactivity disorder — ADHD — and the colossal gap in services that exists for children and adults across Northern Ireland. Last week, I was grateful to the Health Minister for meeting ADD-NI, which is a charity that has really led the charge on the topic over the past 27 years. On that note, I will single out Sarah Salters and Keith Anderson and thank them for the work that they have done over the past number of years in highlighting the unfair and needless challenges facing people living with and, crucially, potentially living with ADHD across Northern Ireland. Those challenges include being told that you are on a waiting list for eight to 10 years for an ADHD assessment, and, in the meantime, there is nothing available; being told that the private diagnosis that you paid over £1,000 for will not be accepted by your GP, but you can pay hundreds of pounds a month instead privately or join a waiting list because there is nothing available; or, lastly, being told that, because your child with that childhood diagnosis who had access to medication has reached the age of 18 and is now an adult, they will need a renewed diagnosis and there will be a gap in service due to fragmented care pathways. That is before we reach the daily symptoms of the condition and the impact that it has on that individual. Two to three generations of children have now grown up to be adults with ADHD. In that time, they have masked their symptoms and soldiered on into adulthood thinking that they were the problem when it was the lack of services and support that was failing them and, potentially, their parents due to the genetic link that exists in ADHD.
I have recently been appointed as chair of the all-party group on ADHD. We are reinvigorated to do that and do what we can as a group to make sure that those living with the condition get the support and services that they deserve. Last week, we had our first meeting with the Health Minister and welcomed what he told us. That work appears to be taking place, and we recognise that it will take time that we simply do not have to correct the issues and challenges that people living and potentially living with it face. As a group and as an ADHD community, we will continue to watch, engage and listen, but, crucially, we will not let it slip off the radar again. Those living with ADHD have suffered in silence for too long. I will do all that I can to make sure that we get the commissioned services and the improvements that we need to make living with the condition easier.
481 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: 0.03 (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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | 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 11:01 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.