Debate contribution: Mental Health Provision in Northern Ireland
Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on .
- MLA
- Mr Colin McGrath
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 30 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Mental Health Provision in Northern Ireland
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4563452
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to open this Opposition day and to present this motion on mental health. I pay tribute to the many organisations, groups and professionals with whom the Opposition engaged ahead of today. I am delighted that a number of them are here today with the mental health policy group (MHPG) in the Long Gallery. Many of those groups and organisations are truly at the coalface of the continuing mental health crisis across Northern Ireland. I do not say that lightly; we are truly in the midst of a crisis. The most recent data tells us that, in 2022, over 200 people lost their lives to suicide. Since 1998, more people have lost their lives to suicide than those who lost their lives in the Troubles. Two hundred lives lost: countless family members left to pick up the pieces of a life that was cut short; innumerable friends, colleagues or even strangers left wondering why, and whether they could have helped in any way. As an Assembly, we, too, must ask why. We also must ask whether there is something that we can do to help. That is the first step of the journey that we embark on today through our debates. I have mentioned the many groups and organisations that are working in the crisis that are here today. Many of those organisations struggle, year-on-year, to put a proper budget in place. Recently, some have seen their core grant slashed by 50%. Addressing that has to be the second step of our journey. The third step is to examine how other Departments have a role to play. We propose one solid outcome that the Executive could take forward to help the most vulnerable in our society. That is the journey that we embark on today through our Opposition day motions. I say to every Member that this is not about blame, point-scoring or pontificating. With each contribution that you make, please keep to the forefront of your mind those who are struggling with their mental health and those families who have lost someone to suicide. Today is an opportunity to improve people's lives. Let our responsibility, as legislators, and our empathy, as fellow human beings, be the twin lens through which we approach today's debate. I have mentioned that over 200 people lost their lives to suicide in 2022. Even one life is too many. As part of our response to the crisis, the previous Health Minister and the Executive launched a 10-year mental health strategy. The scope of that strategy, the associated action plan and the funding commitment were unprecedented and, like today, offer a unique opportunity to improve people's lives. In that strategy sat 35 high-level actions for the development and transformation of services, with five standout actions identified: an action plan for early intervention and prevention; increasing the funding for child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS); changing the structure of service delivery; integrating the community and voluntary sector in that delivery; and developing a regional mental health service across our five health trusts. To date, approximately 20 of those key actions have started, which is positive and has to be welcomed, but, on the flip side, none of the actions has been completed, and the strategy has been failed and constrained by recurrent underinvestment. In the past year alone, over £24 million should have been allocated to the strategy's implementation; instead, it has received just over 25% of the necessary funding.
If we do not properly fund the strategy, it will fail. Clearly, we need to see it being funded properly if we want it to succeed.
I will be unequivocal in my remarks. I do not doubt for one second the Health Minister's commitment to the strategy or his desire to see it succeed. I say that of his predecessor, Robin Swann, as well, because it was the previous Health Minister who told the Health Committee that he had sought a commitment that, as part of any monitoring rounds, Health would be the priority for the Executive. However, the Minister for the Economy and the Minister of Education made the same ask, so no commitment could be given. I appreciate that funding comes from the Treasury and that the inclination of some is to point the finger at the UK Government while saying, "Please, sir, I want some more". However, the question of how much money the Treasury provides us is irrelevant if our Executive are not on one page, speaking with one voice in a spirit of commonality and shared purpose and with clear and measurable targets. That is what we seek today. If I may, I will quickly address the amendment. I always welcome the opportunity to debate amendments. Often, they can complement and enhance motions and, indeed, legislation. However, the amendment is essentially a rewrite of the original motion with one strange omission. The amendment
"laments... the number of people who have passed away as a result of suicide",
as does our motion. It calls for the Minister to work with his colleagues to prioritise suicide prevention: so does our motion. It calls for support for those who experience suicidal thoughts: so does our motion. It calls for targets to support children and young people. The original motion does all those things, but the fundamental difference is that the amendment removes the request to include all those things in the Programme for Government. The draft Programme for Government already skirts the issue of mental health. The amendment removes it from the conversation entirely. I will not support that, and the SDLP cannot support that. If we were to support the amendment, we would send a startling message from the House to all those who are struggling with mental health issues and all those organisations, members of which are upstairs in the Long Gallery and alongside whom Members will, undoubtedly, be photographed. The message will be for ever printed above the Building that our Programme for Government does not prioritise mental health, because we are just not going to talk about it. We owe it to the many thousands of people who have lost their lives to suicide, the countless people who are seeking help with their mental health and the many organisations trying to fill the void that we, as an Executive and an Assembly, are not servicing to assure them that mental health will be a priority for the Executive. Let mental health be a priority when the Executive weigh up the question of budget cuts or revenue raising or when they consider working in silos as opposed to working together. Let mental health be a priority in the delivery of the Programme for Government. I look forward to the debate and to hearing from the Executive parties' representatives and the Minister about how we will respond to the crisis. As I said at the outset, let us keep those who are most vulnerable at the forefront of our minds and our decisions today. Let us deliver something positive for them. Let this place offer some hope and not another reason for despair.
1,197 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 (0.96).
- 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-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 | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | 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 | 0.97 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:06 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.