Debate contribution: Mental Health Provision in Northern Ireland
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 30 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Mental Health Provision in Northern Ireland
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4563527
Read the official Assembly record
Text
This is a motion that every Member will be able to relate to. Every Member will be able to cite examples of how the current system fails our constituents, who often turn to our offices for assistance and signposting. Prior to coming to the House, I spent four years in Jim Allister's constituency office, where I regularly encountered people spanning all age groups who were struggling with their mental health for a variety of reasons. I recall the mother whose primary-school child was self-harming with a pencil in the school toilet and an elderly man who, through failing health, simply lost his purpose and the will to live. I think of the young lad who had fallen into an addiction and the father who, through redundancy, struggled to provide for his family. That is the reality of Northern Ireland in 2024. The common problem that I have found when dealing with broken people is the lack of statutorily funded organisations with enough resources to meet their needs. Over the past 15 years, Ballymena has had its fair share of heartache. I want to talk briefly about a local charity that has become a lifeline to many people locally. In May 2025, Turning Point NI will be 10 years old. That charity was formed by local people as a reaction to the many young lives in the area being lost through suicide. Throughout the past 10 years, the charity has depended on lottery funding, as well as the generosity of local communities, to sustain itself. Turning Point employs nine staff, with its lottery funding due to finish at the end of March 2025. I will put that in the context of the local demand: as of this morning, there are 90 people on Turning Point's waiting list to commence a six- to eight-week programme. Many of those referrals have come from statutory bodies, such as CAMHS.
In financial terms, Turning Point estimates that, last year, through statutory referrals alone, the counselling sessions that it provided saved the trust £70,000. Members, that work came about without any help or funding from the trust.
If we want to address the elephant in the room when it comes to mental health provision and suicide rates, we need look no further than that stark reality. Too much pressure is being put on the community and voluntary sector to pick up the crisis that the NHS is in. I asked the charity what key message it would like shared with MLAs today, and this — Turning Point NI's urgent call for support — is the response that I got:
"For the past 10 years, Turning Point NI has been a vital resource for our community, providing essential support for individuals facing mental health challenges. As we approach the end of our lottery funding in March 2025, we find ourselves in a critical situation. We are currently experiencing a mental health epidemic, characterized by increasing rates of suicide, substance abuse, and self-harm among young people. Our waiting list for life-saving services continues to grow, and despite the pressing demand, our resources are severely limited. Regrettably, we have not received any government support to address these urgent needs. Therefore, we are reaching out for assistance to ensure that our dedicated team can continue their crucial work in supporting individuals in our community who are experiencing suicidal ideation and mental health crises."
My goodness. How did we allow our mental health services, and our health service in general, to get to that point? When we make the case to Treasury for additional funding, we need to do so in a context that demonstrates why we have an additional need. Our failing mental health services and high suicide rates are one of the many reasons that we need, first, to be funded to the level of need at £124 a head for every £100 a head spent in England. Once we get funded to that level of need, we must, once again, look to the Welsh model, which was designed by Holtham, where not only has Wales been funded to the level of need since 2012 but it secured an additional 5% uplift in 2018, which has been worth an additional £1·17 billion to cover the additional need. That is a huge amount of additional money. We must secure the equivalent figure for Northern Ireland and use it to address our unique local need, including tackling the legacy of the Troubles as it relates to mental health and suicide. Unless we get serious and start to fund those services adequately, we will sadly be speaking to motions like this in the many mandates to come.
775 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: 0.05 (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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.71 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.25 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| 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.