Member's statement: ADHD Provision

Member's statement by Mr Peter McReynolds on .

MLA
Mr Peter McReynolds
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
19 November 2024
Type
Member's statement
Business
Members' Statements
Heading
ADHD Provision
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4665737

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I rise to speak as chair of the all-party group on ADHD and, again, on behalf of the ADHD community, which is being failed by our health system in one of the most unjust ways that I have seen for some time in my involvement in politics. Since meeting a constituent at the start of this year, who had been told that he would have to wait for eight to 10 years for an assessment for ADHD, I am now learning that that is likely to be a made-up figure, to be honest, because no one actually knows when he will receive it. I will be submitting a petition to you, Mr Speaker, on behalf of thousands across Northern Ireland who are demanding long-overdue action. I have been contacted by a huge volume of people who are shocked that we have no commissioned services here. To make matters worse, we have no record of the number of people who are waiting for a diagnosis, because there is no need to keep those records. The latest injustice is that some who have gone down the private route for a diagnosis, which is grossly oversubscribed, are being told by their GP that their shared care arrangements are coming to an end and that, if they are lucky, they will have 180 more days of medication and, after that, they will be on their own. That medication is transformative, 95% safe and improves the quality of life of those with the condition. In recent weeks, I have, sadly, received emails and phone calls from people in tears, not wanting to go back to the daily struggle of ADHD without medication. As one person put it to me:

"The clock is now ticking, and I am in despair at the thought of not being able to obtain another shared care arrangement, and I can't afford to pay for private medication."

This will create multiple inequalities, increase the backlog in mental health services and have ramifications across Departments here. Medication is the first avenue of treatment under NICE guidelines, but we now have some GPs putting people in limbo and into chaos. I get the arguments and the need for nuance and I understand the legalities, but, in my head, I rationalise it this way: people with ADHD are having their care removed and their quality of life diminished. What other condition would this happen with? Across the world, ADHD is not being recognised as a major problem, and the medication is transformative. In Northern Ireland, decisions are being made that are making people struggle. I urge GPs who are contemplating the removal of shared care arrangements to please think twice. I urge the Health Minister to rapidly accelerate work that he told me his officials were finalising; to intervene outside of this work, which could take many more years to bear fruit; and to intervene now to help a community that is being pushed to the brink.

493 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.96).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.08No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.96Yes
Overall judgement0.05At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits1.00
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:37 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.

Challenge this classification