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
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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.08 | 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 | 0.05 | 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 | 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 11:37 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.