Debate contribution: Mental Illness: Reducing Stigma
Debate contribution by Miss Nuala McAllister on .
- MLA
- Miss Nuala McAllister
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 21 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Mental Illness: Reducing Stigma
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4749703
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member who proposed the motion. I give credit where credit is due, because, at most Health Committee meetings, she brings up issues to do with mental health and dual diagnosis and how we can tackle those. She is very passionate about those issues, and I am glad that we have the opportunity to highlight them. On overall mental health, when we read background information, research or surveys, one key statistic that always comes out is the fact that one in four people suffers from mental ill health at some point in their lives. I look around the Chamber and see, maybe, 16 people here. It is more than likely that four of us will be affected by a mental health issue, be it an issue that we might have had from a young age or when we are older, such as postpartum depression or anxiety, or any other issue. It affects all of us, the people whom we love, our friends and our families. It is important that we do what we can to tackle the stigma around mental health, given the fact that it is so prevalent in society. I will talk a little bit about the local issues that are being targeted towards tackling stigma, which are really important to highlight. I am keen to hear from the Minister about the work that he has been doing on the kind of advertising that can take place to highlight the issue. I think back to the campaign that said, "It's OK not to be OK", which many Members have mentioned. At a Health Committee meeting, the Minister said that there was a moratorium on public advertising. However, we should look at whether advertising is effective and whether it has positive outcomes. We do not need to talk about spending millions, but we can target it where it is needed. Many issues cause poverty, and we need to get to the root of those as well. First, though, we must acknowledge that mental health issues cause poverty, exacerbate it and make it worse. I think of my area in North Belfast. Poverty is one of the key drivers of mental health issues, as are legacy issues from the Troubles. When they combine, they create a problem, and we are really not getting to the bottom of it. Five out of the 10 most deprived areas in Northern Ireland are in North Belfast. It is the third most deprived constituency overall, based on income, health and disability. We can think about health inequalities that are exacerbated every day that we do not tackle them. They will get worse unless we do something about it. I turn to suicide rates in North Belfast. In my constituency office, we hear every day about different issues that affect people. Suicide is the issue that goes most to our core, and, unfortunately, it happens too often in North Belfast. Between 2015 and 2019, the rate of suicide per 100,000 population was 25·6, compared with the overall rate for Northern Ireland, which was 9·6. We need to ensure that we tackle that by talking about the problem that exists in the first place. As I said, there are organisations in my constituency that are doing really well. I think of PIPS and Lighthouse. I have spoken about them quite a few times in the Chamber. I want to touch a little bit on Lighthouse because of the work that it does, particularly in local schools. When I visited it for the first time after becoming an MLA, the team spoke about the work that they do particularly with young boys. We know that it is hard to get young boys to open up, speak about their problems and accept help where it might be needed, but they do fantastic work. They speak to young male teenagers about the need to talk about whether they are OK and how, if they are not, to get help. That peer-on-peer support is very valuable. I look forward to going back to hear more about their evaluation of their work with local schools over a number of years. That is just one example of how the community and voluntary sector — I know that the previous contributor highlighted this — is already doing what needs to be done. It is about taking what works best, not reinventing the wheel, and putting that into the areas of Northern Ireland where it is most needed. We know that more areas need that work. Staying on the issue of young people's mental health, I know that the Elephant in the Room campaign has been excellent. It is a class campaign. It was designed by young people for young people.
I do agree. It is worth highlighting the fact — you mentioned the education sector — that there are young people taking the lead in their schools. Teachers and staff could learn a lot from them. There is a lot of pressure in education: a lot of pressure to do well, even from the young age of 11, in the transfer test, GCSEs and A levels, not to mention social media. However, young people often have the answers too, so the Department could engage with youth sector organisations on how best to reach out to them. It is about all of us in society — young people and older people. With regard to postnatal issues, I know that when I did my prenatal care, postnatal mental health issues were not really touched on. That is one area that has improved, I am learning from friends, but there could be more improvement there too. It is very important that we tackle those issues. I am glad to speak on the motion today to highlight the good work that is —
— taking place in my constituency. We are happy to support the motion.
981 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 (0.83).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | 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 | 0.96 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:47 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.