Debate contribution: Mental Illness: Reducing Stigma
Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 21 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Mental Illness: Reducing Stigma
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4749893
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the motion; indeed, I welcome the progress that we have made as a society on tackling the stigma around mental health. To be fair, I recognise the role that some in the Assembly have played in that battle. I very much include the Minister in that, from long before he was the Minister. I have had a huge interest in mental health for many years. I am not saying that that by any means makes me an expert. My interest predates but could not prevent my sister's suicide, which, if anything, highlighted to me — we all have experience of this, and Cara has shared hers — the fact that nobody is immune to mental ill health and that just because someone is smiling that does not mean that they are not suffering. Over the years, we have seen mental health go from being a niche issue to something that is on everyone's mind and every politician's lips. I remember a time when a school visit would consist of questions about ice rinks and the school curriculum, but now the first question from any group of young people is invariably about the need for improved mental health support and services. People have much less bother talking about mental health — young people certainly do — but what are the Executive doing about it? "Reach out and seek help", is the message that we hear and propagate. We encourage people to take the courageous first step, and society rightly applauds them when they do. However, we do not often ask, "What next?". What happens when a person in the depths of despair drags themselves up to reach for a lifeline that just is not there? They free-fall and often self-medicate or self-harm; they try anything that might help them escape, even if only for a wee while. Some suffer in silence, and others do the opposite, their pain laid bare as they try to numb it with drugs or alcohol. The failure to provide timely, accessible and meaningful support results in escalation, a spiral into addiction and more difficulty in accessing appropriate services. That is where stigma and judgement really do still exist. We need to be able to distinguish someone who is in pain from their destructive behaviour. Too many vulnerable people fall through the gaps, and, if the fact that drug-related deaths have trebled in a decade does not underscore the need for a dual-diagnosis approach to mental health and addiction, I do not know what will. There is still a lot of work to do despite the advances that I have mentioned, and, of course, we support the motion. The mental health strategy needs to be fully implemented, but it also needs to be fully funded. The Minister outlined his funding difficulties yesterday, and I am sure he will do so again today. Reducing the stigma will need more than public awareness and education campaigns: it also depends on improved access to proven treatments and work in support of and partnership with other organisations to provide people with the support and safety nets that they need. With cuts in funding to and the closure of vital projects — I think of the Men's Action Network in my constituency — and the perennial threat to other services, such as our much-needed crisis intervention service, along with the long waits to access support, the valiant efforts of so many in the statutory and community sectors are being undermined. Breaking mental health stigma is about more than raising awareness; it depends on government action to create a society in which mental well-being is valued and supported. We need to invest in and improve mental health services to smash the stigma that is now developing around them.
627 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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.93 | 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 | 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 11:48 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.