Debate contribution: Birch Hill Centre for Mental Health
Debate contribution by Mr Trevor Clarke on .
- MLA
- Mr Trevor Clarke
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 18 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Birch Hill Centre for Mental Health
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5244975
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I am not sure that I will need five minutes, because everything that needs to be said was said by the Member who just spoke. For the benefit of those who do not know the history, some of which has been mentioned, the site was picked in 1891, and construction started in 1894, with the first patients coming in 1899 or 1900. The facility was for 400 patients. That outlines the age of the site, and the Member alluded to that. The original name would not be acceptable in today's language: it was called the County Antrim Lunatic Asylum. Thankfully, language moved on, and it was aptly named the Holywell Hospital some years later. That gives you the history and outlines the length of time that the facility has been in being. The previous contributor said that he visited the site. I visited it a number of years ago with a former director, and, even at that point, a case was being made to replace it. It is disappointing, therefore, to hear how slowly things have gone ever since. The Member referred to the business case in 2020 and the planning permission in 2024. If things had gone as planned, we would have been welcoming that site by 2028-29. Some of us have had to visit the site to see some of the patients there, at the request of their families. Anyone who takes the opportunity to visit it will see the intolerable conditions that those individuals are in, as has been said. The site is not fit for purpose, but, for me, it is more the case that we cannot afford to do nothing. The Member mentioned the cost of repairs. I submitted a question for written answer to the Minister to get an estimate of all the costs. The question was due to be answered in October, but it remains unanswered. I suspect that the figure is scary. This is about essential maintenance; it is not wish list stuff. Mr Kearney talked about buckets catching water and walls crumbling: those are all essential repairs. The estimated cost of the site is £143 million. You will not have to purchase land, because you own the other site, but, when you vacate the Holywell site, you will have a 140-acre site that could go to market, sitting right within the development zone of Antrim town. We cannot afford to wait, and the families who use the facility cannot afford to wait. The business case would be supported simply by the disposal of that site once the new facility is built. As I said — I keep repeating myself — we cannot afford to wait. It is costing us time and will cost us additional money. We all know how procurement has worked in Northern Ireland for years. If the cost is £143 million now, it will be £200 million in five years' time, but the money raised by the disposal of land will not rise at the same pace as the price that developers will charge for the construction of that site. I urge the Minister to look again at this case and to look at all the options. I also ask him to put pressure on his Department to release the figures on what it will cost to bring the site up to an acceptable standard, one that we would wish for our family members if they required it, so that they would get the service that they deserve, delivered in a fit-for-purpose facility. When you see those figures, Minister, you will see for yourself that the business case is there and that you need to exert more pressure to find the £143 million to deliver the site.
625 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | 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 | 0.98 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| 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 14:02 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.