Debate contribution: ADHD Services
Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 9 February 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- ADHD Services
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5369731
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome today's motion and the opportunity to speak on behalf of every parent, child and individual who feels that they are failing when, in truth, it is the system that is failing them. In recent years, I have been contacted by more and more people about ADHD, including parents who are at their wits' end; adults who have struggled their entire lives without understanding why everyday tasks are so overwhelming; and children who have their behaviour misunderstood, have their needs unmet and are quietly pushed to the margins of our education system and society. Their frustration is palpable, but what comes through most strongly is the sheer exhaustion. There are families who fight, year after year, for assessments, whose children wait so long for a diagnosis that they reach a crisis point before help arrives, or, in some cases, age out and go into the adult system, which is not much better. People are being forced to choose between waiting indefinitely and paying thousands of pounds for private assessments and treatment. They are scraping together savings, spending their rainy day funds or securing loans just to get the help they need to function each day. Even if they can do that, the struggle does not end there. Many patients are then told that the diagnosis is not recognised in the NHS system for treatment or medication. Patients are stuck in limbo with a diagnosis on paper but without a pathway to care. That is particularly damaging for children. We know that around 30% of pupils are classed as chronic absentees. While there are many reasons for that, it would be careless not to recognise the role that unmet additional needs, including ADHD, play in pushing children out of the classroom. When a child feels misunderstood and overwhelmed every single day, school becomes something to dread rather than a place to grow. Worryingly, the reasons for long-term absences are not currently recorded by the Education Authority. That needs to change if we are to get a better insight into the situation. Without a recognised assessment, reasonable adjustments often cannot happen, which means that the cracks grow and more children fall through them. The answers that I have received to numerous questions for written answer confirm what many people know and what we have already heard today: there is no consistent regional ADHD service, the waiting lists are unacceptably long and access varies wildly depending on postcode. We also know that the Department's report into commissioning ADHD services is yet to be published, despite numerous reassurances that it will be. Families and individuals should not have to pay for private care to get answers; children should not be missing education because the support that they need does not arrive in time; and adults should not have to reach breaking point before they are taken seriously. In response to my questions for written answer, the Minister has acknowledged that access to ADHD medication is inconsistent and that shared care arrangements remain a major barrier. Constituents regularly report being diagnosed privately, only to be told that their GP cannot prescribe medication because shared care pathways are unclear or simply not in place. That creates a cruel and unacceptable situation, in which people are effectively diagnosed but untreated or forced to continue paying privately for medication that, for many, is genuinely life-changing. Those costs can be crippling, particularly for families who are already under financial pressure. Challenges around ADHD services exist in other jurisdictions, but elsewhere across these islands there is, at least, movement. Northern Ireland, by contrast, remains stuck.
Certainly.
I thank the Member for his intervention. I recognise, respect and am so grateful for the contribution of our voluntary and community sector in many areas, of which this is one. Our reliance on it has become almost entire dependence. That is not a great situation to be in, particularly when that sector is facing swingeing cuts with the new local growth fund. First and foremost, we must see the publication of the report on the commissioning of ADHD services, the commissioning of those services and improvements around shared care arrangements. ADHD intersects with mental health, education, employment, justice and economic activity. When we fail to address it properly, the cost is not borne by only the individuals and their families but society as a whole. We can do better, and we must do better.
732 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 (0.97).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.97 | 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 14:33 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.