Debate contribution: ADHD Services

Debate contribution by Ms Cheryl Brownlee on .

MLA
Ms Cheryl Brownlee
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
9 February 2026
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
ADHD Services
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5369747

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Whilst I am not a member of the Health Committee, when I saw this motion on the agenda, I jumped at the chance to talk about it. It is such an important topic, and I do not think that a day goes by when I am not contacted in some shape or form about it by a constituent, so I welcome the motion and the amendment. As I said, I am constantly contacted. I think that we have all realised today, although some of us already knew this, that the process and the services are not meeting the needs of our people. Hopefully, at the end, we will have some answers for the people of Northern Ireland so that they know that we are taking this seriously and ensuring that provision will be in place for ADHD services that can support individuals and their families and make sure that they get the right support and medication. We have spoken quite frankly about a postcode lottery, and we are seeing significant waiting times, including different waiting times across trust areas. We have seen that through a number of different services. It is a stark example of how where you live affects your health outcome. In such a small place as Northern Ireland, it is becoming bizarre that a service can be provided on one side of the street but not on the other. We know that those significant waiting times are pushing more and more people into private diagnosis, and that comes with its own challenges. Nuala alluded to the fact that it is not regulated, but it also creates another health inequality for those who cannot afford to pay for a diagnosis. Then come greater complications, because the private diagnosis might not even be accepted and it comes at a significant cost. As Alan Robinson said, there was one case in which people had paid for a private diagnosis only for the private clinic to shut down and the person running to leave the country. The families who had paid £1,000 to get a diagnosis were left without any support whatsoever. It is horrific that that is happening here in Northern Ireland. I have also been contacted by constituents who are being diagnosed over Teams and Zoom meetings and are not even having that in-depth, face-to-face contact with the provider. We know that ADHD medication is an amber drug that may be prescribed and has its own risks. GPs are put in a very difficult and pressured situation when it comes to whether to provide that shared care. I had a case recently of a lady who previously lived in Comber. She and her daughter were diagnosed privately and received that shared care, but she recently moved to Carrick, and now that care cannot be provided any more. The fact that that has been refused has left her and her daughter in complete despair. She could get that care up the road in Greenisland, but she is not within the catchment area. There are so many different things in relation to ADHD services that are becoming so frustrating and so challenging, and people are getting really annoyed that there does not seem to be any movement whatsoever. I welcome the Minister's report. Hopefully, we will see it very soon: it was due in early 2026. Hopefully, we will have a positive outcome at the end of the debate. Issues that we have all discussed are becoming more and more common, and we are seeing more and more cases in which medication has transformed people's lives, but access to that is now being denied. Waiting lists for young people can be as long as eight years. Children are often not even looked at until they hit the age of six. That is creating a whole childhood without the support that is desperately needed.

I do not want to go too far into the education space in the debate, but those waiting lists create a lack of clinical information that cannot then be added to any type of statement or evidence base to enable the Education Authority to provide the tailored support that children, in particular, need. CAMHS was mentioned. Whilst children are going into CAMHS, when they get there, the service that they get is not really tailored to their challenges, and then they just leave the service and have no further support. The Minister of Health has provided more training for individuals. Three hundred and sixty-five neurodiversity awareness training programmes have been completed. Of course, that is to be welcomed, but it needs to be throughout the system. I welcome any progress on the issue. It is an extremely important one for us to work on collectively in the Chamber. I hope that there will be some positive moves forward for everyone in Northern Ireland.

805 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.95).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.95Yes
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits1.00
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.00

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.

Challenge this classification