Debate contribution: ADHD Services
Debate contribution by Mr Danny Donnelly on .
- MLA
- Mr Danny Donnelly
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 9 February 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- ADHD Services
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5369759
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. This has been a good debate, and I thank those who tabled the motion for bringing this important issue to the Assembly. It is clear that the same issues are being raised in all our constituency offices and that there is a consistent inability across Northern Ireland to get diagnosis or treatment for the condition. The motion speaks to a reality that far too many individuals and families across Northern Ireland live with every day: services are not working or are barely existing and those with ADHD are being left unsupported to face their condition alone. ADHD is not a niche issue; it is a lifelong neurodevelopmental condition that affects education, employment, mental well-being and a person's ability to participate fully in society. When it goes unrecognised or unsupported, the consequences do not disappear but simply reappear elsewhere in the system, be it the mental health services, crisis care, schools, workplaces or the criminal justice system, and in people's lives. We are seeing children wait for up to five years for an assessment, and we are seeing adults wait for up to eight years, often with no clear pathway at all. I submitted one of the 262 questions that Alan Robinson pointed to. Recently, I asked the Minister:
"to detail the number of (i) adults; and (ii) children, currently awaiting assessment for ADHD, broken down by Health and Social Care Trust"
The answer pointed out that there is no commissioned service for ADHD and that, therefore, the trusts do not regularly provide information on their waiting times. The information provided is management information sourced by local trusts' manual returns, not official statistics, and the implementation of Encompass from 2024 has impacted on both the returning of data and confidence in its accuracy. The numbers that we got back were from only two trusts, with around 4,000 adults in those trusts awaiting diagnosis and 6,409 children across Northern Ireland waiting for diagnosis. Those are huge numbers. That is not a sustainable position, and it is not defensible. The result is a system that is fragmented and inconsistent and where access depends on geography or on age rather than on need, and we have heard that again and again from across the House. Individuals are left to navigate complex pathways without being equipped to do so. We also know that there is the emergence of the two-tier system that has been referred to quite a bit, including by Mr Carroll, Cheryl Brownlee and other Members. People are being driven into private healthcare because of the need to get medication and because of what the Minister referred to as love for their children and family members. Many people, out of desperation, seek private diagnosis at significant personal cost. That is a choice not made lightly, but it is the only choice often available, yet, even when they do that, people find themselves unable to re-enter the public system easily, facing barriers to shared care arrangements and post-diagnostic support. It is important to say clearly that it is not about blaming GPs. Shared care requires clear clinical governance and guidelines for patient safety. Without that, GPs are being placed in an impossible situation, and parents and patients are left frustrated in a system that few can afford. That is an impossible choice between affordability and treatment of their condition. Our amendment asks the Minister to publish the Department's report, and he has confirmed today that he will do that within days. That is positive and good to hear. People deserve to know what work has been done and what options have been considered. The motion is not about grand promises but about clear actions: published work, proper commissioning and joined-up pathways. It is also about recognising that the current approach is failing and committing to do better. We urge the Minister to treat this not as a future aspiration but as an urgent responsibility. I will quickly go through a couple of the comments. The proposer, Órlaithí, highlighted the fragmented nature of care for ADHD and said that those co-occur a lot with other mental health conditions. That is important. She talked about the serious impacts of unmet clinical need. My colleague Nuala pointed to the economic argument for commissioning an adult service. Again, the Minister referred to that in his response. Diane Dodds said that 40% to 80% of young people not in education, training or employment have ADHD and that 40% of those in young offender centres have it. Those are shocking statistics and show where the unmet need shows up in other areas of the system. Alan Chambers highlighted the fact that delays for children and young people carry long-term risks that they will take on into their lives. Colin McGrath pointed out the impact of cuts to the local growth fund, which funds many of the support groups that people rely on. There was quite a lot to get through there, Principal Deputy Speaker.
830 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 | 0.03 | 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.