Debate contribution: Mental Health Data

Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on .

MLA
Mr Colin McGrath
Party at the time
Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date
16 February 2026
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Mental Health Data
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5392004

Read the official Assembly record

Text

We are not even near the end of the debate, yet it is amazing that we can already hear a theme being repeated, which is that doing this is simple, basic, fundamental, sensible and reasonable and that we must get it right. I contribute to that view by supporting the motion and saying that it is a simple concept: we need to know what is happening in our mental health system in order to be able to respond effectively. As MLAs, all of us will deal with constituents weekly who are waiting for assessments, therapies, a CAMHS appointment or crisis support. We all know the repetitive queries. They include, "How long will I be waiting?", "Where am I on the list?" and, "What happens to me next?". Too often, however, we cannot answer their questions with any certainty.

We understand that, in the past year, 38% of adults here have reported concerns about their mental health. That means that nearly a third of our population may be in the category of needing some help or assistance from our system. That begs the question: if mental health concerns are so prevalent, why do we not have a standardised approach to mental health support? In my constituency of South Down, I see incredible, remarkable organisations, such as Life Change Changes Lives, Pop Up Art, MYMY and The Well. They support people at the most challenging and difficult moments of their lives, and I am sure that all MLAs will be able to name organisations in their constituencies that provide such support. After a conversation at The Well, staff put me in contact with people in England who deal with the preventable deaths tracker. I found that to be of interest because it goes into an area on which research and figures are not readily available. Those people were going into the Coroners' Court, extracting patterns in mental health issues from its reports and flagging them up to the system. What I note from that is this: if we rely too much on Encompass, we will go down the route of using a hospital-based health service alone to look for information, but that is not the only place where we need to shine a light. There are lots of other places where we could go, such as to the police, who deal with people who have mental health episodes. They might have records of people who are dealing with mental health issues but who may not be known to the Encompass system. The judicial system might also have information, and, as I mentioned, the preventable deaths tracker goes into the Coroners' Court. There are lots of places where people with mental health problems will present, and it is about trying to bring that information together so that we can start to see patterns. Then, if we can see the patterns, we can start to provide the service response where it is needed most. The problem is that, if we do not look for that information, we will not know about it and will not be able to respond. There are lots of ways of approaching this, and we need to look beyond Encompass, even though that is a good place to get some of that information. Members have referenced the establishment of the mental health strategy, which is a 10-year plan. We know that, many years into it, only about 13% of the outcomes have been funded, yet we are at the halfway mark of that process. It seems a bit strange and as though we are doing things back to front or upside down, because we have not mapped all the data, yet we are trying to come up with a strategy that we are not even funding. It feels like we are approaching the issue of mental health in the wrong way. The spirit of the motion is to say, "There is lots of data. Let's grab that data, put it together and see what story it tells us, and then let's see if we can match that data to the need in our community". Provided that we can match that with finance, that will help to address the problem, because we will be helping the people who need our help the most. I am delighted to support the motion, and I hope that others will do so as well.

729 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: 0.02 (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

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 framing0.02No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.96Yes
Overall judgement0.02At 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 benefits0.98
No identity-related subject0.02
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 14:56 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