Debate contribution: Mental Health Data
Debate contribution by Ms Kate Nicholl on .
- MLA
- Ms Kate Nicholl
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 16 February 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Mental Health Data
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5392012
Read the official Assembly record
Text
A lot of people have said that it is not about data but about services. I actually want to talk a little bit about the data. I welcome the motion. It identifies a problem that has held Northern Ireland back for so long, which is that we cannot improve mental health services without accurate, consistent and accessible mental health data. Right now, we simply do not have it. I chair the all-party group on policy and public data. I have a real interest in how we improve our collection, use and links to the information that we have. Secretariat support is provided by the Administrative Data Research Centre. I will be really honest: when I was first approached about the group, I thought that it sounded so boring. Then, I attended the first meeting. I listened to Dr Aideen Maguire talking about data and how we are so data rich in Northern Ireland — it is captured from the minute that we are born until the minute that we die — but because each Department is, ultimately, a kind of silo, we do not share the information. We could produce the best policy solutions to all the most pressing issues that we have in society if we were to use those larger datasets responsibly. When it comes to mental health, we are not short of data but short of access to it. There is rich data sitting in each trust on referrals, bed occupancy, crisis presentations, waiting lists, community support, addiction services and spend versus demand, but because that information is held in silos, you cannot see the full picture.
This morning, at a meeting of the all-party group on policy and public data, we looked specifically at homelessness. As with all such issues, it is intersectional. It is not about just one thing; there are so many elements. Colin touched on that, and we see it when we look at prisons. There are so many factors that come into play, so we need to look at the full data. One of the researchers at the meeting made a really good point: he said that the motion is really good and that it provides an insight into how we, as policymakers, view things. We see that there is an issue with waiting lists, and we need the data so that we can address it. However, when those in the research community look at data, they do not look just at the problem in the here and now; they look at why there is an issue and at its root causes. We can create policy solutions for the future through larger datasets. I would really love for all of you to join that all-party group, because it is so interesting. There were concerns about creating a single, standardised mental health data system. Encompass will eventually be transformative, but, as the PAC report stated, even if the solution comes in five or 10 years, it cannot help us today, because it does not capture the large volume of work delivered by the community and voluntary sector. Waiting for Encompass alone is not realistic or responsible. In the meantime, we can do more things with what we have. We can be more creative in how we link up. We heard from someone who works in the trust, and there has been really innovative work with the Prison Service. That is proof that progress is possible when we choose to use the tools that we already have. The question is not about whether we need a perfect system; it is about whether we are willing to use the imperfect but valuable data that we already hold to improve lives now. One question that keeps coming up is about the legislation on the secondary use of data. I have tabled a question for written answer to the Minister about that, and it is wonderful that he is here. There was an indication that that legislation would be introduced in the Assembly in early 2026, which is now. Some people have said that, without the legislation and clear legal permission for linking and using health data, no matter how sophisticated a new system is, it will never be able to deliver what we need. It would be wonderful if the Minister could take the opportunity to give us an update on that. Data is about quality. It is not just about waiting times or, as Danny said, activity. It is about outcomes. The Assembly should absolutely be ambitious, but we should also be practical. We need to develop a long-term integrated data system. That is a matter not just for Health but for all the Departments. There is so much work that we need to do and that we can do, especially when finances are so constrained. It is so important to see how we can work better together to share information and design long-term policy solutions. I really welcome the motion. Mental health services deserve better data, as do the staff and, most important, the patients and families. Ultimately, data is about transparency and accountability. Seeing how to make it more accessible will always be important.
861 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: 0.02 (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 (0.95).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.88 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.12 |
| 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 14:56 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.