Debate contribution: Budget Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Daniel McCrossan on .
- MLA
- Mr Daniel McCrossan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 19 February 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Budget Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4223677
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his intervention. My well wishes and, I am sure, those of colleagues across the House are with your mum. I hope that she has a full and speedy recovery, Patsy. A&E in Derry is probably the worst possible example of what you would expect from our healthcare system. That has been recognised by senior directors of the Western Trust and by those who manage that difficult crisis scene daily. There are people in their 80s and 90s sitting on hard chairs for well over 24 hours, if they are lucky. There are no beds, and nothing is available: no privacy, no dignity, nothing. That is killing people. Do you know why, Mr Speaker? It is because people are choosing, even when they are sick and need intervention, not to go to A&E because it is so traumatising for them to attend what I have seen on countless occasions. My colleague Mr McGlone rightly points out that, at the weekend, there are police everywhere, accompanying people who are intoxicated or have mental health or addiction issues. They are sitting in the same space. There is no sufficient space for children with special educational needs in A&E. There is no space for people with dementia who need care, and their family members have to stand for hours, while their loved one sits there surrounded by chaos. Is that the vision we have for this place and our people?
There needs to be serious investment and intervention in our health system, because, at the very least, we should have dignity at all times.
Yes.
I thank the Member for his intervention. He, too, paints a picture of our health service that is difficult to look at. The reality is that, because of a lack of funding generally in health services, no matter how sick you are or how complex your issue is, you go to A&E. If you ring your GP surgery and cannot get an appointment, you go to A&E.
Two wee seconds. If you have a mental health or addiction issue, you go to A&E. No matter the problem, that is where you are sent, and it is leading to a major crisis in the care of our people. It affects countless older people in particular. It would break your heart to see that, after contributing to this society for a lifetime, that is how they are treated when at their most vulnerable. That is totally reprehensible. Mental health and addiction services are also huge issues in all of our constituencies. I am sure that we have all had people in our offices who are battling with their mental health and cannot get the support that they need. Do you want in on that point, Patsy?
460 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: 0.04 (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 (0.90).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.97 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:38 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.