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 4223699
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Mr Speaker, you are absolutely right, but all of those problems emanate from the fact that there has not been a proper budget for or investment in our health service. That is why we are talking about the problems. They are a consequence of fast-tracked, unaccountable budgets, such as the one that is to be rubber-stamped here soon. The reality for a lot of people is pain and suffering. Mr McGlone made a very important point. When I was a student in Liverpool, no matter what the issue was, you could walk down the street to a service that was accessible to people. No one knows when their mental health might deteriorate; it can happen to anyone at any time or point. At that critical juncture, you need help there and then. You do not need an appointment in two weeks' time. People arrive at my office seeking that support and help, but the services do not exist because they have not been properly funded. If someone is not registered with a GP or with local mental health services, when I phone, we are told to ring an ambulance. That person does not want to go in an ambulance to A&E to sit in an area that will add to their deterioration. We need to fund those services properly, because people are losing their lives. They are desperate. We, collectively, have a responsibility to ensure that that is resolved, so we need to invest properly in our healthcare services. The reality when it comes to accessing care is that there has been a failure to look after older people. Our hospital wards are filled with older people who cannot get domiciliary care packages. They might have no family support network, their needs might be too complex or difficult for their family or they might have a small family circle. A couple of the wards that I visited were filled with older people who would love to be at home. Those people are being failed miserably. All of us will be old some day — some quicker than others — but the reality is that, if the system is failing people at that point in their life when they most need help and support, what are we here for? We need to resolve those problems. Older people should not be treated in the way that they are being treated in our society. We need to give them the dignity and respect that they deserve.
I will quickly move on. The A5 costs lives every year in my constituency. There are stories of heartbreak and devastation everywhere you go. No matter which part of the road you are on, you see headstones, crosses and tributes to people who have died. People have been promised for over 50 years that investment in that infrastructure would happen. Every time there is a delay, people die. The least that people deserve is safe roads to travel on. I want to see and am hopeful that there will soon be a positive announcement on the A5, because it will save lives and unlock the economic potential of that part of the island. It is long overdue. I wait in anticipation and hope for a positive announcement from the Irish Government on that. I encourage the Minister to ensure that there is money for that in the Budget in order to ensure that, when we get to that critical juncture, the project that her colleague the Minister for Infrastructure announced is ready to go. This week, we had an announcement from the new Minister for Infrastructure, John O'Dowd, that there is £1 million for potholes in roads. I welcome any investment in our road infrastructure, because it is diabolical, but £1 million will not get him out of Omagh. It is a serious problem. It is an extremely dangerous situation if, when travelling along any road, you hit a pothole. People are swerving on the roads to avoid potholes, and they end up causing an accident on the other side of the road. It is a major problem, and £1 million does not cut it. There needs to greater investment in our infrastructure. That brings me to the final point. People in our communities are struggling on a daily basis. They want us to work together. They want us to stick with it when it gets difficult. They want us to find solutions to their problems. They want us to fund the health service properly. They want us to fund our education system properly. They want access to good housing. Young people deserve a future in this place that is much more than sticking a plaster over a problem until it falls off. Today is regrettable, because we are just back to the same old, same old approach from Stormont: pass the Budget; no scrutiny; resolve a few problems; and create a mountain of many others. Let us get beyond that. The only way that we can do that is by making the commitment that my colleague Matthew O'Toole, the Leader of the Opposition, has requested from the First Minister and deputy First Minister: when things get tough, stick with it; find solutions; knock down whatever door is in front of you; and put our people first.
880 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: 0.05 (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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.48 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.42 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.10 |
| 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.