Debate contribution: GP Services in Fermanagh
Debate contribution by Mr Colm Gildernew on .
- MLA
- Mr Colm Gildernew
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 10 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- GP Services in Fermanagh
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4517868
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank Áine for securing the debate. As Deborah stated, the issue affects all of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, with several surgeries lost in the Dungannon area alone. It is a contracts issue, and I know from my time on the Health Committee that it has many factors. At rock bottom, however, the key problem is the lack of availability of general practitioners. Deborah mentioned their ageing profile and the fact that we are seeing so many retirements. Minister, I urge you to do everything that you can to address that issue. I worked previously with your colleague Robin Swann on the indemnity issue, and that has been resolved. There are probably other outstanding issues, such as professional qualification recognition across the island, that may help us to attract GPs from elsewhere. There is also merit, I think, in prioritising the multidisciplinary teams, as was mentioned. Those other allied health professionals can bring so much to the equation. They often deal with issues better and more directly than GPs, as well as taking pressure off them. In places where there is particular pressure on GPs, I ask the Minister, as the multidisciplinary teams are rolled out, to consider prioritising areas that have reduced cover or are under threat of losing their cover, so that we do not see any further reduction. Social prescribing also has huge merit. When it comes to transformation more generally, transforming the social element of primary care is important. We had a debate just yesterday on the European social fund and the value that our community and voluntary sector brings. A lot of that value is in health-related areas. We could look at something there. During COVID, a review was done of what was described as the "alternative workforce". Many of those people were in the community and voluntary sector. There may be areas there that we can look at. The other area that we could look at is the fact that we now see many more young women coming into general practice. Often, they will require more flexibility or will not want to work five days a week as a general practitioner. Young GPs coming out of medical school often want to specialise. If we can find a way to develop contracts that encourage that, we may see more young students coming into general practice.
It is called primary care for a reason: it is the first point of contact. It is where well-being can be attended to and where illness, deterioration, hospitalisation and a worsening of conditions can be prevented if we get proper GP care out into the community and support general practice to deliver the service that it does so well.
449 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.96 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.76 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.20 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:03 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.