Debate contribution: Health Crisis
Debate contribution by Mr Daniel McCrossan on .
- MLA
- Mr Daniel McCrossan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 3 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Health Crisis
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4774570
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. As many colleagues have said, it is a year today since the Assembly and Executive returned. It is clear that there is absolutely nothing to celebrate, given the critical issues that face our people. Indeed, what people forget, when they talk about the return of the Assembly a year ago, is that we should have been here three years ago, when we were originally given a mandate by the people across Northern Ireland to come here and do the work that we are elected to do, which is to fix the problems in the health service and a wide range of other serious issues. In fact, if health were such a priority for the two parties that were culpable for collapsing the institutions on separate occasions, they would never have collapsed at all. That speaks to the truth. Health is not a priority for some parties. They talk about it and react to it, but there is no proactivity whatever when it comes to bringing about solutions to the critical issues facing our people. The truth is that the health service is in crisis. That is a word that we hear a lot in the House. However, it is also a fact that, since the Executive returned, the situation has worsened. The Executive parties point at each other instead of sitting down and asking, "What can we actually do to resolve this problem?". We talk about a lack of funding. Yes, we all agree that there is a funding issue, but that is not the only issue. There are wider issues in relation to management. There are things that can be fixed. There are things that we could see more progress on. I know that the Minister is frustrated, because I hear it in his voice. I know that he is frustrated with us and with the tone and content of the motion. However, the fact is that we are reflecting the feelings of the people across our constituencies who are sitting in hospitals and suffering on waiting lists. People are dying, when they should have received treatment in a timely fashion. Those people are taxpayers. They make their contributions every month and work tirelessly to pay into a system that is, in truth, failing them. That adds to their suffering. It is not good enough to sit in the House time and again and listen to the same old excuses. As the Minister rightly points out, it is eight years since Bengoa. He says that that report has not sat on a shelf, but it is frustrating for anyone in the House who remembers that the concerns that the Minister raises today are the exact concerns that were raised by the then Health Minister, Michelle O'Neill, when the Bengoa report was launched in the House eight years ago. The now First Minister forgets to mention that. Yes, the problems that we face may be similar to those in other areas, but they have been worsened by a lack of political responsibility and leadership. Parties here duck and dive around the critical issues, but health does not discriminate. Every Member in the House will be affected. In turn, the lack of action and resolution of some of the problems that we face is having a direct impact on the health and well-being of the very people whom we rely on to help us — our healthcare workers, who are burnt out and exhausted. I listened to Members across the House, and I agree with their various frustrations. This is an issue that unites us and that we want to resolve. Let us stop talking about these things and get down and do it. This is a small place: it is six counties, 11 council areas and 18 constituencies. It is not rocket science. If there were the political will to resolve the problems in the health service in this place, it would be done. That is why I am so disappointed by the DUP amendment. Instead of facing up to the emergency, some want to water down the motion with a weak amendment that does nothing but give the Executive an easy way out. For too long, the Executive have had too many easy ways out. A total of 400,000 people are on a waiting list, suffering daily. Countless people are sitting in emergency departments for over 20 hours. People who are struggling with mental health and addiction sit, today, in desperate need of an intervention. Whilst all that suffering continues and our people plead with us as their elected representatives, turning to us in desperation, all we say to them is, "It's being looked at. We recognise the problem". It is not good enough. People demand better. There was a plan for transformation: a £200 million reform budget. If it were such a priority for the Executive, why did that entire budget for reform not go to the Minister of Health to help him to reform our health service? The Minister knows what the problems are; Mrs Dodds knows what they are; Linda Dillon listed what they are. We all know the problems. The Minister of Finance, along with the First Minister and the deputy First Minister and their Executive colleagues, need to put the funding where it needs to be in Health and help to drive a reform agenda to fix the problems. Our people have suffered enough. They have listened to the excuses. They have seen the failures of this place. We have one opportunity. It needs to be fixed now, before others continue to suffer.
935 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: 0.07 (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 (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.76 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.21 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:53 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.