Debate contribution: Children's Year 1 Health Review
Debate contribution by Mr Philip McGuigan on .
- MLA
- Mr Philip McGuigan
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 10 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Children's Year 1 Health Review
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4841459
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Members opposite for tabling this important motion. I will begin by saying that, as the father of four children and daideo
— it is Irish for "grandfather" but sounds much younger
— to two gariníonacha
, I recognise and have witnessed first-hand the vital role of health visitors and the work that they do, whether that is monitoring a child's developmental milestones, providing support and advice to parents where required, the prevention and early detection of ill health or developmental challenges or identifying babies and children who are potentially at risk. The role of health visitors is clearly important in ensuring that children have the best start in life to allow them to fulfil their potential and improve their long-term health outcomes. That, in turn, has had a positive impact on those children, as they have developed through life, and on their families, their schools, the health service and the economy as a whole. Early detection for health and/or developmental challenges is vital, especially at a time when support is becoming harder to access due to growing waiting lists. As we know, schools are struggling with the increasing levels of support required when children enter preschool and primary school. I recognise the difficulties of workforce strain and stresses from the pressures of huge caseloads, but the number of missed year 1 visits and no contacts is concerning, particularly, as the Member across the Chamber outlined, in the Southern Trust area, where those figures are much higher. Regional inequality is being perpetuated as a result of gaps in the accessibility of health visitors in some areas; those gaps can create and exacerbate existing health inequalities. Sinn Féin will support the motion and the amendment and agrees with their key ask that the Minister should:
"urgently work with all health and social care trusts to drive down the number of health reviews that take place outside of the accepted time frames or not at all."
Sinn Féin also agrees that the Minister should:
"prioritise development of the revised Healthy Child, Healthy Future framework and ensure that the recommendations concerning the role of health visitors from the 'A Fair Start' report and independent review of education are implemented."
As the Member who moved the amendment said, while it is primarily a health issue, it has implications for the education of our young children. She outlined the 'A Fair Start' action plan, which was submitted by the expert panel on educational underachievement to the then Education Minister in 2021 and was endorsed by the whole Executive. It is an New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) commitment. It aims to ensure that children get the support that they need from birth and throughout their early years, up to and including the time when they start school. It prioritises investment in early years and gives prominence to emotional health and well-being. Actions relating to health visitors include that the Department of Education should undertake a review of the Sure Start staffing structure to ensure that there is access to the necessary health professions, including health visitors and midwives. The Department of Health should expand the developmental role of the health visitor/community midwife to provide early support, education and signposting. We have called for it to be fully funded and for the implementation of its recommendations. The independent review of education commenced in October 2021 and is also an NDNA commitment. The final report was published in December 2023, and, while its key recommendations were education-focused, it noted:
"Health visiting is an absolute priority within early years services with its reach and impact extending well beyond health."
I agree with the proposer of the motion: it is an important issue. It is vital for the health and well-being of our children, and it merges into the educational well-being of our children. We look forward to hearing from the Minister and hope that he will make some good pronouncements on the issue in his conclusion.
659 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: 0.03 (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: Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy.
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.87 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.11 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:06 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.