Debate contribution: Children's Year 1 Health Review
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 10 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Children's Year 1 Health Review
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4841497
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Discussions about our health and social care crisis often focus on ambulance waiting times, packed emergency departments and the unsustainability of general practice, pharmacy and dentistry. However, another crisis bubbling underneath the surface is one that involves babies and children missing out on basic healthcare and the opportunities for early intervention. We have heard that 23% of children who were waiting for their one-year-old review were seen late, and 15% were not seen at all. The statistics are a real indictment of our health service. In Belfast, just 54% of one-year-old reviews were held on time, which is a shocking statistic. Those health reviews are not just casual check-ins or an extra bit of reassurance for families; they are timely, comprehensive child health reviews that promote strong bonds and attachments between parents and their children. I am concerned that the reviews are not happening, and I do not blame those healthcare support workers.
I blame those who have cut and gutted the health service for so many years through the Budget process in this Building.
During preschool health reviews, health visitors identify safety concerns as well as early issues with developmental delay and ill health. Health visitors promote breastfeeding and good nutrition, but the impact of their work extends far beyond the home. Early intervention sets children up for better short-term and long-term health outcomes. It reduces the risk of social exclusion and increases readiness for school. We also need health visitors who are fluent in Irish and those who are trained to support families whose first language is not English. I am concerned that the Department and the trusts do not gather the data to monitor the number of children who receive appointments from their health visitor through Irish. I suspect that it is probably zero. It is not a luxury. I declare an interest as a father who is raising children through the medium of Irish. I am really concerned that language development and communication skills cannot be monitored if no Irish language is available through the health visitor. Therefore, I implore the Minister to act on that as well. The current workforce pressures on public health nursing are undoubtedly having an impact on children's health reviews. The PHA previously issued guidance to trusts that the year 1 review could be omitted, and that is completely unacceptable. Children should not be made to pay for the continued failure to invest in the health and social care workforce. Consistent, high-quality and child-focused health reviews are crucial for giving every child the best start in life and to locate neglect or abuse, as we heard. It is undeniable that children who are born in the most deprived areas are at a stark disadvantage when it comes to access to healthcare. Class shapes everything in this society, including the connection of mother and baby. The rate of breastfeeding in the most deprived quintile of the North is 39%; in the least deprived quintile, the rate is 68%. Mothers who live in the most deprived areas are more likely to give birth prematurely. Babies who are born in low-income areas are almost twice as likely to be born at a low birth weight. Infant death is increasing in the most deprived areas. For families in the most deprived areas, reviews from health visitors are a literal lifeline that can help to reduce health inequalities. Without those regular reviews and interventions from the earliest stages, those health inequalities will only grow as children get older. Children who miss out on crucial opportunities for early intervention will be more likely to experience homelessness, social isolation and mental health issues when they are older. To give all children the best start in life, they need to grow up in a society that is free from poverty and inequality. Sixteen per cent of children who live in my constituency of West Belfast are impacted on by the two-child limit. That means that 16% of children are being financially punished for being born into a larger family. I declare an interest as somebody who comes from a larger family and was raised through welfare system support and whose mother and father could not have survived without that support. It is a shame that it is not available to constituents in my constituency and beyond. We need universal free school meals to promote public health and educational attainment and to fight poverty, but, at the most basic level, we need an anti-poverty strategy that is based on objective need with clear outcomes for children and young people. I support the motion and the amendment for those reasons.
769 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: 0.08 (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 (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 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.