Debate contribution: Tackling the Financial and Societal Impacts of Division

Debate contribution by Miss Nuala McAllister on .

MLA
Miss Nuala McAllister
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
25 March 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Tackling the Financial and Societal Impacts of Division
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4866806

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I want to focus mainly on some of the areas to which we can direct tackling the cost of division. First, however, before I go into that detail, I want to set out that the Alliance Party does not believe that the cost of division is the only reason why Northern Ireland's finances are in such a bad state. It is, however, one of the reasons, and we must tackle it. As a member of the Health Committee, I am used to receiving responses to almost any question that I pose to the Health Minister that set out the difficult financial situation that faces the Department of Health, just as, I am sure, many other Members do with other Departments. We are, however, often challenged in the Committee and in the Chamber to come up with solutions. Today, therefore, I stand here as an Alliance Party MLA to put forward one such solution. We recognise that this is a long-term process and cannot simply be done tomorrow. One of the first steps will be to assess where we are currently, which is why we tabled the motion as a first step. We hope that the Finance Minister can get behind us on the issue. We need to ensure that all our data is correct and that data on problems that are arising now are compared with data from 2016, because I do not believe that the situation has got any better. The 'Money Well Spent' paper that Alliance published today spells out the priority areas in which, should action be taken, we could see improved funding of almost £1 billion, based on the cost of division. I will expand on two areas that relate to Health. First, we highlight the opportunity to:

"Fully fund the first year of the Department of Health’s plan to clear hospital waiting lists".

Last December, the Department confirmed that investment of £135 million per year for five years would be needed to eliminate hospital waiting lists. Reducing wastage through addressing the cost of division could free up enough to allocate that £135 million in the first year and kick-start the work that is needed to tackle the waiting list backlog. That is significant. The benefits do not end there. Analysis that was carried out in England by the Institute for Public Policy Research in 2023 suggests that tackling elective care waiting lists could generate billions of pounds in economic output through people returning to work or increasing their hours, with billions more being saved as a result of reduced demand for health and social care services. Although that type of economic modelling has not been conducted in Northern Ireland, there is no reason to believe that slashing our hospital waiting lists would not make a similar contribution to the labour market and Health budget here. In the paper, we also highlight the opportunity for savings to:

"Deliver the 2025-26 funding target for the Mental Health Strategy".

The Minister of Health has said that that issue is a priority. Our plan puts the cost at £61·72 million. Conservative estimates suggest that poor mental health has an economic cost of £3·4 billion every year, mostly due to lost productivity but also due to the increased demand that it causes elsewhere in the health service. Every penny and every million spent on mental health matters. That is a way in which we can tackle that situation. The priorities that are highlighted and costed in our paper are not an exhaustive list, but there is a reason that we included both those issues. We recognise their significance to the community in Northern Ireland, not only as a post-conflict society but as a society that has been held to ransom by multiple Government collapses and stagnant progress on those key issues. Health is the number-one priority for our constituents, and I understand that there are financial implications for the Minister, like all Ministers in the Executive. However, we need to tackle the cost of division so that we can stop just talking about waste and prove that we are doing something about it. That takes political leadership. It takes leadership to make decisions on issues that are difficult but that can be solved. Whether it is leadership on health transformation in our communities or in decisions on peace walls or services in our local areas, we need to ensure that we do not scantily reward people across Northern Ireland but that we deliver the best for all our community. I ask all parties this question: if we do not tackle the cost of division, who exactly does that benefit?

769 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.94).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.96).
  • Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.06No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.04No
Controversy escalation0.04No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.94Yes
Overall judgement0.07At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.96
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.03
Adopts it0.01
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.49
No identity-related subject0.17
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.16
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.09
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.08

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:08 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.

Challenge this classification