Debate contribution: Waiting Lists: Effect on Winter Preparedness
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 20 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Waiting Lists: Effect on Winter Preparedness
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5348639
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Thank you to everybody who contributed to the debate. I will run through some of the comments that were made and will close with my own comments. It was a wide-ranging debate in which most Members recognised the problems in the sector. There was an element of papering over the cracks, but, for the most part, most parties and Members painted a realistic but grim picture of the state that, unfortunately, our health sector is in. Philip McGuigan, the Chair of the Health Committee, talked about system failure. He mentioned people waiting a long time on hard chairs in waiting rooms, which created an image of the scale of the crisis. Other Members mentioned the fact that, contrary to what the Minister has just said, EDs in particular are laden with people who are struggling to be seen in a timely manner. I do not understand the logic of the argument that, because only two people were in EDs on Christmas Day, there is no crisis. I am happy to give way, if the Minister wishes to elaborate on that.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. We also need to be careful about sending out a message directly or indirectly that, if someone is unwell and has been advised to go to the ED or has nowhere else to go to, they should not go. That would be a dangerous argument to put out there, whether intentionally or inadvertently. Alan Chambers talked about some of the pressures in the sector — in EDs in particular — and said that healthcare workers deserved more than just praise. He went on, however, to defend the Minister and attack the Alliance Party. It is certainly not my job to defend the Alliance Party, but some might say that that was unfair of him. I will leave it to others to determine that. Mr Chambers called my amendment "reckless". I was almost speechless but, unsurprisingly, not quite speechless; Members will, no doubt, be glad to hear that. It is worth remembering that, last September, a similar amendment in my name was passed — in fairness, I do not think that the UUP backed it — that sought to end the huge public spending on private healthcare. That amendment was not described as "reckless" then, and —.
384 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: 0.06 (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 (0.88).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.96 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:15 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.