Debate contribution: Waiting Lists: Effect on Winter Preparedness

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on 20 January 2026.

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 5348649

Text

I thank the Member. I certainly agree about an all-Ireland health service. As a party, we have pushed for that for quite a while. People want to be treated as quickly as possible and should be, and, for the most part, that can be done publicly. I will come on to that in a bit more detail. I will move swiftly on. The Member for Upper Bann said that she would not vote for the amendment because we need a private health sector: I categorically disagree. We do not. We need its workers, beds and facilities. They should come under the direction of the trusts and the NHS more generally. To me, what she said suggests that the Member for Upper Bann does not have any faith in the publicly run health model, which she should.
That is kind of what you are saying. The only reason why the Member and others think that we need the private health sector is that the NHS has been defunded, underfunded and stripped of funding. Every doctor, nurse, auxiliary or porter recruited to the private sector is one less doctor, nurse, auxiliary or porter in the NHS. The two are absolutely connected. We need to deal with a problem that is staring people right in the face. Members shared personal stories. Linda Dillon mentioned her father, and I wish him well with his health issues. Daniel McCrossan mentioned his mother. Theirs were heartfelt stories. Danny Donnelly talked about eradicating corridor care, and I fundamentally agree. Rather than minimising or reducing it, we need to look at eradicating it. When we talk about revenue raising in a general sense, water charges, prescription charges or higher student fees are usually referred to, but there is a solution staring Members right in the face that they are not willing to look at: ending the waste of privatisation. We are publicly funding a private health sector that is about maximising profit and, in many cases, picking up the easier procedures and leaving the more complex ones to the NHS. That is unfair and unsustainable, and people should not endorse it. We often hear in the Chamber and elsewhere in the Building that we should listen to the experts. I do not claim to be an expert in much, but contributors to 'The Lancet' certainly have more expertise than me and many in the Assembly. In 2024, an article in it stated:
"health-care privatisation has almost never had a positive effect on the quality of care."
It reviewed eight high-income countries where privatisation has taken place. Listen to that, Members, if you do not want to listen to me. I hope that you will back my amendment.

449 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: 0.06 (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 (0.95).
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.05	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.04	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.02	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.08	No
Controversy escalation	0.04	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.95	Yes
Overall judgement	0.06	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
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 area (top five)
Subject	Probability
No identity-related subject	0.91
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty	0.05
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits	0.03
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	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.

Challenge this classification