Member's statement: Healthy Life Expectancy
Member's statement by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on .
- MLA
- Ms Sinéad McLaughlin
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 23 February 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Healthy Life Expectancy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5399677
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I rise to address the figures recently published by the Office for National Statistics that outline healthy life expectancy across Northern Ireland. The statistics tell us something profoundly important about the lives that people are able to live. They measure not longevity but the number of years that individuals can expect to live in good health. That is a far more meaningful indicator of well-being and quality of life.
Aspects of the data are genuinely encouraging. Areas such as Mid Ulster and Lisburn and Castlereagh continue to record comparatively strong outcomes. That deserves recognition, as it demonstrates that better health outcomes are achievable and that public money, economic opportunity and living conditions make a difference. The picture is far more troubling in other regions, however. The figures for Derry are deeply concerning. Boys born in Derry between 2022 and 2024 can expect just 54·9 years of healthy living, which represents a decline of almost three years when compared with boys born between 2019 and 2021, when the figure stood at 57·7 years. The trend is even more alarming for girls. Girls born in Derry between 2022 and 2024 can expect to live a healthy life for 54·2 years. That is down from 58·2 years — almost 4·4 fewer years of healthy living. The changes are not marginal. They are significant and show a stark reduction in the number of years that people can expect to live in good health, and that really matters. It matters for how we plan our health service and for how we plan to support our older people, as it all costs money. A decline of that nature cannot be viewed in isolation. Healthy life expectancy is shaped by wider determinants, including income, employment, housing, public services and access to opportunities. The outcomes reflect the cumulative effects of social and economic inequality. Regional imbalance is therefore not merely an economic issue; it is a health issue. It is about how people live, how well they live and the fairness of outcomes across our society. Where a person is born should not dictate the quality of their health or the length of their healthy life, yet the figures clearly show that geography continues to exert a powerful influence. I am therefore bringing a regional balance Bill to the Assembly so that we can implement legislation that ensures that tackling regional imbalance becomes a central consideration across government.
Every Department has a role to play.
407 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: 0.07 (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 (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.55 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.39 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:57 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.