Motion or amendment: Action Plan on Waiting Lists
Motion or amendment by Mrs Diane Dodds on .
- MLA
- Mrs Diane Dodds
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 13 February 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Action Plan on Waiting Lists
- Assembly identifier
- Document 388095
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Action Plan on Waiting Lists
That this Assembly believes it is deplorable that none of the formal waiting time targets for health and social care services in Northern Ireland have been met since 2014; notes with concern a recent Northern Ireland Audit Office report which indicated that the number of people currently on health and social care waiting lists was equivalent to 26.3 per cent of our population, more than double the figure in England; further notes regional inequalities within Northern Ireland and the urgent need for same-time access regardless of where anyone lives; acknowledges the need to turbo-charge investment toward tackling the waiting list backlog over the remainder of this Assembly term; stresses the value of partnering on a much larger scale with national and independent providers to maximise existing capacity; and calls on the Minister of Health to publish an updated action plan to tackle the waiting time crisis within six weeks.
154 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.97).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.97 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.95 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:48 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.