Motion or amendment: Action Plan on Waiting Lists - Amendment 2
Motion or amendment by Mr Alan Chambers on .
- MLA
- Mr Alan Chambers
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 16 February 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Action Plan on Waiting Lists”
- Heading
- Action Plan on Waiting Lists - Amendment 2
- Assembly identifier
- Document 388937
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Action Plan on Waiting Lists - Amendment 2
Leave out all after ‘2014’ and insert:
‘recognises that repeated short-term funding outcomes contributed to a relentless and rapid growth in the gap between capacity and demand; 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 that in some instances delays in diagnosis or treatment can tragically see patients coming to real and actual harm; further recognises the associated moral distress that many health care workers are experiencing; 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; reiterates support for the full implementation of the already existing Elective Care Framework, as well as the cancer and mental health strategies; 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 outline his plans to tackle waiting times and to also secure the support of all his Ministerial colleagues to make addressing the crisis a core and sustained priority of this Executive.’
227 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
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 | 0.65 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.32 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 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.