Debate contribution: Waiting Lists: Action Plan
Debate contribution by Ms Liz Kimmins on .
- MLA
- Ms Liz Kimmins
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 20 February 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Waiting Lists: Action Plan
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4380589
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her intervention. That point is critical. As she said, Daisy Hill is a hospital that is close to both our hearts, but it is a very important hospital in our hospital network. It can offer so much to tackle the issues that we are dealing with today, with the fantastic staff and services and, most importantly, its key location in an all-island respect. That is a very important point. Fundamentally, if we are to tackle the huge problem of waiting lists, we need to address the workforce crisis impacting across our health and social care system. If we do not have the staff required to deliver the services that are needed — that means the domestic staff in our hospitals, theatre nurses and doctors, specialist surgeons and consultants, auxiliary staff, domiciliary care staff and rehab staff; all those staff, who cover a wide variety of roles, with whom a patient will come into contact on their journey before, during and after they receive the surgery or treatment that they have been waiting for — the problem will only get much worse. It is positive that the Executive have prioritised public-sector pay, and I hope that that will go some way to ensuring that we can retain the fantastic staff that we have and, in the longer term, attract staff to fill the thousands of vacancies that continue to exist in every corner of our health service.
Do I not have an extra minute? Sorry.
249 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: 0.03 (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 (0.91).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | 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 | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.97 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:38 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.