Debate contribution: Waiting Lists: 3Ps Policy
Debate contribution by Mr Robin Swann on .
- MLA
- Mr Robin Swann
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Waiting Lists: 3Ps Policy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4482809
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I was able to talk with representatives of the Royal College of Paediatrics on, I think, 4 April and update them on where the child health partnership and the project board are and how we look at bringing children's services in the Department on to an even keel and tackle some of the horrendous waiting lists that have been described. As regards the other recommendations, the royal college is fair in regard to how we tackle health inequalities, especially among our young people, but that is not solely a challenge to my Department, the Department of Health. There is a challenge to every Department and our Executive as a whole: how we improve access to education, those early years structures and supports, access to special educational needs, housing and welfare and all the rest of it. When we look at the approach that is being proposed in the programme, where it looks at a child-centred, whole-child approach, it has to be a whole-Executive approach.
164 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 (0.89).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | 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 | 0.61 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.21 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.14 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:58 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.