Debate contribution: Reconfiguration Framework: Consultation
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 1 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Ministerial Statements
- Heading
- Reconfiguration Framework: Consultation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4562431
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the leader of the Opposition. I think that I have said in the House — I have certainly said it at the North/South Ministerial Council and also at the North/South sectoral forum — that I have no political or ideological objection to cooperation with the Government of Ireland on healthcare delivery. In fact, it makes an awful lot of sense. Indeed, going back 15 years, the development of the breast cancer unit at Altnagelvin was based on a cross-border business model. SWAH was also built on the basis of cooperation across the border. I have had two meetings, which, to my mind, were very useful, with my counterpart, Stephen Donnelly, the Minister for Health in the Government of Ireland. We talked about certain issues, including the need for a mother-and-baby unit. We discussed paediatric pathology, and we are making great advances on those terms. I know that a lot of Members have made clear in the House that it is far from ideal that we ask parents to fly or transport themselves to Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool. I hope that we will be able to offer an all-island solution on that. There is another initiative, which I will not mention at the moment but about which I am very excited. Mr Donnelly equally sees the benefit of an all-Ireland approach in this area.
The consultation that I have had so far has been with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for Infrastructure. Officials have gone away to look at community transport and at how we might provide transport for people who do not have ready access to it.
If the Member is asking me whether I have plans at the moment to go out personally and consult in rural areas, that is not the case. However, I encourage Members to encourage people, particularly in rural communities, to respond to the consultation, because I want to know what people's concerns are.
It is all very well saying that 80% of people have said that they are willing to travel for a procedure, but that means that 20% have not responded that positively. In the survey, 16% said that they were not particularly keen on the concept. If we are to deliver a health service for all, which is our obligation, we need to understand why that 16% are not buying into the concept. I am more than willing to engage with the Member on how we might consult in the way that she might intend.
I thank the Member for her question. I will acknowledge her frustration, but I gently suggest that she might be more frustrated had I not brought the statement to the House today. As for people having to travel, particularly in an emergency situation, I am working to the concept that no type-1 emergency department is going away. Emergency departments will still be there. The principle is stabilising patients as soon as possible and then getting them to the best place for their procedure. That is the way to go, with, as I have said, aftercare being delivered as close to home as possible.
I thank the Member for his question. I can only tell him that it is under review. I encourage him to respond to the consultation by making that important and valid point.
I thank the Member for his question. Causeway Hospital will remain a key element of the hospital network in Northern Ireland. Separating emergency surgery from elective or planned surgery, as I have said on a number of occasions, makes great sense for the people who access hospitals. The Member should have no fear about the future of Causeway Hospital. When I visited it a few weeks ago, I found there to be hugely positive energy amongst the staff and a great appetite for going forward together. If we are to reform health service delivery, we will have to make changes. As I have said, I understand that, for many people, the National Health Service — Health and Social Care (HSC) here — is not just personal but deeply local. It is people's local GP surgery and their local hospital. I am as guilty as anybody of thinking that, but we have to think a bit more broadly if we are going to be more productive and more efficient and deliver those better outcomes.
I thank the Member for the question. I encourage him to speak to the clinicians whom I spoke to at Causeway Hospital and at Antrim Area Hospital about the future.
757 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: 0.05 (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 (0.89).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.92 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.07 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:16 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.