Debate contribution: Waiting Lists: SEHSCT
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
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Waiting Lists: SEHSCT
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4562794
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank Mr Dunne. As was made clear in the elective care framework published in June 2021 and again in the update of June this year, the demand for first consultant-led outpatient appointments in the South Eastern Trust continues to exceed capacity. Regrettably, patients are experiencing excessive waits for appointments and treatment, which is not the service the trust would wish to be providing. The Member will be aware that my predecessor and I submitted an ambitious ask to the Executive earlier this year to reduce our waiting lists, and there was a particular focus on outpatients who had waited the longest time. Unfortunately, the Budget that was agreed by the Executive and a majority of MLAs in the Chamber provided zero targeted funding. As a result of the continuing Budget position, we are losing opportunities to see and treat more people each and every day. Nevertheless, the trust continues to seek alternative ways to provide outpatient consultations to help reduce waiting times through initiatives such as virtual or telephone appointments that provide advice and guidance. The trust also seeks to implement a patient-initiated follow-up and enhanced triage clinics to further reform the outpatient service. Last year, over 22,000 patients did not attend their allocated appointment. Without timely prior notice, those appointments cannot be offered to other patients on the waiting lists, and each missed appointment not only wastes a consultation slot but can cost between £250 and £2,500. To address the matter, the trust has already implemented text reminders for all its consultant-led clinics.
255 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: 0.02 (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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:22 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.