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 4562802
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. The disappointment and frustration felt by dermatology outpatients is the same as that felt by the many patients who are on long waiting lists. It comes from the failure to secure our bid for £135 million to be ring-fenced to tackle waiting lists. Take new assessments for dermatology outpatients: at a cost of £2·8 million, we could have seen 6,000 patients who had been waiting for over four years for an appointment. The Member may be interested to know that, in other categories, such as cataracts, we could have seen 2,800 patients for £5 million. We bid for £10 million for mega clinics, because we have the evidence not just locally but internationally that mega clinics work. Had we got it, we could have seen 20,000 patients across a range of specialities. Many Members are interested in cross-border work and the reimbursement scheme and have asked whether it will ever come back. The answer, currently, is no. Had we got the £135 million for waiting lists, we would have spent £31 million on the reimbursement scheme, which would have meant that 4,000 patients who have been waiting for over one year, largely for orthopaedics, would have been seen.
205 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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.93 | 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 | 0.98 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.