Debate contribution: Maternity and Neonatal Services
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 22 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Ministerial Statement
- Heading
- Maternity and Neonatal Services
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4608067
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his comments. On his question, as recently as yesterday, I had a meeting with a large number of officials — we are talking about not just midwifery but nursing and allied health professionals; the gamut of healthcare delivery sections — and they have gone away to see how we can improve the recruitment, the training and, particularly, the retention of staff. I cannot be specific, but I can tell you that it is very much on not only my agenda but the agendas of many senior officials in the Department. Funding is a big issue, but I have always said that the budget is not the be-all and end-all of healthcare delivery, and the workforce is vital. Yes, we need buildings, equipment and medicines, but there is nothing without the workforce, and I am very much focused, with senior colleagues, on ensuring that we improve the retention and, indeed, the recruitment of staff, including midwives.
I thank the Chair of the Committee. I will, if I may, focus on Daisy Hill and the issues within the Southern Trust, because those are the most pressing ones. From my point of view, the Southern Trust was late in alerting the Department — certainly, in alerting me — to the current issues. It has never been my intention that Daisy Hill would not deliver maternity services, so it is not part of any plan. The Member knows that I have published a paper about viewing our hospitals as a network to deliver better outcomes, which is a kind of preview of the idea that we may need to reconfigure and that not every hospital will deliver every service. However, I again emphasise that Daisy Hill should be offering maternity services. Furthermore, any reconfiguration must be planned and managed. It should never be as a result of service collapse, and I do not want to see service collapse with regard to Daisy Hill and maternity services. Meetings continue at the highest level this week to look at the available options to resolve those issues, but I hope that the Member gets the sense that I am not happy.
359 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 (0.87).
- 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 | 0.87 | 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 | 0.83 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.09 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.08 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:27 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.