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 4608085
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Again, perhaps there are two things. I apologise if Committee members feel that they were not given early enough sight of the report. However, I do not see this being the be-all and end-all of the discussion. I would welcome the Committee's taking a detailed look at the Renfrew recommendations. As regards implementation, I can assure the Member that Professor Renfrew, whom I met this week, is an impressive expert in the field. There is no point commissioning a report if you do not look closely at its recommendations. Basically, with the couple of exceptions that I mentioned, we accept those recommendations. It is an incredibly important area. Members are aware of the genesis of commissioning that report. We have got to get this right. I am not going to sit and just ignore those recommendations. I want the best possible service. In discussions with the professor, we agreed that it is an opportunity for Northern Ireland to become the best region or nation of the United Kingdom for birthing and maternity services. That is my intention.
In June of this year, the workforce data indicated an overall reduction in vacancies across the region, which, of course, is a good thing. The regional vacancy rate for registered midwifery roles is below the HSC average, sitting at 4·7%. Pre-registration midwifery places were increased from 90 to 115 for the three financial years 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 to address the shortfall in qualified midwives. The first cohort entered the workforce in September of last year. Training places returned to 90 in financial year 2023-24. That is both a sign of our commitment to the service and an indication that things are improving.
I do not want to misspeak, so I will write to the Member about the RQIA's 23 recommendations. I am not confident that I am across every detail. The Member will recognise that, when it comes to breast screening, I am looking more towards regional services, allowing for any idiosyncrasies or particular regional or subregional requirements. Yes, we have five geographic trusts, but the closer that they come to operating as a single Northern Ireland-wide trust, the better. That is where my focus is. I want to absorb what is in RQIA, what is in Renfrew and what the new group brings forward so that we can try to become the best. Our aspiration should not be confined to being the best in the United Kingdom; why not try to be a global front runner in maternity services?
418 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | 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 | 0.73 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.17 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.10 |
| 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.