Debate contribution: Maternity and Children’s Hospital: Delays
Debate contribution by Mr Doug Beattie MC on .
- MLA
- Mr Doug Beattie MC
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 26 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Maternity and Children’s Hospital: Delays
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4677381
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As Members, we are all too aware through our constituency offices and, for some of us, through personal experience of the huge challenges that face our health service. In many ways, the motion is similar to the many others that make their way into the weekly Order Paper, highlighting something that is wrong, followed by a plea for a Minister or Department to do something about it. As we see the eye-watering sums of money involved with the maternity and children's hospital, it is right that the issue demands our attention in a coherent manner. Regrettably, however, on the whole, the motion adds absolutely no value in addressing the issues that we face, It has been put forward with prejudice, I believe, and in a party political manner and does not take into account what went before to put us where we are. If, like those who tabled the motion, I wanted to politicise today's debate, I could easily remind the Chamber that many of the problems that are weighing down on our health service can be directly traced to a disastrous decision taken by the previous DUP Health Minister a decade ago. When Northern Ireland should have been taking decisions to plan and proactively prepare for growing demand, we found former DUP Ministers cutting critical training places and supports, pulling money out of long-established waiting list initiatives and, perhaps most damagingly, deciding to decouple local pay rates from those across the rest of the United Kingdom, believing that it was sensible and reasonable to break pay parity for our health workers. The only reaction from the DUP Minister was a comment of "guilty as charged" that was made in jest. That is truly galling, as it set the conditions for where we find ourselves today. While the supporters of the motion wish us to join their condemnation of a supposed lack of progress, they also ask Members to ignore the direct action and stubbornness of their party, which served as the sole reason why previous —.
Absolutely, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I believe that I am doing that in the context of understanding how we got to where we are. We need to understand that, because we did not just appear where we are today; we got here because —.
When looking at where we find ourselves with the lack of progress on the children's hospital, the maternity system and waiting lists, we just need to cast our minds back to early 2022. The Executive were edging towards a much sought-after multi-year Budget, which we needed in order to make progress, and proven plans were being enacted across the health service to respond to the growing volumes and changing acuity of the patients who were coming forward. However, those opportunities were literally robbed from every patient and every health worker a few weeks later, when Stormont was collapsed, shamefully, for the second time in two years. We drifted without a Government into an increasingly perilous health situation that, once again, culminated in massive industrial action. The massive industrial action in 2022 is affecting things today as we talk about the motion. Damage was undoubtedly inflicted, and it has become clear that we have huge problems. True leadership demands integrity, not selfish obstruction, but the motion is riddled with contradictions. We have been put into the worst situation that we have found ourselves in for 100 years. Once again, we face industrial action because promises that were made at the start of the mandate — this reduced mandate — have not been held to. We said that there would be optimism in that we would not make health a party political issue, but the motion does exactly that. Promises were made, but those promises were broken when our health service budget was given to us at a level below what it was in the last mandate. There are huge challenges across our health service, but, with the right will and motivation, things can be improved. Things are being improved, and the Minister has brought forward many policies that can change things over the years. We do not need bizarre, self-serving, party political nonsense like today's motion distracting from what really matters. Our health and social care system is far too important.
711 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: 0.09 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.95).
- 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.16 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.52 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.95 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.03 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.91 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:35 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.