Debate contribution: Maternity and Children’s Hospital: Delays
Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic 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 4677397
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First, I disassociate myself and my party from the remarks in some elements of the media this morning when they covered this topic, stating that the debate was about "turning guns" on or "firing shots" at the Health Minister. That language is completely unhelpful and untrue. My party and, I think, the Chamber want to support the Minister in holding to account those who have wasted public funding — that does not fall at the door of the current Health Minister — and, together, we can find a solution to that. I take exception to the remarks of the Member for Upper Bann who described the motion as "bizarre", "self-serving" and a deflection. I invite him to read his remarks in Hansard this evening, as they may be a better example of "bizarre" and "self-serving" and, indeed, of deflection.
Of course I will follow your ruling, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, but, at a time of shortage of public funds, it is important that we cover this issue. As was articulated by other Members, both projects are due to run 10 years over their projected dates. They are projected to run tens of millions of pounds over budget, and the Assembly has a right to come together to demand answers. The original estimate for the maternity hospital, as other Members have articulated, was £57·2 million. The current estimate is £97·1 million, with tens of millions still projected to be spent. A decade over budget and £50 million overspent: to put that in perspective, we could have employed an additional 140 nurses for the past 10 years with the same funding that has been wasted on the project. Imagine the difference that 140 additional nurses could make in tackling our waiting lists. Imagine the impact that 140 additional nurses working for the past 10 years could have had on tackling the health inequalities that are prevalent in our society. Instead, the Belfast Trust has presided over a series of delays and the squandering of public funds. The public are concerned and angry about this, as they have the right to be. Each and every day, like Members across the Chamber, I am contacted by parents who are unable to get the assessments that their children need. Each and every day, I am contacted by an older person in my constituency who is unable to get the hip replacement that they need. Each and every day, I am contacted by constituents who are unable to secure a place at an NHS dentist or a face-to-face GP appointment. That is why it is right that the House comes together to call on the Belfast Trust to give answers as to how this situation has arisen. The Minister has committed to doing all that he can to find the answers, and he will have our support in doing that. Our public finances cannot be used, however, as the plaything of public bodies that are unaccountable or unanswerable to the House. Members of the Health Committee have said, rightly, that they raised concerns on this issue at the Committee and were given contradictory information. That is why a strong message from the House saying that we want an inquiry in order to get answers is an important step. Day and daily, our front-line healthcare workers do an extraordinary job. Day and daily, they work their fingers to the bone to deliver a service that we can all be proud of. They watch on and gasp, however, as £50 million is squandered on a delayed project. That is why the Minister of Health will have the full support of my party and, I hope, the House in holding to account the Belfast Trust on how we got into this situation. Who will take responsibility for this, and what disciplinary action will they face?
636 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: 0.05 (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 (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.89).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.89 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.10 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.96 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.