Debate contribution: Paediatric Gastroenterology
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 9 December 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Paediatric Gastroenterology
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4698526
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I sympathise with the Member and his constituents. I am afraid that it is a question of resource. That is a technical medical procedure and is carried out at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. There is a validation: in other words, a consultant goes through the list to make sure that people are in the right order according to the priority of their clinical need. There is, I believe, a plan to introduce another list in the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. We are also looking to the South Eastern Trust and specifically to the Ulster Hospital to see whether training can be introduced that may allow for those percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube insertions to be carried out outside the children's hospital.
126 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 (0.83).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | 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 | 0.84 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.14 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:41 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.