Debate contribution: Waiting Times: PFG Commitment
Debate contribution by Ms Michelle O'Neill on .
- MLA
- Ms Michelle O'Neill
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 20 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Waiting Times: PFG Commitment
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4744509
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We had a collective Executive discussion on that last week. We can all say that the situation facing patients right now is not acceptable. The situation facing our Health and Social Care workers is not acceptable. The winter comes every year, so we should be prepared and ready. I want to be helpful to the Health Minister, and the collective will of the Executive is to work together to transform our health and social care system. We need to have a plan to work towards. We have engaged with the Health Minister and will continue to do so, because the public at home want to know when the health system will get better, when they will be able to access their GP and when they will be able to get hospital care if they need it. There is more to be done, and the public will be better served by a collective effort on the health system. We are funding the health system with over half of our budget; yet and all, the health outcomes are not improving. That has to change. There needs to be a plan to fix that. I will be constructive, and I will work with the Health Minister to get us to the right point. As an Executive, we discussed last week how we could work with the Health Minister, but we need to see a plan that we can all sign up to. Transformation is absolutely where it is at: we need to transform our health and social care system. There are things that work really well in our system and things that do not. We need to see a plan to fix our health system that we can all sign up to.
289 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 (0.86).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:48 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.