Debate contribution: Health Crisis
Debate contribution by Mrs Diane Dodds on .
- MLA
- Mrs Diane Dodds
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 3 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Health Crisis
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4774494
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Lots of people, when asked for their opinion on devolution, say clearly that they had high hopes for change, particularly in the health system. The motion and the amendment reflect the frustration and, indeed, the cynicism out there at the pace of change. Minister, it is not a reflection on you personally. The system is difficult and ponderous. It is like turning a tanker a little bit at a time. However, the most significant paper that has been published is now subject to a long consultation period, and people struggle to understand why consultation is necessary. It is hard to find what is novel in the 'Hospitals - Creating A Network For Better Outcomes' document. We have had high-level principles many times. Everyone knows that change is required. Eight years on from the Bengoa report, the Minister's officials should be clear about what represents the best configuration of services for Northern Ireland. It simply requires the Minister and the system to get on and deliver that. In Northern Ireland, we have the largest-ever number of people waiting for a first-time consultation. Frankly, waiting times are a disgrace, yet, sometimes, when officials appear before the Committee, it is a bit like there is an acceptance of long waiting lists and a sense that they are inevitable given the situation that we are in. Many of my constituents and, indeed, MLAs talk about a two-tier health system where those who can afford to go private can go private, but I think that it is more broken than that. There are deep structural inequalities in the health system in Northern Ireland, different levels of interventions in health trusts and different responses on social care, particularly respite care for young adults with complex needs. Our workforce is organised to deal with the regular annual workload. That is fine, but it will not clear the backlog. We perhaps need more honesty in our debates about the unavoidable requirement for much of the elective backlog to be carried out by staff outside of our local trust staff. The Department's elective care framework envisages additional hundreds of millions of pounds still leaving waiting lists extending into years, yet normal business in the health service continues to grow. We really have no answer to how we will deal with that backlog so that people will not always be waiting for hip replacements or knee replacements or whatever it is. The Minister has moved on breast cancer but only after performance against breast cancer waiting time targets had collapsed to indefensible levels. That was evident in the published figures in June of last year: in the South Eastern Trust, I think, only 4·6% of women were seen within the 14-day referral period for a first appointment after discovering something wrong that needed to be investigated. Those are time-limited and life-saving things that need to be done, and we need to get on and do them. I have pointed out many times in the Chamber, in the Committee and in questions for written answer the need for greater productivity. That is evident when we talk to others. A couple of weeks ago, we had the Royal College of Surgeons at the Health Committee. They are frustrated by the lack of coherence in the system, which means that productivity in theatre sessions can sometimes be very curtailed. That is incredibly important. I hope that the Minister's bid to the transformation fund is successful. However, the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) has said that, even if it is not successful, the Minister should reorganise in order to find the money for multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in our general practices. Having listened to the raw emotion of GPs at the Committee last Thursday, we know how important that is. It is about not just workload but delivery for patients in Northern Ireland. Finally, the predicted income at the start of the year —.
Sorry. Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.
664 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | 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 | 0.67 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.19 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.09 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:53 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.