Debate contribution: PEG Tube Surgery: Access
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 8 April 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- PEG Tube Surgery: Access
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4919644
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion for children and young people is a very complex procedure. It requires specialist clinical and nursing input that is prior to, during and post procedure. Officials have been working with Belfast Health and Social Care Trust to identify measures in order to address the issue. The trust scheduled additional clinics and theatre sessions to reduce paediatric waiting times, and additional PEG procedures have occurred. The trust now has a weekly list to carry out PEG insertions. Belfast Trust explored the potential for another NHS body to carry out the procedure and approached the private sector to see whether we could address some of the backlog. An NHS provider has outlined that it will be able to carry out some procedures. South Eastern Trust is also in a position to carry out some less complex procedures. However, the private sector is not an option. I assure Members that departmental officials and Belfast Trust colleagues are working hard to deal with the issue, but the ongoing pressures on the service and the demand for theatre capacity mean that it will not be solved immediately. We will continue to assess and gauge progress, with the aim of ensuring that all children and young people receive the care that they require as quickly as possible. The actions that have happened and are planned are having tangible impacts on the waiting list. We have seen a reduction from 92 children last April to 27 children on the waiting list now.
249 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 (0.81).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | 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 | 0.60 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.24 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.16 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:21 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.