Debate contribution: Tackling Waiting Lists — Investment Plan
Debate contribution by Mrs Ciara Ferguson on .
- MLA
- Mrs Ciara Ferguson
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 6 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Ministerial Statements
- Heading
- Tackling Waiting Lists — Investment Plan
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4929424
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I very much welcome your statement, Minister, particularly around the initial £10 million for the waiting list reduction reimbursement scheme that should, hopefully, commence in June for people who have been on a HSC waiting list for treatment for the past two years. On the expansion of primary-care elective services where there are long waiting lists, particularly for assessment in gynaecology, can you give a breakdown of that £2·9 million, what will be allocated to gynaecology and, in particular, how many people it would impact?
Secondly, if you will indulge me, in relation to building the workforce and infrastructure, will you consider commissioning a specialist endometriosis service?
107 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.96 | 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 | 0.57 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.25 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.15 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:25 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.