Debate contribution: Tackling Waiting Lists — Investment Plan
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 6 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Ministerial Statements
- Heading
- Tackling Waiting Lists — Investment Plan
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4929431
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for the two questions. On the question about the £2·9 million, we hope to treat 16,500 patients with that. It will be for the implementation plan to break that down further, so you should be able to study that by the end of this month. Commissioning new services is not on my agenda, with exception of the waiting list reimbursement scheme of £10 million, which is pretty much the son of the previous Republic of Ireland reimbursement scheme. However, as I said, it will be expanded beyond the Republic to all European Union countries. I still have the quadruple challenge of mitigating the decision to ring-fence £165 million for waiting lists and funding the reform, because if we spend money on the waiting lists and bring them down but do not do the reform, the waiting list numbers will go back up. I am afraid that introducing new services is not top of the agenda at this time.
I thank the Member for her question. As I have said before, tackling the waiting lists will require a cocktail of actions. You have the cross-border scheme, which is being turned into a waiting list reimbursement scheme, will be Europe-wide by the time that it is fully functional and will have a requirement to use the independent sector. However, the first port of call is to see what more we can do in our own health and social care system. When we were made aware that up to £215 million was being ring-fenced for tackling waiting lists, one of the first points that I made to officials was that in the South West Acute Hospital, there are two wards and two theatres that have not yet been commissioned. I want us to look at how we maximise their capacity and use them.
I thank the Member for her question. I want to make it clear that I want regional standardised services right across health and social care delivery. As I have said to the chairs and chief executives of the trusts right from the very beginning, they may be five geographically located trusts, but, in my mind, they operate as one trust. That standardisation and regionalisation is very important in ensuring that we do not have a postcode lottery. Was there another point that I missed?
Sorry?
Obviously, we will be open and transparent in measuring the effectiveness of any implementation plan. This is big money. These are people who are either extremely vulnerable and/or who have been waiting for far too long on waiting lists. It is extremely important to me that everybody, not just Members but every citizen of Northern Ireland, understands how well implementation is being carried out across health and social care delivery.
I thank the Member for the question. I hope that I can give him that assurance. The fact is that this is May 2025 and we are due to have an Assembly election in May 2027, so I have to proceed on the basis that I have a maximum of two years left as Minister of Health. As the Member knows, we have a new permanent secretary in Mike Farrar, who is going to be with us for at least a year. I am hopeful that we can extend that to two years so that we can work together to try to deliver on the quadruple challenge that I have outlined. In order to do that within 24 months, the bottom line is that you have to approach everything that you do with the utmost urgency.
I thank the Member for her interest in cancer, which is another area of focus that I identified 11 months ago when I took up post. There is £85 million in that £215 million that is going to be for red-flag and time-sensitive matters, including cancer care. As I said, it will take up to five years to get all the lists back to acceptable levels, including those for the various cancers. There will be more detail in the implementation plan, which you should have before the end of the month.
686 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 (0.88).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | 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 | 0.95 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.04 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.