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 4929505
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Let me stress again that the cross-border scheme represents £10 million out of £215 million. Nearly every MLA in the House has contacted me about reinstating it. I am conscious of the equity issue that, if you cannot afford private healthcare, you are at a disadvantage relative to people who can afford to pay up front. I gently disagree with the idea that everybody now believes that they have to go private to get elective care. It is not particular to this place. For example, in March, when I was in Washington, I visited Georgetown University Hospital. It was built in 1947 but recently had an $800 million extension, including the biggest ED that I have ever seen. Every corridor of that ED had trolleys backed up, with patients lying on them. When I asked what was going on, I was told, "This happens 365 days of the year". That is a brand-new facility in the United States. I have also had correspondence from somebody in the Algarve in Portugal who spent two days on a trolley before having what they considered to be lifesaving surgery. It is not just us, but of course I support the principle of having the resources, the workforce, the equipment and the medicines to deliver world-class healthcare free at the point of delivery.
219 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 (0.90).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | 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 | 0.88 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.05 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
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.