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 4929513
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his comments. The fact is that we do not have the capacity exclusively within our health and social care system to tackle waiting lists in a timely manner. As I said, there has to be a cocktail within which money will go to the independent sector. Is that really good news? No. I would much rather all the money were devoted to our own workforce, our health and social care system and our six trusts, including the Ambulance Service. In an ideal world, we would not have a reimbursement scheme in which people are reimbursed for going outside Northern Ireland. We would not have an independent sector. However, that is so far from reality that it is hardly even aspirational. We have to do it as we can. Among all the elements of the cocktail, my priority is our own health and social care workforce and the health and social care system.
157 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 (0.92).
- 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 | 0.92 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 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.