Debate contribution: ENT Appointments: SEHSCT
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 6 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- ENT Appointments: SEHSCT
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5156906
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I accept that the waiting times for services and treatment are extremely frustrating for patients and their families. I assure the Member that my officials and I have been working to address paediatric waiting lists and to modernise and standardise practices and pathways right across Northern Ireland. The Belfast Trust and the South Eastern Trust have validation exercises under way. Those lists are being amalgamated. As well as validating lists, the exercise involves consultants clinically e-triaging referrals. That is to determine whether the referral requires the patient to see a consultant in outpatients or whether they could go directly to surgery, diagnostics, audiology or to another professional, or, indeed, whether they should be returned to primary care, where they might be managed by primary care with advice. It means that only patients who need to see an ENT consultant will remain on the waiting list. It is a standardisation of clinical pathways. It is being implemented by the Belfast Trust and the South Eastern Trust but will be rolled out right across Northern Ireland. Therefore, we are doing what we can.
181 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 | 0.92 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.07 |
| 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 13:23 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.