Debate contribution: Electronic Prescribing System: Update
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 3 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Electronic Prescribing System: Update
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5213276
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On the latter point, I believe that GPs and, indeed, community pharmacists are very aware of the need to check for unintended errors, so I do not expect that there will be any lack of focus there. An electronic system allows you to build in objective tests rather than to rely on individuals' subjective eyesight and thought processes. Even though there will be potential benefits in the system for patients, I am very focused on the benefit that it will have for GPs. Every GP whom I talk to when we bring up the idea of paper-based prescriptions says, "That is so time-consuming. It would be transformational to have an electronic system." I take five tablets per day on repeat prescription. When I need a repeat prescription, I go on the internet and fire off an email to my GP pharmacy, and it comes back and says, "Yeah, we got that all right". However, they print out a script, and the local pharmacist has to walk up the hill, collect the script and walk back down to the pharmacy. I do not understand this: if it can get from me to the GP, why can it not get from the GP to the community pharmacy, and why does it take so long? However, it does, apparently, take that length of time.
221 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 (0.86).
- 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 | 0.86 | 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 | 0.91 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.08 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:47 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.