Debate contribution: Breast Cancer: Delays to Red-flag Referrals
Debate contribution by Mr Robin Swann on .
- MLA
- Mr Robin Swann
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Breast Cancer: Delays to Red-flag Referrals
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4482922
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his point. I think that he refers specifically to Encompass. The advantage of rolling it out initially in the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust is that it has allowed us to identify challenging areas in the communication framework and in how we notify, through letters and different procedures, different parts of the system. Those have been taken away and learned from. I am hopeful that workarounds and changes to methodology have been put in place so that areas that are specifically identified for Northern Ireland trusts that have not been in other programmes will be addressed as we roll out Encompass further across Northern Ireland. Encompass is coming to the Belfast Trust in June, and the Northern Trust will follow in November.
129 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.84).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.84 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-qualifying 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 | 0.90 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.06 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.03 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:58 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.