Member's statement: Brain Tumour: National Strategy
Member's statement by Mrs Deborah Erskine on .
- MLA
- Mrs Deborah Erskine
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 23 April 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Brain Tumour: National Strategy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4485029
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Today, across the UK devolved regions, there is a campaign by the Brain Tumour Charity to ask all locally devolved Health Ministers to introduce a national brain tumour strategy. In late February, the Brain Tumour Charity launched an open letter addressed to the four UK Ministers. Within just three weeks of that letter going live online, it had exceeded its target of obtaining 40,000 signatures and had reached over 52,000 before it closed on 15 April. Today, Members of the Assembly have jointly written to our Health Minister to ask him to work on and implement a national strategy. Brain tumours remain the biggest cancer killer of those under 40. That is a staggering reality, yet there have been few clinical breakthroughs compared with other diseases, with treatment options still mostly limited to surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, all of which are tough on patients. There are also difficulties in getting a diagnosis. The Brain Tumour Charity carried out a survey that indicated that 41% of respondents said that they had visited their GP three times or more before getting a diagnosis. There needs to be an improvement in our health service for patients with a brain tumour in diagnosis, care, treatment and research. That is why, today, representatives across the political spectrum and across parties are coming together across the UK jurisdictions to call on the Health Ministers to tackle the issues through systematic change and a comprehensive national brain tumour strategy that covers the whole patient pathway.
248 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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.95 | 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 | 0.52 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.34 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.11 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:03 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.