Debate contribution: Breast Cancer
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 1 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Breast Cancer
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4562875
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question and acknowledge his interest in that broad area. I think that I said before that it is my intention to introduce a regional service for breast cancer. The objective is to allow each and every individual to go online and book a screening: they can book the first available one, wherever that is across Northern Ireland, or, if they prefer to go local, they can book themselves in and wait, perhaps, a little longer. Waiting times are just not acceptable. The Member has experience of cancer. I bow to his knowledge and interest in that area. I have made it clear that, in my time as Minister, one of the most difficult areas that I want to tackle is cancer, along with waiting lists and mental health, and I would certainly welcome, in his supplementary question, any observations that he has about improving the service.
152 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 (0.80).
- 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 | 0.80 | 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 | 0.59 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.26 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.09 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.06 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:22 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.