Debate contribution: Carrickmore Health Centre: Capital Investment
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 8 April 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Carrickmore Health Centre: Capital Investment
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4919734
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I want to emphasise that I did go there in December. They are great people and very dedicated people, but they are working in a building that is long past being fit for purpose. They do not have enough space, rooms are too small, and they are just making do. You need buildings, equipment, medicines and workforce, and I always prioritise the workforce, but, in this case, the building is just not good enough. We are at the very start of scoping the project, so I am afraid that it will be a number of years before the building will be delivered. Experience of similar schemes leads me to conclude that it could take in the region of three to five years. Timing will be dependent on a number of factors, as you can imagine, including site availability, ease of obtaining planning permission, tendered costs and everything being affordable within our capital budget. Therefore, I am not in a position to provide a cost estimate at this point. Definitive timings and definitive costs depend on the outcome of the engagement in the design process and confirmation of the availability of funding through our capital plan. The project will be subject to the usual business case approvals, and that will include any potential revenue costs as well as the capital. I would very much like to see a successful and speedy completion of the project.
234 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 (0.87).
- 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 | 0.87 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:21 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.