Debate contribution: Rare Cancers Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 30 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Rare Cancers Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5043657
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much. Once again, I thank everybody who participated in this short but important debate. The Chair of the Health Committee raised one point that I need to come back to. Some time ago, I was made aware that there was an issue with the secondary use of data. It is a fact that there is a flaw in the current legislation. Options to fix that were put to me. I said that the cleanest thing to do is to put our hands up and say that we got it wrong — the drafting was wrong — and basically bring forward a single-clause Bill to correct it. I am a little frustrated that that has not happened this side of summer recess, but I am assured that it is ready to go, and I hope that it will be introduced very early in the autumn when we get back to work. This is a very important thing. We talk about rare cancers, and, by definition, that means that each such cancer is infrequent in its occurrence, but there are so many rare cancers that they are, overall, very common. They are anything but rare, and I think that that was a point that Alan Robinson and Nuala McAllister made. The fact that, statistically, they have a very high fatality rate was also pointed out. This is really important stuff, and I thank Members and commend the motion to the House.
245 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 (0.78).
- 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 | 0.78 | 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 | 0.94 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.06 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:06 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.