Debate contribution: Breast Cancer Referrals: Regional System
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Breast Cancer Referrals: Regional System
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5099292
Read the official Assembly record
Text
An eight-, nine-, 10- or 11-week wait is not acceptable to me, patients or their families: I get it. However, the postcode lottery that was in place before I introduced the regional booking service was equally unacceptable. You could have been living a mile away from a trust that was seeing all or nearly all its patients within the 14-day target, while your trust satisfied only 10% of the demand. That was clearly inequitable and unfair, and we have successfully moved to do away with the postcode lottery. We now have to drive down the waiting times and meet the 14-day target. It is a big ask but one that those patients deserve to see delivered.
116 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: 0.03 (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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.89 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.04 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.04 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:07 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.