Debate contribution: Clinical Trials
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 3 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Clinical Trials
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5213201
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will respond to the Member in a couple of ways. There is no point in having what, we think, is a solid strategy if it does not have buy-in from stakeholders. As well as the need for buy-in, we have to be sure that, if we are going to have a strategy, we will be able to follow it up not just with an implementation plan but with one that is fully costed and deliverable. The Member will know that I pointed to the cancer strategy, rather than the cancer research strategy, and the mental health strategy as two gold-plated 10-year strategies that we cannot afford to implement in full. The feedback that we got some months ago was that some key stakeholders were not buying into the document as it was written up then, so it was important that we stepped back, re-engaged with them, listened to them and reacted positively. We have done that to the best of our ability, and I believe that all the key stakeholders are now relatively satisfied. They are not absolutely delighted: who would be? You cannot expect everybody to be delighted with a strategy. However, I believe that we have got to a place where we can have confidence that we are doing the right thing by the people whom we are trying to serve: the patients and service users for whom we are trying to deliver better outcomes.
238 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 (0.85).
- 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 | 0.85 | 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 | 0.73 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.27 |
| 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 13:47 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.