Debate contribution: Childcare: High-quality and Affordable Provision
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 12 February 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Childcare: High-quality and Affordable Provision
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4218109
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, thank you very much. I congratulate you and wish you well. I hope that you enjoy the view. I also congratulate all those who made their maiden speech: Cheryl Brownlee, Kate Nicholl, Danny Baker, Nick Mathison and Sorcha Eastwood. Thanks also to my colleague Mr Butler for tabling the amendment and to Mrs Mason, Miss Brogan, Mr Baker and Ms Kimmins for tabling the motion. At this point, I am getting sick of being nice to people and am going to pick a fight. The fight that I choose to pick is with Mr Butler, who opened his remarks by bemoaning the fact that he and others have been at this for two years. I feel that I have been at this for over 12 years. I remind the House that, until May 2016, the issue fell within the remit of the then Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. I chaired several meetings of the scrutiny Committee, and we tried to understand where the blockage was with bringing forward a strategy, not least because it had a budget line. From memory, there was £12 million for childcare that, for a long time, sat unspent. This is an opportunity to get it right this time, and I do believe that is not just about affordable childcare but about affordable and accessible childcare.
Regrets, I have had a few.
It has to be affordable, not £10,000-plus for each child, as Miss Brogan and others pointed out, but it also has to be accessible. There was another scheme that was about giving four hours a day to preschool children. The report claimed that it had been extremely successful, with a success rate of well over 90%, in offering families places. However, that included, for example, a family who came to see me in my office in Newtownards and had been offered a place in Suffolk in West Belfast. By the time they got there and back, they had about an hour and a half before it was time to go and collect the child. That was not a success in my view. I hope that, this time, we will go forward in the spirit of an outcome-based accountability Programme for Government. That is a results-based programme. I am not sure whether any Member remembers Mark Friedman coming to this Building some years ago to talk about this results-based accountability scheme, which he is basically the father of. He wrote the book 'Trying Hard is Not Good Enough'. That is pertinent to what we do as a devolved Administration. We tend to say that we are working night and day on this problem, as if that is going to fix it. Working night and day does not guarantee success. We have to stop focusing on just the inputs and outputs of government. We have to focus on the outcomes. We are very good at the inputs: we are spending a lot of money and doing this and that. The outputs now are, for example, "1,000 people have attended awareness programmes. 10,000 people have responded to our consultation. We have set up a unit in the Department or an advisory group". None of that guarantees the sort of outcomes that we are looking for. I commend the outcomes in the motion and the amendment: to prevent educational disadvantage; to support children with special educational needs; to promote emotional health and well-being amongst children; to improve terms and conditions for workers; to deliver accessible and affordable childcare. Those are the measures that this strategy, whenever it comes, should be measured against. As the economy spokesperson, I say that one of the outcomes is about not just child development; it is about our shocking levels of economic inactivity. The motion talks about the positive impact on the economy of this strategy. A lot of people who are economically inactive want to be active, and one of the big barriers is the lack of affordable and accessible childcare. It is not just a matter for the Minister of Education. As Mrs Dodds conceded, encouraged by Mr Butler, it is potentially for the whole Executive. I can see a role for the Economy, Communities, Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, and Justice Ministers. I commend the motion and the proposed amendment from Mr Butler.
721 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying 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 | 0.66 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.27 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.03 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:36 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.