Member's statement: Public Health Bill: Consultation
Member's statement by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 24 September 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Public Health Bill: Consultation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4644779
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The public health Bill consultation that the Department of Health is carrying out has, rightly, caused concern and confusion across our community. During the COVID pandemic, the public listened to politicians in the House and in other parts of the United Kingdom demand standards of them that those politicians did not believe applied to them. The public had Ministers tell them how they should behave, but those Ministers did not behave in the manner in which they tried to dictate to others. Now the public are, rightly, sceptical of any attempt to upset that delicate balance between individual liberty and the power of government. Central to any democratic society is the power of individual choice, and any attempt to infringe upon that basic tenet will be, rightly, resisted. The intervention last week by the Health Minister into the consultation that his Department is carrying out only added further to the confusion and concern on the issue. As my party colleague Diane Dodds made clear yesterday, it is the Democratic Unionist Party's view that the current consultation is damaged beyond repair. We on these Benches do not underestimate the difficulty and embarrassment that it would cause to the Department to withdraw that consultation, but in the long-term interest of ensuring legislation that is fit for purpose and commands the support of the House and the Executive, we believe that that is the right step to take. We will work with the Health Minister to get fit-for-purpose proposals, but we will not engage in an exercise that wastes vital time and vital public resources and undermines public confidence in this place. I urge the Health Minister to withdraw the consultation without delay.
280 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: 0.09 (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 (0.67).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.13 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.67 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | 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 | 0.90 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.06 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:06 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.