Debate contribution: The draft Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Naloxone and Transfers of Functions) Regulations 2024
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 14 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- The draft Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Naloxone and Transfers of Functions) Regulations 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4589626
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Chair of the Health Committee and the other Members who spoke for their contributions. It was important that the Chair talked about the availability of the nasal spray, an application that is to be welcomed. Diane Dodds made a very important point encouraging us all to acknowledge the lives lost to the use and misuse of illicit drugs and not just the lost lives but the impact on families and communities. I thank Mr Donnelly for highlighting the online training that the Public Health Agency will undertake, which will expand the reach of those who administer naloxone. I firmly believe that the introduction of the legislative changes will widen access to a life-saving medicine. Any death from an illicit drug is tragic. It is also preventable, and I am pleased that we are taking this significant step forward in helping to reduce drug-related deaths. I often talk about my desire to deliver better outcomes: today, collectively, we are doing just that, Therefore, I commend the regulations to the Assembly.
172 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 (0.62).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.62 | 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 | 0.93 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.05 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:13 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.