Debate contribution: Hillsborough Law
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 10 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Hillsborough Law
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4841333
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for the question. We have had significant and ongoing engagement with the UK Government over the Hillsborough law and it falls into a broader set of policy considerations that are under way. The Member may be aware that we are consulting on a Being Open framework. I have also made a commitment to look, during this mandate, at the possibility of a duty of candour on an organisational basis. I know that a significant number of Members of the House would also like to see a duty of candour on an individual basis, with criminal sanctions, and I have to say again that I think that that is a very negative way in which to phrase the concept. The Hillsborough law will play into that. There is quite a complex picture developing, and I assure the Member that we have a real focus on this and are liaising constantly with the UK Government about their proposals, which will be released in a short number of weeks. Remember that the Prime Minister promised to publish a Bill before the next anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster.
188 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: 0.05 (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 (0.73).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.73 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.76 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.18 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.04 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:03 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.