Debate contribution: Adult Protection Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on 30 June 2025.

MLA

Mr Colin McGrath

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

30 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Adult Protection Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5043532

Read the official Assembly record

Text

At the heart of the Bill lies this simple question: how do we protect the dignity and rights of those who are least able to protect themselves? The Adult Protection Bill comes to us as a response to the deeply disturbing failures that we saw at Dunmurry Manor and Muckamore Abbey Hospital. Those failures were not just operational or bureaucratic but moral. They were obscene. They reflected a system that was neither equipped nor empowered to protect those who were in need. The Bill rightly seeks to change that and to put adult protection on a clear statutory footing and bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of these islands. As the Opposition, the SDLP welcomes the principles of the Bill. It offers us a chance to ensure that there is accountability and structure but, above all, that there is a rights-based approach to protecting those who are in need and at risk. It cannot undo the harm that has already been done, but it can and must ensure that what happened does not happen again. The Bill defines those whom it seeks to protect: adults at risk. While that definition is clear, there is one significant exclusion: individuals who self-harm. They are a vulnerable group and are often isolated and in need of support and protection. I ask the Minister to clarify in his winding-up speech whether that exclusion is intentional, whether there is scope to review or expand the definition or whether there is a sense that the matter is covered elsewhere. More broadly, that prompts a fundamental question about the definition of adulthood. Legally, we consider someone to be an adult at 18, yet we must be aware that, for individuals with a learning disability, questions of capacity, autonomy and consent are far more nuanced. That is not a theoretical issue, because the Bill will affect such individuals directly. Across children's services, there is always unease at how they transition into adult services, and a cliff-edge approach is unhelpful and, at times, damaging to the individual. I wonder whether the Minister would consider strengthening the Bill to permit the transition of services as opposed to having that cliff edge. There are inconsistencies that might be reflected there. I think of the conversations that we have had, particularly in the all-party group on youth participation, on the concern that suddenly, one day, you move from being a young person to being an adult. It means that children who may be at risk will suddenly be exposed to a range of different services than they were the day before simply because of the fact that they turned 18. I ask that some thought be given to that now, because we may find that it is a problem down the line. I also want to address the status of the Mental Capacity Act 2016, as it has a direct correlation with the Bill in individuals' finances, daily living, care and protections. As I understand it, that Act has not been fully implemented, so it would be good to find out how any deficiencies in it could have an impact on the success of the Adult Protection Bill. Will the Department work to align both in practice and in law? Related to that, it is absolutely vital that, as the Bill progresses, the learning disability service model also progresses. The Muckamore Abbey Hospital story illustrated more profoundly and tragically that people with a learning disability are often those who are most at risk. We must not pass a law on adult protection in isolation; rather, it must work in tandem with real reform in how we deliver learning disability services. That brings me to the workforce. The social work profession is absolutely critical to the delivery of the Bill. While it is welcome that 340 undergraduates will commence their studies in September, with a further 15 at Ulster University (UU), there is still a backlog that needs to be addressed. The most recent data that the Committee received showed that 255 social work vacancies exist and that 240 students will graduate this September. It is often really important to make it clear that not everyone who graduates as a social worker will automatically commence employment with the health trusts. In fact, the latest data from the Social Care Council shows that just 71% of social workers across the HSC trust network end up working there, so addressing that backlog is absolutely crucial. We know that the Department does not envisage newly qualified staff immediately assuming the new responsibilities outlined in the Bill, so that raises these questions: who will deliver the service, and how will the Department and the trusts organise that workforce sustainably? I make those points not to try to find inconsistencies in the Bill; it is to say that we are now looking to the future, when the Bill will make its way through and be passed, which is what we want to see, and we want to make sure that, when it passes, we are not left with a workforce that struggles to deliver that or that we fill all the posts here but create vacancies in other parts of the service, which can cause problems. With new powers must come new protections not just for service users but for staff. Social work is a highly pressurised profession, and I am keen to hear assurances from the Minister that social workers will be supported, resourced and protected as they take on the new, additional duties under the legislation. We then have the issue of accountability, which is obviously central, and we know that from the independent review of Muckamore Abbey. That review recommended standing down the Adult Safeguarding Partnership and replacing it with an independent adult protection board — the key word is "independent". The Bill outlines the creation of a board, but it omits that crucial detail. If we are serious about rebuilding public trust, why are we not establishing a truly independent body? We absolutely must learn from the past, and that means creating structures that are not beholden to the systems that have previously failed. There are other elements in the Bill that I welcome, such as the creation of the new offences, the statutory basis for advocacy and the ability to develop the protection plans. However, I encourage the Minister to consider including a provision for independent whistle-blowing. Front-line staff must be able to raise concerns safely and confidentially. That is a crucial part of any safeguarding culture. That point could not be more relevant than it is at this exact time. That is a point on which I will not start to deviate, but it is sufficient to say that a Bill that seeks to protect adults at risk must also embed protections for those who expose the harm or the neglect that could take place.

I thank the Member for her intervention. I think that there is cross-party agreement about the introduction of a duty of candour. I know that there are difficulties with some of the specific details, but, certainly, it is a conversation that could well take place alongside a Bill such as this.

I am not going to reply to that, because this is not the place. We are talking about adult protection and adult safety for those at risk. A dual conversation needs to be had, and that is the forum in which to discuss the differences in the nuances of that. I do not want to take the Speaker's job here, but we should stick to the matter at hand. We should have some sort of safety built in to the Bill so that people who see neglect are able to raise that confidentially. Why? It is important because the individual — the service user — needs that protection. We have said that there will be detailed scrutiny on the use of CCTV, and I welcome the fact that the Minister has said that. I am sure that we will explore that, because there are some concerns. We need to get that right, and the Committee Stage will allow us to do that. On the principle of that part of the Bill, I say that any such power must be exercised with caution, respecting the rights of residents and the importance of transparency in care environments. I will address the cost of the Bill's implementation: £12 million a year for 10 years is a really serious commitment. However, if we are to do it right and it is a necessary commitment, financing the Bill will not be an insurmountable challenge. I would welcome from the Minister a breakdown of how that figure was calculated and confirmation of whether the Department envisages an incremental roll-out or a full implementation from the start. The SDLP supports the principles of the Bill. However, support must come with scrutiny, and that is our duty to the people whom we represent. We must get this right, not just for the sake of having passed legislation but for the sake of those whose lives may one day depend on it. I hope and trust that, throughout the process, our focus and guide will be the needs of the most vulnerable in our society and, of course, our essential healthcare staff who work with them.

1,553 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:06 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.

Challenge this classification