Debate contribution: Adult Protection Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on 30 June 2025.

MLA: Mr Mike Nesbitt
Party at the time: Ulster Unionist Party
Date: 30 June 2025
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Adult Protection Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5043598

Text

Deputy Speaker, thank you very much. What an informative debate . I very much look forward to the next stage, assuming that this stage is approved by Members. I thank the Chair of the Committee, the Deputy Chair of the Committee, Committee members and Mr Frew for their comments. It is clear that this issue is of first-order importance to the House, and I am glad that there is a clear appetite to progress the legislation. I thank the Health Committee for its engagement to date, and I wish it well with the Committee Stage.
I understand from the Deputy Chair that the Committee will wish to extend the Committee Stage to March 2026. I would be relaxed about that, but I would be hopeful that we could get this over the line in the 2026 calendar year. I also thank officials, some of whom are in the Officials' Box today, for the consistent work that they have applied to a challenging area of healthcare delivery.
I will touch on some of the comments that were made. Mr McGuigan talked about the implementation plan and, under the current regime, the lack of evidence of outcomes. That is exactly where my mind is, Mr McGuigan. As I said when I first stood in this position just over a year ago, I want to be judged and will judge myself by whether I am deliver better outcomes: better outcomes for patients, for service users and for the 70,000-odd people who deliver healthcare in Northern Ireland. I do not think that there is any intention for a phased implementation plan at this moment, but I would be more than happy for the Committee to engage with the Department and officials on the best way to move forward on that. As a matter of principle, our strategies are fine, but give me a costed implementation plan over a strategy any day of the week. Mr McGrath asked about the adult protection board, and Mr Frew talked on that as well. Mr Frew listed some of the statutory representatives who will be part of that. The chair will be independent, but that takes us to a philosophical question, does it not? What does "independence" represent? Nuala McAllister mentioned it, Paul Frew mentioned it, so I answer a question with a question: how independent was I when Mr Frew's former party leader, Dr Ian Richard Kyle Paisley, appointed me as a commissioner for victims and survivors in the Commission for Victims and Survivors? How independent was I at that point? It is a philosophical question and the right question to ask; I have no doubt about that. How independent is the Commissioner for Older People?

449 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.20 (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 (0.60).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.91).
Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.05	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.03	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.02	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.11	No
Controversy escalation	0.21	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.60	Yes
Overall judgement	0.20	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.91
Reports or questions it	0.08
Criticises or condemns it	0.00
Adopts it	0.01

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism	0.65
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups	0.24
No identity-related subject	0.07
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations	0.03
Another identity-related subject	0.01

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