Debate contribution: Adult Protection Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- 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 5043608
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I do not think that it does, because the board has to operate within terms of reference and within the law, and the Bill will, hopefully, become the law. I understand that you are uneasy about that — we would all be right to question, observe and monitor how that is operated — but I see no other practical way of doing business. I will pick up on one thing. If I understood Mr Frew correctly, when he listed all the organisations that would be represented on the board, he then asked, "What about the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO)?". If he is suggesting that the NIPSO should have a seat at that table, he is entirely wrong. What if you then got a complaint about what that board did? You would want to go through a complaints process that took you eventually to NIPSO, but, if NIPSO had been sitting at the table making the decision, you would get nowhere. I just gently point that out. Mr McGrath, in referencing the seven principles, went first of all for dignity. I am really pleased that he did. If you look at those seven principles, it is hard to deliver the others if you do not put dignity at the heart of what you do. How can you promote autonomy for a vulnerable person if you do not respect their dignity? How do you empower them if you do not respect their dignity? How do you work in partnership if you do not respect their dignity? Mr McGrath also mentioned the cliff edge of transition. That happens across healthcare delivery far too often. Transition becomes an event; it has to be a process. We have to work to make such processes stretch out over time, rather than being an event that is so often a cliff edge. When the Member talked about potential "deficiencies" in the Mental Capacity Act, did he really mean, "Are there parts of that that need to be enacted or to gel with what we are proposing in the Adult Protection Bill?"? If that is the case, yes, we have to look at them. I am not sure that I would have used the word "deficiencies", but I take the point. I very much welcome Diane Dodds' saying that the Committee will look to strengthen what is in the Bill at Second Stage. It is entirely the role of the Committee to assist and advise the Minister and officials in how we go forward. Whistle-blowing is an issue that the Member is fixed on. I agree: when I look at what has arisen out of the publicity surrounding the cardiac surgery unit in the Belfast Trust, I sense that there is a major issue with whistle-blowing, and that is specific to staff confidence in engaging with the process and a fear that prevents them engaging with the process. Peter McBride has great knowledge of that. He has already started work and will make recommendations to me on that front.
With respect, I will not react by giving an opinion on that, because I do not want to second-guess or direct Peter McBride, but the point is certainly on the record. On costs, Diane Dodds made the point that we have to find the money to do this. I do not disagree with her, but there are so many things that we need to find the money for in healthcare delivery. We need £200 million to maintain pay parity for Agenda for Change staff, doctors and dentists. The Member asked about additional costs and how costs have risen. I am not aware of the original cost to which you refer, so I cannot make a definitive comment on that. In the initial phase, it will cost money to establish the adult protection board. There will be money for training. There may be money for recruitment. There may be money for court cases involving the new offences that we are introducing. Respectfully, the Committee will, I am sure, look at that issue in much more detail. Nuala McAllister asked whether the regulations would be timely. They have to be timely, otherwise what is the point of this? Again, that is something for the Committee Stage. The Member made the point that the Bill has been a long time coming. One of the reasons for that has been a couple of collapses over the last number of years. It is my impression that, if there is one more collapse of the institutions, they are gone for good. Mr Donnelly mentioned extending the Committee Stage, and Mr Frew referred to independence and NIPSO. That takes me to the conclusion of the remarks that I wanted to refer to specifically. I conclude by wishing the Committee well as it begins its crucial scrutiny of the Bill.
805 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: 0.03 (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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.60 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.36 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| 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.