Debate contribution: Nurses: Graduate Appointments
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Nurses: Graduate Appointments
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5099401
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As I said, we are at the point where we can say that we do not use agency nurses. We are now addressing locums, because using them is a very expensive way to do business. That is not to say that locums do not have their place — of course they do — but we have become over-reliant on locums and are not using them for the original purpose for which they were intended. When it comes to what I am trying to do to make the nursing role more attractive, the first thing was to give them the 3·6% pay rise that was recommended by the independent body that made the recommendation for Agenda for Change staff, which includes nurses. However, I acknowledge that nurses would, perhaps, like to negotiate separately from the other Agenda for Change categories. We need to look particularly at promotion from band 5 to bands 6 and 7, because you can qualify as a band 5 nurse, have a long and very successful career and retire as a band 5 nurse. We have to look at ways of promoting nurses from band 5 through to bands 6 and 7. There is a whole basket of issues beyond money. It is about job satisfaction.
209 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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | 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 | 0.94 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:07 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.