Debate contribution: Diabetes Care
Debate contribution by Mr Philip McGuigan on .
- MLA
- Mr Philip McGuigan
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 28 April 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Diabetes Care
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4914141
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will begin by declaring an interest as my wife has been a type 1 diabetic for 37 years and my son is a type 1 diabetic of nine years. Whilst I do not have first-hand experience, I have been party to thousands of hours of conversations on blood sugar levels, the sugar content of various foods and the number of units of insulin that is required for injections before or after various meals.
I have seen many hyperglycaemic events and many, many hypos. Thankfully, only a few times have I had to administer an emergency pen.
According to the Diabetes Network in the North, almost 115,000 people here are living with diabetes, and, as has been stated, that figure is rising. There is an annual rise of 3,000. That translates to a financial cost of nearly £300 million a year to treat and care for diabetics living in the North. More than 10 people are diagnosed every day in the North, so that cost will rise continually. It is also estimated that 12,000 individuals are living with type 2 diabetes but have not yet been diagnosed. The motion is very welcome, and I thank those who tabled it for debate today. It notes the rising prevalence of diabetes, as I have done, and highlights the importance of technology in managing the condition and improving the quality of life of diabetics. I totally concur with that. For 37 years, I have witnessed the positive technological benefits and changes and their impact on my wife's quality of life. Gone are the days when I helped her and watched her continuously pricking her finger and taking her own blood samples 10, 20 times a day to test her blood before and after meals to guess how much insulin she needed to take. When I asked my wife what I should say during this debate, she told me to point out that having a continuous glucose monitor has been "life altering". Those are her words: "life altering". The motion also talks about the importance of the National Diabetes Audit:
"as committed to in the diabetes strategic framework".
That framework was introduced by my colleague and now First Minister, Michelle O'Neill, when she was the Health Minister. It is due to end in 2026. We have all been engaged with those in the diabetes sector. Today, they want to know and we will seek clarity on what comes next when the framework runs out. Hopefully, the Minister can give clarity on what comes next: what preparatory work is under way; and will there be a co-design approach moving forward? We also want to seek a commitment from the Minister that there will be no gap between what is currently in place and what will follow. As has been said, not all the recommendations in the framework have been actioned. In particular, as the motion indicates, the recommendation on regional participation in the National Diabetes Audit has not been actioned. It is important for diabetics in the North to have access to that audit. Perhaps the Minister, in his response, can tell us why we have not been included thus far and what the blockages have been, but, more importantly, give us an indication of when he expects us to be in a position to participate in that audit — when will that happen? As with all these things, particularly in the health service, the gathering of information is vital to providing the best patient outcomes, the best treatment and the best cost-efficiency. The motion also talks about technology: the "hybrid closed-loop" system has the potential to transform the quality of life of and outcomes for those with type 1 diabetes. In conclusion, audit participation and gathering information are vital. Technology is equally vital. However, I will add a third string: education programmes for diabetics themselves are equally important. It was 33 years after diagnosis that my wife was able to access the dose adjustment for normal eating (DAFNE) course, which, again in her words, was "life-altering". She got valuable information from the doctors and nurses that she had not heard in her 32 years' experience of being a diabetic.
I will finish on that.
700 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.94 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.83 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.17 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:28 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.