Debate contribution: Diabetes Care
Debate contribution by Mrs Diane Dodds on .
- MLA
- Mrs Diane Dodds
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 28 April 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Diabetes Care
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4914164
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I want to add some words to the areas that have been covered in the debate. I thank the Members who have spoken. The subject has a wide range of issues, but there is also wide consensus across the Chamber that we need to do something about it. As has been mentioned, diabetes is one of the most significant long-term illnesses that our people face. It can have serious consequences, if it is not well treated and controlled. People with type 1 diabetes that is not well controlled are at risk of long-term complications, including sight loss, heart disease and stroke, which are very serious. The debate is worth having because of the number of people whom it can impact on. As others have said in the debate, Diabetes UK has predicted that the cost to Northern Ireland is £291 million per year. That figure is expected to rise to approximately £524 million by 2035. Many of my colleagues are protective of the health budget, but surely this is the classic Professor Bengoa issue where we must do something to stop people getting sick in order to be able to spend money on other priority areas in the health budget. Therefore, it is important to look at this element. As of 31 March 2024, there were 114, 673 patients on the diabetes register — that is a significant number. It equates to a raw prevalence rate of 70·3 per 1,000 patients, ranging from 65·3 per 1,000 among practices in the Southern Trust area to 77·4 in the Northern Trust area. There is a variation in the prevalence of diabetes across trust areas. By GP federation area, the raw prevalence rate ranged from 53·8 per 1,000 in south Belfast to 82·6 per 1,000 in Ards. I do not know whether the Minister has an insight into the reason for the variations, but it would make for an interesting study. Many of those who have spoken, including my colleague when introducing the debate, have talked about technology and the care improvements that it can bring. While that is undoubtedly the case, we have to accept that the technology is available in Northern Ireland but almost via a postcode lottery system, which is not good enough. We should offer the same treatment to people across Northern Ireland. That is not the situation just for diabetes; it really has to change in a range of areas. Many colleagues across the Chamber have talked about the National Diabetes Audit.
Surely it is sensible for us to know the key metrics in order to help us identify service gaps and to have the data to enable us to enhance outcomes, reduce complications and ensure that there is equitable care across Northern Ireland. We really want to see the Minister make progress on trying to have Northern Ireland included in the audit. It is important that we get a timeline for participating in it. I will finish by quickly mentioning something that Órlaithí talked about, which is the impact on families with children with type 1 diabetes. Many of those parents fear for their children, particularly those children who do not have a hybrid closed-loop system to help them manage their diabetes. Children are less able or perhaps less careful when it comes to identifying the symptoms that they have. We could relieve a lot of the stress on parents and on family life —
— by trying to eradicate diabetes and by managing it through the technology that is available to us.
586 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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | 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 | 0.56 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.44 |
| 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.