Debate contribution: Diabetes Care
Debate contribution by Mr Alan Robinson on .
- MLA
- Mr Alan Robinson
- 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 4914192
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given the late hour and the fact that a number of us in the Building tonight have young families, I will make my speech as short as I can. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the issue, given that diabetes is recognised as a public health challenge in Northern Ireland, with 115,000 individuals affected by the condition. I will also say that my party is grateful to Members across the Chamber for their support for the motion. It has been a long time since a Health debate has divided the House, and I hope that that brings a little comfort to the Health Minister. We are united in the Chamber when it comes to health. Our motion simply asks that everyone affected by diabetes in the Province receive the highest standard of care, that they get access to the best technologies available on a UK-wide basis and that they benefit from robust data-driven improvements to our services. I will turn to some of the comments that were made. Ms Cheryl Brownlee said that, without intervention, many people are at risk. I applaud her for speaking so highly of those in the health service, who are on the front line. Philip McGuigan, the Chair of the Health Committee, talked of his family experiences. I have said before that our personal experiences sometimes add value to what can sometimes be stale debates in the Chamber. Danny Donnelly talked of the increase of 3,000 new cases every year. Those are startling figures and reinforce the need for early intervention and education. Alan Chambers, my colleague on the Health Committee, recognised the issue as a health crisis, and we thank him for that. Colin McGrath highlighted the fact that £1 million per day is required to manage the issue, keeping to the theme of other Members about the cost to the health service and to public funds. Órlaithí Flynn talked of the difficulties experienced by children living with the condition: we all very much share that view. Diane Dodds, my Health Committee colleague, talked of the long-term and serious consequences of the condition, which reinforces why we were keen to table the motion. I mention in particular my party colleague, Cheryl Brownlee: maybe another marathon beckons for her to raise money for yet another fantastic cause. Stewart Dickson brought life to the debate, giving a personal family testimony. He too spoke highly of the Northern Trust's teams, who are on the front line every day dealing with the issue. Finally, I thank the Health Minister for his contribution. He was honest in his assessment today, as he always is, but without using his irony klaxon. It is promising that, with Encompass, we will see movement in the right direction by the end of the year. Given all that he said in the Chamber tonight, we look forward to him being back on the Floor with updates. All that we ask for in the motion is fairness and the means to ensure that Northern Ireland keeps pace with the rest of the UK in delivering high-quality diabetes care. We ask the Department to be reactive but also proactive in addressing the needs of those living with diabetes.
540 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 (0.86).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.55 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.44 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.