Debate contribution: North/South Ministerial Council: Health and Food Safety

Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .

MLA
Mr Mike Nesbitt
Party at the time
Ulster Unionist Party
Date
20 May 2025
Type
Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business
Ministerial Statement
Heading
North/South Ministerial Council: Health and Food Safety
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4963810

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member. There was no detailed discussion on hospice care during the sectoral meeting. Previously, as I said, I met Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, the Minister for Health in the Government of Ireland, down in Dublin. After that, I visited a hospice in Dublin. I got a briefing on the different funding arrangements, which are obviously much more advantageous to hospices in Dublin. I understand that former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar was instrumental in establishing that funding stream. I am a bit remiss, because Leo Varadkar has encouraged me to reach out to him to discuss the issues, and I have not done that yet. It is on my to-do list, and, if I am really honest, I have been a bit slow on it.

The detail was more on the food safety side of the fence. It is a matter of public note that we had hoped to make a successful pitch to the Shared Island Fund for the mother-and-baby unit. However, it was unsuccessful. That was when Stephen Donnelly was the Minister. With hindsight, perhaps we waited too long and gave them too much detail, because the answer that I got was a definitive no. Therefore, if we are pitching to the Shared Island Fund, we should not send in a 20-page, fully detailed proposal. It should be a one-pager to see whether it is interested, because, if it is just going to say no, there is no point in wasting that resource. If they say yes, you then go away and get down into the fine detail. The mother-and-baby unit will be based at Belfast City Hospital. We are at a pretty advanced stage with the business plan. I hope that, certainly during this calendar year, we will green-light it.

Yes, I acknowledge the east-west link. That was also discussed on the fringes, at least, of the conference at Croke Park in Dublin that I mentioned. I previously promised, because it was my expectation, that the cancer research strategy would be published by the end of the previous financial year. I was given the proposed strategy in time for it to be published before the end of the previous financial year, but I thought that more could be done to improve it. I wanted slightly more engagement with stakeholders so that I could be assured that they are satisfied with the strategy. Therefore, additional work is being carried out. We missed a deadline — hands up to that — but it will be worth it, because, when we get the strategy over the line and when I am satisfied with it and stakeholders are happier with it, it will be a more effective document.

I take a little exception to that last use of language, where the Member said that Northlands was "stripped of its core funding". We redesigned the core funding scheme, because it had not been reviewed in 20 years, which meant that any charity that had been established in that two-decade period could not even apply for core funding. The point was also made that core funding was an annual thing and that, just because you got it one year, you should not expect to get it the following year. It was redesigned at my request, and that was facilitated by the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA). Stakeholders were the co-designers of the scheme, and Northlands was unsuccessful. We used six criteria, I think, and they were not the Department's criteria but the stakeholders'. I very much regret the fact that Northlands is not in receipt of core grant funding, but it is wrong to say that we "stripped" it of that funding. I am more than happy to work with the North/South Ministerial Council and with Jennifer Carroll MacNeill and consider whether that is an area in which a pitch to the Shared Island Fund would be appropriate. The fact that Northlands is up by the border makes it attractive.

In the broad area of alcohol, I wanted to discuss the benefits, as I see them, of minimum unit pricing for alcohol. Scotland and Wales have minimum unit pricing. The research that I have seen suggests that it works. The very esteemed health inequalities expert Professor Sir Michael Marmot agrees that minimum unit pricing works. I want to introduce legislation in this mandate to introduce minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Northern Ireland. To do that, I need Executive agreement, and I am afraid that I do not have that. I encourage the Member to reflect on why that may be.

I think that the Member has answered his own question. I did not raise the issue at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting in sectoral format for health and food safety because it is an issue for the Executive Office.

I am glad that the Member is sitting down, because the answer is no.

813 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.07 (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 (0.88).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.05No
Controversy escalation0.05No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.88Yes
Overall judgement0.07At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.84
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.08
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.05
Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies0.03
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:32 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.

Challenge this classification