Debate contribution: Drug-related Deaths: East Antrim
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 27 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Drug-related Deaths: East Antrim
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4972695
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I begin by thanking Mr Donnelly for bringing this important topic to the House and all those who have contributed already. I apologise for not being here for all of the debate due to ministerial business. This is an issue of the utmost seriousness. We are talking about real people and families and real lives that have been cut short by drugs. The stats will have been well discussed during the debate. Clearly, we need to make sure that we do all that we can and that we take all the action that we can to deal with the issue. I thank the Minister for being here today. Of course, it is not just a Department of Health issue; we all need to work together, as Mr Dickson said, to deal with the pain, sadness and trauma that accompany the use of drugs and drug-related deaths. There is a lot of work that we need to do. I will focus on the need for us all to tackle the root causes of the issue, and they are many. First, we need to tackle deprivation. People in areas of high deprivation are up to five times more likely to die from drug-related issues. I am pleased that we are taking forward work to tackle deprivation. With my departmental hat on, I thank Minister Nesbitt for the work that he has done with my Department on the drafting of the anti-poverty strategy, which will include steps to deal with deprivation. We know how important an issue that is and how important a cause it is for those who find themselves in this situation. We also need to improve access to mental health support. We all know how difficult that can be for many in our society. I commend the good work that is taking place to make sure that the people who need help get it. I know that, if it were not for those dedicated professionals, we would be in a far worse situation today. We also need to create opportunities for people, particularly our young people. I do not mean just social opportunities; I mean economic opportunities as well. We need to deal with the availability of the substances in our communities. The PSNI has a particular role in that regard. We also need to break down the stigma that exists around these issues. It is a good thing if someone presents with those problems in order to tackle them. We need to address that stigma and those barriers to treatment. Of course, we need to make sure that we do everything that we can with our young people in terms of education and prevention as well. We need to recognise the good work that is being done by many organisations in the communities that we represent. I think of the YMCA, Carrick Connect and Extern, which all play a valuable role. One evening in January, I was out in Carrickfergus with CHILL, which does exceptional work with the police to provide safer environments for our young people. However, I heard a story recently from one young user of drugs, who said that he takes drugs so that it does not hurt as much, "when daddy beats mummy and me up". The sad reality of the society in which we live today is that, for too many people, drugs are seen as a refuge from trauma. They are not: that is the message that we need to get across to people in our society. We need to make sure that people never feel that drugs are the only way out. That is the situation that many people find themselves in. I hope that we can work together across different agencies, Departments and the voluntary and community sector, including many people from a faith background as well. We also need to make sure that families have the resources that they need to tackle the issues. There is no silver bullet to tackle the issue. There is no single measure that Minister Nesbitt can put in place to tackle it.
We are all aware of and have seen at first hand the impact that drugs and drug deaths have on our communities and the pain and sadness that come in the aftermath. I am pleased that there has been cross-party unity on the issue today and hope that that continues, developing into greater cross-departmental working and collaboration, so that we can tackle the issue head-on. As I said at the start of my contribution, we are talking about real people, families and lives here, and it is incumbent on us to do everything that we can to tackle the issue.
785 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 (0.80).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.35 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.32 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.21 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.07 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.04 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:37 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.