Debate contribution: Drug-related Deaths: East Antrim

Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on .

MLA
Mr Colin McGrath
Party at the time
Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date
27 May 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Adjournment
Heading
Drug-related Deaths: East Antrim
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4972706

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I will not detain Members too long. On behalf of the SDLP, I support our having the debate. My motivation for speaking this evening comes from reflecting on my time as a youth worker nine years ago. There was a group of about 20 or 25 young people who grew up through the centre. They had been there for about 15 years by the time that I left, so I knew them all well from watching them grow up and progress. They are now young adults, and I bump into them regularly around the town where I still live. I bumped into one of them in January. She told me about the work that she was doing in the community; she always had time to stop and talk. Several days later, she died in the very circumstances that we are talking about. The circumstances that lead people into those situations are one thing, but the fact that they can stay in those situations is another. I feel strongly about that and want to see action taken on it. I welcome the fact that Members have spoken about the cross-party, cross-Ministerial nature of responsibility for that, because I was concerned at the start that it would all be lumped on the Health Minister as the Minister who will respond to the debate. All the approaches that Members have referenced have to be taken because we must tackle this on all fronts. We cannot look at it from a one-dimensional perspective. When I started as a youth worker, drug education was a big part of our work, but, when I look at youth services now, I see that that is barely part of it. Youth services have completely changed, and it may be that, in those services, we are missing opportunities to do some of the basics. There is another conundrum, which I have heard about on a number of occasions, that is really difficult to balance. The "dogs in the street" were mentioned. Sometimes, the dogs in the street in our communities do know who is taking the drugs. It is reported to the police, but months and months or maybe even a year or more later, nothing has been done about it. I can understand that, potentially, the police are looking to go further up the line. They get that bit of information and pursue it to get the bigger dealers in the community. However, if you are a family member of somebody who has died, that is tough. It is tough to think that your loved one is sacrificed whilst a different aim is being pursued. That may prevent many more people from getting access to drugs, but it should still be better explained or better detailed to people, because seeing their loved one pass away and the police response being short of what they expect or hope is a bitter pill for those individuals to swallow. We need to use every opportunity that we can, through the various Departments, to tackle poverty in our community and to use our education and youth services to raise young people's self-esteem and self-worth and give them the resilience to say no to the things that are being offered in the community. We need to have a justice response towards those who continue to break the rules and provide these things, often to our young adults and younger people in our community, that challenges them right where they are doing it so that it is removed from our community. I want to see continued work on that. I welcome the fact that two Ministers have said that they are up for doing something, but I would definitely love to see a cross-Executive response to this. I will continue to ask for that in memory of the face that I saw when I left the youth centre nine years ago and that I saw down the street at the beginning of January and who, unfortunately, is no longer with us.

667 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: 0.03 (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 (0.90).
  • 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 framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.90Yes
Overall judgement0.03At 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 subject0.79
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.08
Another identity-related subject0.05
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.04
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.02

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.

Challenge this classification