Debate contribution: Drug-related Deaths: East Antrim
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster 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 4972710
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Mr Donnelly and everybody who contributed to the debate. The statistics have been rehearsed. We can all translate them into an understanding of the human cost of substance use. That human cost impacts on individuals, families and communities. I acknowledge that every life lost is one too many, and I affirm my commitment to doing what I can to tackle this scourge. The rise in the deaths and the wider harm over the past 10 years has been driven by a whole range of factors, including the availability of new substances, the increased complexity of cases and poly-substance use, as Mr Donnelly said. Behind all that, however, you have a complex picture of determinants. Some are social, some are psychological and some are economic. Often, we talk about the causes of substance use. We say that substance use can cause serious mental harm and serious physical harm, up to and including death, but we need to focus on the causes of the causes: in other words, what makes people want to use substances as they do in the first place. I may come back to that. Although the conversation often turns to drugs, we should also remember the impact of alcohol. In 2023, there were 341 alcohol-specific deaths registered in Northern Ireland — 341. Rates of alcohol-related deaths here are amongst the highest in the UK, and rates in the most-deprived areas are almost four times higher than those in the least-deprived areas. That is why I think that minimum unit pricing would be a real step in the right direction. As Members are aware, there is a mix of reserved and transferred responsibilities in relation to substance use. The legal frameworks for the use of drugs, including the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, are reserved to the UK Government. Meanwhile, as has been acknowledged, our Justice and Health Departments work closely with other devolved nations, which work together as well, and with the UK Government on general substance-related issues. There are also established links with Ireland on substance use through the British-Irish Council, which has a specific group focusing on alcohol and other drugs, and through the North/South advisory group on alcohol policy, which was recently renewed. Legislation clearly plays its part in deterring and penalising those who seek to profit from the supply of harmful substances in our communities, but it is vital that we address broader substance use in a holistic way, primarily as a medical and social issue that requires therapeutic interventions and support, rather than focusing simply on the criminal justice outcomes.
I acknowledge the growing support for a public health approach to address the harms of substance use. That is very much at the heart of my approach. Of course, as Members have said, it is not just a matter for the Department of Health. As an Executive and an Assembly, we need to work together to address the wider social determinants that are associated with substance use and the harm that it brings. Those determinants have been well rehearsed, and mental health, housing, economic inactivity and trauma all play their part. We have an Executive strategy, Preventing Harm, Empowering Recovery, which is led by my Department. We acknowledge that we require a joined-up, whole-system approach, not only in the health and social care system but across all other sectors. The strategy also takes a harm reduction approach by seeking to meet people where they are on their journey, helping them into treatment and ensuring that recovery support is there in the longer term. When it comes to delivery in Health, the HSC substance use strategic commissioning and implementation plan has been co-produced by the Public Health Agency and the strategic planning and performance group. It creates a new whole-system, outcomes-focused strategic service delivery plan. That covers all tiers of service provision for substance use for the next four years. The plan is part of our wider health reform agenda, which stresses the importance of using our existing services in better ways to meet the needs of our population. However, I also want to be clear that there is already extensive service provision across the region, including in East Antrim and the wider Northern Trust area. That includes services that are delivered in collaboration with the community and voluntary sector, such as youth engagement services in Ballymena, which are delivered by Start360; treatment services for adults who use substances, which are delivered by Extern; and needle and syringe exchange sites along with statutory addiction services, which are provided by the Northern Trust. That is to name but a few. It is important that people know that such help is available, should they need it. We have made considerable progress in our efforts to reduce harm. By way of example, in financial year 2024-25, 1,533 take-home naloxone kits were dispensed. Naloxone was reportedly used 197 times to reverse an overdose in that same period. Recent legislative changes that I brought forward, which were supported by the House and my counterparts across the UK, mean that even more people can now supply naloxone without a prescription, which, of course, increases opportunities to save lives. While I appreciate that there is an appetite amongst some Members to go further with harm reduction services, our decisions on which services to prioritise must be evidence-based. I am aware of the overdose prevention facilities that are being piloted in Glasgow and Dublin. While there are no proposals in the strategy for such facilities here at this time, I do not rule it out. We will continue to monitor evidence on the effectiveness of those facilities and other harm reduction interventions. I will also consider what is appropriate under the wider legislative framework. Finally, I acknowledge the stigma. It is still there. We need to remember that it is about our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters and our neighbours and friends. It is vital that we do not discourage them from coming forward. It is vital that we acknowledge their issues and permit and encourage them to seek help so that we can make a real difference.
I thank the Member for the intervention. Yes, the Right Care, Right Person initiative is the right one, because the police are not generally trained to deal with the mental health issues that we sometimes ask them to deal with. I will finish by referring to Mr Lyons's assertion that substance use is a refuge from trauma, because I agree with him. I absolutely agree. That is why it is important that we do more to understand the causes of the causes. Perhaps the Executive and the Assembly can inject a little more hope into the lives of those people who are using substances so that they do not feel that they have to inject them. Perhaps we can do more to make people wake up feeling good about life, feeling a bit more prosperous and feeling that using substances is not a valid way in which to feel good about getting through the day. It is therefore about poverty and hope and about giving people's lives purpose. For me, that is the big challenge that the Executive and the Assembly need to face collectively. Let us give people some hope.
1,222 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.70 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.21 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.07 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
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.