Debate contribution: Drug-testing Schemes
Debate contribution by Mr Alan Robinson on .
- MLA
- Mr Alan Robinson
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 30 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Drug-testing Schemes
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5143310
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Every summer, thousands of people attend festivals and concerts. They go to enjoy music, have fun and make memories. Those events are fantastic and tend to be well run. I think of the Stendhal Festival in my constituency. People go for the music, the beer and the craic. I encourage anyone in the Chamber to attend at least once. We know, however, that, for some, the night at a concert or festival does not end safely; indeed, drug-related deaths and medical emergencies are becoming all too common. Paul Frew, who moved the amendment, laid bare the startling figures on drug seizures and deaths.
I will repeat the figures: in a 12-month period up until the end of June 2025, there were 6,769 drug seizures and 3,049 drug-related arrests.
I echo Paul Frew's comment that it is important to point out that there are no safe ways of taking illegal drugs. Although we recognise the role that harm reduction measures can play, such measures must always be complemented by the police identifying people who are involved in the supply of drugs, arresting them and bringing them before the courts.
I will not today, because I am late for another event. We must not normalise drug use, especially at events that so many young people attend. It is wrong for drugs to be returned or for advice to be given on their so-called safe usage. There are no safe illegal drugs. The motion, unfortunately, makes no reference to whether the expectation will be that those providing rapid on-site testing at festivals and concerts will have to procure a licence to operate in advance. That is why we tabled an amendment to the motion. The Home Office has governed the issuing of such licences in GB, and it would be an oversight for this part of the UK to go it alone and take a less stringent and less safe approach. The HSE in the Irish Republic, which operates such testing at concerts, has described its services as:
"safe spaces where people can discuss a range of issues".
That begs the following questions. What issues can be discussed? What training do staff have? Does so-called confidentiality prevent onward referral to the police of information that is likely to lead to prosecutions? The DUP supports protections for young people who attend concerts and wants there to be effective means of alerting concertgoers about dangerous substances that are in circulation. We have to be careful, however, not to compromise the integrity of taking a criminal justice approach to the supply and possession of illegal drugs in order to drive down the number of families left devastated, and, in some cases, with an empty chair. Again, that is why we sought to amend the motion. In doing so, we wanted to strengthen it. I will not rehash Members' comments. I thank the proposer, Órlaithí Flynn. She referred to how harm reduction measures save lives, and I am glad that she also talked about how dangerous drugs are. I say again that we cannot normalise the taking of illegal drugs. I also thank Paul Frew, the proposer of the amendment. He pitched his comments at a level on which we can all agree: we need to save lives. He also focused on how taking illegal drugs is wrong. No one should have drugs returned, and I will repeat that there are no safe illegal drugs. Before I conclude, I thank the Minister for acknowledging the pain of families. It is always important to inject a human touch into what sometimes can be very stale debates in the Chamber, and he certainly did that today.
612 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: 0.05 (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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.88 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.04 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.02 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:17 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.