Debate contribution: North/South Ministerial Council: Institutional and Plenary Meetings
Debate contribution by Ms Michelle O'Neill on .
- MLA
- Ms Michelle O'Neill
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 17 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Ministerial Statement
- Heading
- North/South Ministerial Council: Institutional and Plenary Meetings
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5245150
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Yes, it is just good sense. It is just common sense for us to cooperate where we can. When we look at our public services in the North, which have been starved for so many years because of austerity decisions taken in London and are on their knees, we see that we need to continue to do what we can to improve things.
There are many practical areas as well. During storm Éowyn, we needed to lean into each other to support each other through that. Undoubtedly, those are areas where we can practically work together. It is also about having the vision to do more. I think that that is what all our Ministers are there trying to do. Across all the areas where we have been able to cooperate — health issues, infrastructure issues — it leads to improvements in people's lives. Ultimately, that is what it is all about.
Thank you for that. I know that healthcare is of enormous importance for the wider north-west because of the distance from so many other services. At the end of last month, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement continued to roll with the theme of all-island healthcare, which is very welcome, and Professor Heenan stated that cooperation was not enough and we needed a collaboration of resources and agreed outcomes. I absolutely concur with that statement. How we can work together and deliver better outcomes for people is a challenge for everybody. We should not limit our ambitions when it comes to improving people's lives. With regard to healthcare more generally, an all-island model of healthcare would absolutely lead to better outcomes for individuals.
I know that the Member has taken a particular interest in that. I, too, would like to see a service across the island because there is a dearth of services North and South. Unfortunately, some people have to travel to England to get treatment, so it makes good common sense. I have no doubt that it was discussed within the health remit. There are sectoral meetings for each area, whether it be health, infrastructure, education, agriculture or food, so I have no doubt that it was discussed in that meeting.
The Taoiseach advised us that he is keen to work with us to identify and develop other areas that fall under the remit of the Shared Island initiative. As the Member will know, there have been a lot of really positive developments. Casement Park was one of the projects that have benefited. We have also seen cooperation across a raft of areas, whether it be in education, agriculture, bioeconomy demonstrations and cooperation between our enterprise agencies. I spoke at the TCI global conference, which involved Enterprise Ireland, Invest NI and InterTradeIreland coming together and looking towards collaboration and growing our economy. Those are really positive developments, and I want to see a lot more of them.
Thank you for that. Over the weekend, at the Irish Labour Party conference, Ivana Bacik spoke about the need for clarification and for the Irish Government to prepare. There is an exciting and energetic debate under way, and more people are offering up their view. That is a good thing and a healthy thing, and I absolutely encourage it. The practicalities of all-island cooperation and the North/South Ministerial Council demonstrate how we can practically improve people's lives by working together. As we approach the 30th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, now is the time for clarification to be provided so that we know the parameters within which we will be working.
You are right: whilst the North/South bodies are not currently subject to freedom of information legislation in either jurisdiction, they follow a code of practice that reflects similar principles regarding access to information. The code is undergoing a review in order to ensure that it remains up to date, particularly given changes to legislation. We will have to come back to that and consider the outcome of the review at a future meeting.
672 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: 0.04 (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 (0.76).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.76 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.55 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.43 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.01 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:48 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.