Debate contribution: Bangor and Newtownards Minor Injury Units: Closure

Debate contribution by Miss Michelle McIlveen on 30 April 2024.

MLA

Miss Michelle McIlveen

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

30 April 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Adjournment

Heading

Bangor and Newtownards Minor Injury Units: Closure

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4487781

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank Mr Easton for securing the Adjournment debate. He pursued this issue doggedly and relentlessly during the consultation and has continued to do so since the imposition of the decision. That decision was made contrary to the vast swathe of public opinion, which simply could not comprehend why the trust was pursuing this course of action. I thank Mr Easton for his efforts in fighting this, including organising a petition that was signed by thousands of local residents. I also put on record my support for the health professionals, who are working in incredibly challenging circumstances. I was present at a strictly controlled public consultation event in Newtownards that was run by the South Eastern Trust. Questions had to be submitted in advance, and, perhaps coincidentally, the majority of the questions that were drawn out came from Alliance Party reps, the Alliance Party being the only party that supported the trust's proposals to close the MIUs. That party's position was not remotely reflective of the feeling in the area. A number of local people who attended were deeply frustrated at what seemed to be a fait accompli, which is what it evidently became. They could not understand why local services were being taken away and moved to east Belfast. We heard from the trust that it was to improve services and outcomes. That seemed strange, because, in the Chamber on 22 November 2021, Minister Swann said:

"The trust is confident that patients receive an effective service and has received some positive feedback on the service at Ards minor injuries unit. It is nurse-led. Emergency nurse practitioners provide expert advice to ensure that clinical practice and patient care is delivered to the highest standards." — [Official Report (Hansard), 22 November 2021, p25, col 2].

If it was not for higher standards, since the highest standards were already being delivered, it must have been about making savings. However, in answer to questions for written answer tabled by Mr Easton, the Minister has said that there are no savings. The Alliance Party claimed that the decision to close the MIUs in Newtownards and Bangor was as a result of Bengoa. Despite being repeatedly told by others that that was not the case, the Alliance Party has insisted on that fallacy, taking the opportunity to criticise other parties for saying one thing in relation to supporting Bengoa and doing another when it came to local services. I ask the Minister to take the opportunity to reiterate what he said in his answers to those questions for written answer and to make it clear that the decision around the MIUs had nothing to do with Bengoa. The trust also indicated that, in order to establish an urgent care centre at the Ulster Hospital site, it needed to close the two MIUs. Yet, in 2022, the Ulster Unionist Party health spokesperson, Alan Chambers — I am glad to see him in the Chamber — wrote a letter to the 'News Letter', criticising Paula Bradshaw MLA. In that letter, he stated:

"if Paula wishes to read the final urgent care policy that was signed off by Robin Swann in March last year she will see on page 42 that it categorically states 'it is important to note that Urgent Care Centres do not replace existing Minor Injury Units.' That is a mere statement of fact, and one which is a [sic] accurate today as it was 12 months ago. Given that fact there is no contradiction in supporting the retention of a local minor injuries facility."

Does the Minister stand by the comments of his party colleague, who, of course, was quoting the Minister? If care in MIUs was of the highest standard, the decision to close was not a result of Bengoa, there were no savings to be made and there was no need to close the MIUs to deliver the urgent care centre, will the Minister take steps to reverse that decision? It has placed care further out of the reach of my constituents in Strangford. Those constituents have to stand outside in the cold and rain at 8.00 am just to get on a list for a call from a GP. Some travel from Portavogie and Portaferry to go through Newtownards and then battle with congestion at the Dundonald bottleneck to run the gauntlet of trying to find a parking space at the hospital site, and some are constituents with disabilities who, when the final move is made to co-locate the urgent care centre with the emergency department, will be further disadvantaged by the chronically bad parking arrangements at that site. The decision did not enhance the care of the constituents of Strangford or North Down; it enhanced the care only of those in east Belfast. No justifiable reason has ever been given for the decision to remove that important and well-used local service. Trust reports will never factor in —

— those patients who decide that it is too much trouble to travel to the Ulster Hospital site and the impact that that might have on them in later life. Complaints and compliments are no real measure of the unnecessary inconvenience and upheaval that the decision will cause.

866 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:03 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