Debate contribution: Children’s Hospice: Funding
Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on .
- MLA
- Mr Colin McGrath
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 14 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Children’s Hospice: Funding
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4590233
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Of course, the SDLP will support the motion and the amendment. We recognise the sterling work that is carried out by the Children's Hospice and acknowledge the financial pressures that it faces. We also agree that palliative care should be a core HSC service and would like the Minister to prioritise the inclusion of additional funding in future Health budgets. Of course, we would also like to see the Minister commit to funding 50% of the hospice's costs. Who could not support all that, given the nature of the hospice's work? It is entirely acceptable and appropriate to call for that, and that is why we are glad to support the motion and the amendment. It would, however, be disingenuous of us, as legislators, not to fully scrutinise the motion and identify any issues with it. Today, we spent just over an hour scrutinising actual legislation and will probably now spend longer debating a motion that has no binding effect and will not result in a tangible outcome; it is simply the Assembly giving its view on the matter. Once again, we are being treated to a motion from one Executive party calling on another Executive party to do something, and we have another Executive party amending that motion so that the Executive party that tabled the motion has something else to do. I will make an effort to clarify what is taking place: we have a motion that calls on a Minister to do something and an amendment that aspires to see something further done, and, if the motion and the amendment are approved, they will be contained in a non-binding motion, meaning that the Minister does not have to do anything at all. Meanwhile, the Executive party with the financial brief is not contributing to the back and forth on the motion and the amendment.
A better way of putting it is that they are literally going through the amended motions. This does not feel normal. All four Executive parties are participating in a debate with each other on a motion that has no binding effect. There will be no tangible outcome for the Children's Hospice, for the children and families who use its services or for any other service provider in the sector. The parties that brought forward the debate and the amendment today and that sit around the Executive table with one another know that the motion will not change the Budget allocation to the Department, which cannot survive on the budget that it has. Why is the issue not being debated around the Executive table? Why are no resolutions being brought to that forum? All that we have here today is a talking shop. At the end of the debate, the Minister could say that he will do all the things that are in the motion and the amendment, but there is absolutely no obligation on him to do so. Of course, the Executive parties all know that; they signed up to a Budget that does not give them the money to do anything further.
510 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: 0.06 (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).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.55 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | 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 | 0.93 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:21 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.