Debate contribution: Children’s Hospice: Funding
Debate contribution by Miss Nuala McAllister on .
- MLA
- Miss Nuala McAllister
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 14 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Children’s Hospice: Funding
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4590303
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for the comments that he has just made, and I thank the DUP for tabling the motion. We hope that, after listening to all the comments, all Members will support the amendment and the motion. From the outset, I want to highlight the fact that I agree with a lot of the points that have been made across the Chamber. This issue absolutely deserves attention and deserves to be spoken about on the Floor of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It deserves the attention of every legislator, whether in or outside the Executive, because it is a fundamental issue for families across Northern Ireland who have to work with the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice and every hospice that we have in Northern Ireland. It is a privilege to speak to the motion today to highlight how much each of us, as MLAs, care about the issues that affect vulnerable families across our constituencies. I also want to talk about a visit with party colleagues to the Children's Hospice a while ago. It was a beautiful visit, and it was an opportunity to talk to families, children and young people about what the hospice means to them. We talked to families who had been offered the respite care that they needed for their children with life-limiting conditions. We had a tour of the building and spoke to nurses and some of the other health practitioners. We also spoke to the holistic care providers: the hospice does not provide just health services, and it is about not just the individual but the entire family. The whole family unit is looked after in the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice, and nothing is spared when it comes to taking care of them. I put on record our support for every person employed by the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice as they do that particularly important work. While at the hospice, we looked at the bereavement room and the remembrance garden. It was a poignant experience to think about the families going through some of the darkest days and hours of their lives, but they are supported by a fabulous, wonderful team of staff. I agree with many of the comments: it is a cause worthy of discussion and of being highlighted to the Minister and the Department. I also want to acknowledge that not only the Children's Hospice but the adult hospice are located in North Belfast. For anyone who has not visited the adult hospice, you can contribute to its efforts by using the on-site cafe. There is an opportunity for the Minister also to visit the adult hospice if he visits the Children's Hospice. I will turn to some of the comments that were made. Many contributions mentioned the Budget. We understand the Budget situation that we are experiencing. Looking to the wording of the motion, I note that it does not say that the Minister or the Department had reduced funding to the Children's Hospice. There is a recognition that it had funding. Unfortunately, however, costs have risen, meaning that the service is no longer sustainable. That is not to say that the Department is at fault, but the hospice provides statutory services that must be provided. We all know that there are statutory services, and, on paper, hospices may be a core part of the health and social care trusts' palliative care services. However, from speaking to the families of children and adults with a terminal illness, we know that admission to a hospice takes a referral, whether it is to the Marie Curie Hospice or the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice, for end-of-life care. Whilst we recognise that there is community care and hospital care, more often than not, there is a referral to the likes of the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice or the Marie Curie Hospice, and that is why we want to draw particular attention to the amendment. The issue matters to the 350 families that the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice services not just during their time with the hospice but long after it. It is often those people who go on to do the fundraising. People who have had the experience of the hospice providing for their families then feel that the onus is on them to give back. That should not be the case, even though it is a worthy cause that each individual does that for. I look forward to the Committee's inquiry, when we will be able to hear more from the palliative care network that the Minister outlined and will have an opportunity to ask questions. We look forward to hearing more about the implementation of the recommendations that are in the palliative care strategy so that we can have more of a network. I am hopeful that the House will not divide on the issue. I am glad that we have had the opportunity to speak about this worthy cause, and I commend the amendment to the House.
833 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 (0.88).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.63 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.35 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:22 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.