Debate contribution: Ambulance Handovers

Debate contribution by Miss Nuala McAllister on 24 March 2025.

MLA: Miss Nuala McAllister
Party at the time: Alliance Party
Date: 24 March 2025
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Opposition Business
Heading: Ambulance Handovers
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4864668

Text

I support both amendments and thank the Opposition for tabling the motion. It is timely because, unfortunately, the problem has not been fixed, particularly since the Christmas period, when my party tabled a motion on ambulance waiting times. Nothing has changed since then, so it is important that, as we move from spring and summer into the winter months, we have the massive change that is needed. The Audit Office report illustrated how dire the situation is, so it is even more incumbent on us to shine a light on the fact that 3,800 patients were potentially subjected to severe harm in the past year.
As many in the Chamber have referenced, those people are not just a figure; they are individuals with individual circumstances, and we should focus on them.
As regards the specific proposal on the W45 policy, I appreciate and understand where the Opposition are coming from. Whilst I do not necessarily oppose outright the implementation of such a policy, it is important to think about how it would work in practice. When my colleagues and I have been on tours of hospitals, particularly emergency departments, we have seen that the clinicians are very concerned about the fact that they cannot stack up more patients in corridors, because there is, physically, no space for people there. There are no rooms. Some hospitals do not have bereavement rooms, because they are using them for patients. We do not have any space for them. Northern Ireland Ambulance Service has specific ideas on how to manage that. Some of those policies relate to using St John Ambulance paramedics on rotation and on a voluntary basis. The care of those who are, perhaps, being put into the corridors or wherever space has been found for them could be overseen by the ambulance and paramedicine team rather than the clinicians in the hospital. However, that cannot be done in isolation. It has to be done in conjunction with the emergency medicine staff team at all hospitals that have an emergency department. Following the debate on the motion that we tabled in January, I asked the Minister whether he had engaged with the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service as to whether that could be implemented. I look forward to hearing whether that was explored at all. Social care is really important, and many Members have focused on it. I want to take a moment to touch on something different. Last week, at the Health Committee, palliative care and the role of the Ambulance Service came up. We have a Northern Ireland-wide Ambulance Service that generally has a regional policy around taking patients, but there is no regional policy when it comes to palliative care. People who should not be in hospital are taken to hospitals, despite it being known that they need hospice care. That requires a significant, isolated focus from the Department. What is happening with those particular patients with regard to social care? We also need an update on the work of the social care collaborative forum. I do not doubt that the Minister will reference that in his winding-up speech, but we need to know where we are with policy decisions by the social care collaborative forum. Not everything requires money. Some things require policy direction and policy decisions, so it is important that we hear about any movement on that. I support both amendments. Either one or both of them represent something that is more like our position at the moment than the original motion does. However, as I said, it is not a case of outright opposition but of finding out how the proposals work in practice.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.96).
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.02	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.02	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.01	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.02	No
Controversy escalation	0.02	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.96	Yes
Overall judgement	0.02	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
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 area (top five)
Subject	Probability
No identity-related subject	0.98
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits	0.02
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations	0.00
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy	0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:11 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