Debate contribution: Inquiry into Access to Palliative Care Services
Debate contribution by Mr Alan Robinson on .
- MLA
- Mr Alan Robinson
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 2 December 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Committee Business
- Heading
- Inquiry into Access to Palliative Care Services
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5272251
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I very much welcome the opportunity to speak on such an important issue. The Committee did a lot of good work in its inquiry, in gathering evidence and hearing powerful testimonies from patients, families, providers and others across the public sector and the independent health sector. That work helped to identify areas that require greater focus and brought forth the recommendations in the report. We all very much hope that the Minister and his Department can translate those recommendations into changes for the better. Palliative care is an approach aimed at improving quality of life for patients, adults and children, as well as their families, who are dealing with life-threatening illnesses. It works to prevent suffering through early identification, proper assessment and treatment of pain and other issues, whether physical, emotional or spiritual. A key line is that it provides a support system to help patients live as fully and actively as possible until the end of life. The outcome of the inquiry reinforced our concern that the current system fails to support patients at the most vulnerable time in their lives. We are grateful for the evidence that we received from 37 organisations, 71 health professionals and academics, 221 individuals with lived experience, RaISe, the Department of Health and the independent hospice sector. We are also grateful for the warm welcome that we received on a number of visits. As other Members have said, it is really important to thank the Committee staff, who spent long hours bringing together the report and the 27 recommendations therein. Some of the recommendations are very powerful, and we will all have views on which is the most important, but the introduction of legislation to mandate the commissioning and funding of palliative end-of-life care is number one. That is to be underpinned by the appointment of an interim independent clinical lead, which should need no explanation: we are the only region across these isles that does not have such a post. The long-standing funding arrangements for hospices are not fit for purpose, relying heavily on charitable fundraising to support what are, in reality, core health services. Dependency on outsourcing essential healthcare to charity is wrong on so many levels. Just imagine intensive care services being dependent on cake sales or the selling of second-hand clothes and furniture. I will also mention recommendation 27, which calls for the introduction of a new palliative and end-of-life strategy. Having as a current strategy one from 2010, dating back 15 years, cannot serve a population marked by demographic change, medical advances and the mounting pressures across our health service. The inquiry report is a landmark moment; it lights a path forward. Our work highlighted so many challenges but provides so many opportunities. This cannot become another long-term aspiration for the Department: the Committee has done its job, and now it is time for the Department to urgently take up the baton and do its job. Early palliative care improves quality of life and reduces costs by avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions. Now is the time for the Department to truly shift left in its words and its actions.
520 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- 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-qualifying 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 | 0.02 | 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-qualifying 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 | 0.87 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.10 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:07 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.