Debate contribution: Waiting Lists: Effect on Winter Preparedness
Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on .
- MLA
- Mr Colin McGrath
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 20 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Waiting Lists: Effect on Winter Preparedness
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5348410
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I have one of those speeches that starts by acknowledging the tone and intent of the motion and contributions to the debate, but, after the previous speech, I will skip to my second paragraph. People are waiting on trolleys and waiting in corridors. Ambulance crews are waiting outside emergency departments, unable to respond to the next 999 call because the system cannot absorb the patients whom they are already caring for. No one in the Chamber is blind to the pressures that our emergency departments and hospital systems are under, and no one should pretend that winter has caught us by surprise. As has been referenced before, it comes roughly at the same time every year. The pressures were foreseeable and were predicted, and we have repeatedly warned about the difficulties that exist in the system to deal with them. It is important to outline — I am sure that most would agree — that the debate is not about blaming the front-line staff; in fact, it is the opposite. The ambulance crews, nurses, doctors, porters and support staff are the ones who are holding the system together with patience, goodwill and hope, which frankly, should not be taken for granted. Patience is not a safe staffing strategy, goodwill does not put food on the tables and hope is, sadly, diminishing amongst staff. When an ambulance crew is parked outside an emergency department for hours, the system has failed them and has failed the patient waiting at home who cannot get an ambulance because the crew are stuck outside a hospital. We all know the result of that and the tragic stories of people waiting for hours upon hours for an ambulance, some even losing their lives while waiting. Throughput is the issue. Patient flow is the issue. Until we fix what happens after someone arrives at the hospital, no amount of public messaging about alternatives will solve it. Delayed discharges, lack of social care capacity and workforce shortages create a logjam that backs right up to the front door of hospitals and outside in the driveways and houses of the people who are waiting. I get it. I know that I am an opposition MLA, and my words will be treated as, "Here go the Opposition again, giving off about bad things". However, do not take my word for it; hear the voices of the people who have been left behind. Healthcare staff and patients have reached out to me directly, and I will read out some of their quotes. One says:
"We are broken. Crews that are willing to work to put extra ambulances on the road are denied overtime, as the Ambulance Service does not have any money left this financial year."
Another one said:
"Something serious needs to be done because staff are getting burnt out."
Another said:
"I did not sign up to the Ambulance Service to sit with one or two patients outside hospitals for over 12 hours. I wanted to make a difference."
Another said:
"I really feel for the doctors and nurses. It is not their fault that all of this has happened, but the problem has been going on for over 20 years."
Another said:
"A further issue that has been relayed to me is the trusts are not fully utilising commissioned services because to do so would cost money, and they are trying to identify efficiencies, as requested by the Department."
The obvious outworking is that patients who are ready to leave hospital but cannot secure a domiciliary care package are left in hospital waiting, causing the person in the ED to wait, causing the person in the ambulance to wait and causing the person dialling 999 to wait. As the SDLP said in its document last year, 'Help Can't Wait'. Having heard all that, I now want to ask this serious question of the Minister, and I do so in a constructive spirit: what is it going to take for you to act with the urgency that patients and staff deserve? Telling people that the system will take five years to fix offers no comfort to the person who dials 999 tonight. It offers no reassurance to the family sitting beside a loved one who is on a trolley, and it offers no incentive to the paramedic or nurse who is wondering whether staying in the system is sustainable. Unless you are willing to pay social care staff properly or, worse still, promise them a living wage and then renege on that, what is keeping them here? Unless you are willing to introduce safe staffing legislation, what confidence can we have that staff conditions will improve rather than deteriorate? The frustration for many of us is due to the fact that we knew that the problems were coming. We had high hopes last year because there were lots of promises about blank pages and sitting down and getting early resolutions to be prepared, and it did not take us until November before all that was obliterated, and that was shocking.
841 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: 0.03 (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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.92 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:13 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.