Debate contribution: Home Care Provision
Debate contribution by Mr Danny Donnelly on .
- MLA
- Mr Danny Donnelly
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 12 May 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Home Care Provision
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5528666
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Strengthening home care provision is a vital part of the solution to the crisis of hospital flow and the need to reduce pressures on our health service. As Members will be aware, the number of patients waiting more than 12 hours in A&E has increased by 14% since March last year. Recent projections from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) show that Northern Ireland's population is ageing rapidly. The number of people over the age of 65 is projected to rise by almost 45% over the next 25 years, while the number of over-85s is expected to more than double, rising by 126%. Those figures are more than alarming; they are a flashing red light and a blaring siren. This is not a question of affordability; it is a necessity. Demand for care in the community will only continue to grow. If we fail to build a sustainable community care system now, the pressure that we already face will become even more severe in the years ahead. We all have stories of friends and family members who waited for hours in A&E because of a lack of community care on the other side. This year, we have already seen that almost one in four patients attending a major emergency department waits more than 12 hours; 10 years ago, that number was one in 100. That reflects the systemic pressures across the health and social care system, including community capacity failures and delayed discharges. Recently, in one of our major hospitals, there were 70 patients in A&E about whom there had been a decision to admit — they required admission to the wards for treatment — and over 100 medically fit patients in the wards. If the medically fit patients could have been safely discharged in a timely manner, the patients in A&E could have been admitted to the wards for the care that they needed. That is why home care should not be treated as a secondary service: it is essential healthcare infrastructure. We need to take seriously providers' warnings regarding the sustainability of domiciliary care in our rural communities. If services are withdrawn from rural areas because providers can no longer afford to deliver them, vulnerable people and their families will be left without access to care. No one should face reduced access to care because they live in a rural area. Care workers too often feel overstretched and underpaid, which is why Alliance has consistently supported the introduction of the real living wage for social care workers. Workforce stability depends on fair pay and proper recognition of the value of care work. Unfortunately, the real living wage was not delivered last year as promised, but we welcome the Minister's intention to look at that and at pay uplifts early in the budget process. Pay alone will not solve every challenge. We also need workforce planning; support with travel and mileage costs, particularly in our rural communities; improved recruitment and retention; and genuine engagement with staff, providers, carers and service users. Strengthening home care provision is about creating a sustainable healthcare service for the future. For those reasons, Alliance will support the motion and the amendment.
529 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 (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.96 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.62 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.34 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:37 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.