Debate contribution: Breast Cancer: Waiting Times in Upper Bann
Debate contribution by Mr Danny Donnelly on .
- MLA
- Mr Danny Donnelly
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 15 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Breast Cancer: Waiting Times in Upper Bann
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4593096
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank Mrs Dodds for securing this very important Adjournment debate. I am here in place of my colleague Eóin Tennyson, who, unfortunately, is not able to be here but wanted us to be represented. It is certainly a subject that he considers to be very important. He is unable to be here because he is unwell rather than for any other reason. The issue is clearly very important for women across Northern Ireland. I note the disparity in waiting times. Across the Southern Trust in particular, the waiting times are incredibly shocking. The figures for the Northern Trust and the South Eastern Trust that the Member quoted are, again, very shocking for women who live in those areas. As other Members have pointed out, early detection can lead to successful treatment and reduce the risk from this terrible condition. Women should certainly be encouraged to check their breasts for anything new or unusual and to attend screening when they are called. As Colin pointed out, the same goes for men. I was one of those men a couple of years ago: I found a lump and had a scan. It was a very worrying time. Thankfully, everything was OK, but it is very worrying when you find something wrong with your body, and the idea of waiting for a long time, not knowing what is going on, is incredibly distressing. I welcome the Health Minister's announcement about taking a regional approach to dealing with breast cancer waiting lists in particular, which will ensure that patients will be seen at the earliest available appointment, regardless of where they are based. That is absolutely the right thing to do. We know that each trust has different services available for cancer treatment. For example, there are rapid diagnostic centres in two trusts. Access to those services should not be a postcode lottery. We need a single-system approach to health and social care in Northern Ireland, with specialist and regional hubs, depending on the services available in each area, to remove barriers to treatment. The statistics that have been quoted today are a grim reminder of the real-life consequences of the dysfunction and lack of urgency in ensuring reform of our health and social care services. We must remain committed to that crucial transformation to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland receive the highest quality of care when they need it most. A cancer diagnosis can be devastating, and waiting for treatment is incredibly distressing. As Doug Beattie mentioned, the cancer strategy needs to be funded and delivered. As has been mentioned again and again, early detection and timely treatment are what people in Northern Ireland deserve. Thank you for securing the debate today.
452 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.94 | 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 | 0.43 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.34 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.19 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.04 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:26 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.