Debate contribution: Cancer Waiting Times
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 12 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Cancer Waiting Times
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4937451
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the motion from my party colleagues Ms Diane Dodds and Mr Alan Robinson. I place on record our satisfaction and our gratitude to Diane and Alan for the sterling work that they do on the Health Committee in representing the people and, secondly, this party and its views and policies. It is service that is second to none, and that has been reflected in the debate. The near-unanimous support for Diane and Alan's motion is a measure of the strength that they have in that Committee. If we, as a devolved Assembly, cannot assist in our nation's health, we may as well shut up and go home. There is nothing more important than the health of our people, because from health springs everything else. Therefore, it is vital that people have a health service when they require it. People need to have trust and confidence not only in our health service but in our Health Department. I make a distinction between the two because very rarely do you get a complaint about a staff member — the caring nurses and doctors who meet and greet patients under traumatic circumstances with diagnoses of the most serious nature. We do not usually get walk-ins to congratulate the health service. We usually have to prise it out of people, but when you do get to speak to people, they usually tell you that they had really good service and that a really good, caring bunch of professionals looked after them. However, there are so many horrific stories from people who come into our offices who are still waiting and waiting and waiting. A diagnosis can be devastating, traumatising, horrific. Imagine the fear and distress, though, when they have to wait and wait and wait. The statistics — they are people — are absolutely shocking and shameful. If the devolved Assembly cannot get to grips with waiting times, not least cancer waiting times, we will have failed. What do we do? Trust in the Health Department is probably at its lowest ebb in decades, so it is important that we have a strong Minister. To be honest, it is probably more important for all of us that we have a strong Minister in Health compared with any other Department. As I listened to Members speaking, I could not help but think of the Members who have been affected by cancer. I have been here since 2010, and I can rack up a few Members who have been directly affected or have family members who have been affected. My prayers and thoughts have always been with those people. However, that just shows what cancer does and how it rips through communities, families and people. It is probably the biggest enemy that our people have when it comes to health, so why can we not get to grips with it? I remember being in someone's house the week after they were diagnosed with cancer. Unfortunately, it was the week in which our previous Health Minister said, during COVID, that cancer patients would be turned away. Words can be clumsy, and I am as much a culprit of that as anyone, but the devastating effect that those words had on that lady was as if she was melting away in pain, sorrow and anxiety. When people sit on waiting lists, it is as if the clock goes faster, and they become more and more anxious and stressed. Of course, stress, being what it is, will impact on and affect people on waiting lists, not least those with cancer. Cancer is a devastating illness that needs to be tackled, and we should resolve to do all that we can. However, if we think that we can simply throw money at the issue without the Health Department and the health service being transformed, we are mistaken —
— because one must come with the other.
648 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 (0.84).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.84 | 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 | 0.69 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.25 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:22 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.