Debate contribution: Cancer Waiting Times
Debate contribution by Mr Danny Donnelly on .
- MLA
- Mr Danny Donnelly
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 12 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Cancer Waiting Times
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4937457
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank Mrs Dodds and Mr Robinson for tabling the motion. We have heard plenty of statistics already, and they are harrowing. We miss every target. Unacceptable delays are now normalised, and, yes, the numbers are awful.
I fear that, in among all the noise, we are beginning to lose sight of what the numbers represent. We are here today because every missed cancer target is a person: a woman waiting weeks to hear whether a lump is cancerous; a father whose treatment is delayed; or a family who are trapped in uncertainty. The debate is not about systems but about lives. As has been said, we all know somebody who has been affected by cancer.
The statistics represent not a marginal failure but a systemic breakdown, and, critically, the statistics are not a one-off but part of a pattern that has become dangerously routine. We regularly get updates on missed targets. Not delivering has become normal. As Mrs Dodds said, news reports barely mention the missed targets. The evidence is clear that early diagnosis and treatment saves lives. A delay of just four weeks in starting cancer treatment can increase the risk of death by up to 8%. Those are not abstract figures. Rather, they are measured in lives that have been shortened, in more aggressive treatment plans and by the emotional toll on patients and their families, who are navigating a longer and more uncertain journey. The Executive have recently allocated £215 million in the Budget to address waiting lists. That is a significant investment, but, let us be honest, money without vision and accountability will not be enough. We cannot ignore the fact that we already have a comprehensive cancer strategy, which was launched in 2022 with broad political and sectoral support, yet, three years on, it remains largely underfunded. A strategy without resources is just a press release. If we are serious about change, we must back our ambitions with actual investment and not just intentions. Let us not forget that sustainable health reform cannot be delivered through one-year Budgets. Hospitals, trusts and front-line services cannot plan staffing, invest in diagnostic capacity or roll out innovations when they have only 12 months of certainty. Multi-year Budgets are not optional but essential if we are to stop firefighting and instead start planning. Every pound that we spend must be tied to outcomes. We absolutely need short-term wins, such as more appointments, faster access and backlogs cleared, but they alone will not solve the problem. Rather, we need lasting, structural reform. There has been progress made, such as investment in long-term capacity, rapid diagnostic centres, mega-clinics and elective care hubs and better use of digital systems and technology in order to streamline care. I welcome the Minister's recent announcement and his plans to address waiting times, but I stress that those plans cannot become another forum for discussion. They must deliver. They must challenge Departments and empower them to cut through the layers of bureaucracy and to prioritise front-line services where they are needed most. That means institutional reform. For too long, our health system has been burdened by fragmented structures, sluggish processes and the recurring pattern of stop-start governance. That instability has paralysed long-term planning, undermined investment in critical services and left Departments scrambling to manage crisis after crisis. In the nine years since the release of the Bengoa report in 2016, we have had a functioning Assembly for only four years, owing to the shutdowns of this place by the two biggest parties. We know that the Assembly is only as stable today as it was the day before the most recent shutdown. Cancer care, like so much else, cannot thrive in a system in which governance is intermittent. We need a stable Government that function consistently, cohesively and with accountability. The current model is failing patients, and that situation cannot go on. It is also vital that we protect and support our health workforce, because the truth is that no reform, no matter how ambitious, will work unless we have the people to deliver it. Nurses, radiologists, oncologists and so many others are exhausted, and too many are leaving the system. I urge the Minister to look at increasing the availability of screening by lowering the age for bowel cancer screening and by introducing a plan to screen for lung cancer. Perhaps he can speak to that in his remarks. The Minister is keen to act on screening, and he has previously said that it is something that he cares about. Sadly, we know that one in two of us will get cancer in our lifetime. Cancer does not wait, so neither should we.
779 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 (0.97).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.97 | 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 | 0.87 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.08 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.