Debate contribution: Cancer Waiting Times
Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on .
- MLA
- Mr Colin McGrath
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 12 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Cancer Waiting Times
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4937834
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The tone of the debate was respectful, compassionate and constructive throughout: I will withdraw those terms when we come to the Minister's final remarks. Beyond those remarks, however, we were generally respectful and compassionate and took the opportunity to discuss a very important issue. I understand, appreciate and welcome what the Minister has detailed, insofar as a range of interventions are taking place in cancer treatment that will hopefully help people. My only concern is that those interventions did not start in the past week or two. We have had them for a while, and the figures do not seem to be being driven down. I have faith that they will come down and that, once they align, all the interventions will enable us to chip away at the lengthy waiting times and allow us to see critical waiting times start to reduce. If the Minister knew what his budget was, if he had a pot of money from which nothing could be taken away and if he knew that funding would be there for a number of years, that would be helpful and would allow all the initiatives to be underpinned with financial security in order to ensure that they are delivered. Given that cutting waiting times is one of the nine priorities in the Programme for Government, it should be an easy sell for the Health Minister to make to the Executive, and it should be easy for the Executive to say to him, "Here is the ring-fenced money for you to deliver speedier waiting times for those who are dealing with cancer". It has been referenced throughout the debate how that is a frightening time and how people feel as though they are alone as they face the challenge of combating cancer. Knowing that there will be a speedy response from hospital services would be of use to people. I do not need to detain the House. We have talked about all the issues. Our amendment was tabled to support the motion and to try to give the Health Minister all the help and support that he can get to deal with the issues that, we have all said, are critical. I hope that the amendment can be supported in the way in which it is presented, which is to assist with cancer waiting times. I will give way to the Minister.
Thank you. Absolutely, because, as I have said, there needs to be full Executive support for it. It is in the Programme for Government. There is no point in us putting things into the Programme for Government and then saying, "We are not going to give you the money to deal with it". We say that the money should come ring-fenced so that people out there know that, if they are facing cancer, they will do so knowing that there is a service that is funded and is available for them. With all of the interventions that have been mentioned and the support from everybody across the House, hopefully we will see an improved service for people. Thank you.
520 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).
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.87 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.12 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:23 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.