Debate contribution: Cancer Waiting Times

Debate contribution by Mr Alan Robinson on .

MLA
Mr Alan Robinson
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 4937844

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will say a few words of my own before I address those of others. The headline that fewer than one third of patients who were referred urgently for suspected breast cancer during October to December last year were seen within the 14-day target is half the story. You could say that the real story is that two thirds of those referred urgently with suspected breast cancer were not seen within the 14-day target. They are all local people, some of whom we know, waiting anxiously for answers and clarity and living in hope of a positive outcome. Just imagine the terror and fear of a woman who discovers that she has breast cancer and then realises that, in Northern Ireland, only 37·7% of patients are seen by a breast cancer specialist within the 14-day target. We need to say it as it is: it is shocking and shameful. Speak to any cancer specialist, and they will say that the disease is a race against time. The earlier cancer is diagnosed, the more effective and less invasive the treatment can be. That was repeated by Cancer Focus in 2024, which said that the earlier it is detected, the better the outcome. Clearly, the long waits for patients in the Province, whilst frustrating, are dangerous. They can lead to a later-stage diagnosis, reduced treatment options, poor outcomes and irreparable psychological damage. I welcome the £215 million that has been allocated to tackling waiting lists in the Executive's 2025-26 Budget. All of us in the House ask that that funding is not diluted, redirected or delayed; it must be ring-fenced specifically for initiatives that relieve the immediate pressure and allow the building of long-term resilience in cancer waiting times. That means investing in proven and practical solutions, rapid diagnosis centres, mega-clinics and service reviews that strip out inefficiencies. We welcome the £10 million announced by the Minister for mega-clinics and look forward to seeing the detail. We have to think not just about firefighting the crisis but about preventing it from reoccurring. To that end, we welcome the Minister's recent holding statement to the House on the investment plan to cut waiting lists. I will sum up a few of the comments from Members. Diane Dodds was in her usual feisty form and detailed the appalling stats on cancer waiting times. She said that the stats for breast cancer are letting women down. It needs to be repeated that 25,000 youngsters are on a waiting list to see a paediatrician in the Belfast Trust and the Southern Trust. None of us could not be shocked by those figures, which add to the figures in our motion. Colin McGrath spoke about the theme of fear. He said that it is cancer and that it can land like a hammer blow. He is correct, but, when you add the huge waiting list times, you only add to the cruelty that is happening in this Province. Philip McGuigan, the Health Committee Chair, talked about the importance of catching cancer early, which reinforces the reason for tabling the motion. He, too, welcomed the waiting list investment plan but called for clear targets. Nuala McAllister referenced how the issues had been debated before. I share her frustration and am on record in the Chamber in that regard. A new mandate is fast approaching, and I suspect that those elected in the next mandate will have quite the challenge waiting for them. I hope that I am proved wrong. Alan Chambers acknowledged that breast cancer waiting times are "awful". He expressed his disappointment at Mrs Dodds's "negativity" about the forthcoming cross-border scheme and wanted to know whether it was DUP policy. I say this to Alan: Mrs Dodds's comments in the previous debate — she expressed her concerns about health inequalities — have been backed up and reinforced in recent days by the deputy chair of the BMA. Ciara Ferguson talked about the importance of listening to young people with cancer and spoke of the importance of clinical trials for women. She acknowledged and praised the local organisations that are at the forefront of the disease. Paul Frew talked about former colleagues in the Chamber — we can all think of some of them — who are no longer with us as a result of cancer. He used a phrase in referring to those diagnosed with cancer: "the clock goes faster". I am sure that those listening to the debate will agree entirely. Danny Donnelly, speaking about the cancer strategy, said that it was underfunded, which, indeed, is true of a number of strategies. He called on an investment plan to deliver, and we certainly agree on that. He called on the Minister to lower the age for bowel screening, and, again, we very much agree with that. Stewart Dickson talked about his own diagnosis, and, as I have said in here before and will say again and again, personal experiences breathe life into debates in the Chamber. Forgive me if I have picked this up incorrectly, but I think that he called the current waiting list figures "a disgrace". Not one of us in the Chamber and not one member of the public will disagree. Claire Sugden talked about having to wait 12 weeks for a cancer investigation, and I am sure that all of us in the House will wish her well. She is not here at the moment, but I hope that she is listening. She also referenced regional waiting lists, and the fact that the Minister has announced, just today, a regional approach to red-flag cancer assessments going live is welcome. That leads me nicely on to the Minister's comments. His announcement through the press statement that we have had sight of today begs the question of whether it takes debates such as this to force that change.

Absolutely, I will. I really hope that it is not the case.

I thank the Minister for clarifying that. It is good that Encompass is live in all trusts now, and I hope that benefits will flow from that. The Minister also touched on workforce, and we have said in here in the past that, without a workforce, we do not have a health service. We also welcome the increase in CT capacity that he referred to. That will allow for 9,000 additional scans. I stand to be corrected on that. I have to say, however, that I expected the Minister to come out fighting today, but he certainly kept it within the tramlines, other than a few spicy moments near the end of his contribution. We can only hope that, on the back of today's debate, we see some further implementation on this critical topic. I thank everyone for their contributions today. We are united in wanting to see waiting lists improved.

1,143 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.96).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.05No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.96Yes
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.97
Reports or questions it0.03
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.44
No identity-related subject0.34
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.15
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.06
Another identity-related subject0.01

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.

Challenge this classification