Debate contribution: Neurology Services
Debate contribution by Mr Danny Donnelly on .
- MLA
- Mr Danny Donnelly
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 9 December 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Neurology Services
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5296286
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I endorse the FightForNeuro campaign, which was launched in Stormont in November of this year. That campaign is testament to the powerful stories of those with lived experience, and it highlights the urgent need to address the gaps identified in neurological care following the publication of the final report of the regional review of neurology services. Some of the quotes from the campaign are shocking. One patient said:
"It's currently impossible to contact someone for help or advice when needed."
Another said:
"I feel like my condition has deteriorated which could have possibly been prevented."
As Diane highlighted, those people feel abandoned. We have heard about the shockingly long waiting lists for routine appointments, on which patients wait for years, while their conditions deteriorate. That impacts on their health, quality of life and finances. It also results in additional pressures on the health service. In August, Alliance responded to the consultation on the neurology review, which accurately outlined the serious and systemic challenges within neurological services. Waiting times are unacceptably long. Workforce shortages across consultants, nurses, AHPs and psychology staff create an unacceptable variation in access and outcomes across the trusts. The absence of local neurology teams and condition-specific pathways further undermines service consistency and quality. The report of the neurology review sets out four main priorities: a person-centred service; developing additional workforce capacity within neurology; addressing gaps in current services; and using current resources more effectively. In responding to the consultation, we strongly supported the vision but urged that the focus needs to be on delivery. Person-centred, evidence-based care cannot be achieved without investment, across all trusts, in workforce, infrastructure and support services. Services need to be designed with and for people with neurological conditions, particularly through condition-specific pathways that reflect lived experience. Is that going to happen? Well, the Minister attended the launch of the FightForNeuro campaign, and the Northern Ireland Neurological Charities Alliance (NINCA) stated that he:
"took the time to listen to personal stories from people across the neurology community. He listened carefully as people living with neurological conditions like Parkinson’s, Epilepsy, Functional Neurological Disorder (FND), Migraine, and Multiple Sclerosis (MS) shared the reality of what it's really like navigating a broken system and living with a long-term neurological condition."
NINCA said:
"While the Minister couldn’t commit to immediate funding, he assured us that neurology will be a top priority in the upcoming budget discussions. He also expressed his willingness to work with us to deliver real, meaningful change, acknowledging that the neurology community deserves better."
I do not doubt that the Minister has genuine empathy for the people in those circumstances, and I do not doubt that he would like to deliver real and meaningful change in neurology services, but empathy and kind words will not fix the health service.
Consider the Department's approach to some of the priorities set out in the review. At the Health Committee last week, when discussing the Department's budget, my colleague Nuala McAllister asked the departmental finance officer about projected savings and whether they were simply cost savings or efficiencies. She was informed that they were mostly just savings, which raises serious concerns that there is a culture of bottom-line budgets on paper as opposed to efficient spending with best outcomes and patient-centred care in mind. How will we ever have a person-centred service if that is the Department's approach? It feeds into the need to use current resources more effectively, but how can it be a more efficient service when the Department admits that it is more focused on saving money than being efficient? I have spoken previously about the constant recommendations in basically every report across our health service that recognise the need to develop additional workforce capacity. The Minister told me in the Assembly that a delayed winter plan would have no impact on staff morale, yet, two weeks later, it has appeared as a red-line concern in the departmental report. I can say from personal experience and from speaking to healthcare staff that it has had a serious impact on morale in the service. It has been consistently reported that mental health problems are one of the biggest causes of staff sickness in the public sector, including the trusts, yet we have a mental health strategy that is effectively shelved and completely underfunded. We have pay uplifts that leave out vital parts of the healthcare workforce, and we have a neurology service that has roughly one consultant for every 1,600 patients and one specialist nurse for every 700 patients. We cannot continue to address recognised failures only with words and unactioned reviews. A funded delivery plan with clear timelines, accountability structures and the patient voice embedded throughout is clearly needed. How can we call for those things when the embedded culture is clearly set on keeping the system inequitable and reactive? The review will just be another waste of resources if actionable delivery does not follow, along with the culture change and reform that are needed.
837 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).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.99 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:08 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.