Debate contribution: Cancer Waiting Times
Debate contribution by Mr Stewart Dickson on .
- MLA
- Mr Stewart Dickson
- 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 4937463
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Cancer is not just a disease but a thief that steals time, futures and lives. Although cancer does not discriminate, our systems, sadly, do. They discriminate between those who get seen on time and those who do not and between those who survive and those who become a statistic. I know that, because I stood in those shoes. In 2019, I sat across a table from a consultant and heard the words that no one wants to hear, "You have cancer". I learned something else that day, however, which was the difference that speed, expertise and decisive action can make.
I am thankful for the extraordinary staff in the NHS and their skills, including my GP, the staff at Antrim Area Hospital and the Cancer Centre and the surgeons at Belfast City Hospital. Before I move on, I have a question for the Minister. The theatres at Belfast City Hospital are always over capacity: when will plans be provided for the new elective care theatres at Belfast City Hospital? When will they be built to take pressure off the existing facilities? I stand here, having survived one of the least survivable cancers. My story should not be the exception; it should be the norm. Instead, the system is failing far too many people across Northern Ireland when they need it most. The latest figures are not just disappointing: they are a disgrace. Between October and December 2024, only 34% of patients began treatment within 62 days of an urgent GP referral, and the gap is widening. Ten years ago, the figure was more than double that. As for breast cancer, only one third were seen within the critical 14-day window, down five percentage points on the previous year. Let me be clear: that is not just inefficiency; it is injustice. Every day, that is a gamble with lives. Research in the British Medical Journal shows that a four-week delay in cancer surgery increases the risk of death by 7%, rising to 13% for radiotherapy and chemotherapy. For breast cancer, delays of eight and 12 weeks can increase the risk of death by 17% and 26%. Those are not numbers: they are our parents, partners, children and friends. They are people who can be saved but only if we act quickly and with the urgency that the system demands. Funding alone is not enough. Yes, the allocation of £215 million for waiting lists is welcome, but questions remain over implementation that, I hope, will be addressed in the elective care framework action plan that will be published later this month. We need to see detailed plans and programmes to improve outcomes and a workforce that retains the specialists whom we are losing. Above all, we need to treat the situation with the urgency that it demands. Behind every statistic is someone's mother, father or child who is running out of days while we stand here and debate. We must never forget the human cost of those failures. To those watching today who are waiting for a diagnosis, waiting for treatment and waiting for hope, I say this: I see you because I have been there. I have sat where you sit. I know the frustration, the anger and the sadness. I saw it in patients around me who did not make the journey that I made. However, I know that change is possible, so long as we and the Minister have the political will to act. Minister, why has it has taken so long to get to this position? Why was this not part of your day-1 brief? The time for warm words is over. Now is the time to show a real plan that is measurable and timetabled and contains actions for delivery.
623 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | 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 | 0.52 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.42 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 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.