Member's statement: Cancer: Waiting Times
Member's statement by Mr Stewart Dickson on .
- MLA
- Mr Stewart Dickson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 10 June 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Cancer: Waiting Times
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5000964
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Cancer is a disease that does not wait. It does not care where you live, how old you are or how much money you have in your bank account, but, in Northern Ireland, how fast you get seen and whether your cancer is caught early can depend on those things. A recent audit report on imaging services lays that out in black and white. Our system is falling behind in staff, scanners and basic capacity, and it is patients who are paying the price. In the past four years, almost 1,800 people were waiting more than two weeks for a red-flag cancer scan, and almost 9,500 waited four weeks for an urgent diagnosis scan. That is not a delay; that is a death sentence. We know from published studies that a four-week delay in cancer treatment increases the risk of death by 13% to 16%. We also know that 35% of patients in Northern Ireland are waiting for more than 26 weeks for an MRI scan, yet, in England, less than 5% wait longer than 13 weeks. That is not just a postcode lottery; it is a completely different healthcare system. What is the Department's response? Repeated reliance on non-recurrent short-term funding that comes too late to make real differences.
The Minister tells us that he has permanent solutions, such as a Northern Ireland imaging academy. That is one of his priorities, but it has not been allocated any funding, and no timeline for it has been set. It is not a plan for change; it is simply another idea from the Minister. While we head towards having the worst radiologist shortfall in the United Kingdom, patients and consultants wait longer and longer for the answers that they need. Scandalously, 16% of imaging equipment is already obsolete, and that percentage is rising. We are still diagnosing cancer with machines that have been used since before some of our junior doctors even started secondary school, yet the Department has allocated only £3 million annually for the replacement of equipment, when the real need is up to £25 million. That is not an efficiency. It is unsafe and unfair. We need to ask why we have not made imaging reform a clear part of our cancer strategy. Why is Northern Ireland still using outdated scanners, and why do we still have unfilled workforce posts? I ask the Minister this directly: when will funding be secured for the imaging academy? When will there be regional plans to replace scanners that are now past their safe use? When will we see clear public targets to bring Northern Ireland's imaging waiting times into line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom? We need action, we need investment and we need leadership that stops talking and starts delivering.
464 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 | 0.83 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.13 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:41 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.