Member's statement: Brain Cancer: Research, Funding and Access to Care
Member's statement by Mr Stewart Dickson on .
- MLA
- Mr Stewart Dickson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 6 October 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Brain Cancer: Research, Funding and Access to Care
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5156496
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As Members will be aware, I chair the all-party group (APG) on cancer. Today, I bring the House's attention to a cancer that desperately needs our focus: brain cancer. I will tell you about Rachael, who is in the Public Gallery. Rachael is just 23 years old and the mother of a two-year-old. Last year, she was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumour. She has already outlived her initial prognosis yet continues to endure distressing and debilitating symptoms. Despite that, Rachael and her family have chosen not to remain silent but, rather, to campaign for change. On her behalf, I therefore ask Members to sign the United Kingdom Government and Parliament petition on brain cancer. I will send the link to all Members after I have made my statement. Rachael's call is not only urgent but justified. Brain tumours are the biggest cancer killer of children and of adults under the age of 40 in the United Kingdom. They kill more men under 70 than prostate cancer, more women under 35 than breast cancer and more children than leukaemia. Every day, 33 people in the United Kingdom will be diagnosed with a brain tumour, and over 5,000 will die from one each year. Brain cancer is indiscriminate, affecting anyone at any age. There is no preventative measure and little benefit from early detection. Without research, funding and innovation, brain tumours will remain a death sentence for many. Overall cancer death rates have fallen by 20% in recent decades, but that is not the case for brain cancer. The United Kingdom now ranks close to the bottom of the list of wealthy nations for five-year survival rates, while, interestingly, Ireland is in the top five. We must ask why that is, because the situation in the UK is simply unacceptable. Between 2018 and 2022, more than 800 people in Northern Ireland were diagnosed with brain tumours, which is an average of 160 a year. Survival rates have barely improved, however.
Our Health Minister has a duty to act. We need a cancer care strategy that treats brain tumours not as an afterthought but as a priority. We need to end the lottery for rehabilitation and psychological support, so that survival is not only about extending life but about ensuring quality of life. We need to support Brainwaves, Northern Ireland's only voluntary brain tumour research and support charity. What steps will the Minister take to prioritise brain cancer and tackle waiting times, which cost lives? How will he ensure that people can access cancer trials despite continual hold-ups to clinical trial sign-offs? What plan will he bring forward to overcome barriers that deny patients equal access to care and support? This is about people such as Rachael, her two-year-old child and families across Northern Ireland. They deserve more than our sympathy; they deserve action. Brain tumours are among the most devastating forms of cancer, yet that area remains underfunded, under-researched and misunderstood. Without investment in research, brain tumours will continue to be a death sentence. It is time to end delays to funding, diagnosis and treatment. Research and prompt treatment paths offer the only real hope for transforming survival —
— and quality of life.
533 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | 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 | 0.40 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.39 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.20 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:21 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.