Debate contribution: Cancer Research: All-island Cooperation
Debate contribution by Mr Danny Donnelly on .
- MLA
- Mr Danny Donnelly
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 17 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Cancer Research: All-island Cooperation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4496801
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome today's debate, and I thank the Sinn Féin Members for tabling the motion and the DUP Members for tabling the amendment. We will support both. In Northern Ireland, almost 10,000 people are diagnosed with cancer every year, which is over 20 people every day. With our growing and ageing population, more of us will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in our life. It is particularly concerning that, according to research from Queen's University and the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry (NICR), there was, between 1993 and 2019, a 20% increase in cancers diagnosed in people aged 18 to 49. In addition to that frequency, a greater number of cancers are being diagnosed at an early age. With that in mind, the new Health Minister's urgent priority must be the full implementation of the cancer strategy and all its objectives. I welcome his comments about his commitment to the issue of cancer. The motion asks us to note the recent All-Island Cancer Research Institute report, and I recommend it to all Members. The report calls for a number of actions, and its recommendations are largely based on greater all-Ireland cooperation. In many respects, closer cooperation between the two jurisdictions on this island makes sense, and there is already a desire for cooperation outside the political sphere, including with academics from various further education institutions and with many industries that are based on the island, particularly in the Republic. The report's main recommendation is for an all-island oncology innovation cluster, taking in experts in various fields from both sides of the border for them to play a key role in further developing oncology research and development. That could harness both countries' strengths. As the report highlights, Northern Ireland has strengths in its indigenous companies and in digital health and diagnostics, while the Republic of Ireland has strengths in digital infrastructure and drug manufacturing. The cluster would need to be accompanied by supportive infrastructure, such as national biobanking infrastructure, building on the Northern Ireland Biobank model. The report also calls for increased research and development funding, which is important, given that both parts of Ireland lag behind the rest of Europe in R&D funding. Potential funding sources include the EU's PEACE PLUS programme and the Irish Government's Shared Island Fund and Project Ireland 2040. As the motion states, much of that depends on direct engagement between the Departments of Health here and in Dublin, and the mechanisms are already in place for cross-border cooperation, including the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC). As a member of the Health Committee, I reiterate the motion's call for the Minister to update the Assembly and, in particular, the Health Committee on his engagement with the Irish Government on advancing the report's recommendations. As the Chair of the Health Committee mentioned, we have a joint visit with the Oireachtas Health Committee to the Queen's University Centre for Cancer Research next week. I look forward to that. I will now address the amendment. We welcome any cooperation and meaningful engagement with the intention of advancing research into cancer prevention and treatment across these islands. Cooperation on an east-west basis should be promoted, not least because of the necessary funding that Westminster must provide. It should be a priority for not just the Minister of Health but the MPs who will represent Northern Ireland in the next Parliament. The report that we are discussing today specifically relates to North/South cooperation, and equivalent research on east-west cooperation would be welcome. For those reasons, we are content to support the Sinn Féin motion and the DUP's amendment. They have a similar objective: improving cooperation between us and other jurisdictions in the UK and Ireland for the important purpose of improving and developing cancer research.
624 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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.04 | 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 | 0.93 | 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 | 0.73 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.16 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.06 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:47 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.