Debate contribution: Cancer Research: All-island Cooperation
Debate contribution by Mr Stewart Dickson on .
- MLA
- Mr Stewart Dickson
- 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 4496811
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As Members have said this afternoon, cancer knows no borders. Our fight against it must be equally boundless. I had the pleasure recently of attending the Cancer Knows No Borders conference in Dublin. That was an inspirational event, bringing together researchers and cancer professionals from Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales and, most importantly, the United States of America. That was vital for that event. By uniting our resources, expertise and knowledge, an all-island cancer strategy can help us to advance cancer research and provide better outcomes for patients across the island. Oncology clusters could bring together research institutions, healthcare providers and private industry. They could drive innovation, attract investment and create high-value jobs. Collaboration will ensure that the latest treatments and technologies are accessible to all people on the island and wider afield. The success of the Ireland-Northern Ireland-US National Cancer Institute Cancer Consortium, born out of the Good Friday Agreement, shows what we can achieve together. That partnership has delivered high-quality research, including students from both sides of the border. However, there is much to do. Patients from the Republic of Ireland often travel to Northern Ireland for treatment but rarely vice versa. Aside from a few initiatives such as the Congenital Heart Disease Network and the North West Cancer Centre in Derry, there is minimal cross-border collaboration in cancer policy or research. Currently, Northern Ireland's cancer statistics are among the worst in the UK as part of Europe. Increased cross-border collaboration could improve those standards. Meaningful engagement between the Department of Health in Northern Ireland and the Department of Health in Dublin is crucial. I encourage the Minister to take up that work. By working together, we should make significant strides in cancer prevention, treatment and care. Sharing knowledge and funding allows Governments to fight cancer together rather than competing against each other. It means committing to a future in which our collective efforts in cancer research are unified and strengthened. It is about improving health outcomes. It is about showing that we can unite for the greater good, beyond our political differences. I thank the charities in Northern Ireland that work tirelessly outside of government to fundraise. Every penny that is raised supports patients or is used to buy equipment that the Government or Department cannot provide or to provide extra. The charities in Northern Ireland that fund research provide hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. We must pay tribute to the work that they do. The Northern Ireland Cancer Registry does excellent analysis of cancer statistics across Northern Ireland. However, until we share those statistics meaningfully and regularly across the whole of the United Kingdom — this is on the point of the amendment — we will not be able to place Northern Ireland's cancer statistics in the UK context or the European context. I encourage the Minister to detail in his response the work that he will do to ensure that we knit our statistics into national and international statistics so that Northern Ireland's cancer statistics can stand up and be measured.
513 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 (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.69 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.20 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 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.