Debate contribution: Rare Cancers Bill: Legislative Consent Motion

Debate contribution by Mr Alan Robinson on .

MLA
Mr Alan Robinson
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
30 June 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Executive Committee Business
Heading
Rare Cancers Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5043645

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I support the LCM on the extension to Northern Ireland of clause 1 of the Rare Cancers Bill, which proposes a mandated review by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care of how the current framework of marketing authorisations and regulatory incentives either helps or hinders the development of drugs for rare cancers. The lives affected by rare cancers are just as valuable and are just as deserving of and entitled to support as any other, even though those cancers affect smaller numbers of people. Whilst those numbers may be smaller, they amount to almost one quarter of cancers in the Province, including blood cancers and head and neck cancers. The Bill will place a legal duty on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to conduct a thorough review of UK law governing the marketing authorisations for orphan drug products used in the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of cancer and to compare the UK's framework with regulatory systems in other countries, assessing whether the current rules encourage research into and investment in such cancers. Some companies are reluctant to invest in such research because of the limited numbers of people affected. The fact that potentially life-saving treatments do not receive the same level of research and investment means that there are fewer treatment options for those with rare cancers. Orphan drugs are used to treat not only rare cancers but other rare diseases. The Health Committee understands that some existing non-cancer drugs may be effective for rare cancers, but there is no clear pathway or funding structure to support their investigation and approval. There is a public need to fill that research gap. As was said previously, clause 1 of the Rare Cancers Bill will place a duty on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to:

"carry out a review of the law relating to marketing authorisations for orphan medicinal products that are for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of cancer".

Clause 1(2) provides that the review must consider regulatory approaches in other countries compared with the UK's approach and encourages that the review must assess international regulatory approaches for orphan drug products, with a view to assessing whether the regulations in the UK are considered effective at encouraging research and development for treatments of rare cancers. Patients in Northern Ireland deserve the same access to progress in medical science as those in the rest of the UK because, as we all know, cancer does not recognise borders and nor should the research and innovation that combat it. Any reform as a result of the review of such drugs should be extended to Northern Ireland in the context of the Windsor framework and should build on the existing agreement reached with the EU, ensuring that patients in Northern Ireland see benefit. I support the motion.

473 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.95).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.01No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.01No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.95Yes
Overall judgement0.02At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.43
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.34
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.21
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.01
Another identity-related subject0.01

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:06 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.

Challenge this classification