Debate contribution: CAR T-cell Therapy
Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on .
- MLA
- Mr Colin McGrath
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 22 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- CAR T-cell Therapy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5124456
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It would be entirely remiss of me to commence the debate without mentioning someone who made a significant impact on so many people's lives. I am referring, of course, to Catherine Sherry, a young mother from Armagh, who lost her life earlier this year while receiving CAR T-cell therapy in London. Her aunts are representing the family in the Public Gallery today, and I thank Anne and Marie for being with us and for the way in which they have raised the issue and want to see a resolution to the problems. Catherine should never have had to travel hundreds of miles from her home and her family in the final months of her life. Who of us can imagine having to do that? It is unbearable and heartbreaking. That is the human cost of the gap in our system. Catherine's family and many others who are here and who have reached out to us today remind us that, behind every one of those statistics, there is a life, a family and a community. CAR T-cell therapy is one of the most advanced life-saving cancer treatments available today. It is already being delivered in Dublin and soon will be in Galway, and it is delivered in various centres across Britain, yet here in the North, our patients must travel to London, Manchester or Glasgow. They face separation from loved ones, the stress of travel and the additional costs of that all while they are battling cancer. Whichever way you slice it, that is just cruel and plain wrong. What we have now is not working. Families are being forced into impossible choices, and people here are being denied equitable access to treatment that others on these islands can receive closer to home. The motion is simple. It calls on the Health Minister:
"to urgently deliver a local service"
for CAR T-cell therapy. In many ways, Belfast is a trailblazer when it comes to cancer care, with the Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, but it should be a centre of excellence for cancer care, and we cannot keep pushing delivery out to the next decade. Those battling cancer simply do not have years to wait. While we work to build that service here, there is an immediate step that we could take: we could cooperate with Dublin. St James's Hospital in Dublin is already treating patients. The service in Galway will soon be operational. It makes no sense that patients from Newry, Armagh or Derry must fly to London when some of the best cancer clinicians in the world are just down the road. It is about fairness, but it is also about compassion and justice for families who have already endured too much. I say this to the families who are here today: we see you, we hear you, and we will keep fighting for you. The Assembly cannot bring back Catherine or any of those whom we have lost to that most indiscriminate and horrible disease, but we can make sure that Catherine's story is the last of its kind. Let us resolve today that no one in the North will be left behind in the fight against cancer. Let us deliver CAR T-cell therapy here. In the meantime, while we get ready to do that, if it is going to take a number of years, let us work with our neighbours to provide care close to home. Those battling that illness want to live; they do not have the luxury of time. Let us not leave them waiting any longer.
606 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | 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 | 0.67 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.20 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.07 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:15 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.