Debate contribution: In Vitro Fertilisation Equality

Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on .

MLA
Mr Colin McGrath
Party at the time
Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date
22 June 2026
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Opposition Business
Heading
In Vitro Fertilisation Equality
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5638563

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you. I thank all Members for their contributions. What we have heard makes one thing absolutely clear: this is a broken promise, and the people who are paying the price are individuals and couples from across Northern Ireland who simply want the chance to start a family. I acknowledge the campaigners and families who are in the Gallery, some of whom shared their experiences with my colleagues directly before the debate. I want them to know that the debate exists because they have refused to stay silent. One story that was shared earlier deserves repeating. A couple said that, if they had not been able to pay privately, they would not have the child who they have today. That reflects not a health service that is working as intended but a system where the ability to become a parent depends on ability to pay. New Decade, New Approach committed the Executive to expanding publicly funded IVF provision to three cycles, in line with NICE guidelines. That was not an SDLP commitment but an Executive one. Five years later, it remains undelivered. People here have access to less fertility treatment than people in Scotland and Wales. Behind that failure are real people. One couple has spent more than 15 years trying to start a family. They have gone through 18 rounds of ovulation induction, three rounds of IVF and four miscarriages. They are now facing another private cycle costing at least £5,000 before medication and scans. That is not a luxury that they can put off: it is the hope of having a child. Another couple began treatment through the regional fertility centre but suffered serious complications and a heartbreaking loss. We have also had personal contributions from Órlaithí, Linda and Kellie and on behalf of Nuala's family. Those people are still trying, but, at their current rate of saving, it could take them another three to four years to afford further treatment, by which time, they have been advised, their opportunity may have passed. Infertility affects around one in six couples. As one campaigner said, had she broken her leg, she would have been treated without question. Too often, infertility is treated as something that people should simply endure rather than as a healthcare need that deserves support. The motion does not ask for a new policy, because the commitment already exists. The guidance already exists. What is missing is delivery. In the motion, we call on the Minister to, by the end of the mandate, introduce proposals and secure the funding needed to provide up to three cycles of treatment — not another review or another working group but a funded plan with a clear timeline. Whilst I appreciate that finances are difficult, I must say to the Minister that it is difficult listening to him say, "I cannot afford it. What would I scrap in its place?" That is cold comfort to the couples out there who wish to start a family, knowing that their priority is not matched by their Executive. That must feel like a bitter blow to them, so I hope that we can work together and see the Executive pulling together to deliver on their commitment. Today, the fact that every single Member who spoke supported the motion adds to the consensus on this. However, it is no use only supporting a motion in the Chamber when there are a few cameras on us and some people are in the Gallery. We need to see that commitment in the Executive. We need to see that commitment in the Executive turn into delivery, and that delivery will make a difference to people and their lives. There is no credible reason why Northern Ireland should continue to lag behind neighbouring regions on something as fundamental as the chance to start a family.

Absolutely. I agree with you.

I appreciate those remarks. There is no point in all of us here agreeing on something and then not doing anything about it. That only gives false hope to people. What is the term that we heard in Committee last week? It was "hope-mongering". We do not want to do that: to simply give hope to people but not see it through to delivery. That is the challenge for the Executive: to deliver on it. I will end with the words of someone who has led the campaign for 15 years and who put it best. She told us, "Northern Ireland needs to do better. Stand up for your people. Listen to them and support them".

758 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: 0.04 (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).
  • Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
  • 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 framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.96Yes
Overall judgement0.04At 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
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.76
No identity-related subject0.14
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.06
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.03
Another identity-related subject0.01

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:07 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