Member's statement: Fertility Network UK
Member's statement by Ms Claire Sugden on .
- MLA
- Ms Claire Sugden
- Party at the time
- Independent
- Date
- 30 June 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Fertility Network UK
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5652751
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I highlight the uncertain future of Fertility Network UK in Northern Ireland, following the announcement that its parent charity has entered a managed closure due to financial pressures. While efforts are ongoing to transfer the Northern Ireland service to another organisation, there is no certainty that that will happen.
In the meantime, new referrals for support have already stopped. Fertility Network UK is a service recognised and signposted by our own regional fertility centre, providing information, peer support and practical guidance to people who are navigating infertility.
Around one in seven couples in Northern Ireland experiences fertility problems, yet Northern Ireland continues to offer one of the most limited publicly funded fertility services anywhere in the United Kingdom. Couples face lengthy waits, restricted eligibility criteria and fewer publicly funded IVF opportunities than elsewhere. We rightly focus on improving the journey of access to treatment, but treatment is only one part of that journey. Fertility treatment can take over every aspect of someone's life. It affects relationships, work, finances and mental well-being. Women often carry the physical burden of treatment, but the emotional impact is shared by couples and families alike. When treatment does not work, patients do not simply stop being fertility patients. They are left trying to decide whether they want to try again, whether they can afford private treatment or how they can come to terms with a future that they never expected. Those conversations do not happen in a consultant's office; they happen at home, often in isolation. For many people, Fertility Network UK has been the place that they turned to for that support from others who genuinely understood what they were going through. Northern Ireland already asks more of people experiencing infertility than any other part of the United Kingdom. We ask them to wait longer, we offer fewer publicly funded opportunities for treatment, and we ask them to navigate a more restricted system. The very least that we should ensure is that, throughout that journey, people have somewhere to turn for independent advice and specialist support. I sincerely hope that a new organisation can be found to continue that important work. If not, the Department of Health should work urgently with healthcare providers and the voluntary sector to ensure that that support is not simply allowed to disappear. If we are serious about improving fertility services in Northern Ireland, we cannot measure success solely by the treatment. We must also consider how we support people through one of the most difficult experiences and processes of their lives.
423 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 (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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.77 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.15 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.04 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.04 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:08 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.