Debate contribution: Baby Loss Certificate Scheme and Pathology Service
Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 15 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Baby Loss Certificate Scheme and Pathology Service
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4483148
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Baby loss is a topic that is often met with silence, yet it affects countless families across the North and a number of people in the Chamber. Some here have been very brave and have spoken out about it; others have not spoken, but that does not make them any less brave. I acknowledge their loss. In my years of campaigning for paediatric pathology and on baby loss, I have met hundreds of parents who felt that their loss or the topic of miscarriage remained taboo — hushed. Although their experiences and views were all different, all those I have spoken to recognised the value of a certification scheme. Losing a child is a pain that no parent should ever have to endure. It is important to note that the level of grief is not determined by length of pregnancy, nor should official recognition be. For so many, the first glimpse of those blue lines symbolises the beginning of life, a child for whom they see a future and about whom they tell their loved ones, yet one in four families will lose a baby and will not have that loss recognised beyond the confines of the hospital walls. It is my hope that, by speaking here today, we can help to erode the stigma that still exists and encourage others to speak more openly about their experiences. I would like to share a few words from parents who reached out to me on what a certificate scheme would mean to them. One mother said:
"It would mean my little one existed. It would provide proof to the outside world."
Another said:
"I lost babies whose names I had chosen, who I had hoped for for so long. Having tangible recognition would provide some comfort to me and others in my position."
I thank those parents for entrusting me with their stories and for wonderful organisations such as Sands NI who offer a glimmer of hope in the darkest times. That recognition would provide an acknowledgement of the significance of those precious lives and would honour the grief of the families who mourn them. Our work does not stop there, however. Alongside the implementation of an early baby loss certificate scheme, we recognise the pressing need to improve perinatal and paediatric pathology services. Too often, families are left waiting for answers, for closure and for the chance to understand what happened to their baby. That is totally unacceptable. Since 2019, those post-mortem examinations have had to be carried out in England due to a lack of specialist staff here. We certainly support the amendment, and I think that everyone here will. However, it should never have reached this point. Five years ago, I received assurances from the then Health permanent secretary that work was under way to seek a cross-border solution. It is unforgivable that, to date, there has been no progress on that.
I thank the Member for her intervention. There is a notable lack of support for bereaved parents, including bereavement midwives and signposting to available and appropriate aftercare support. We have bereavement midwives, who are brilliant, but they are few and far between. I think of one — she will kill me for mentioning her — in my constituency: Melissa Crockett. She has provided support to so many families over the years and striven to deliver better services in this area. Unfortunately, some parents feel that they have been left in limbo, struggling with their grief in silence, with nowhere to turn. A report from the Baby Loss Awareness Alliance called 'Out of Sight, Out of Mind' found that 60% of bereaved parents felt that they needed specialist psychological support but were unable to access it. Bereavement care needs to be a component of the maternity strategy. It is clear that transformation in this area of health, along with so many others, is long overdue. That brings me to my next point: given the gravity of the subject that has been presented today, and the fact that the majority of actions that are mentioned in the motion fall under the responsibility of Health, I am struggling a wee bit to understand why the Finance Minister is here today. Of course, we recognise the administrative role of the Department of Finance in issuing certificates, but, as Minister Archibald acknowledged during Question Time last week, she cannot do that without the Department of Health. It stands to reason that Minister Swann should be responding to today's motion, but getting this done is more important than getting credit for getting it done. A precedent has been set by England and Scotland in recognising early baby loss. Parents and families here must not be left behind. Let us build a health service and society in which every family receives the compassion, care and support that they deserve in their time of need.
811 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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | 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 | 0.82 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.14 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:00 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.