Debate contribution: Baby Loss Certificate Scheme and Pathology Service
Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on .
- MLA
- Mr Colin McGrath
- 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 4483184
Read the official Assembly record
Text
This is not an easy motion to speak on. It deals with deeply emotive subjects that can be incredibly traumatising for women and families, and it is focused on the loss of the most innocent of lives. All of us across the House only want the best for our families and children. While many of us differ on policy in this place, often quite heatedly at times, we can recognise our shared humanity and share our human stories. I am grateful and thankful to Kellie, Gary and others for telling their stories. It enriches the discussion and helps us to understand exactly what we are discussing. It is the sense of shared humanity that we are discussing today, and that must be our starting point. If that is the starting point, any changes to policy that follow will be coming from the right place. In our present state, parents who lose a baby — I appreciate that that is imperfect language — during pregnancy must travel to England for the child's post-mortem. Whilst I appreciate that HSC will pay for the travel and accommodation and that staff will help and provide care, dignity and compassion throughout, it feels unfair that we cannot provide that service here. It is regrettable that we are in a position where although we have tried to restore our regional paediatric pathology service, despite repeated attempts, it has just failed. It is also regrettable that, despite attempts by the Health and Social Care Board in the past to approach providers in the South, no provider could be found to offer that service for those from the North. All of us want the best for our families and children. A singular thing that we could do for them, if they choose, is to provide that certificate in their baby's memory to recognise that they had a life, they were loved and they were part of a family. I have seen that love and sense of family at events that I have attended — annual events that are organised by Sands — within the constituency. I have been able to join parents and share a moment with them. It is only a moment for me but it is their life that they are living day and daily. To have some sort of recognition, in the form of a certificate, would be very much welcomed. For those reasons, the SDLP is happy to support the motion and the amendment. There is clearly work that we should be doing, and it should be our priority to provide that service for families and children here.
434 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 (0.89).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | 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 | 0.81 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.12 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.05 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.01 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.