Debate contribution: Cross-border Healthcare
Debate contribution by Mr Alan Robinson on .
- MLA
- Mr Alan Robinson
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 18 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Cross-border Healthcare
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4497021
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Yesterday, the House considered a motion on cancer. Today, there is another sensitive issue in the Order Paper: post-mortem services for babies and children. At the outset, I sympathise with any parents who have had to walk through this highly traumatic circumstance. Few will know what it feels like, and I cannot imagine how difficult it is. I hope that all Members will be very sensitive to that fact today. At the core of the motion is the fact that, since the end of 2018, the health service in Northern Ireland has been left without a single paediatric pathologist. All Members will agree that that is unacceptable, and I look forward to the Minister's explanation of not only what measures have been taken by the Department to recruit a consultant in this field but when that staff member will be in place. Today, we wish to make it absolutely clear that we fully support those services, but simply exporting the issue to Liverpool or Dublin is not acceptable. However, the motion as drafted seems to just accept the fact that perinatal and paediatric post-mortem services, which are currently unavailable in the Province, could be delivered more efficiently and compassionately on an all-Ireland basis. The outworking of that premise is an acceptance that parents should travel with their baby for a post-mortem in Liverpool or Dublin. In our eyes, the status quo of a trip to Alder Hey Children's Hospital or the alternative of a considerable drive to Dublin is unacceptable. Let us show some empathy to those in that situation. With the Liverpool or Dublin option, the parents travel with their child, but leave their crucial support network of wider friends and family at their most vulnerable time and when that support is most needed. We want to be clear that the service should be available in the health service in the Province, and we unfortunately cannot support a motion that forces parents on a journey of hundreds of miles with their loved one during a time of extreme personal trauma. The service needs to be provided by the Department of Health, and it is unforgivable that we do not have a local solution after nearly six years. We support the contention in the motion that more money is not the key to resolving the well-documented issues that face the health service today. That said, health has been prioritised by the Executive and has seen its baseline funding increase by £2 billion since 2020. With regard to the later parts of the motion, we refer Members to the Bengoa report, which the current First Minister launched when she was the Health Minister in 2016. The 'Systems, not Structures' report by Professor Bengoa was designed to deliver the transformation the health service needs and to achieve the best clinical outcomes for people here. In closing, I recognise and commend the work of the charity Sands. It is an organisation that supports anyone affected by pregnancy or perinatal loss and provides bereavement care and support for parents in those very difficult circumstances. We cannot support a motion that appears to accept the failure of the Department of Health to provide this incredibly important local paediatric pathology service for parents going through that traumatic experience. Exporting it is not the answer; solving it is.
551 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: 0.05 (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).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.83 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.08 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.04 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:38 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.