Debate contribution: Mother-and-baby Unit
Debate contribution by Miss Nuala McAllister on .
- MLA
- Miss Nuala McAllister
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 7 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Mother-and-baby Unit
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5164635
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the proposer for tabling the motion. She has spoken at length about the issue in Committee and asked questions on it, and there are Members from all our parties who have done the same. I thank my colleague Sian for taking it on for us, because it is important that it is addressed as a cross-party issue. I speak as a mum who was separated from her baby when they were just six days old, not for mental health reasons but for physical health reasons. Difficult as that was for me, I cannot imagine how difficult it is for any mother who does not have an end in sight. Those of us with physical issues have an end in sight and know when we will see our babies again. It was not acceptable in my case, and it is not acceptable in any other mother's case. I pay particular tribute to Shelley Browne, who was on the 'Spotlight' programme. I have read a lot about her circumstances. It is such a sad and emotive issue that it is hard, at times, to listen and to take it all in, because we are so affected by it. We have to listen to women and mothers, however, because they have been going through this for years. The 'Spotlight' documentary stated that around 100 women a year in Northern Ireland are admitted to adult psychiatric wards without their babies for similar care. We cannot get hold of the exact figures from the Department. We have submitted questions for written answer but have not had answers for some of the trusts. I understand that there may be issues relating to Encompass, but we need to move past using that as a reason to not give the data, because data informs policy. We know that the trusts receive around 250 referrals for community service. At this time, I pay tribute, as many Members have done, to the perinatal mental health team, who do fabulous work and look after women. Even the team has approached us to say that it does not always work and that specialised inpatient care is needed. In September, we tabled a question asking on an update on the business case. I was glad that the Department wrote back and said that there was confirmation of a six-bed facility with the business case due for completion by 22 September. Hopefully, the Minister has a further update on that. Many Members have mentioned a number of organisations today. I pay particular thanks to Action on Postpartum Psychosis, which has been in touch with Members over the past few weeks to ensure that we are aware of all the information behind the scenes about the women who feel that they cannot reach out individually to elected representatives — maybe it is too fresh, raw and new for them — but want to do something. That organisation has been leading on the cause for many years. In 2008, there was a visit to England to look at mother-and-baby units there, and we are no further on. My party does not feel that we can support the UUP amendment, because we are concerned about the issue that there cannot be an interim arrangement. Some of that is due to what was exposed — "highlighted", I should say — in the 'Spotlight' documentary, in particular about Exeter. We want a bit more elaboration on what exactly the clinical advice is. It is important that we listen to it. From our understanding and research, it appears that the clinical advice is perhaps not coming from the Royal College of Psychiatrists. If we are wrong, I am happy to be corrected. It is important that we get it right. There is a question around community treatment. Is that clinically the safest option, compared with interim measures? Those questions should be asked. Why are we asking those questions? We need to remember why we are talking about this: because mothers and their babies deserve the best care and resources and to be treated together and not miss out on those first crucial days, weeks and, for some, months.
690 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | 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 | 0.54 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.26 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.19 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:21 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.