Debate contribution: Baby Loss Certificate Scheme
Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Baby Loss Certificate Scheme
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5705972
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Minister, we on the Finance Committee were pleased to work closely with you to bring forward this important scheme. As you say, the impact of the baby loss certificates has been profound. A lot of people have been in touch with me to talk about their certificates and what they mean. We are approaching Baby Loss Awareness Week in October, and there will be a number of events at the Assembly. You spoke about feedback and what people said to you about the certificates. Will the Department take forward an exercise to capture that feedback and what the certificates mean to mothers, fathers and families in Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland has led the way in how the scheme has been rolled out through legislation, and it is important to capture what that has meant as a key delivery point of the Assembly.
142 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 (0.80).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | 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 16:21 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.