Debate contribution: Baby Loss Certificate Scheme

Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .

MLA
Dr Caoimhe Archibald
Party at the time
Sinn Féin
Date
4 June 2024
Type
Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business
Oral Answers to Questions
Heading
Baby Loss Certificate Scheme
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4494170

Read the official Assembly record

Text

All those things are being considered and worked through as officials scope out the development of a scheme here. I am open to looking at how we might take forward any of those things. Certainly, we will look at how we develop the scheme to ensure that it best meets the needs of people here, and there may need to be a consultation to ensure that people's views are taken on board. We have not yet taken a position on whether a consultation will be required, but that will be kept under review as we go through engagements with the officials involved in the schemes in Scotland and England.

109 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.02No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.01No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.01No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.47No
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.64
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.33
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.02
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:36 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.

Challenge this classification