Debate contribution: Coronavirus Act 2020 (Registration of Deaths and Still-Births) (Extension) (No.3) Order (Northern Ireland) 2024
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 14 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Coronavirus Act 2020 (Registration of Deaths and Still-Births) (Extension) (No.3) Order (Northern Ireland) 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4589590
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I recall the previous extension order, six months ago — the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Registration of Deaths and Still-Births) (Extension) Order (Northern Ireland) 2024 — and the commitments, promises and reassurances that were given to the House at that time. Unfortunately, those commitments and reassurances counted for nothing with regard to the procedures that were adopted and promised at that time. I understand how it took place and why that happened, and I am fully supportive of these measures being contained in primary legislation. They are valid measures that were put in place as a common-sense approach during the pandemic. However, the fact is that those common-sense measures are still wrapped up in coronavirus legislation that has caused massive damage to our people. In less than two hours' time, in the Long Gallery, there will be about 100 people who have been damaged by the measures of the Coronavirus Act. That time will soon be known forever as a period of shame for the Department of Health and the zombie Assembly at that time. It is good and right that the Minister moves as quickly as possible to disassociate her Department from the Coronavirus Act. I note the commitment from the Minister and the GRO. I know that their destiny has not been their own in this regard, despite the promises that were made six months ago. The silver lining to the fact that we have to further extend the legislation is that it will bring primary legislation that can be scrutinised by the House in the proper way. There will be a prize at the end of that: the enabling clause for baby loss certificates. The House should and will support that. My party, the DUP, has pushed for that, and I am so glad that the Minister and the Committee for Finance have adopted that position. I thank the Minister and record my gratitude for her activity in that regard. I thank the members of the GRO who came to the Committee when requested to do so and fronted up on all of that. I record my gratitude to them also. I recognise the work that the Finance Minister and the GRO have put in. I look forward to seeing primary legislation that includes the enabling clause for baby loss certificates. Hopefully, the House can pass a Bill that is of good worth and that will make a real difference to people out there, especially those who lose loved ones.
412 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: 0.07 (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 (0.67).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.11 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.15 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.67 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | 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 | 0.73 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.20 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:13 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.