Debate contribution: Baby Loss Certificate Scheme: Update
Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .
- MLA
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 14 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Baby Loss Certificate Scheme: Update
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4589934
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am keen to see a baby loss certificate scheme taken forward as quickly as possible. The scheme would provide official recognition to parents who have suffered the tragedy of losing a baby before 24 weeks. Losses of this kind affect many families, causing very real pain and heartache. Sadly, this is often met with silence and stigma, with many parents feeling isolated in their grief. I am determined that parents' heartache and grief be recognised, and I want to give people an opportunity to acknowledge these losses, perhaps for the first time for some, to bring some comfort to their suffering. I met the Health Minister in September to receive an update on progress from the General Register Office (GRO) officials in my Department, who are working closely with Department of Health officials on how the baby loss certificate scheme might be developed, learning from the equivalent schemes in England and Scotland. That work is continuing at pace. I have instructed my officials to put the required legislation in place to provide a statutory footing for a scheme here. They are working to include a baby loss certificate scheme in the deaths and stillbirths registration Bill, which is under development.
201 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: 0.02 (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 (0.85).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.65 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.30 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:18 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.