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 4589942
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I have directed GRO officials who are drafting the deaths and stillbirths registrations legislation to include the ability to register deaths and stillbirths online and by phone. We will include in that legislation provision for a baby loss certificate scheme. We may have to go to public consultation. That might be the right thing to do to get the views of people who will access the scheme. The intention would be to bring forward secondary regulations. I want to do that as quickly as possible. It is my commitment to do that as quickly as possible. I do not want to nail my colours to the mast by saying that we will definitely have it by next October, but that is certainly my intention. It is something that, as an Assembly, we are all committed to and want to see delivered as quickly as possible. Obviously, however, we have to go through the appropriate processes and allow the legislation and any consultation that might have to be carried out to proceed. I am committed to delivering it as quickly as I can.
182 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 (0.68).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.68 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.65 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.33 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.