Debate contribution: Baby Loss Certificate Scheme
Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on .
- MLA
- Mr John O'Dowd
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 19 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Baby Loss Certificate Scheme
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4968308
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am keen to see the baby loss certificate scheme progress urgently to give bereaved families formal recognition of their loss. I want all parents and families who have suffered the devastating loss of a baby to feel that their grief is recognised. The Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill, which will provide a power to make regulations to form a scheme, is at Committee Stage. While I acknowledge the importance of due process for scrutiny, I hope that that stage will progress as quickly as possible. My officials and colleagues from the Department of Health are working closely together to progress arrangements to consult with stakeholders on the detail of the scheme. I have already met Sands about that, and I have engagements with other key stakeholders in my calendar. I intend to launch a public consultation before the summer to ensure that everyone here can provide their views to help us shape the scheme so that it meets the needs and expectations of those who have experienced the loss of a baby. Once that process is complete, my officials will draft the required secondary legislation and operationalise the scheme. If those matters progress smoothly, I anticipate that the scheme will be operational by the end of the year.
210 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 (0.80).
- 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 | 0.80 | 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 | 0.47 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.45 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.03 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:37 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.