Debate contribution: Baby Loss Certificate Scheme: Public Consultation
Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on .
- MLA
- Mr John O'Dowd
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 9 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Baby Loss Certificate Scheme: Public Consultation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5086148
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The public consultation on the baby loss certificate scheme commenced on 17 June and runs until 12 September. To date, over 940 responses have been received from individuals and organisations. I am extremely grateful to all who have taken the time to engage. Every response received will help us form a scheme that meets the needs and expectations of those who have been impacted on by the devastating loss of a baby. As part of the consultation process, my officials also held two stakeholder engagement events last month to hear directly from those who are engaged in the provision of specialist services and who provide support to anyone who has been impacted by baby loss. I strongly encourage anyone who would like to express their views on the scheme please to do so before the consultation closes on 12 September.
140 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).
- 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 | 0.27 | No |
| 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 | 0.55 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.41 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:00 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.