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 5086152
Read the official Assembly record
Text
That is an important point. It is clearly a sensitive and emotive issue, particularly for parents who have lost a baby and have stepped forward to contribute to the consultation, so it is important that we listen carefully to their views. They know best how the scheme can support families. I am grateful for the many hundreds of responses to the consultation that have been received to date. I have also met Sands and the Little Forget Me Nots Trust, which provide support to families after the loss of a baby. My officials, alongside their work with those organisations, have run a concerted social media campaign to encourage widespread engagement with the public consultation. The figure to date — as I said, the number of responses received stands at 940 now — shows how widespread the message is, and I encourage more people to respond.
145 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: 0.03 (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).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.26 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.51 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.41 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.04 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
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.