Debate contribution: Baby Loss Certificate Scheme: Public Consultation
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 9 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Baby Loss Certificate Scheme: Public Consultation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5086162
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The scheme is obviously a good idea, and I support its general aims, but, Minister, I am concerned about people who come forward. They will get their certificate, but they may be further traumatised, and there is a lack of support out there. I note that the Belfast Trust has only two bereavement midwives and only one family liaison nurse. The last thing that anybody wants is for people to come forward and be further traumatised by the lack of support. Have you had any conversations with the Health Minister about increasing services so that people are not traumatised if they come forward to seek a baby loss certificate?
109 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| 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 | 0.53 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.40 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.06 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.