Debate contribution: Coronavirus Act 2020 (Registration of Deaths and Still-Births) (Extension) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025
Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 7 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Coronavirus Act 2020 (Registration of Deaths and Still-Births) (Extension) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5164567
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will make a point that, as the Chair said, has been consistently made by my colleague Paul Frew — we are thankful for his time on the Finance Committee, and he has moved to Chair the Justice Committee — which is that we are disappointed that, some four years on from the pandemic, we still operate under the rules of coronavirus regulations, and we would like to see them removed as soon as possible. It is disappointing to be here for another extension. However, we fully accept that the regulations for the electronic registration of deaths and still births are good, practical law, which, as the Minister outlined, helps to keep the process efficient and reduce the trauma for families at a difficult time. I thank those who have worked in the Minister's Department and the General Register Office for bringing forward the legislation at pace and being available to the Committee at every opportunity. Also, in Baby Loss Awareness Week, it is great to see an extension to include the baby loss certificates when the legislation passes. We remember all those lost babies and pray for the families throughout this week, and we are there for them throughout the rest of the year. The DUP supports the extension in the expectation that it will be the last one. We welcome the fact that permanent legislation has been brought forward.
231 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 (0.66).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.66 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.65 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.15 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.14 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:21 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.