Debate contribution: Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 4 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5216410
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. He has been gracious with his time. The issue, though, is that, in every other jurisdiction it is policy. It is not regulations, and it is not legislation. We are the only place that is doing legislation and regulation on this. It is giving the Department that space, whereas, in England, they could change policy and administer a fee just like that. If anything, it gives the Department agility for a future event. Will the Member acknowledge that? Can the Member explain what is the material difference in what he is amending through amendment No 6? The draft affirmative resolution, as the Minister said, means that this issue comes back to the Assembly and we can debate and amend the regulations at that point?
131 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 (0.88).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | 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 | 0.93 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.06 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:41 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.