Debate contribution: Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Kellie Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Kellie Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Alliance 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 5216420
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate that we are debating legislation, so we have more time. With regard to charging bereaved parents, the House has been kind. The child funeral fund, to which anyone who loses a child after 24 weeks of pregnancy can apply — it is not means-tested — provides money for the family to cover the cost of the funeral. However, if we charge for the baby loss certificates, we are saying to parents of children under 24 weeks that they have to pay; they are different. If we are talking about equality and about making legislation that is fair and equitable, we should not charge those parents just because they lost a child a few weeks earlier. When we think about families and their grief, we should see all grief as equal.
139 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: 0.04 (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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.71 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.25 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.04 |
| 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.