Debate contribution: Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Further Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Kellie Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Kellie Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 18 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Further Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5244161
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Minister, for bringing the Further Consideration Stage today. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I am pleased to confirm our support for the Minister's amendment. The registration of deaths and stillbirths, including the provision, now, of baby loss certificates, is extremely important to the many of us in the House who will have to go through registering one or more of them. A compromise arrangement has been agreed. The Minister's original proposal will be changed by the amendment thanks to the input of the DUP, which suggested the compromise of free certificates. Thank you for that, and thank you to all who worked together on it. This process is an example of how we can be a compassionate House. Through compromise, careful negotiation and debate, we have come to the stage at which we will have, at long last, baby loss certificates, and I thank you all for that. I look forward to seeing the regulations that are published when the Bill is finally passed. It is key that they are as flexible as possible in the area of baby loss certificates to ensure that those who may not know the gender of their baby, or those for whom the date may be difficult to determine and so on, will have an opportunity to register their baby in a way that suits them. I do not sit on the Finance Committee and I am not in the Department of Finance. It has been a difficult debate for me to take part in the debates on the Bill, so I thank all those who have taken evidence and been so careful with it. I worked for many years as a bereavement counsellor for people who had suffered miscarriages, and I have not been behind the door in telling everyone about my losses. However, today is an important day. I cannot make that more clear. Having baby loss certificates will be of value to parents, and it is important that we recognise that the difficult work that has been done. It has been difficult to hear the evidence. It is a very emotive issue, but today we in this House can congratulate ourselves on doing something that is compassionate and has been needed for a long time. Thank you, Minister, and thank you to your Department.
386 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 (0.72).
- 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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.72 | 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 | 0.73 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.22 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:52 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.