Debate contribution: Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Further Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- 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 5244168
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will briefly speak against the amendment. I have said previously that such an amendment goes against the spirit of the Bill and even against what the Minister said at the Bill's earlier stages. It also goes against the heartfelt and emotional evidence that we received at the Finance Committee. It is unlikely that people will ever request more than one copy of a certificate. If they do, we should presume that it is for a valid, humane and possibly emotionally charged reason. Imposing a charge is unnecessary, and no rationale has been provided for it, apart from the possibility of a situation arising in the future. Even then, that could be traumatic and upsetting for people who have suffered a stillbirth, baby loss or other tragedy. For that reason, I oppose the amendment. I appreciate that I may be in an opposition of one, but I am happy to put my position on the record.
156 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: 0.02 (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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.64 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.33 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 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.