Debate contribution: Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Further Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on .
- MLA
- Mr John O'Dowd
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 18 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Further Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5244172
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank all the Members who contributed to the heartfelt debates on the matter, who corresponded with my office and who otherwise engaged meaningfully to help push forward this important Bill. I am grateful for the support from across the House for the element of the Bill that establishes a legal footing for a baby loss certificate scheme. I particularly thank the Members who spoke so sensitively on the matter and those who worked with my officials to draft and provisionally agree the language of today's amendment. I also express my gratitude to the Committee for its work on the legislation. I tabled an amendment that will ensure that the vast majority of families will never face a charge for a baby loss certificate. It will happen only in exceptional circumstances, if that is the will of the Assembly. I urge Members to continue to support the passage of the Bill and to support the amendment in order to ground in permanent legislation the remote registration practice for deaths and stillbirths, to remove inequalities in registration procedures and to provide for the establishment of a baby loss certificate. Each of those important steps will contribute to the building of a more equal, empathetic and efficient registration service for people at key points in their lives. I commend the amendment to the House.
222 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 (0.85).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | 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 | 0.70 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.28 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.