Debate contribution: Baby Loss Certificate Scheme: Update
Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on .
- MLA
- Mr John O'Dowd
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 12 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Baby Loss Certificate Scheme: Update
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5311616
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill, which will enable my Department to make regulations to establish a baby loss certificate scheme, completed its Final Stage in the Assembly on 2 December and now awaits Royal Assent. It is important that the detail of the scheme be shaped to the needs and expectations of families here. I am extremely grateful to the more than 1,000 people who took the time to respond to the consultation, the report of which has been published. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, the required regulations to specify the details of the scheme will be brought forward as soon as possible. Should the regulations pass smoothly through the Assembly, I hope that the scheme will come into operation by the end of this financial year.
130 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).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.48 | No |
| 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 | 0.63 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.34 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:16 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.