Debate contribution: Baby Loss Certificate Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026
Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 26 May 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Baby Loss Certificate Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5582484
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Today, I remember all those babies who left us too soon. They lived, were precious, were loved and were lost from this earth to heaven. Every single one of their lives mattered, and they should always be remembered and recognised by more than just the memories and hearts of their parents and families. I especially think of the babies who passed away before 24 weeks of pregnancy and currently have no formal record of their life. I welcome the progression of the baby loss certificate scheme in Northern Ireland, and I am honoured to have played a part in bringing it forward. It has been a true example of the Finance Committee working with the Department and the Minister. That collective work will mean that, in the coming weeks, baby loss certificates will be in law in Northern Ireland. This could easily have passed with a press statement from Ministers about future policy intent with nothing being delivered, but that has not been the case. Joined-up working and support to deliver the scheme has ensured that important and compassionate legislation will be introduced here. As today's motion will allow for the formal launch of the scheme without delay, we should note, for caution and clarity, that that does not mean that parents can go out and get a certificate immediately this afternoon. There will be a process. I ask the Minister to provide some further detail on that, including the dates, in his closing remarks. Families have suffered loss, heartbreak and trauma, and it is important that, at the final stage of the process, their application and the administration of the scheme to get their certificate happen smoothly and compassionately. Again, I thank the Minister for bringing the regulations forward, and I thank his departmental officials, especially the Registrar General, for being available to the Committee at any time and for bringing the scheme forward at pace. Throughout the Committee Stage of the Bill, members of our Finance Committee worked carefully and sensitively on the topic. We heard directly from those who have experienced loss. At times, it was emotional, but we took those personal testimonies on board and did our best to ensure that they are reflected in the legislation and the regulations. I thank all those who engaged with the Committee, including the Forget-me-not Group and the bereavement midwives. I also thank the local groups and individuals who reached out to me directly on the issue. This means so much to them all. All their stories have impacted on us, and, today, as the scheme moves into law, we should pause and acknowledge that, in the Assembly today, we are formally recognising those babies. Today really matters, and I am proud to be here to welcome the scheme. One of the first motions that came to the House after I joined the Assembly was on the need for baby loss certificates in Northern Ireland, and, today, we are delivering on that. Every life matters.
496 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).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.50 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.60 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.34 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:40 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.