Debate contribution: The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Registration of Deaths and Still-Births) (Extension) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2024
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 22 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Registration of Deaths and Still-Births) (Extension) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4484080
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome and support the legislation, because we are now at a point at which we have concrete proposals to make the provisions in the law permanent, which has been the cry of my party since we came back here. I am glad that the Finance Committee facilitated our making those views known and that the Department has acted in the way in which it has. I support the Minister and the Department on that move. The loss of a loved one, whether elderly or a baby, causes families shock, trauma, pain and sorrow, so it is only right and proper that government help to reduce that burden. Nothing will bring a loved one back, but government can at least reduce the administrative burden on families following the death of a loved one. To me, that was always common sense. In fact, it was an example of law catching up with advancements in technology and of law for the betterment of the people, so who would be opposed to such legislation? It is clear that something needed to be put in place on a permanent footing, if for no other reason than to give the provision the respect that it needs. That is why it was so important to remove it from the ambit of coronavirus law, which has caused severe damage to the health of our population in many ways, and to put it on its own statutory footing. I am glad that, with a bit of pressure from the Finance Committee and my party, the DUP, we are at that point. There is a point to be made about the fact that, when you look at the SL1s and the changes that they make, you wonder, "Could it not have been brought in sooner?". That is a valid point, albeit this will work as a seamless provision, and at no time will anyone be required to go back to the old way. Given that the two statutory rules are being pushed through by negative resolution, it is important that, while we have the opportunity, we place on record exactly what the provisions do, enhance the terminology that the Minister used and echo her sentiments around the fact that the Department proposed to make two related statutory rules to amend the relevant primary legislation that will enable both telephone and electronic registration of deaths or stillbirths and electronic transmissions of documents in those circumstances. The proposed rules are the death and stillbirths amendment regulations and the deaths and stillbirths electronic communications order. The death and stillbirths amendment regulations would amend the Civil Registration Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 to enable a death or a stillbirth to be registered by telephone or electronic means, without the attendance and signature of the informant. Again, the statutory rule is subject to the negative resolution procedure. The deaths and stillbirths electronic communications order will amend the Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 to facilitate the use of electronic communications and the electronic transfer of documents in relation to the registration of deaths and stillbirths. Again, that statutory rule is subject to the negative resolution procedure. It is important to speak on those statutory rules in the Chamber at this time. It is important that we never have to ask for or vote on an extension to the Coronavirus Act in relation to this provision.
562 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 (0.80).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.95 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:00 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.