Debate contribution: Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on 7 April 2025.

MLA

Mr Paul Frew

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

7 April 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4890953

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I support the passing of Second Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. My colleague Diane Forsythe, who spoke on behalf of the Committee, outlined very succinctly and adequately the frustrations that have been felt by the Finance Committee in the time that it has taken for the Bill to come to this point. It has been quite an eye-opening journey. We asked whether we could do this through secondary legislation. We were told that we could not, then that we could and, finally, that we could not. We then went to primary legislation. At the tail end of last summer, in September, it was decided that the Department would move on the baby loss certificate. We are thankful for that, but, of course, that led to further delay. There was then a delay with the opportunity to close the loophole on the registering of births and stillbirth deaths for same-sex couples, and we also support that. It has been quite a journey from when the Bill was in its infancy to get to where we are now. This started off as making a piece of law — the temporary measures in the Coronavirus Act on the registration of deaths and stillbirths — permanent. I would struggle to find another aspect of the Coronavirus Act that has made a positive contribution to life. This aspect is common sense. Had there not been a pandemic, the Department should have been striving to do this anyway, so it is right and proper that this is put on a permanent footing. It is right, when we think about it, that this be done through primary legislation, because it is right and proper that it sits in statute. We welcome all seven pages of the Bill's text. As a Committee, we will take time — not too much time — to scrutinise the Bill. There are aspects, at this Second Stage, that I want to raise with the Minister. Clause 3(6)(a) of the Bill asks:

"for 'written notice of a still-birth accompanied by such a certificate as is mentioned in paragraph (3)'"

to be substituted. Should it not read:

"written notice of a still-birth accompanied by such a certificate and a copy of such a certificate as is mentioned in paragraph (3)"?

That is what the 1976 Order states. Maybe I am reading the 1976 Order wrongly. Maybe the words:

"and a copy of such a certificate"

have already been omitted, so, in the grand scheme of things, it will not necessarily change the effect of the clause. However, if we do not get the text right and do not substitute something that should be substituted, we may have to come back and look at it at a later stage. We want to avoid that, even at this early stage. That is something that I picked up when reading the 1976 Order. I could be wrong, but I ask the Department and the Minister to take that away and look at it in case there is something that needs to be added by amendment at this stage. Clause 6(2)(a) of the Bill removes "12(4)" from the 2012 regulations, and I do not understand why. I know that, for form 1 and 1B:

"the registrar shall call upon the qualified informant to verify that the particulars have been entered correctly and if it appears that any error has been made, a fresh entry of the birth shall be made containing the correct particulars."

I do not understand why that is being removed. When you read on through the clause, you see that the wording is in the Bill. Maybe that is me answering my own question, but I do not know why we have had to move regulation 12(4) from regulation 16 of the 2012 regulations. Those are some points that I picked up in the early scrutiny of the Bill. That leads me to clause 8, which is headed:

"Minor amendments relating to births and still-births".

The text of that clause is:

"The Schedule to this Act contains minor amendments."

I do not know why we have that clause. I do not know why we are amending legislation by schedule and why it is not in the Bill per se. Maybe the Minister can answer that question, if not today, when we get to Committee Stage. It seems to me that we are able to amend the two pieces of legislation — the 1976 Order and the 2012 regulations — but, when it comes to same-sex couples, we have gone to a schedule. I do not understand why we have used that vehicle. While I am on that point, I will talk to the schedule. I understand why we are bringing this in. I agree with it, and it is needed. However, it troubles me that, at this stage, we are substituting "father" in the 2012 regulations with "other parent". I can understand why it is written like that, but that leads me to ask whether we are creating a grievance for and an inequality to a biological father. I worry about that. Whilst it is right that the other parent — the female — gets the rights and the acknowledgement that she needs and deserves for being a parent, why are we substituting what could be a biological father? In trying to right a wrong, are we creating another wrong by leaving out the biological father who may well, and should, have rights in this regard, even with the registration of births, deaths and stillbirths? I ask the Minister to take that away. I have not solidified my thoughts on this — I have not got a good enough understanding of it yet — but I wish to pursue whether we are removing a wrong and righting it in one regard but creating another wrong by leaving out the biological father.

There may be different scenarios for which way a same-sex couple has a child. I just worry that, if we substitute the word "father" with "other parent", it will create an anomaly and a blind spot in equality and rights. I ask the Minister to consider that, maybe not today but certainly as we move on in this journey.

That leads me to the certificates of baby loss. I have no doubt that everything that I have talked about will be eclipsed by the fact that the Bill will enable the Department of Finance to make, by regulation, certificates of baby loss. That will be the substance of the material that the media use when describing the Bill. Of course, the electronic registration of deaths and stillbirths has been ongoing for a couple of years. It has now been normalised, and so it should be. The Bill is really an exercise in tidying up and making what is a temporary provision permanent in law. That part of the Bill, which is still important, will probably be missed by most of the media, who will centre on the emotive issue of baby loss certificates, and that is probably right, to be fair. We will have to be mindful of how we proceed. We had wise counsel from the Member opposite when she said that we need to protect and look after ourselves in this regard, and I fully acknowledge that. My family has suffered too with regard to miscarriage, so I get that. When we first talked about the issue and when the Committee and the DUP first pushed for the certificates of baby loss, my understanding was that, in order to ensure that there was no delay to the Bill to do away with the coronavirus extensions, we could put in an enabling clause for the certificates of baby loss. Since that decision was made in September, it has struck me that the Department could have been consulting already. The Department could have commenced a consultation in September that would have been completed by now. The Minister talked about having the certificate in place by the end of this year, but I wonder how that is even a possibility, because it may take months yet for the Bill to pass its Final Stage, and it may then take months for the Department to consult, which it should have already done, and introduce the secondary legislation. With the issues around the Bill Office with regard to the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) and the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO), I do not know how the Minister thinks that they can produce secondary legislation so fast after the Bill has been passed by the Assembly. Let us face it: the enabling clause will not come into force until the Bill has passed, so, if the Bill does not pass until autumn this year, how will the Finance Minister produce certificates this year? It is an impossibility. Whilst it is a good provision and whilst we thank the Department, the Minister and the officials who worked on the Bill for putting in the clause to enable certificates of baby loss to be provided, I must say that it is not ambitious enough and that more should be done in the Bill to bring in certificates for baby loss. That is something that my party will explore in the weeks ahead. I reinforce Mark Durkan's comments about charging for the certificates. When you look at the GB website, you see that the second sentence reads:

"It's free to get a certificate."

For some, that makes a big difference. It is not only about the cost of the certificate; it is about the fact that we are charging a fee for a loss that, we recognise, a family has gone through. I really worry about that mention in the Bill of charging a fee for certificates. Also, it states who may apply for a certificate. Whilst people who lose a child before 24 weeks will have the chance to have a certificate to mark that loss, there absolutely should be means for retrospective application. There may well be a cost to that, and how do you ever measure that at this stage? I worry that a fee will be applied that forces everyone to pay for the acknowledgement of the loss that they have suffered. How will that look, particularly when GB does not charge? The Minister should keep that in mind as we go forward. I look forward to scrutinising the Bill and working on it. As most Members know, I love legislation. I love getting into the nitty-gritty of it. I love scrutinising it, turning it upside down and inside out and finding whether there are any loopholes. If there is something that we can do better, we should use the Bill as a vehicle to do that good for our people. I commend the Bill to the House. I thank the Minister for bringing it forward and the officials for working all these months on it. Again, I look forward to scrutinising it in Committee.

1,833 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:20 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.

Challenge this classification