Debate contribution: Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Colm Gildernew on .
- MLA
- Mr Colm Gildernew
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- 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 4890975
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Minister for moving the Second Stage of this hugely important Bill. It deals with an issue that, I suspect, many of us have had personal experience of in our immediate or extended families. I acknowledge Kellie's personal testimony. A chairde
, there is nothing more devastating for expectant parents or, indeed, for siblings and the wider family than the loss of a child. It is a time of profound sadness and grief. For many parents, nothing will ever fully compensate for the loss that they have suffered. The lack of any official recognition of their loss can compound parents' grief. Under our current law, parents who experience baby loss prior to 24 weeks have no recourse to seek official recognition of their child. The Bill will change that, so that parents can apply, if they so choose, to have their baby recognised in that official way. A baby loss certificate gives parents a chance to experience validation and dignity and, perhaps most important, to remember their child. Baby loss certificates may also help parents to begin the healing process. The certificates have been available in England and Scotland for the past year. The response from parents has been overwhelmingly positive. Parents in those jurisdictions have expressed relief and gratitude at being offered a tangible acknowledgement of their loss. I take the opportunity to raise again the related, ongoing issue of the complete lack of paediatric pathology services in the North. Grieving parents still have to make that terribly sad journey to England, if they wish to have a post-mortem completed for their deceased child. I appreciate that the Health Minister has confirmed that he is engaging with his counterpart Minister in the South to explore the potential to improve that situation via enhanced cooperation on an all-island basis. I wish him all the best in his endeavour to get a timely resolution to an unacceptable situation. A chairde
, this is not a political issue; it is a human issue, a family issue and a matter of empathy and respect. Today, let us stand on the side of compassion, give grieving families the dignity that they deserve and affirm together that even the shortest lives leave lasting marks. Let us support the creation of the baby loss certificate not just as a document but as a symbol of love, remembrance and healing and as a tangible indication of how we in the Assembly can make a real difference in the difficult situations faced by the families we serve.
421 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 (0.86).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.52 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.42 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
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.