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

Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on 7 April 2025.

MLA

Mr John O'Dowd

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

7 April 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

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

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4891000

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank Members for their contributions to the debate on the Bill. By and large, as the Deputy Speaker said, Members' contributions were very respectful and thoughtful. It is a very sensitive subject, and I have no doubt that it has an impact on many people in the Chamber and in the Building and on those who are looking in on us. It is important that the Executive and Assembly are seen to act on the matter. The legislation is a small step forward in the recognition of those who have lost a baby at whatever stage that might have been. As was pointed out, it removes the requirement for the Coronavirus Act. Mr Frew said that we found a piece of the Coronavirus Act that he actually agreed with, which, in itself, is a major step forward. However, it is a sensible adaptation of legislation and a sensitive piece of legislation, which allows families to deal with those scenarios in those difficult moments. I thank the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee, who outlined the work of the Committee and the discussions that it has had thus far. She also outlined the somewhat torturous journey that the legislation has taken. I do not think that anybody expected, when we set out on this journey, that there would be so many twists and turns, but we are on the right pathway now, and we can move forward with the legislation. Mr Durkan's contribution set out the need for and sensitivities around the legislation. On the clause that refers to charging, it is not my intention to introduce a charge. I suspect that that is a regular instalment in such legislation, but, even if a future Minister was to plan to introduce a charge, it would have to be brought before the Assembly. Therefore, the Assembly would have the final say on those matters. It is only right that we follow the examples of other jurisdictions and do not introduce a charge. On the matter of IVF and registration, the Member will be aware that, under Westminster legislation, parents who undertake fertility treatment have different registration rights depending on their marital status and where they receive treatment. Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, married or civil partner couples may name two parents on the birth certificate, irrespective of where the treatment took place. However, where those couples are neither married nor in a civil partnership, a restriction based on where the treatment took place applies. Resolving that matter is likely to require engagement with the UK Government on the HFE Act. We intend to return to that matter once the Bill has been progressed. The Member may wish to bring forward an amendment. I do not know whether it would be within the scope of the Bill, but, again, I am happy to engage with the Member further on that, and my officials will do likewise. As for other Members' contributions, all Members referred to the personal nature of the legislation. Kellie outlined her life experience and that of so many people. People refer to it, saying, "We go through this, sometimes in silence, others not knowing, and couples suffer on their own". If we can help to ease that pain in any way with the legislation, it is a good move forward for the Assembly. A number of Members, including Mr Frew, questioned whether we would have time to bring the scheme forward within this year. We have to be ambitious about it, and the Health Minister is keen for us to work together on it. His officials are keen to work with my officials on how we move the scheme forward. I will do everything in my power to deliver the scheme this year. It will depend on how long it takes to get the legislation through the Assembly etc, but, if we can conduct that consultation in tandem, let us do that; let us move as quickly as we possibly can. The use of language will form part of the consultation. How to use the language and the language that is used is an important point. A number of Members raised the issue of legacy. It should be retrospective. Again, that will form part of the consultation process, but it is important that it is retrospective. There may be some technicalities and legislation around that that we may need to be conscious of, but my hope is that we have a retrospective scheme. Mr Frew referred to various clauses. The officials have taken note and will engage with you on that, so that you have the answers in your head ahead of the Committee Stage. There are other issues that need further explanation and discussion with you, but let us look at the issues and see whether the responses that you receive are satisfactory. I welcome the tone of the debate. Every Member who spoke was supportive of the principles of the legislation, and I look forward to working with the Committee as the legislation progresses.

844 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