Debate contribution: Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Extension of Committee Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 19 May 2025.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

19 May 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Committee Business

Heading

Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Extension of Committee Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4968921

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Committee very much welcomes the Bill. That is a unanimous view of the Committee. Often, when we are debating, including today, there is dissent, but the publication of the Bill has been unanimously welcomed. It is the culmination of significant engagement between the Committee and the Department. I also highlight that, in bringing the motion for extension to the House, the Committee sees the 1 October date as a limit rather than a target. That is a very important point, internally for the Committee's deliberations but also for Members who will participate in today's debate. That date represents a compromise that was arrived at in deliberations by members, who tried to balance the need to provide credible scrutiny of a piece of primary legislation — to retain public confidence in the scrutiny functions of the Committee and the House at large — with getting that vital legislation, hopefully, into law. It remains the case that the Committee aims to complete its report on the Bill without any undue delay prior to that date. I do not propose to set out the provisions of the Bill, but I will quote the description of the Bill's aim in the accompanying explanatory and financial memorandum. It states:

"The aim of the Bill is to amend the law relating to the manner of notification of deaths and still-births and the manner of giving particulars relating to them. It will also provide a legislative basis for the introduction of a baby loss scheme and will address differences in registration processes for births and still-births between some same-sex female couples and opposite-sex couples."

The Bill was introduced into the Assembly on Tuesday 25 March 2025. It subsequently completed Second Stage on Monday 7 April, with Committee Stage starting on Tuesday 8 April immediately prior to the Easter recess, because, as Members are aware, Standing Order 33(2) states:

"A statutory committee to which a Bill stands referred under this order, may, within the period of 30 working days from the date of referral, consider and take evidence on the provisions of the Bill, and report its opinion thereon to the Assembly."

Without an extension to the Committee Stage for the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill, the last day of Committee Stage would be Wednesday 4 June, when the Committee would be required to lay its report on the Bill. The Committee discussed whether that would be achievable, understanding that, in order to meet that deadline, the Committee would have to forego any call for evidence as well as make time for any evidence to be taken on the Bill. That could have resulted in the Committee receiving some criticism for not sufficiently scrutinising the Bill, recognising the sensitive issues that it deals with. It is important to state that there were Committee members who advocated that there should be no extension to the Committee Stage. Others suggested that the extension should go beyond the original extension date that the Committee considered, which was 7 November. To make the House aware, the original plan was that the Committee Stage would finish on 7 November. Others wanted it to finish on its original date in June, so, after a fairly constructive and well-mannered discussion, we settled on what is effectively a compromise date of 1 October. The calculation of a Bill's scrutiny timetable generally includes a call for evidence of six to 12 weeks, with written submissions and survey responses being received and considered; a number of in-person evidence sessions being held during Committee meetings, with sufficient time for those being built into the Committee's work programme; and other Committee business being progressed in a timely and thorough manner in tandem with consideration of the Bill. In agreeing a compromise date of 1 October, the Committee will, in order to provide flexibility, shorten its call for evidence to four weeks and eliminate other periods that are normally included. That call has already been published on Citizen Space with a closing date of 9 June. In order to speed things up, the Committee has agreed a list of key stakeholders, who have been contacted directly for their views on the Bill. I use the platform of this debate to encourage any Members who know anybody who might be interested, either private citizens or organisations, in the provisions of the Bill to make their views known to the Committee. The shortened timescale also reflects the hope that the Bill, as it is well supported and non-controversial, will not throw up unanticipated issues that require additional time to be considered. The Committee is balancing its scrutiny of the Bill against the expectation — perhaps hope rather than expectation; it is certainly hope on my part — of receiving two further Bills before the summer recess. Members also anticipate that additional Committee meetings may be necessary. In requesting that the Assembly support the extension, the Committee asks that Members give us the flexibility that we need to discharge our statutory scrutiny role with respect to this Bill. At its meeting on 7 May, the Committee agreed to the motion to extend Committee Stage along with a revised Committee timetable, and I thank members for the way that they approached that discussion. There were legitimately held differing views, and I welcome the fact that we had that constructive discussion. In drawing up a timetable for the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill, we were also cognisant of the advice that was provided by the Bill Clerk and the Committee Clerk, as well as the fact that, although it is not controversial, the Bill deals with very emotive issues that touch on the extraordinarily sensitive subject of baby loss. The timetable reflects the job of scrutiny at hand and the well-established best practice steps for applying it. Members also reflected on the desire that they share with the Minister to deliver the benefits that the Bill provides in as timely a fashion as possible. To be fair, the Minister has been consistent on that point. Although we were pressing his Department to bring forward the Bill quickly, he has clearly said that he wants to implement a scheme as soon as his Department can. At the conclusion of the Second Stage of the Bill, the Committee was charged by the Assembly with a duty to scrutinise the Bill on its behalf. The Committee will do this by drawing out and considering all its provisions and their implications, some of which may not be initially apparent. The timetable for completion is by 1 October, which is fairly tight for undertaking the processes that are expected in a Committee Stage. As I said and to repeat: 1 October is not a target; it is a limit. Little time has been allocated for additional activity beyond that which is expected, and the call for evidence period is relatively short. It is also important to say that the Bill is unusual in that its provisions have not yet been consulted upon. Most Bills are developed and discussed with stakeholders over a period of months, if not years. Having said that, there is widespread support for the provisions of the Bill, and, indeed, the bulk of the Bill is extending the provisions of the Coronavirus Act that relate to the registration of deaths. The nature of the Bill is such that it has not been through that conventional consultation process, so, potentially, there are issues that could arise that we need to be alive to, which have not already been thrashed out through a consultation process. Most Bills are inspected by stakeholders, who have already thought through their views on the Bill, and, certainly on the stillbirths matter, they may not have had the opportunity to think in detail about the legislative provision. We hope that they will have the opportunity to do that through our consultation process. Obviously, that is part of the point of having a consultation process. Key stakeholders will be approached to give evidence on the Bill, which will have to be developed in real-time. The timetable only allows for a few weeks between contacting the stakeholders to give evidence and them appearing in front of the Committee. That represents a degree of risk, as the Committee must have the scope to consider the responses to its call for evidence. Additionally, if the evidence highlights the need to seek further witnesses, the Committee will have limited time to contact those additional witnesses to ask them to prepare their evidence. One of the most important issues that the Committee has considered concerning the Bill is the immensely sensitive topics that are dealt with — death, and particularly stillbirth and miscarriage. While the Bill provides an enabling power to introduce a scheme for baby loss certificates, without including detailed information on the operation of the scheme, the Committee's call for evidence is likely to bring forward responses that will produce highly emotive, personal testimony. Therefore, the Committee wants to make time to consider that evidence respectfully and appropriately. It will also be ready to act on any additional issues that those stakeholders raise, should members feel it appropriate. The extension date has the Committee completing its work before Baby Loss Awareness Week in October. That week will be an important part of raising the profile of the Bill and what it intends to do. The Committee is keen to work with the Minister during Baby Loss Awareness Week to raise public awareness of the issue of baby loss and the Bill's provisions. It is a relatively short extension; it is shorter than Committee Stage extensions normally are. The Committee considers 1 October, to repeat, to be a limit, rather than a target. The Committee also recognises that, should the Assembly agree to the extension today, it will mean another extension to the provisions that we have been using for deaths and stillbirths registration under the Coronavirus Act 2020. I am sure that Mr Frew, if he is speaking on this, might have one or two comments to make, but the initial purpose of the Bill was to put the emergency registration provisions of the Coronavirus Act into permanent law. Subsequently, through our conversations with the Minister and representations from others, the provision around baby loss certificates has been added as an enabling power to allow the Minister to create a scheme. Every member of the Committee thinks that it is a good idea, but the key point is that it needs to do some level of scrutiny to be robust in its role as a Committee. The Committee commends the motion to the House and seeks Members' approval. Thank you.

1,778 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:38 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