Debate contribution: Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Extension of Committee Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist 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 4968931
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the motion and the extension date of 1 October 2025. It is important that we have a consultation period and a period of scrutiny, not least because the Bill has not had a normal lead-in consultation period. That is simply because it is establishing what is already a norm in the registration of deaths and stillbirths, as it has been ongoing since the Coronavirus Act 2020. That brings me on to the point that the Chair raised about the Coronavirus Act. That was a period when not only the Executive but the zombie Assembly caused massive harm to our people. However, this is probably the one provision out of that dastardly Act that actually helped people. It removed the rigmarole of registering a death or stillbirth. Therefore, it is only right and proper that it be supported. It is, in fact, legislation catching up with technology, and it should have been brought in well in advance of any pandemic. I certainly support that provision. My party has pushed and campaigned for a baby loss certificate for many years now, and we were delighted to see it in the Bill. However, it is a sensitive issue and one that, we feel, we need time to consult on. Notwithstanding that, it should be put on record that, in England, Wales and Scotland, there is no statutory Act to implement baby loss certificates. Therefore, there is no real need for it to be on the statute book here. This is the route that the Department of Finance is going down — it will have its reasons for that — but there is absolutely no reason why the Department of Finance cannot continue with its processes and even have a consultation on a baby loss certificate in the interim, parallel to our scrutiny of the Bill. There would be absolutely no delay to the implementation of baby loss certificates, and the measure should be able to come in in a timely fashion. The Bill will give an enabling power to the Department, but, as I said, in England, Wales and Scotland, that power is not statutory. I hope that the Department will proceed at pace with this whilst we get down to the work of scrutinising the Bill. I have outstanding questions on the Bill, so it is good that we will be given time to scrutinise it and make sure that we fill in any blanks in understanding that we have.
410 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: 0.05 (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 (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.10 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.58 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.37 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
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.