Debate contribution: Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Extension of Committee Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- 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 4968935
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will not detain the Assembly too long. People have probably heard enough of me today speaking about various things, but, on this important subject, I hope that Members will have seen that the Committee very much wants to process, scrutinise and, I anticipate, do our work as a Committee and refer the Bill back to the full Assembly for it, hopefully, to be passed into law and then for the Department promptly to design a baby loss scheme. The key thing is that we do a credible piece of consultation and scrutiny that we can stand over, with 1 October as a limit for that rather than a target. We will then come back and do our jobs promptly. It has been said and is worth clarifying again that the vast bulk of what is in the Bill is transferring to primary legislation what was already in the emergency provisions of the Coronavirus Act. That is sensible and should not detain us for too long. As Jemma Dolan mentioned, people in, for example, the funeral director sector are very supportive of the Bill and are concerned about any suggestion that it will be delayed. They very much want the provisions passed into law permanently.
In relation to baby loss, there are clear sensitivities that we want to tease out and understand. I think that there will be widespread support for that. Making sure that we have the scheme designed carefully is going to be very important. I look forward to doing that work speedily but effectively, and then, hopefully, referring the Bill back, via the Committee, to the Assembly. I commend the motion and thank Members.
277 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 (0.66).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.66 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.66 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.30 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 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.