Debate contribution: Coronavirus Act 2020 (Registration of Deaths and Still-Births) (Extension) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025
Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on .
- MLA
- Mr John O'Dowd
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 7 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Coronavirus Act 2020 (Registration of Deaths and Still-Births) (Extension) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5164554
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
As Members will be aware, the order seeks to extend powers introduced in the Coronavirus Act 2020 relating to the registration of deaths and stillbirths for a further six months from 24 September 2025 to 24 March 2026. The specific powers included in the order concern the way that the registrations are conducted. First, they enable individuals to choose to register a death or stillbirth remotely. Although they can opt to come to a registration office in person, the provisions give the next of kin a choice to do it over the telephone in their own environment, recognising that it can be a hugely stressful and distressing time for family members. Secondly, the powers enable participants in the registration process to exchange important documents electronically between doctors and the registrar and between the registrar and the undertaker. Those exchanges can happen electronically, lessening the burden on family members. It will be clear to the Assembly why the provisions were important in the context of the pandemic. The temporary changes to the registration process reduced the need for face-to-face contact for grieving and, sometimes, vulnerable members of the public and for registration staff. They enabled the registration system to continue to operate even when their services were, sadly, under significant pressure. In the five years that have passed since the start of the pandemic, those arrangements have become the normal means by which the vast majority of registrations take place. They have helped the registration process to be more empathetic and efficient, and they carry the support of stakeholders. Most important, the provisions ease the burden on grieving members of the public. When someone is coming to terms with the death of a loved one, it is right that we should not burden them unnecessarily. While offering them a choice about how to register a death and conducting some of the paperwork electronically might seem like a small thing, it can make a big difference. In short, although the powers were introduced as the pandemic took hold, they have become the established means by which deaths and stillbirths are registered, and they have helped the registration service to become more empathetic, more modern and more efficient. Given the positive effect of the provisions, it is right that we should make the temporary powers permanent rather than continue to depend on the Coronavirus Act. The Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill, which recently completed its Committee scrutiny, will provide for the electronic transfer of documents between stakeholders and for the registration of deaths and stillbirths by telephone. The Bill will also enable me to progress a baby loss certificate scheme that recognises the suffering of families who endure the pain of pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. Today's extension order will consequently provide the time required for the Assembly to consider the Bill and, I trust, make permanent the temporary powers of the Coronavirus Act. In bringing the extension order, I recognise that it is not desirable to continue to depend on the powers of the Coronavirus Act. However, I hope that the Assembly will be reassured by our determination to end the use of the orders by the work that is under way to make the relevant powers permanent, and that they will look favourably on the motion. Should the extension not be approved today, the existing powers will fall, requiring a return to pre-COVID death and stillbirth procedures. Relatives would again be required to attend registration offices, irrespective of their personal circumstances, and to transport paper forms between doctors, registration staff and undertakers. As set out in earlier debates on those matters, that would be a retrograde step that is not in the interests of the public, the registration service or funeral directors. I hope that the Assembly will concur. I consequently recommend a further extension of the powers included in the order. They have enabled the provision of a modern, empathetic registration service over the past five years. By extending the provisions today, we will be able to continue to provide that service, which has been welcomed by stakeholders and creates space for permanent legislation to be put in place. I commend the order to the Assembly.
708 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.94 | 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 | 0.73 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.16 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.10 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:21 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.