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

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 4 November 2025.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

4 November 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

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

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5216309

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As you pointed out, the first item on the Marshalled List is my intention to oppose clause 8 standing part of the Bill. Linked to that is my opposition to the schedule. My opposition is consistent with that of my party, a founding principle of which is support for and promotion of traditional family values. That is a founding principle of my party and one that made me choose TUV. The schedule amends the Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 by inserting the term "second female parent" and replacing the words "both parents" with:

"both the mother of a child and the father or second female parent of that child".

That amendment permits me to put some important facts on the record. I believe that a child needs both a father and a mother. That is a biological reality that has held true for as long as there has been life on this planet. While, sadly, there are occasions when families break up, that does not negate the need for a father in the conception of any child. Writing a father out of a child's life is wrong. That would be done by paragraph 6(3) of the schedule. There will be those in the House who take strong exception to my saying that. I accept that, but my convictions on such issues are what brought me to the House, and, while I am here, I will continue to stand up for traditional family values and, more important, to be directed by my faith. My convictions will not allow me to ignore the fact that the issue is contained in the Bill. Anyone who shares that belief will join me in the Lobbies later, and I will certainly welcome the company. I have tabled amendment No 4. Through that amendment, I seek to ensure that the regulations permit the certificate, if — "if" is the key word — the applicant wishes, to include:

"(a) the name and sex of the baby and any other biographical information; and (b) a statement by the applicant recognising the baby as a member of their family."

Parents who want to name their baby on their certificate will be able do so. Parents who do not want to will not have to. Parents can add a line saying, "We recognise" — insert the baby's name — "as a member of our family", but, to be clear, only if they choose to do so. Why do that? It is because grief is personal. Some families name their baby and want the name to be in print. Amendment No 4 will allow them to do just that. Others prefer not to. The amendment is about choice, not compulsion. It turns a cold form into a living memorial to the little one whom they have sadly lost. Amendment No 5 makes provision for a certificate to be issued:

"following a termination of a pregnancy."

I remind the House that, at Second Stage, when I mentioned the issue of abortion, Mr Blair, who occupied the Speaker's Chair at the time, interrupted me to say:

"this is not a debate on abortion, and it is not going to become one. It is a respectful debate. Members have provided some very poignant examples today. The rest of the debate will continue in the same vein and will not divert to another issue." — [Official Report (Hansard), 7 April 2025, p54, col 2].

With those comments on the record, it is important to clarify what the Bill does and whom it does not exclude. The system must allow parents who lose a baby through termination to apply for a certificate but only if they want one. There is no forced participation. There is no clinical handout, as has been misrepresented by some in the media. A woman who miscarries at 20 weeks can apply for a certificate. A woman who has an abortion at 20 weeks, perhaps due to the fact that she has been told that her child will not survive outside the womb, should be able to do the same.

I thank the Member for his intervention. Absolutely: it gets to the nub of what my amendment is trying to achieve. In the case that he has described to the House, absolutely —.

I will in a wee minute. Absolutely: in circumstances where a baby has been aborted because of advice that the mother's life is at risk, the mother should be able to apply for a certificate if she so wishes. Over the weekend, I read a lot of commentary in the media in which, frankly, my amendment had been misrepresented. It is wrong to do that. Let us be clear about that.

I am happy to give way.

Nobody should be excluded. It is up to the parent. It has to be choice-based. If that mother wants to apply for a certificate, she should be able to do so. Yes, some people have said, "Leave it to the regulations", but I want it to be in the Bill. I want it to be clear that, if somebody wishes — only if they wish — to apply for a certificate, they will have the opportunity to do so. I give way to Mr O'Toole.

I have a question for you, Mr O'Toole. We are talking about loss. Everyone agrees that loss matters, so why fear the clarity that my amendment would put in the Bill? It is important that it is in the Bill, especially after the comments that Mr Blair made when he was in the Chair during the Second Stage debate. We have to bring clarity to the debate. If I may say so, my amendments were tabled on 23 June, so it has not been dropped in at the last minute. The amendment was tabled well in advance. It is only the Members who have created opposition and hysteria who have made it an issue.

I thank the Member for the intervention. As I said, on the basis of the comments from the Deputy Speaker previously, it is important to have it in the Bill.

I do not accept that it is about point-scoring. I have been open and honest. I tabled the amendments well in advance. The only issues that have arisen were from Mr O'Toole and from Mr Tennyson in the paper over the weekend. I have never tried to raise this as a political issue, but it is important. I felt a conviction to bring it to the Chamber, which is why I have done so. I have tried and will continue to try to be as sensitive as I can on the issue as we progress. It is important to recognise that, for those who have had an abortion that, in some cases, they deeply regret, giving them the option to apply for a baby loss certificate would help with the process of dealing with that loss. It is cruel to deny women in either circumstance that option or to suggest that it is wrong. My amendment removes that barrier. It says, "Grief does not discriminate by cause". Importantly, it mirrors the Scotland scheme, which includes medical terminations without controversy or compulsion. The FAQ paper on the Scottish Memorial Book of Pregnancy and Baby Loss Prior to 24 Weeks states:

"Q: I had a termination. Can I apply for a certificate? A: Yes, if you wish to have a record of your loss you can apply for a certificate."

All that I am trying to do is replicate the scheme that exists in Scotland. Every year, thousands of families in Northern Ireland lose a baby before 24 weeks, some through miscarriage, some through medical necessity and some through abortion. All of them grieve. All of them deserve dignity. My amendments do not judge. They do not compel. They include but only if requested. I urge MLAs from all parties to support my amendments — amendment Nos 4 and 5 — as acts of basic human kindness. Parents who have lost a baby, however that loss happened, should never be told, "Your grief doesn't count". I have heard some suggest that MLAs should leave all of that to the regulations. My question is this: which of my amendments do you disagree with? I understand that there will be deep division in relation to my opposition to clause 8 and the schedule, but who is opposed to a family's including:

"the name and sex of the baby and any other biographical information"

plus:

"a statement by the applicant recognising the baby as a member of their family"

on a baby loss certificate? Who is suggesting that someone who has had an abortion, perhaps as a result of medical advice, should be denied a baby loss certificate? I commend my amendments to the House.

1,476 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:41 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