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

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 4 November 2025.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

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 5216362

Read the official Assembly record

Text

All of them? OK. In that case, I will give the Committee's view and move on to give a party view. One of the most important issues that the Committee considered with respect to the Bill is the immensely sensitive topics that it encompasses: death, stillbirth and baby loss. The Committee requested evidence from a range of interested organisations and carried out a detailed online survey to which it received 40 responses from individuals, organisations and representative bodies. The responses included highly emotive personal testimony from individuals. The Committee carefully considered the views of all those who provided written evidence. On behalf of the Committee, I thank all who took the time to provide detailed evidence to inform and support the Committee in its consideration of the Bill. That was especially important in the case of this Bill, given that its provisions had not previously been consulted on, and it was important that the Committee gave that time to ensure that the process was right. On behalf of the Committee, I also thank the Department, the Forget-me-not Group and the National Association of Funeral Directors, who provided oral evidence. I single out the Forget-me-not parents who made time for us and gave very sensitive and, at times, emotional evidence. Their input was greatly appreciated. I note that the Committee managed to complete Committee Stage well in advance of the date in the extension motion, which shows — perhaps it is a lesson to others — that Committees are capable of not exceeding updated target dates and, indeed, can view such dates as limits rather than targets. I now refer to some general issues that were raised by members during the Committee Stage. Clauses 2 to 10 relate to the recording of deaths and stillbirths and the repeal of the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020. The Committee previously agreed a number of statutory rules made under the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 that related to the recording of deaths and stillbirths. Those changes allowed the registration of deaths and stillbirths by telephone, without an informant's signature, and the electronic transfer of registration documents between the parties in the process. This Chamber subsequently approved regulations on a number of occasions. Members of the Committee were therefore well versed in the use of such provisions. The Committee's deliberations on those clauses were mostly of a technical nature to ensure the legislation's robustness. In its evidence, the National Association of Funeral Directors outlined how the arrangements were working, gave its support for the arrangements and conveyed its eagerness that they should continue in perpetuity. The Committee had no objections to that part of the Bill. Clause 11 gives the Department the power to introduce a baby loss certificate scheme. As Members will be aware, the House has previously supported, via a private Member's motion, the introduction of baby loss certificates. It was the Committee that ensured that they were included in the Bill. There was unanimity on the Committee that such a scheme be introduced. Committee discussions therefore mostly centred on the potential for a monetary charge for a baby loss certificate. The Department confirmed to the Committee that a charge could not and would not be introduced without the approval of the House. Any potential charge would have to be introduced via subordinate legislation through the draft affirmative procedure, allowing the provisions of the statutory rule to be both debated and amended. The Committee therefore agreed to proceed without an amendment on that issue. The Committee is, however, aware of the amendments, including those on that issue, tabled to the Bill. Members, having seen the Marshalled List, will debate those today. However, the Committee did not discuss the specific amendments and therefore has not taken a Committee position on them. The Committee unanimously supports the Bill. The ability to register deaths and stillbirths without having to attend a registration office in person is to be welcomed, and the opportunity for bereaved parents to obtain a baby loss certificate is an important step. As I indicated at Second Stage, the Committee welcomes the Bill. The Committee undertook its duty to perform scrutiny and fully supports the Bill's moving through the next stage of the legislative process towards, hopefully, Royal Assent. I will make some brief remarks on the amendments in a party capacity. Mr Gaston has discussed his two amendments and his opposition to clause 8 and the schedule, which creates new registration rights for same-sex female couples. He will oppose the Question that they stand part of the Bill. I will take those points in turn. Obviously, my party, which believes in equality, will strongly support the Question that clause 8 stand part of the Bill. It is deeply disappointing and a regressive step to try to remove that one, small, modest, bureaucratic updating of the rules to reflect the fact that there are loving, supportive same-sex couples and families in this society. Mr Gaston is attempting to make his points today. He is entitled to his views on that. I do not prevent people having their personal views, but this is the law of the land. Once the Bill gets Royal Assent, the law of the land will be that same-sex female couples will be able to register births in exactly the same way as other families. That is a welcome step forward. It is regrettable that Mr Gaston has sought to oppose it, but I understand why he has done that.

I will move on to Mr Gaston's other two amendments. Amendment No 4 specifies that parents would have the right to request that the name, sex and other biographical details be on the certificates. There is much in that that is fine. I do not necessarily object to it, in principle, but it brings me on to a big part of the reason to oppose his amendment No 5. Both amendments are to clause 11. Amendment No 5 inserts the provision that the Department:

"must provide for the issue of a certificate following a termination of pregnancy."

Amendment Nos 4 and 5 are putting the cart before the horse, and that is before we get to the morality, as it were, of some of the language that has been used. Amendment Nos 4 and 5 are very specific designs of how the scheme would work. The entire purpose of the Bill and clause 11 is not to design down to the minutiae how a baby loss certificate scheme will work. We had very detailed discussions in Committee about whether that was advisable. We discussed it with the Department, the Minister and the Registrar General, who is in the Chamber today, and we came to the view that the appropriate thing to do is to mandate the Department to go away and design a scheme. That scheme will then come back to the Chamber via draft affirmative regulation. Therefore, the Committee will be able to scrutinise the draft when it comes back and will then be able to advise the Assembly. The Assembly will be able to amend that, if it so wishes, so that it includes any other detail, and it will then go to a vote. Before I get on to the substance of what is in those amendments, the idea that we need to design every small, fine detail of how the scheme will work is simply not accurate from the perspective of making legislation. In fact, I am not sure that it is good practice, because, once you put things in a Bill, you then, ultimately, ask why other things are not in the Bill. I will now come on to the detail of what Mr Gaston said about termination. Clearly, there are many circumstances in which pregnancies are terminated. People have views on that, and those are discussed here. I have my strong personal views, but, clearly, there will be circumstances in which people who have experienced termination will want to avail themselves of a baby loss certificate for different reasons. There is not necessarily a need for me to go through what all those personal and medical reasons might be, but suffice it to say that, yes, there are circumstances in which someone who has had an abortion or a termination, either where it is forced on them medically or where they have had it for other reasons, may want to apply to participate in the scheme and apply for a certificate. Here is the thing: the Bill does nothing to prevent that happening. Those people are already included in the Bill, along with everybody else who suffers any form of baby loss.

Yes, I will give way.

You seem to have a particular bee in your bonnet, if I may say so through the Chair, about something that Mr Blair said when he was in the Deputy Speaker's Chair. It is not really for me to litigate that between the two of you, and I do not know whether it has any ultimate legal effect. The point is that the Bill is drafted to be inclusive in the sense that it creates the broad mandate that a scheme is designed, and the Department will then go away and come back. The upshot of what you have just said to me is that, because of something that was said in the Speaker's Chair and a particular understanding, you have to insert that particular form of baby loss into the Bill. One might argue that, in doing so, you are excluding all other forms of loss; for example, a miscarriage that followed a car accident. In some ways, I hate to be so specific, because these are very sensitive issues. Does that have to go into the Bill? Does every single form of very traumatic, sad and very difficult baby loss have to be included? By the way, I am aware that the people who are watching this are traumatised, and have been traumatised, by baby loss, so I feel a bit flippant having to talk about it. However, since I have to explain why I am opposed to Mr Gaston's amendments, I am explaining the illogicality of them and not simply the insensitivity of them. We will be strongly opposing that. To be clear, that is not to say that I do not think that the scheme should exclude families who have experienced termination. It should, and I hope and trust that it will and that we can look at that when the scheme comes back in draft affirmative regulations. That is the place to do it. That is probably also true of amendment No 4, but that is somewhat less sensitive than amendment No 5. I will move on to some of the other amendments. I am not sure of the status of all the other amendments or whether they are going to be moved. There was some discussion around the potential for charging for certificates. It is important to say that there was a broad view in the Committee that you would not want to see a situation in which somebody is charged for receiving one of these certificate. A practically reasonable point made by officials in evidence was that you may need some mechanism for limiting or regulating the number of certificates that can be issued to individuals. That may be the genesis of where the question of charging arose. I would like to hear from others, including the Minister, as to their position on charges, and hear assurances that they can give, before taking a final position on some of the amendments that relate to charging. Our broad view is that there should not be charging at all. If there is a very good, plausible explanation for why you need to include that provision to deal with some hypothetical situation, I will not be completely close-minded or ideological about it, but I would like to hear that during the debate — including from the Minister — before taking a final view. I have covered most of the amendments, but not all. Notwithstanding the remarks that I have made about particular amendments, I look forward to this proceeding through to its next stage, both as Chair of the Committee and as an SDLP politician. It is hugely positive, first, that we are formally enacting these COVID-era powers and getting them on to the statute book, not in a timely way, but belatedly and eventually, and, secondly, that we are creating the provision for a baby loss certificate scheme, which is hugely important and poignant for a group of people. I hope that, as those people watch today and follow and engage in the detail of the legislation, they are not too despondent about some of the debate and they stick with it. Once we get through this stage, I hope that we will have the legislation on the statute book fairly soon.

2,153 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