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

Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .

MLA
Mr Eóin Tennyson
Party at the time
Alliance 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 5216392

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Like others, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Consideration Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. The loss of a baby during pregnancy can be a deeply traumatic experience for parents, but it is too often met in our society with silence or treated as though it is taboo. During the Bill's Committee Stage, we heard from parents who had experienced loss, from professionals who had supported them and from campaigners who were advocating a better approach to tackling the issue and recognising loss. I pay tribute to the women, parents and campaigners, including the Little Forget Me Nots Trust, who told their personal stories with enormous courage and selflessness in the pursuit of better. I was struck by two things in those deliberations. The first was the emphasis on the need for sensitivity and the importance of language when we discuss such issues, because these are often triggering, difficult, painful and distressing subjects for bereaved parents. I was also struck by the degree of political unanimity in the Committee on the need to make provision for baby loss certificates. I hope that we can maintain some degree of consensus and unanimity as we move forward. The amendments that I have tabled would build on, rather than contradict, the progressive and compassionate approach that the Minister set out in the original draft of the Bill. Amendment Nos 1 and 6 to clause 11, when read together, specify that the proposed baby loss certificate scheme must be brought forward within 12 weeks of the Bill obtaining Royal Assent. The Department has been clear throughout the legislative process that it intends to deliver the scheme within that timescale and, indeed, by the end of this calendar year, as the previous contributor mentioned. Given the delays and the many false dawns that there have been in setting up a baby loss certification scheme, it is entirely appropriate to give bereaved parents and campaigners some confidence that those commitments will be honoured and that the scheme will be subjected to no further unnecessary delay. I recognise that including the clause with the choice of 12 months as opposed to a shorter timescale would create a level of legal risk for the Department. Therefore, I feel that it is reasonable to give the Department a little more time than it committed to at Committee Stage in order to, hopefully, ensure that the Department and the Minister feel that they are in a position to support that. I would welcome a response from the Minister in that respect. Amendment No 2 stipulates that no charge should be levied for a baby loss certificate. That is a small but meaningful act of compassion. Fundamentally, I do not believe that any parent should ever be asked to pay simply to have their loss recognised. The Department has said that it does not intend to levy a charge. If that is the case, I hope that there will be support for the amendment to place it beyond doubt. Whilst that may be this Minister's policy intention, it would be unacceptable if, under a future Minister, baby loss certificates were used as a cost recovery mechanism or to cut departmental costs.

I agree with the Member to an extent. I can understand that the Department may look at certain hypothetical situations where they believe, for example, that the system may be abused. I do not foresee that as a realistic prospect, to be honest, but I can understand why, hypothetically, it would wish to have some powers. However, given the fact that, where schemes have operated in other jurisdictions, no charge has been applied and there have been no circumstances that necessitated a charge, I do not believe that it is necessary for the Department to take that power, if its commitment is to ensure that the certificates are free at the point of access.

I thank the Member for that intervention.

I will indeed, yes.

660 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.96).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.96Yes
Overall judgement0.02At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.73
No identity-related subject0.23
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.03
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 01:21 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.

Challenge this classification