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

Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on 4 November 2025.

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 5216432

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for that intervention. It is a concern. I appreciate what the Minister has said, and he is correct: regulations will come before the Assembly, so we will have an opportunity to scrutinise precisely how the primary legislation is implemented. We will be able to influence that. It is certainly not a foregone conclusion that that will happen, and it is important to bear that in mind, but, as a point of principle, if we do not intend to go down that road, why make provision for it at this stage? I turn to amendment No 4, in the name of Timothy Gaston. There is nothing in the proposed content that Mr Gaston has outlined that I necessarily oppose, but I am conscious that the amendment puts the cart before the horse, in that the Department has undertaken a 12-week consultation on the content of baby loss certificates, which will be taken forward through the regulations. It would be wrong to prejudge the views of bereaved parents who have taken the time to respond to that consultation. It would be much better for us to wait in order to ensure that we reflect parents' priorities, views and lived experiences. We should take time to do that before we specify the contents of baby loss certificates. On that basis, the Alliance Party will oppose amendment No 4. There are two ways of looking at amendment No 5. Either it is an attempt to stir a bit of a culture war and score political points or — this is the more generous interpretation; to be fair, Mr Gaston has said that this is his intention — it is to provide additional flexibility in complex and individual circumstances in which someone may have had to access a medical termination. To be clear, I absolutely favour the widest possible definition of loss, but, in this debate, we must avoid pitting the pain and trauma of one woman against that of another. Unfortunately, there have been attempts to do that in some of the contributions in this debate and previously. Fundamentally, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary because clause 11 of the Bill is clear, as Nuala McAllister said:

"The regulations may provide for the recognition of any loss"

— it specifies "any loss" —

"which is not a still-birth within the meaning of the 1976 Order."

That provides sufficient flexibility for women who experience loss to self-certify and access the certificate in circumstances that they deem to be appropriate, not those that we in the Chamber deem to be appropriate for them. We will oppose amendment No 5. On Mr Gaston's opposition to clause 8 and the accompanying schedule, first of all, clause 8 is not about changing the contents of a birth certificate or the registration process. It is about equality in who can access the process. That is of fundamental importance, particularly in those circumstances, which the Bill seeks to rectify, where there is a same-sex female couple and one of the partners has perhaps suffered a baby loss and is experiencing pain and trauma. It is completely fair that she would wish that her same-sex female partner were able to go to the registry office to register that stillbirth on her behalf at what is a really difficult time. I do not think that it is acceptable that, simply because you are in a same-sex relationship, you are not treated with the same compassion as a heterosexual couple would be. I heard contributions during the debate about traditional family values. It is quite callous to say that, solely on the basis of biology, a partner, be they a same-sex partner or a step-parent, is not a parent to a child. Those people may have held that child's hands as they took their first steps, held the bike as the child took off without stabilisers for the first time and may have sat night in, night out doing homework with that child. To try to reduce that relationship simply to biology or to discount it is, frankly, offensive not only to same-sex couples and step-parents but to single parents. We need to stop trying to vilify and judge others who are not like us or who do not live by our values and have a little bit more respect and compassion when it comes to diversity in our society. I am very passionate about clause 8 standing part of the Bill, and I welcome the fact that the Minister brought it forward. That is all that I have to say. I hope that parties will support amendment Nos 1, 2 and 6, and I look forward to continuing to support the Bill as it progresses.

789 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