Debate contribution: Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Miss Deirdre Hargey on .
- MLA
- Miss Deirdre Hargey
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- 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 5216454
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Minister for this legislation, and I welcome the fact that the Bill is now at Consideration Stage. The Committee has taken a good approach so far. We all see the importance of progressing the legislation and, importantly, putting it on a firm footing. This compassionate legislation has been broadly welcomed by all those whom we have engaged with in Committee and outside of the Committee as individual MLAs. Importantly, it replaces the temporary provisions that were implemented at pace during COVID. We have listened to the lived experience of those who have suffered loss and the impact that it continues to have on them. We have also heard how recognition is an important step for many. The introduction of a baby loss certificate scheme has been welcomed across the board by all those whom we have met and taken evidence from. I agree with other Members that clause 8 and the schedule are an important part of the Bill. In essence, they address and rectify an inequality that exists in the legislation. They will allow for couples who are unmarried or who are not civil partners to have access to the same registration process, regardless of whether they are same-sex or opposite-sex couples. I agree with keeping it as flexible as possible and not being restrictive in how people in society choose to live. That is the right thing to do, and I will oppose any Question that attempts to remove it and thus allow the inequality to continue. Some have attempted, through the amendments, to create division and, indeed, to narrow the approach. At the Committee, I reflected on the treatment of women across the island as a result of ideology and ultraconservative views on all these issues. I warn that we have to learn the lessons of the mother-and-baby homes, forced adoptions and other issues that have impacted on women, as well as the attempts to demonise women and their wider family circle. From the outset, the legislation was intended to cater for all those who have lost. It was to be done with compassion and, most importantly, the certificate scheme should reflect the wishes of those who have experienced that loss. The Minister has delivered on that, so I do not agree with the amendments that attempt to divert from that thrust. On the issue of cost, the Minister has outlined from the outset — he did it at the Committee, and I know that he did it when he introduced the legislation — that the scheme would be done with compassion and that, at the initiation of the scheme, there would not be a charge when someone applies for a baby loss certificate. It was always important that the certificate scheme would sit alongside all the other certificate schemes that the Department has responsibility for.
That is why we are approaching it in the way that we are. It is good to see the Bill at Consideration Stage. I look forward to continuing engagement at Committee and with other Members in the Chamber.
510 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: 0.14 (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 (0.87).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.59).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.15 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.08 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.18 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.17 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.14 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.29 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.59 |
| Adopts it | 0.11 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.97 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.03 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:42 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.