Debate contribution: Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on .
- MLA
- Mr Brian Kingston
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist 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 5216761
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am a newly added DUP member of the Committee for Finance. My party and I welcome the purpose of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. The Bill will modernise the permitted manner of notification to registrars of any death to include the sending of documents by electronic means and provide for the issuing, at a parent's request, of a certificate recognising the loss of a baby at any stage during pregnancy. Permission of the electronic transfer of documents for the notification of any death was introduced on a temporary basis during the coronavirus pandemic. That was appreciated by funeral directors, particularly as it meant that they did not have to constantly travel to City Hall — in the case of Belfast — to hand deliver documents that could more readily have been sent by email for verification. Rather than constantly extend that coronavirus-themed emergency legislation, it is right that we and the Finance Minister legislate to permit on a permanent basis electronic communication via email without the reference to coronavirus. That legislation is now before us, and I believe that it is universally welcomed. The Bill also provides for the issuing of a certificate that recognises the loss of a baby at any stage during pregnancy, including at an early stage, if so requested by one of the parents. It is consistent with our pro-life position in the DUP that the loss of an unborn baby, including before 24 weeks gestation, in any circumstances can be recognised and covered by the legislation. However, we stand over the proposed voluntary nature of the scheme, which means that a certificate is provided if so requested by one of the parents and that there should be no charge for the original and a first copy of a certificate or an amended certificate. The legislation is intended to be compassionate and practical, and we welcome its progression to Consideration Stage.
318 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: 0.06 (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 (0.85).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.03 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.91 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:45 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.