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

Debate contribution by Ms Kellie Armstrong on 4 November 2025.

MLA

Ms Kellie Armstrong

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 5216763

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank everyone who contributed to the discussion, which has been extremely difficult for me. The fact that everyone spoke with care and compassion has shown how much we respect those grieving parents out there. I thank all colleagues for that. I also thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. As others, such as Mr Frew, said, it is the first piece of legislation that will allow people who have lost children during pregnancy, under 24 weeks, to have, at last, something concrete in their hand that they can hold that recognises that they had a child. Thank you for that. I also thank the Committee, because it could not have been easy to listen to the stories of those grieving parents. Having been a bereavement counsellor and involved in supporting hundreds of parents who have lost children and, of course, given the fact that I have suffered losses, which I have not hidden, I know that it can be quite difficult. To anybody in the House, those listening or any staff in the Building who have been through the same situation as me, I am very sorry for your loss, and I hope that the Bill goes a long way in helping you grieve for your child, because the Government will recognise your child, albeit they may have survived for only a short time. I will go straight to the clauses to which amendments have been tabled. Mr Gaston, of course, tabled his opposition to clause 8 stand part. It is his right to have his own considerations, but I came to the House to represent everyone, and I believe in the code of conduct for MLAs, which means that we have to consider equality in all that we do. Therefore, I will not support him. He may oppose clause 8, but I do not think that the majority of the House do. Amendment No 1 requires the legislation to be laid within a timescale. That is relevant, because, far too often in the House, we have the situation where we legislate, and, as I know from my experience on the Committee for Communities, it takes years for regulations to come forward. To be honest, we are giving a lot of hope to people outside the Chamber, and they will expect to see something. To be fair to the Minister and his Department, they have done an awful lot of work in the background, and they are almost there. It would not be such a stretch for them. Amendment No 2 was tabled in the name of my colleague Eóin Tennyson. Mr Frew made an important point, and I will perhaps comment on it now. We are talking about legislation. It is something that, when written down, is law. We are talking about whether to charge people for certificates. Here is something: we either charge for the certificates, or we do not. There is no in-between. I say that in reference to amendment No 3, tabled by the DUP. Who would hold a register of who has applied for baby loss certificates? I do not understand how that works. We either charge for everything, or we do not charge for it.

If we are going to say that we will give so many certificates free and the rest will have to be paid for, there must be a list — a tally kept against that child's name or record — of who has applied and how many times people have applied for a certificate, and that will incur costs. That is not appropriate. We need to decide today whether we will charge or not. The ability to charge is in the legislation as the Minister has it, but, to be honest, as I said in reference to the child funeral fund, the Assembly has already decided to provide funding so that a parent does not have to pay for the funeral of a child under the age of 18, so why are we asking parents who have lost a child at under 24 weeks of pregnancy to pay for a baby loss certificate?

I appreciate that, in a perfect world, just a mother and a father would be involved, but what happens if they become estranged and a new partner comes into the relationship who adopts the other family members and wants a copy? Grandparents, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles and many others might look for that. If we are to legislate on an equal footing, we have to consider this: anybody who loses a child over 24 weeks of pregnancy does not have to pay for funerals because we reimburse them for that, but we will be charging people who lose a child before 24 weeks of pregnancy. That is part of the problem that we are getting into as we debate the harm that can be caused. There is no difference in the grief, but we are making a difference financially. To be fair to everyone, we have to just say either that they pay or they do not, and that will be up to the House. My preferred option is this: if we are going to provide free services to people whose loss happened after 24 weeks of pregnancy, we should do nothing different for people whose babies pass away before 24 weeks. Perhaps the Minister could come back to us on the matter of the register. If people can get some certificates for free but have to pay for the rest, how will that be managed and worked on? For example, I started life as Kellie McGrattan. I got married and became Kellie Armstrong. I did not have a youngster when I was McGrattan, but I could have had one. How would we know who the father is? Are we going to ask for a lot of details? We are starting to get into a convolution here that does not need to happen. With regard to amendment No 4, I get it — I absolutely get it — but putting amendment Nos 4 and 5 into the Bill is a waste of time. Regulations that are already being talked about are coming forward, and it is not for the House to tell a grieving parent what should or should not be on a baby loss certificate. It is for grieving parents to decide that. They should be part of the development of the regulations and should decide what goes into the Bill. As I said earlier, not every parent — I include myself — knows the gender of their child or has been able to give that child a name. Even the date on which the child was lost might be a convoluted matter. Let us be careful, and let us be as flexible and open as possible to the opportunity to provide a baby loss certificate, which is something so special for so many people. Let us not make it too convoluted and difficult.

Yes.

I thank the Member for that. It leads me nicely to amendment No 5. I am sorry, folks, but I cannot support amendment No 5. I say it honestly from my heart: please do not do this. I have sat in more than enough rooms as a bereavement counsellor and even when I was being counselled myself with women who have had to struggle with the term "abortion" being used in respect of their miscarriage. While I absolutely, 100%, respect a woman's right to choose, I also absolutely respect a woman's right to grieve. For some women, having the words "termination" or "abortion" associated with their loss is devastating. I remember seeing the words "spontaneous abortion" at a time when I could not understand why my body had not carried children. It was harmful for my mental health, and I know that it has been harmful for a lot of other women's mental health. Members have talked kindly today about the issue. Ms Forsythe, your speech was very moving for me. It recognised that, as soon as you get pregnant, you have thoughts, wishes and dreams for the baby who will come along. If your body then expels it and you do not know why and somebody calls that "an abortion", you think, "Do they think that I got rid of my child — the one that I wanted?". That is difficult. I beg the House to please leave the regulations as flexible as possible and not to use emotive language in the Bill that will mean that when a woman, a man, a grandparent or whoever goes to apply for a baby loss certificate, they will have to tick a box to indicate whether they want to say how they lost their baby. It is a baby loss certificate, not a medical procedure certificate. I ask the House to please just be kind and keep going with what we intend the Bill to do. Let the regulations deal with that. Let bereaved parents deal with that. Let the Minister of Finance and his officials deal with it in a flexible way that will allow all those who wish to apply for a baby loss certificate to do so without having to specify.

I thank the Member for his contribution, but I am a legislator the same as him, and I do not read his amendments in the way that, he thinks, he has written them. Amendment No 5 states:

"Clause 11, Page 5, Line 37 At end insert— '(3A) The regulations must provide for the issue of a certificate following a termination of pregnancy.'"

The words "a termination of pregnancy" will be in the Bill and in the Act, and I ask the House to not agree to that. With clause 11, we have the opportunity to cover all instances and reasons, and we do not need to go into those reasons.

I will.

Thank you, Mr Gaston. I am sorry, but I am one of those grieving parents, and my last loss involved a medical abortion that was very difficult for me. I find the terminology offensive and callous. It lacks understanding. It also lacks evidence of conversations with women who have been through any of this. None of us want to see that wording in the Bill. What we have in clause 11 is enough; we do not need amendment No 5. We do not need to retraumatise and harm people just because they lost a child before 24 weeks of pregnancy. It has been difficult today. I believe that we in the House, irrespective of our positions on what are technical points of law, are in agreement. We need to have baby loss certificates. We need to provide people with a piece of paper that finally confirms that they were pregnant and had a baby. That baby may no longer be here, but there is a certificate that people can apply for and have. I fully believe that, in the early days of the certificate being available, there will be an influx of people of all ages and genders applying for it, because, for years in Northern Ireland, we have not had the opportunity to do so. This is the right thing to do. It is right that we have not put a time limit on it, as appears in other places. It is kinder. There is also an unknown element to this regarding how the certificates will eventually be produced. It may well be something that you can apply for and print or choose to print yourself, or you may wish to have a formal printing process — a bit like it is for a death certificate — where you are given a certificate. There are lots of options still to come forward. Minister, I honestly believe that, through the regulations, you and your Department will bring forward what bereaved parents want and need. Today, all that I ask is that people think about this craic of charging people. You either have it in the Bill, or you do not. There is no halfway house here, because the halfway house will cost a lot of money and will require you to get data protection information from grieving parents at time when they just want a certificate for their dead child. We should think about getting this passed as quickly as possible. I have every belief that the officials are almost there. I know that the consultation piece is over. There has been a lot of input into it. I was one of those who responded to the consultation. I am grateful, as a grieving parent, to have been able to do that. We are almost there, and we can have this done within this financial year, never mind within the mandate. All that I would say, as someone who is so grateful that this is coming forward, is this: thank you so much, Minister, and thank you to your Department. I thank the Committee for the work that it has done and for listening to grieving parents. We are doing something special here. I do not think that there is a row about that. It is something outstanding that shows that the Assembly has a heart and compassion for its neighbours, friends and families. I thank you for that.

2,214 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification