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

Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on 4 November 2025.

MLA

Mr John O'Dowd

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

4 November 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

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

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5216800

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I begin by thanking all Members who have contributed to the debate on this important matter. As Members will be aware, the key aims of the Bill are, first, to place the temporary processes contained in the Coronavirus Act 2020 that enable the remote registration of deaths and stillbirths and the electronic transfer of registration documents on a permanent footing; secondly, to rectify the differences in the birth and stillbirth registration processes for some opposite-sex and same-sex female parents; and, thirdly, to enable the making of secondary legislation for the introduction of a baby loss certificate scheme. Mr Gaston has indicated that he will oppose the Questions that clause 8 and the schedule stand part of the Bill. Those are, of course, decisions for Mr Gaston. Clause 8 and the schedule relate directly to one of the key aspects of the Bill, which is to rectify differences in the birth and stillbirth registration processes between opposite-sex and same-sex female couples. Clause 8 and the schedule are important parts of the Bill, as they will ensure that unmarried and non-civil partner couples have access to the same registration procedures, regardless of whether they are same-sex or opposite-sex couples. The inequality in the birth and stillbirth registration processes has existed for some time, and it is right that those disparities are rectified through the Bill. The provisions in the Bill will ensure that those inequalities are removed, so that all couples have the same options for the registration of a birth or stillbirth. I ask Members to consider the importance of that issue and to vote to ensure that clause 8 and the schedule stand part of the Bill. The intention of amendment No 1 from Mr Tennyson, which is to change the word "may" to "shall", is to ensure that the Department is required to make regulations and to remove any possibility that the Department may decide not to progress them. I am aware of the importance of the scheme to families who have experienced an early pregnancy loss. The scheme will offer families the same formal recognition as those who are affected by the death of a loved one or a stillbirth. For the families, the certificate will confirm that their baby existed, and I hope that it will help them to navigate the grieving process. I therefore assure the Member that it is my intention that the regulations that outline the content of the baby loss certificate scheme will be progressed as soon as possible, with the aim of having the scheme operational by the end of this financial year. Officials are in the process of drafting the regulations for the scheme, and those will start the legislative process through the draft affirmative route as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. I recognise the desire of Members to see the scheme operational as quickly as possible. That is also my desire. Based on what I outlined previously, I do not feel that an amendment to the wording is strictly necessary as it has always been my intention to bring forward secondary legislation without delay. However, I am content to accept the amendment, as it supports the route that I intend to follow to bring forward regulations for a baby loss certificate scheme as soon as possible. Amendment No 2 from Mr Tennyson is about the charging of fees for baby loss certificates and proposes that "no applicant" should be required to pay a fee for a baby loss certificate. As Members will be aware, the question of whether or not there should be fees for a baby loss certificate is highly emotive. From the outset, it has been my intention that the scheme will be compassionate and open to anyone who has suffered a loss early in pregnancy. While a certificate will not undo the pain that parents have suffered, it can provide formal recognition of the loss and validate their grief. For that reason, it has always been my view that there should be no charge when someone applies for a baby loss certificate. The question of fees was also considered extensively as part of the Finance Committee's scrutiny of clause 11(1). I am grateful for the Committee's detailed report in that regard. The Committee's view, as set out in its budget report, was that there should be no charge for a baby loss certificate. At the end of its scrutiny, the Committee did not recommend or table any amendments to the Bill, noting that any charges would need to be approved by the Assembly when the baby loss regulations are introduced. Consequently, I believe that there was consensus that no fees should be charged for a baby loss certificate. The amendment goes further, however, by requiring that no fee be levied for any baby loss certificate. It will require that a second, third, fourth and any other subsequent copy of the certificate is free. It will also set the scheme apart from other certificate schemes. Members, understandably, referred to equality in this matter and to ensuring that everybody is treated equally. If you request a copy of any other life event certificate, there is a charge. I am sure that it is difficult for all Members to discuss money and fees in this context. I was not being patronising to Mr Tennyson when I commented about introducing legislation as opposed to debating motions. The point that I was trying to make was that you have to write legislation in a way that, as best you can, incorporates powers that will deal with any future circumstances that arise. That way, you do not regret having the power to act and not doing so and do not have to go through the process again, which costs money and time. It is better for the Department to have a power — I will come to the DUP amendment in a moment — than it is for it to have no power. The real power rests in the Assembly, because it will decide on any regulations that are proposed. We can go around the Chamber and talk about different ifs and whether certain circumstances are to going to arise, but there is a charge for a copy of all other life event certificates, so if we are going to have equality on these matters, that is a reference point for us all. For the reasons that I have outlined, I oppose the amendment tabled by Eóin. However, to ensure that no family will face a cost for a first baby loss certificate, I propose to amend the Bill at Further Consideration Stage. As I do not want to exclude the possibility of any fees being charged in the future, I have asked my officials to work with Ms Forsythe and Mr Frew, whose amendment is closer to my position, to develop an amendment for the Assembly to consider. That work will be able to take account of the results of our public consultation, which asked the public for their views on the appropriateness of fees. It will also give the Department flexibility to charge fees in the future, subject to the agreement of the Assembly, should it become necessary to do so. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment No 2, and I urge Members to reject it to allow us to develop a narrower provision for inclusion at Further Consideration Stage. Amendment No 3, tabled by Paul Frew and Diane Forsythe, deals with the same matters as amendment No 2: the charging of fees for baby loss certificates. It proposes to amend the Bill to ensure that the regulations:

"may not provide for the charging of fees for a certificate ... or for the first copy of a certificate".

However, they:

"may provide for the charging of fees for a second or subsequent copy of a certificate",

if needs be. Although it is not drafted exactly as I would like, the amendment aligns with my view that there should not be a fee for the first certificate. I also recognise the flexibility that it retains for the Department to propose fees in some, likely quite limited, circumstances in the future, again, subject to the approval of the Assembly.

Whether there are fees or not, it is proposed that we will have a register of parents who have applied for a certificate and that we will hold that for at least five years. Some data will have to be held, obviously following sensitive and proper procedures. With or without fees, the proposal is to hold that data for at least five years. That would be the process. For those reasons, I am content to support the amendment in principle and to work with Ms Forsythe and Mr Frew to propose additional amendments at Further Consideration Stage. Moving on to amendment No 4 from Mr Gaston —.

I thank the Member for those comments. He is being nice to me a lot today. Your move to the Justice Committee has done you the world of good

I appreciate the manner and tone in which all Members have approached the debate and the entire process. Of course, there will be differences of opinion on various matters, but Members have —.

Yes; just one second, Eóin. Members have tried their best to ensure that we approach this in a mature and dignified manner.

Again, I appreciate the Member's approach to the matter and the desire of many in the Chamber for consensus as we move forward. Amendment No 4 proposes the introduction of subsection 3A to clause 11 to specify fields, such as the name and sex of the baby, that should be included in the content of the baby loss certificate. The amendment also proposes the inclusion of a statement on the certificate recognising the baby as a member of the applicant's family. Clause 11 enables the Department to make regulations that will provide for the recognition of any loss — importantly, any loss — that occurs before the end of the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy. The regulations will set out the specification for the certificate scheme and provide for the content of the baby loss certificate. Those regulations will be brought before the Assembly through the draft affirmative route, which will enable all Members to consider and debate their contents. I have always emphasised that the scheme will reflect the requirements of those who have experienced a loss and that their views and opinions will help to shape the scheme. To that end, my Department carried out a public consultation exercise between 17 June and 12 September. More than 1,100 responses were received, with people taking the opportunity to provide their views on the content of the scheme and the information that they would like to see included on the baby loss certificate. I thank each and every one of those 1,100 respondents. I am sure that it was very difficult for many of them to respond to that consultation, but they did so for the betterment of all, which is a credit to them. The baby loss certificate will include a number of details that respondents to the consultation exercise indicated that they want to be included. We expect that those will include the name and sex of the baby, where that can be detailed, along with the date and place of loss and the parents' details. We also expect that applicants for baby loss certificates will not need to provide all that information; they will be able to provide as much or as little information as they wish. I am confident that the parents and families who have experienced loss already consider their baby to be a member of their family. We will bring forward a full report on the findings from our public consultation in due course, but there was no suggestion, during the process or in discussions with stakeholders, that a statement is required on the certificate to recognise that the baby was a member of the family. There was a clear wish for the certificate to be as similar to other life event certificates as possible, and none of those includes such statements. As I have outlined, it is vital that the scheme reflects the requirements of those who have experienced a loss. The Bill and the subsequent regulations will provide for that, and the Assembly will have to consider them in detail. I, therefore, do not feel that it is necessary to make changes to clause 11, as proposed by amendment No 4.

I move now to Mr Gaston's amendment No 5, which proposes the insertion of subsection (3A) following clause 11(3) to specify that:

"The regulations must provide for the issue of a certificate following a termination of pregnancy."

I will take Mr Gaston at his word regarding what he has presented to the Assembly for his motivation behind the amendment. In fairness, the comments of the Speaker in relation to the comments of the Deputy Speaker, who was in the Chair at that time, has clarified that position. When you look at clause 11(2), you see that it clearly states:

"The regulations may provide for the recognition of any loss which is not a still-birth within the meaning of the 1976 Order."

That encapsulates the concerns that Mr Gaston has expressed today. If the Bill already encapsulates his thinking on those matters, I see no reason for the amendment, and I will not support it. I move now to amendment No 6 in the name of Mr Tennyson. The amendment would omit clause 11(5) and insert new subsections to provide that:

"a draft of the regulations must be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly."

Amendment No 6 also proposes that the regulations must be:

"laid before the Assembly within ... 12 weeks beginning with the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent."

Again, it is an admirable proposal or amendment, but the difficulty with it relates to its unintended consequences, if, for whatever reason, the Department is not able to produce those regulations within the 12 weeks. If difficulties are going to arise with those regulations, they will arise regardless of whether we have that amendment. The difficulty that might arise, further from that, is that it may call into question the validity of the legislation if we do not produce it within 12 weeks. Again, I ask the Member to consider that. It is a well-intentioned amendment, and I can understand the frustration of the public, at times, at the delays in legislation not only being passed in this place but enacted, but I think that everyone will agree that my departmental officials, in cooperation with the Department of Health, have been working their way through the process admirably.

I accept the motivations behind the amendment, but there could be unintended consequences. As I said, my officials are working their way through this at pace. However, if you run into an unexpected problem, you will run into it regardless of whether we have the amendment. The problem is that, if the amendment is in statute, it could call into question the legality of the entire process. The Member has set out his position, and I have set out mine. I have covered Mr Gaston's comments and emphasised the importance of clause 8 and the schedule to the Bill. The provision will ensure that inequalities in birth and stillbirth processes are removed and that all couples have the same options for the registration of a birth or stillbirth. I urge Members to reflect on the importance of equality in the registration process for different couples and to support the inclusion of the schedule. I draw my remarks to a close.

2,622 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