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

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 4 November 2025.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

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 5216839

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank Members for their tone. They might not agree with the amendments that I have tabled, but we have had a good discussion on them. I trust that Members see the heart that is behind the amendments that I have brought to the House. Regardless of the outcome of the debate, due to my amendments being tabled, the Bill firmly applies and recognises that aborted babies, either through choice or led by medical evidence, will be included in the scheme. That was not the case in the debate at an earlier stage. The House has moved on that, and I welcome the fact that we now recognise that babies lost through abortion cannot be left out and need to be recognised. That is a change of direction for the House. The life of a baby starts at conception, and it is important that life is recognised and included in the certificate scheme if — this is the clarity I have tried to bring to the Bill today — and only if the parent wishes to avail themselves of a certificate. Agreement to my amendments will not automatically mean that those who have lost a baby through abortion will automatically get a certificate. That, as I have said, is a misrepresentation of my stance. I will go through the comments of a few Members. Mr O'Toole, as the Chairman of the Committee, thanked those who provided the 40 responses at Committee Stage. He paid tribute to those who had given personal testimonies. I am sure it was traumatic and delicate, but those who gave their personal testimony need to be recognised, and we must commend them for doing that. Mr O'Toole went on to speak on behalf of the SDLP. Throughout his contribution, I wondered whether he was speaking on behalf of everyone in his party or whether those who sit on the Back Benches are sympathetic to some of the amendments that I have put forward today. He said that he did not object to the principle of amendment No 4. He voiced his objections to amendment No 5. I say to him that Stormont decides the principles; the civil servants fill in the details. It is up to the House to ensure that the Bill includes the principle that no grieving parent should be excluded. As I have said, the lives lost through termination were not included in previous debates. Jemma Dolan spoke on behalf of Sinn Féin. She said that I oppose equality and cause division. I clarify once again that my amendments reflect basic, first-day biology — it is a biology lesson — and that is where my opposition to the schedule comes from. Diane Forsythe made a heartfelt contribution, and I felt that some of the thoughts that she put forward reflected a genuine stance. She reminded the House that death is a part of life that we must all navigate. A concern was raised shortly after that, and Ms Armstrong intervened to make the point that the sex of a baby is not known in all cases. To clarify, what I propose is an appendix to the form for the sex and name. No one needs to leave anything blank. If they do not know the details, they do not have to fill in the appendix. It is about the personhood of the unborn child. I trust that that clarifies my proposed subsection 3A(b) of clause 11.

The Minister said that there were 1,100 responses to the consultation, and I thank everyone who submitted their views, but it is appropriate for the House, at Consideration Stage, to include the amended clause. I hope that that clarity will allow Members to back the amendment. Diane spoke in support of the amendment that she and Paul Frew tabled. I note that it has been withdrawn pending the outcome of what the Minister said. Mr Tennyson said that debates such as this are triggering and that language matters. I trust that Members will have heard from my language and how I presented my amendments what I have tried to do in that regard. The Member does not oppose amendment No 4 essentially but will oppose it anyway, and his contribution reflects that. Where his comments on amendment No 5 are concerned, Members should be assured that that amendment has nothing to do with a culture war. It is disingenuous to try to label me as someone who is entering into that sphere. Indeed, it was the Member who brought the culture war into the debate when he went to the press at the weekend to misrepresent my and my party's stance on the issues. Given Mr Tennyson's contribution, biology does not matter, according to the gospel of Eóin. He then stated his opposition to amendment No 5. Dr Aiken talked about dealing with the matter in compassionate terms, saying that it is important to get it right. I trust and believe that Members have done that today. Dr Aiken went on to thank all those who gave evidence. Deirdre Hargey gave us the typical equality speech. She said that I was demonising women. That is a misrepresentation of my stance, and it does not reflect the heart that I have behind such matters.

I am happy enough to take a point.

At the same time, just because I am a man, that does not mean that my views do not count. I trust that, when I presented my arguments today, I did so sensitively. Mr Frew very jollily welcomed the fact that we are dealing with legislation. He thanked the staff on the Committee, which he has now left. I am not sure whether they are glad to get rid of him, but he certainly was in his element today when he was putting forward his opinions. He pointed out that this is the first place in the British Isles to legislate for baby loss certificates. Do not let this get lost in the debate that we have had today: everybody in the House supports the scheme. It is just that some Members have a different interpretation of the things that need to be included. However, do not let that take away from where we are and where we are going. Brian Kingston was first up after lunch. He said that the Bill is consistent with the DUP's pro-life stance, and he agrees with there being a voluntary option for those who want to opt in or, indeed, do not want to avail themselves of the scheme at all. Kellie Armstrong spoke about how hard the debate has been for her today. I pay tribute to Kellie for giving her personal experiences not just today but in my short time in the Chamber. I must commend her for that. We might agree on some things and disagree on others, but that does not stop me recognising a heartfelt contribution, and that is what Kellie brought to the debate. However, at some stages throughout the debate, she misrepresented me. In an intervention, I pointed out that nobody is suggesting that the words "termination" or "abortion" be included on a certificate or form. It is simply wrong to try to peddle that and to leave it at my feet. That is not at the heart of what we want to achieve. In Kellie's intervention, however, she seemed to take exception to the word "abortion" appearing anywhere in legislation. I realise that that word can be triggering, but it is legislation that we are dealing with here. I support such an inclusion, and my amendments deserve a place in the Bill. Mr Carroll talked about the gaps in the Bill. He has an issue with charging for certificates. He said that amendment No 4 seems reasonable, but he talked about amendment No 5 stigmatising women and creating a chill factor. Once again, that is certainly not right. I trust that Members today will take on board the heart behind my contribution and my intentions in the amendments. To sum all that up, my concern is that those who are opposed to my amendments are those who do not agree that conception starts at birth.

I will give way in a moment. I am proudly pro-life, and it is issues like this that brought me to the Chamber. I will use every opportunity that I have to get to my feet and raise those issues and concerns. My faith guides my contributions in this Chamber. That is why I am opposed to schedule 8 and it is why I have tabled my amendments. I am happy to give way.

I certainly acknowledge anybody who spoke in a personal capacity, whether in the Committee or in the Chamber. I acknowledge the hurt and pain that they have gone through. I am sincere when I do that. That, however, does not stop me presenting my amendments in the manner that I have done. I have full sympathy for anybody who has lost a child through miscarriage or termination. That is one of the reasons why I tabled my amendment on abortion. There are those who have aborted a baby who regret it later in life. Those who have had a miscarriage grieve the loss of that child. How could you not grieve the loss of any child? Being a father, I know how much my children mean to me. I strongly support the scheme because, if my wife was in the same position, I would want to recognise that child and name that child. That is what is at the heart of my amendments. I will move the amendments that are tabled in my name on that basis.

1,615 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Not flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mainly advances the public interest

Against the published rubric

This is a winding-up speech at Consideration Stage. The member explains and defends specific amendments to a baby loss certificate scheme, such as an optional appendix for sex and name and certificates being available "only if the parent wishes". He also responds point by point to other Members' objections. Abortion is a recognised flashpoint, and there are some sarcastic jabs, such as "the gospel of Eóin" and "the typical equality speech". But the speech does not portray women, LGBT people or any community as a group in a hostile way, and its main thrust is what the Bill should contain rather than which identity is winning or losing.

Public interest or divisiveness

The speech mainly deals with the substance of legislation: who should be eligible for certificates, how the forms would work, and the principle that "no grieving parent should be excluded". It also acknowledges other Members' personal testimony. The pro-life position and the appeals to "basic, first-day biology" are a contested moral stance argued on the merits of the amendments. The personal digs at opponents add some heat to the debate, but they are secondary to the legislative purpose.

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