Debate contribution: Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Further Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on .
- MLA
- Mr John O'Dowd
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 18 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Further Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5244145
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move the following amendment:
Members will recall from the Consideration Stage debate two weeks ago that the Bill will do three important things. First, it will place the temporary power contained in the Coronavirus Act 2020 that enables the remote registration of deaths and stillbirths and the electronic transfer of registration documents on a permanent footing. Secondly, it will rectify differences in the birth and stillbirth registration processes for some opposite-sex and same-sex female parents. Thirdly, it will enable the making of secondary legislation for the introduction of a baby loss certificate scheme. I am grateful to Members for the support that they have shown for the Bill to date and, in particular, for the favourable comments from all sides on the proposed baby loss certificate scheme. I draw Members' attention to the report on our recent public consultation on the details of the baby loss certificate scheme that was published last week. The report sets out the views and opinions of the 1,182 people and organisations that responded to the consultation on a wide range of matters, including eligibility criteria, certificate content and changes. I am grateful to all those who took the time to contribute to the consultation, and I am sure that it was difficult for many contributors as they reflected on their personal sad experiences. The consultation will help to shape the scheme around the needs and expectations of families. I turn to the amendment. It has always been my intention that the baby loss certificate scheme should be a compassionate service open to anyone who has suffered a loss early in pregnancy. Although a certificate cannot undo the pain of their experience, it can provide families with a formal recognition of their 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. At Consideration Stage, two amendments were tabled on the matter of charges for baby loss certificates. Neither amendment was moved at Consideration Stage after I suggested that the Department would work with Members to agree a consensus amendment that would ensure that no family would be charged for the first two baby loss certificates. I thank Mr Frew, Ms Forsythe and Mr Tennyson for working with my officials to draft and provisionally agree the language of the amendment that I propose today. The amendment is narrowly drawn. It states that the regulations may provide for there to be no fees for a first baby loss certificate and a first duplicate of that certificate and no charges for amended certificates. It makes arrangements for baby loss certificates that are similar to those for other life events in that it allows for the possibility of charges for subsequent copies of certificates and charges for an expedited delivery service, subject — this is the important part — to the agreement of the Assembly. The amendment will mean that a family applying for a first baby loss certificate will not be charged for it and that, if they require a duplicate copy for any reason, they will not be charged for that either. If the family discover an error in a baby loss certificate or want to add information to it, such as the name or sex of the baby, they will also be able to do that free of charge. No fee will be applied in respect of amended certificates.
That is consistent with the compassionate service that we are seeking to provide.
The proposed amendment will give the Department the flexibility to charge fees in the future, again subject to the agreement of the Assembly, for subsequent copies of the baby loss certificate when first and second copies have been issued. The amendment will also enable a fee to be applied, subject to the view of the Assembly, for the provision of a faster delivery service for a baby loss certificate. Although an option will be retained for a free standard delivery service, a faster service will enable an application for a baby loss certificate to be accepted and processed within one hour at General Register Office (GRO) public counters or issued on the same day for online or postal applications. Those arrangements will be in line with the faster services options offered for other life event certificates. Using the faster service would not affect a person's entitlement to get their free first certificate and duplicate certificate. Any changes levied would be for the faster service not the certificate. Charges in those two circumstances for the faster delivery service and for a third subsequent certificate can be introduced only with the approval of the Assembly. As clause 11(5) sets out, the regulations will specify the detail of the scheme and follow the draft affirmative process, whereby Members will be given the opportunity to consider and debate any changes proposed. It is important to me that the proposal is closely aligned with the findings of the public consultation on the details of the baby loss certificate scheme that the Department conducted over the summer. That told us that the public overwhelmingly favoured baby loss certificates being free and believed that amendments to certificates should also be free but that it was reasonable to charge for duplicate certificates. Although the public were narrowly split on the question of a charge for a faster delivery service, the amendment also seeks the power to charge for that service. We will bring specific proposals on that matter to the Assembly for consideration through the regulations. One of the unfortunate aspects of making legislation is that we have to discuss matters such as fees. I appreciate that Members will remain focused on the purpose of the legislation and the purpose of the baby loss certificates. As legislators, we have to create legislation that is workable and future-proofed as best we can, and sometimes you have to get into areas that are unsavoury, for want of a better word, but those are the things that we as legislators have to do. However, I am sure that Members are focused on the purpose of what we are about today.
1,027 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: 0.02 (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 (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.91 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:52 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.