Debate contribution: Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Further Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 18 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Further Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5244163
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will limit my remarks to the amendment. The debate is welcome, and the amendment brought forward by the Minister is very much welcome. The Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill is a very important piece of legislation for a number of reasons, one of which is that it deals with death. It is important, therefore, that we treat it with respect and sensitivity. Throughout the Bill's passage, we have done that in both the Chamber and the Committee for Finance. I commend the work of the Committee for Finance, which I have now left. I took great interest in the Bill from the start and pushed the Department to bring it forward as quickly as possible and include baby loss certificates. That brings me to the amendment. I place on record my thanks to the departmental officials, the Department and the Minister for listening and working with Members to get the best possible legislation. On this side of the House, we recognise that the Department, because it was making provision for baby loss certificates through legislation, needed to ensure that there were parameters in the regulations to which it would otherwise not have wished to stretch. However, it needed that cover in legislation in case something arose in the future. With that knowledge, we proceeded down the route of a compromise amendment to send to the Minister and ascertain his thoughts on it. We did not move it at Consideration Stage because we felt that there had been good engagement from the Department and the Minister. We took the Minister at his word at Consideration Stage, and we have been delighted with the engagement since then. This is an example of the House operating in the best way possible. When we work constructively together, we should acknowledge it. Therefore, I thank the Minister and the Department and its officials for the work they undertook, with not only us — myself and Diane Forsythe from the DUP — but also Eóin Tennyson of the Alliance Party, to ensure that the amendment was tabled today and the House, including the two parties involved, was content and supportive of its wording.
That has come to pass. Today is a really good day for the Assembly, and it is a better day for all those who have been and those who will be bereaved, especially those mourning the loss of a baby before 24 weeks. My heart goes out to those who have suffered in that way, but at least they know that the Assembly and the Department are listening.
427 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: 0.03 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.38 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.50 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.44 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
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.