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

Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on .

MLA
Mr John O'Dowd
Party at the time
Sinn Féin
Date
2 December 2025
Type
Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business
Executive Committee Business
Heading
Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Final Stage
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5271819

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle.

I am pleased that we have reached the Final Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. I am grateful to Members for the support that they have shown for the Bill to date and, in particular, for the positive comments from all sides in respect of the proposed baby loss certificate scheme. I also thank the Finance Committee for its detailed scrutiny of the Bill and the report that it provided. Members will be aware that the Bill started as legislation with a narrow focus. It was designed to place the temporary powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020 that enabled the remote registration of deaths and stillbirths and the electronic transfer of registration documents on a permanent footing. It was first expanded to remove differences in registration processes for same-sex couples. It was then rightly expanded to include provisions for a baby loss certificate scheme that would recognise the suffering of families who endure the pain of baby loss before the end of the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy. Although the Bill has widened from its original intent, I know that Members on all sides agree that the extensions have enabled us to address important registration issues and make new provisions for baby loss certificates that are required to take the scheme forward. The initial purpose of the Bill was to make permanent the temporary provisions made under the Coronavirus Act 2020. As Members will be aware, those temporary provisions were introduced at the beginning of the pandemic and have been in place for more than five years. It is clear to the Assembly why the provisions were important in the context of the pandemic: they reduced the need for face-to-face contact for grieving and, sometimes, vulnerable members of the public and for registration staff; and they enabled the registration system to continue to operate even when its services were, sadly, under significant pressure. In the five years that have passed since the start of the pandemic, those arrangements have become the normal means by which the vast majority of death registrations take place. Importantly, the provisions have eased the burden on grieving members of the public. They have helped the registration process be more efficient and more productive, and they carry the support of stakeholders, ensuring the smooth passing of important documents and enabling registration staff to handle any errors or omissions in advance. In short, although the powers were introduced as the pandemic took hold, they have become the established means by which deaths and stillbirths are registered, and they have helped the registration service become more empathetic, modern and efficient. Given the positive effect of the provisions, it is right that we put those temporary provisions on a solid statutory footing, providing permanent powers with sustained remote registration and electronic transfer of documents. The Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill will end the use of the Coronavirus Act 2020 powers in the context of the registration service, something that, I know, Members on all sides are keen to see. Secondly, the Bill will rectify differences in the registration process for some couples. Under the current law, different birth and stillbirth registration options exist for same-sex and heterosexual couples who are neither married nor in a civil partnership. Same-sex female couples in that position cannot jointly register a birth or a stillbirth in the way that heterosexual couples can. The provisions in the Bill will fix those disparities, ensuring that unmarried, non-civil-partnered couples have the same choices about how to register a birth or a stillbirth, regardless of whether they are same-sex or heterosexual couples. That change will remedy our legislation to ensure equality in the registration process.

Thirdly, the Bill will provide a statutory footing for a baby loss certificate scheme. As Members on all sides will testify, losses in early pregnancy have a real and lasting effect. The trauma of the loss is significant, heartfelt and, too often, borne in silence. Throughout the scrutiny of the Bill in Committee and in the Chamber, we have heard personal accounts of the impact that such losses have had on families. I commend the bravery of all those who have spoken out, either in this debate, through our recent consultation, in the course of their charity work or in correspondence. I also pay tribute to all the baby loss support organisations that have campaigned tirelessly for the baby loss certificate scheme. Today, we have a chance to act on the powerful testimonies that those families have given. Under the existing law, the registration service can only recognise losses during pregnancy that occur after 24 weeks. Losses after that point are treated as stillbirths. The Bill will change that and make provisions to recognise losses that occur earlier in pregnancy. The baby loss certificate scheme will offer the opportunity for those who have experienced a baby loss prior to the end of the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy to have their loss formally recognised. While no certificate can undo their pain and grief, the new scheme will help to support families at the most difficult and challenging times of their lives, providing a voluntary way of acknowledging and recognising their loss. It will confirm that their baby existed and can be used to start a conversation with siblings or other family members. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, I intend to introduce regulations through the draft affirmative resolution process that will set down the detail of the baby loss certificate scheme. It is my intention that the scheme will become operational by the end of the financial year. As Members of the Legislative Assembly, our role is to shape legislation that makes a real difference in people's lives. The Bill covers three important issues that will impact on a large number of the people whom we are here to represent, often at some of the most challenging moments that they face. By working together, we have come together to agree and deliver changes that will have a real, lasting and positive impact on the lives of our constituents. Today is a powerful reminder of the good that we can achieve when we unite and work in partnership. I therefore commend the Bill to the Assembly.

1,044 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.89).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.01No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.01No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.89Yes
Overall judgement0.02At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.96
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.04
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:06 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