Debate contribution: Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Final Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 2 December 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Final Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5271852
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Like others, I hope that the Bill provides some solace and comfort as part of the healing process for people who been through bereavement, loss and tragedy. Some will want a certificate to recognise their loss, which is their right, and others may not. It is not for me or anybody else to dictate that. However, as Members have said, a certificate can be important for people to acknowledge their loss and give them that space. I genuinely hope that the Bill will have a positive impact and help people who have experienced that trauma and bereavement. Despite some criticisms and shortcomings, that is a genuine view that I and others have. I extend my sympathies to everybody in the House and on the Committee who shared their heartfelt trauma and stories and to my constituents who have been through baby loss, stillbirth or miscarriage. I can only imagine that it is traumatic to share that, but I commend them for doing so. I have two quick points. There are still some issues in the Bill that have not been addressed that I raised throughout the process. There are huge gaps in the existing bereavement services. I pay tribute to people who provide counselling and support services in the trusts and elsewhere, but such a small number of people do that. There is probably an expectation that, as a result of the Bill, more people will come forward to get a certificate, as is their right. They may be — I emphasise the words "may be" — traumatised or in need of more in-depth support and counselling services, and I fear that those services are not in place. I repeat the previous point that I made: the Finance Minister needs to work really robustly with the Health Minister to expand those services to make sure that they are in place not only as a general point but to protect those people and support them when they come forward. The other point that I want to make is that there has been some progress in the Bill on support for same-sex couples, which I welcome. That is a positive move, but there are gaps when it comes to same-sex couples who live in the North but go through IVF treatment in the South. The non-birth mother cannot be on the birth certificate, and that is an oversight and a missed opportunity. I would welcome the Minister's moving on that in some other capacity, but I fear that he might tell us that the time has gone. I hope not, but that is what I fear. That is a missed opportunity in an otherwise, for the most part, positive Bill. My final point is about payment. I welcome the fact that this was pushed by some members of the Finance Committee, and I recognise that there has been some movement from the Department. However, I reiterate the fact that, even if it is one person, a charge for the second or third copy in circumstances that we do not know about and that, frankly, are none of our business could create unintended consequences, to use the terminology of this place. I repeat my issue with that. That could be problematic, to put it mildly, for people going through a bereavement process. I will leave it there.
554 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: 0.04 (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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.98 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.