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

Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on 2 December 2025.

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 5271856

Text

Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I thank again all the Members of the House who have contributed to the heartfelt debates on the matter, who have corresponded with my office about the Bill or who have otherwise engaged meaningfully in helping to push this important Bill forward. I again record my thanks for the work of the Committee and the Committee staff, who have also been crucial in relation to the Bill. I also thank my staff in the Department, who have worked on the Bill, driven it forward and engaged with many Members of the House, not only in Committee but outside it, in a bid to get the Bill to where it needs to be. In relation to the elements of the Bill to establish a legal footing for a baby loss certificate scheme, I am grateful for the support received from across the House. It has been said time and time again that our ability to work in partnership on the issue has paved the way for, hopefully, a successful conclusion to the Bill process today. I remind Members of the Bill's aims. It is to ground in permanent legislation the remote registration practices for deaths and stillbirths that have become the normal way of operating. It also removes my need to present myself in front of Mr Frew for an extension to the Coronavirus Act 2020, which, we can say, is a blessing for us all. If there is one thing that you do not want to start Mr Frew on, it is the Coronavirus Act, and I have now removed my need to do that. The Bill removes inequalities in registration procedures for some couples, and that is an important step forward in the legislation. As has been said, the Bill provides for the establishment of a baby loss certificate scheme. I have had the privilege of bringing several pieces of legislation through the Assembly in different eras, all of which were important in their own right, but I can think of no other legislation that is more important or more meaningful than the legislation that I propose to the House today. It will, in many ways, offer a small candlelight of hope to many families who have gone through terrible times. Today, the Assembly has stepped forward, and I hope that the Bill offers them some light at the end of that very dark tunnel in that we are now recognising the loss of their baby through this scheme. Well done to you all, and well done to everyone who has been involved in the legislation. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

439 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).
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.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.03	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.01	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.01	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.02	No
Controversy escalation	0.02	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.28	No
Overall judgement	0.02	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
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 area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	0.49
No identity-related subject	0.39
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups	0.06
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy	0.05
Another identity-related subject	0.01

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