Debate contribution: Parental Bereavement Leave and Pay (Miscarriage) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026
Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .
- MLA
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 24 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Parental Bereavement Leave and Pay (Miscarriage) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5463676
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I thank everybody who contributed to the debate for their support for the regulations. As I set out earlier, the regulations introduce a new entitlement for employees who are parents who have been bereaved through miscarriage by providing them with the right to take up to two weeks of bereavement leave from work, alongside an entitlement to a statutory payment. The policy objective is to establish a clear framework and a minimum standard of support for employed bereaved parents who tragically experience a miscarriage before 24 weeks. In doing so, the regulations recognise the profound impact of pregnancy loss and ensure that no parent will face that experience without at least a baseline of workplace support. I thank the Committee for its consideration of the regulations and the other accompanying regulations, and for the support that has been expressed in the Chamber. I also acknowledge the work of Mrs Dodds and Minister Lyons in progressing the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act in the previous mandate. I recognise all those who contributed to the consultation in the previous mandate, and to the recent consultation, in order to help to shape the legislation. I acknowledge the work of the organisations that support people who face pregnancy loss, and which have supported my Department in bringing forward the legislation. I will touch on some of the comments that have been made in the debate. I reassure Mr Durkan that, if employees experience any non-compliance from employers, they will have the opportunity to progress through the normal recourse. I agree with Ms Nicholl: many employers already do really good work in this space and are very supportive through the provision of the necessary leave and pay. We want to put in place a floor — a minimum standard that is expected. Finally, I acknowledge the work of officials who have been working on this for as long as I have, and who have very diligently supported me and the Committee in bringing forward the regulations. Importantly, the measures are intended to complement and encourage supportive workplace practices. Some employers already offer paid time off for miscarriage. They will now be able to benefit from financial reimbursement from HMRC. The guidance provided by my Department will help to reinforce good practice. The regulations mark an important and overdue recognition that pregnancy loss through miscarriage is a bereavement, and one that requires understanding and support in the workplace. It is my hope that, through these provisions, thousands of eligible employed parents who suffer the loss of a child through miscarriage will be able to access meaningful support at a time when they need it most. The unanimous support that has been expressed in the Chamber today is a really positive message. It shows the good that we can collectively achieve in the Assembly.
475 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- 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-qualifying 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.49 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-qualifying 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 | 0.76 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.12 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.06 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.04 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:16 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.