Debate contribution: Baby Loss Certificate Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026
Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on .
- MLA
- Mr John O'Dowd
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 26 May 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Baby Loss Certificate Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5582470
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
As Members will be aware, the regulations follow from the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Act 2026, which received Royal Assent on 26 February. During Assembly debates on the Bill, I said that a baby loss certificate scheme was needed to close the gap in our registration service, so that we could treat losses that occur early in pregnancy in the same way as we treat births and deaths. I said that I wanted to bring forward a baby loss certificate scheme that is shaped around the needs and experiences of families to provide comfort and support as they navigate their grief. I set out my commitment to establish the scheme as quickly as possible. Today's debate provides an opportunity for us to make an important step towards delivering on those commitments. Since the passage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Act through the Assembly, my officials have worked at pace to finalise the regulations to provide the framework for a baby loss certificate scheme. My motivation, their motivation and, I suspect, the motivation of others who will contribute to today's debate is the same: to progress the scheme so that we can formally recognise losses prior to the end of 24 weeks of pregnancy. We know that a baby loss certificate cannot take away the pain that parents feel following such losses, but it is my hope that, by formally recognising their loss through a certificate that validates the life that was lost, we can provide them with a measure of comfort; help them to start a hard conversation with a friend or family member; or give them a way of reaching out for help in their grief. The details of the regulations before the Assembly have been shaped around what the public told us during our consultation last summer. They include specific provisions about what a baby loss certificate will contain; the form of the application required for the issue of a baby loss certificate; how the General Register Office (GRO) will maintain records of the baby loss certificate; and how an amendment may be made to a certificate. In short, they provide the formal legal provisions required to support the operation of the scheme and the issue of baby loss certificates from the General Register Office. Throughout the process, I have repeatedly been impressed and humbled by the candour and honesty of families who have been affected by baby loss. The regulations bear the imprint of more than 1,100 people and organisations who responded to our consultation. I record my gratitude to all those who took the time to share their experiences with us and for their bravery in setting out how deeply their loss impacted on their lives. Their insights into how the scheme should look and work have helped us design a certificate scheme that will meet their needs as fully as possible. I know that, for many, it will have been a difficult process, and I am grateful for their contributions. I welcome Members' comments and commend the regulations to the House.
513 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: 0.02 (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 (0.68).
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.68 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.51 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.46 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:40 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.