Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I welcome Sinéad McMurray, who is a research officer in the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe). Thank you for joining us. Sinéad will give us an overview of the research paper.

Ms Sinéad McMurray (Northern Ireland Assembly): Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. The purpose of the presentation is to provide an overview of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill paper that is in your pack for this week. I am aware that you have already had briefings on the specific provisions of the Bill. I aim to provide a brief recap of those and then look at the baby loss certificate schemes that are in operation in some other regions.

The Bill is technically quite succinct. It has 11 clauses and just one schedule. However, despite its narrow scope, it has important administrative and human impact. The core aim of the Bill is to modernise aspects of Northern Ireland's civil registration processes, which it proposes to do through amendments to existing legislation, specifically the Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 and the Civil Registration Regulations 2012.

There are three core aims to the proposed amendments. The first centres on modernising registration processes for deaths and stillbirths. Prior to COVID-19, once the medical certificate of cause of death or stillbirth was issued, it was the responsibility of the informant, typically the family member, to bring the certificate to the registration office in person and physically sign the register. Once the registration of the death or stillbirth was completed by the registrar, it was then the responsibility of the informant to bring the certificate of burial or cremation to the funeral directors. During COVID-19, under the Coronavirus Act 2020, temporary provisions were put in place to allow those processes to take place remotely and digitally. The Bill aims to place those temporary provisions on a permanent statutory footing. Clauses 2 to 7 of the Bill set out the specific changes to the 1976 Order and the Civil Registration Regulations 2012. Clause 10 repeals the specific provisions of the Coronavirus Act. Under those changes, the death certificate and the stillbirth certificate are now sent electronically from the healthcare professional to the registrar's office. Likewise, the certificate for burial is now sent directly from the registrar to the funeral directors. That means, first, that the informant — the family member — is not responsible for delivering those certificates; that responsibility is given to the healthcare professional and the registrar. Secondly, informants no longer have to provide the details of a death or stillbirth in person. That can also be done electronically or by verbal declaration over the phone. The signature can also be provided via email or by verbal declaration. The informant still has the option to do it in person in the registration office. They are also entitled to a certificate of death or the certificate from the registrar, if they would like one. The clauses also cover specific scenarios, such as the registration being delayed or the certificate being issued early, and it updates the language to reflect modern, digital procedures. As we know, that way of working has been in operation for five years. It has become the normal way of working and has been well received by all stakeholders.

The second objective of the Bill is concerned with correcting inequalities that exist in the birth and stillbirth registration processes for same-sex female parents. Under the Civil Registration Act 2011, if a father is not in a civil partnership with or married to the mother, he can register a birth or stillbirth without the mother being present. Previous to the introduction of the Act, both the mother and the father had to be present to register the birth. The same option was not made available to same-sex female parents. Currently, the second female parent cannot register a birth or stillbirth without the mother being present. Clause 8 and the schedule amend the legislation to allow that to happen. The changes also allow for a scenario in which, if the mother disputes the registration details provided by the second female parent, a re-registration can occur.

The third objective of the Bill is concerned with creating provisions to make regulations for a baby loss certificate scheme. Under current law in Northern Ireland, only a baby lost after 24 weeks of pregnancy onwards is officially recorded. Earlier losses have no formal recognition. There is a body of research to suggest that women who experience early pregnancy loss can present with symptoms of depression, anxiety and perinatal grief. Similarly, men who have been affected by early pregnancy loss can present with adverse mental health outcomes. The pregnancy loss review in England, which took place in 2023, highlighted the fact that providing official recognition of a loss can support parents in the recovery process. Consequently, the scheme has been broadly welcomed here and where it has been implemented elsewhere. Clause 11 provides the power to make regulations for a baby loss scheme and highlights certain provisions that may be included, such as cost, who may apply for the certificate and the conditions of issue. Importantly, the regulations must be laid before the Assembly for approval.

The paper gives examples of schemes that are running in England, Scotland and Germany and in states in Australia. There are commonalities across the schemes. For example, they are all free of charge — there are no costs attached to the certificates — and, while they are all official government documents, they do not have any legal standing; they are certificates of recognition only. There are some variances in who can apply for the certificates. In England, both parents can apply, whereas, in Scotland and Germany, typically, the mother needs to apply for the certificate. In England and Scotland, the schemes are retrospective, which means that a person can apply for a certificate for a loss at any point. There is also no need to provide medical evidence, whereas, in Germany, typically, medical evidence is required. Medical evidence of a miscarriage can also be required in Australia, depending on the state. In theory, that could affect how retrospective the scheme is, because losses from, say, 15 years ago are less likely to have medical evidence. It would also exclude women who have not presented to their GP or to a hospital for —

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The Bill is silent on questions like that. It just creates a power for the Department.

Ms McMurray: Yes. Currently, the Bill simply creates the regulations. All of that will be ironed out when the Department does the public consultation. This briefing is just to provide some background and context of schemes that have been enacted elsewhere.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Yes. OK.

Ms McMurray: Safeguards are in place across the other schemes. For example, when somebody wants to put a second parent on the scheme, that person's explicit consent must be sought. There are also commonalities such as there being a lot of flexibility in the language that can be used and in the design of the certificates. Parents have some flexibility as regards what they would like on the certificates. There is more detail in the papers on the specific schemes, should you be interested in it.

I am aware that that was a whistle-stop tour of the provisions, but I am also aware that you have had briefings on them before. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have or to come back to you on anything.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. Thank you for that, Sinéad.

Ms Forsythe: Thanks very much for that. It is great to have that detail and to get insight on a lot of the points. You mention in your paper that, in Northern Ireland, 17,000 deaths and 75 stillbirths are registered a year from pregnancies of over 24 weeks. How many people, do you estimate, will present for baby loss certificates?

Ms McMurray: We were discussing that earlier. Over 100,000 certificates have been issued since enactment of the scheme in England. You have to bear in mind that there was a lot of initial interest, including a lot of historical applications. There is no indication of how many applications are made in a month, but there has been significant interest in England. I have not seen any other numbers. We calculated that that would equate to around 4,000 applications here, if you were to think about it from a Northern Ireland population perspective. That is the evidence that we have at the moment.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you. When it gets up and running, it will take a lot of work just to get caught up with that, and you cannot really predict the backlog. You talked about how far you could go retrospectively. From your research, what is advised?

Ms McMurray: It is from any point in time. It is retrospective in Scotland: an individual can apply at any point in time in respect of any loss. In England, initially, it could go as far back as 2018, and, then, they opened it further so that it applied to a loss at any point in time. There is no time limit on it. It is hard sometimes, for example in the schemes in Germany and Australia, to navigate where their information lies. From what I can see, there are no specific time limits there, but, again, that would probably depend on whether medical evidence has to be provided, as that may exclude certain people from applying.

Ms Forsythe: I see that you have noted questions about how electronic registration would be applied across all 11 council areas in Northern Ireland. The Committee had noted that. Are there any inconsistencies in electronic registration of deaths across different council areas in England, or is it quite consistent?

Ms McMurray: I am not sure. I will have a look into that and come back to you. I am not 100% sure about that. It will be worth looking to see whether there is any formal guidance that all councils adhere to.

Ms Forsythe: It is fluid here: in my constituency, for example, you cross the boundaries of a couple of council areas. Councils do things a wee bit differently, so it is hard to —

Ms McMurray: To be across each one. I am happy to go and see whether any evidence on that is available and come back to you with an answer.

Ms Forsythe: That would be great. If there are inconsistencies elsewhere, there will be a good opportunity for us to take the learning on board. Thank you very much for coming today.

Mr Carroll: Thanks, Sinéad. I raised this matter with the Minister on Monday or Tuesday of this week. You may not have the answer, but I would appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction. Clause 8 deals with same-sex female parents and addresses an important omission. I was contacted, this week, by constituents: a same-sex couple from the North who are expecting a baby conceived through IVF treatment in the South. They are not married and the treatment did not happen in the UK, so, as it stands, the current law would not allow the non-birth mother to be named on the birth certificate. The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 in the South was amended in 2019 to address that anomaly. I know that the clause 8 changes that are mentioned in the briefing relate to same-sex female parents being named on the birth certificate. I am not sure, however, whether that proposed change addresses the anomaly or legislative gap in respect of the individual that I mentioned. I have heard from that one couple, but I am concerned that more people may be impacted.

Ms McMurray: I did not see anything on that in the clauses of the Bill, but it is worth exploring it. I will check with Legal Services as to the situation in that instance. I could not answer that confidently: I am not 100% sure.

Mr Carroll: Will RaISe look at that?

Ms McMurray: Yes, absolutely.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate that. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): No further members have indicated that they wish to ask a question about the Bill. Thank you for your paper, Sinéad. I am sure that it will be useful to Committee members and to other Members when we come to scrutinise the Bill in plenary sittings. Thank you very much for that.