Still-Birth (Definition) Bill [HL]

Second Reading

12:48:00

Moved by

That the Bill be now read a second time.

My Lords, I am overjoyed to introduce this important Bill to your Lordships’ House. I thank the Government Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for ensuring that there was time for the debate today; I am most grateful to him. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for her support and commitment to improving care for those who have suffered baby loss, and all noble Lords who have offered their support too. I know that the thousands of people who are hoping for change in the definition of stillbirth are most grateful. This debate means more than words can convey. Let me begin by asking a deeply personal and profoundly painful question: how many among us have experienced the heartbreak of losing a baby during pregnancy? I have. My husband and I have been blessed with two wonderful children, but we also endured multiple pregnancy losses. Each one left a permanent mark. For nearly four decades we grieved privately, our pain unspoken and our babies unacknowledged. This was the same for millions of families, but it changed last year with the introduction of the certificate of loss, a formal and enduring recognition of the lives we lost. We felt so uplifted when we applied for our certificate of loss, which is proudly displayed on the wall alongside our family photos. To date, tens of thousands of certificates of loss have been issued, and I thank both the current Government and previous Governments for their leadership in making this become a reality, as well as the Saying Goodbye charity for its extraordinary work campaigning tirelessly for a decade for the creation of a certificate of loss for those who have suffered baby loss. I worked with the charity to introduce a Private Member’s Bill to see this brought in, and commend the pregnancy loss review led by Zoe Clark-Coates MBE, founder of Saying Goodbye, and Samantha Collinge. Their recommendations made these certificates become a reality. Today I bring before noble Lords the next necessary step: to amend the legal definition of stillbirth in UK law. Currently, a stillbirth is defined as the loss of a baby occurring from the 24th week of gestation until birth. This definition, established by the Still-Birth (Definition) Act 1992, was a step forward, lowering the threshold from 28 weeks, in line with updated viability guidance, and granting grieving parents access to bereavement leave, maternity and paternity benefits and legal recognition of their loss. However, more than three decades on, this definition no longer reflects the medical realities, nor the profound emotional impact of baby loss. Each year, up to 10,000 families in the UK lose their babies between 20 and 24 weeks of pregnancy. These parents are excluded from maternity protections, bereavement leave and statutory recognition of their loss as a stillbirth. Although the new certificates of loss offer deeply symbolic recognition, these families still face the trauma of returning to work within days —sometimes even hours—of delivering their deceased child. They lose pregnancy-related medical exemptions immediately. Many are left without paid leave or time to heal, emotionally or physically. I want to tell your Lordships about the experience of a lady I call “Carla” to protect her privacy. She says: “I lost my son at 23 weeks pregnant, a ‘late miscarriage’. When I found out that my son would likely pass away, all I wanted was to make it to 24 weeks. To have him acknowledged legally as a person, to feel like my miscarriage and the trauma associated with my 48-hour labour acknowledged for how horrifying it actually was. To have a bit of extra space to breathe by having maternity pay and benefits rather than returning to work. However, I missed it by 6 days. I was fortunate that my employer was understanding and I had 2 months off at full pay. However, I still had to return well before I was ready, still feeling very traumatised and recovering physically as I went back to a busy job. I had to return to work the week after my son’s funeral as it took that long to have his body released after the post mortem examination. My de-brief meeting was quick by NHS standards at 3 months, however, I was back to work full time and I had to go into work before and after the meeting, where they told me why my son died”. To compound this tragic experience, Carla would not have been eligible to receive support from the children’s funeral fund, which was set up to cover burial costs for children under the age of 18 or stillborn after 24 weeks of pregnancy. A change in the definition would have had an impact: it would benefit bereaved parents and give some solace to those enduring the trauma of stillbirth after 24 weeks. As the ruling currently stands, we are asking grieving parents to carry on as though nothing happened. This is not compassion; it is a legislative blind spot, which we now have the opportunity, and indeed the obligation, to address. I warmly welcome the Government’s recent commitment to explore the introduction of paid bereavement leave for parents who have experienced the devastating loss of a baby before 24 weeks’ gestation. This measure, which was among the 73 recommendations of the pregnancy loss review and highlighted in the Women and Equalities Committee report, would represent a meaningful and long-overdue step forward in recognising and supporting families through pre-24-week pregnancy loss. It was also good to hear, during the Employment Rights Bill’s Report stage in the other place, the Minister for Employment Rights state that the Government “fully accept the principle of bereavement leave for” those who have experienced “pregnancy loss … We look forward to further discussions … as the Bill moves on”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/25; col. 861.] to other stages. This is most reassuring. But while the introduction of some paid leave would go a long way to help the hundreds of thousands of people who experience baby loss, my Bill seeks to go much further and extend all rights and benefits that currently exist to losses after 24 weeks’ gestation to include losses from 20 to 24 weeks. Internationally, the UK is falling behind most developed nations. The World Health Organization defines stillbirth as a loss from 22 weeks’ gestation, and countries such as France, Sweden and the Netherlands follow that definition. Others, including our closest allies such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States, have gone even further and recognised stillbirths from 20 weeks. Importantly, I point out that none of these changes relates to viability, which remains medically distinct; rather, they reflect a growing consensus that we must respond to the human experience of loss, not just clinical thresholds. I am not asking us to redefine viability; I am asking us to redefine compassion, to recognise humanity for every baby lost from 20 weeks onwards and to extend to their parents the dignity, support and legal recognition that what they go through desperately needs. Let us be clear: this Bill proposes to change the definition of stillbirth to include losses from 20 weeks’ gestation until birth. This would enable thousands of grieving families each year to access protection already afforded to those whose loss occurs after 24 weeks, including bereavement leave, maternity and paternity pay, eligibility for funeral funds and the formal recognition of their baby’s stillbirth. This is not only just but well overdue. The law should not distinguish between the heartbreak of a 23-week loss and a 24-week loss; the pain is the same, the baby is the same and the need for support is the same. I am mindful that some may express concern that this proposal could affect the rights and privacy of those who undergo a lawful termination of pregnancy between 20 and 24 weeks, whether for elective reasons or out of medical necessity. It is important to note that reducing the gestational threshold for stillbirth registration to 20 weeks could, under the current legal framework, result in approximately 3,000 terminations falling within the scope of the mandatory registration each year. This would mean that individuals’ personal details would be formally recorded and, potentially, made disclosable under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 via the Registrar-General. For many, this could represent a significant and distressing intrusion, with implications for their physical and mental well-being. With this in mind, in a survey conducted by Saying Goodbye, of the 194 people who had undergone a termination for medical reasons—known as a TFMR—more than 87% of the people who terminated between 20 and 24 weeks stated that they would welcome mandatory registration if it meant that their baby would be classed as stillborn. To avoid any unintended consequences, and following the precedent set in other Acts, I propose that any legislative amendment in this area should include a clear and specific exemption—namely, to exclude cases where an elective, non-medical termination was chosen but to include terminations for medical reasons. This would ensure that elective terminations between 20 and 24 weeks would not be subject to stillbirth registration, would not require certification by a clinic, would not impose any legal duty to register the loss with a registrar, and would exclude these losses from statutory benefits. This safeguard would uphold the integrity of the proposed changes while protecting the privacy and dignity of those affected by complex and often heartbreaking decisions. My Bill is about fairness and consideration. It is about modernising outdated legislation in line with global best practice. Above all, it is about honouring the lives of those who were lost too soon and standing alongside the parents who carry that loss for the rest of their lives. This is why I am an ambassador for Saying Goodbye, a charity that is at the forefront of support and walks alongside tens of thousands of bereaved parents each month. I urge your Lordships to join me in supporting this Bill. Let us ensure that no grieving parent is left without support, recognition or dignity simply because of a date on a medical chart. Let this House be remembered not only for debating this issue but for acting on it. I look forward to listening to the other speakers and to what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.

13:03:00

My Lords, I will speak in support of the principles of this Bill, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for having brought it to the House. One of the best traits in human nature is using the difficult experiences that we ourselves encounter to speak up for others facing similar situations. I applaud the noble Baroness for using her experience and her voice in this way, and especially for the achievement of the introduction of certificates of loss last year. During my time as a vicar in south-west London, another inspiring woman from within my then congregation came to me with the idea of starting a listening service for women who had miscarried or were facing difficult or unintended pregnancies. This was partly born out of her own experience and partly out of the fact that she lived around the corner from a large BPAS abortion clinic, where a constant trickle of women, sometimes accompanied by their partners or their mums and sometimes quite alone, would make their way to the front door, often in considerable distress, with very little time or opportunity to think through what was for some a desperately difficult decision. It was not long before my congregation member had assembled a small group of other people—about six in all—who were enthused by the vision. They undertook substantial training, not least given the extreme sensitivity of what they would be doing and the need to ensure that they were both professional and non-directive in their approach. I visited the BPAS clinic shortly afterwards to let it know what we were doing and was met with considerable suspicion, bordering on hostility. This was understandable, as their previous experience of Christians had been of small groups of people who would occasionally stand outside waving placards. We pressed on regardless, and formally opened our pregnancy centre in 1999, advertising its services through the local press and a few sympathetic doctor’s surgeries. After a very slow start, a journalist from one of the national dailies made use of the service and bravely wrote about the very positive experience of the support that she had received. Similar stories began to circulate, so that the number of those seeking help each year grew into double and then treble figures, with the BPAS clinic itself slowly warming to the idea and eventually advertising it on its notice board. The service continues to this day as an organisational member of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, and now has eight part-time staff and 27 volunteers serving those facing an unintended pregnancy or pregnancy loss through termination, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, preterm loss or stillbirth. One consequence of our new initiative was that, from time to time, someone would want to see a priest to organise a small-scale funeral, or at least some simple prayers, to acknowledge the life that had been lost. Here, I was much helped by the liturgical resources provided by the Church of England, which themselves draw on the considerable experience of our hospital chaplaincy teams. That experience taught me the sheer extent of the trauma of pregnancy loss for many mothers, and often for their partners too, most especially where that loss occurs in the second half of a pregnancy. This very simple Bill, which reduces the legal definition of a stillbirth from 24 weeks to 20, so opening the way for a wider group of people to benefit from the care given to the bereaved, seems both compassionate and sensible, bringing us into line with other western nations and comfortably within the 22-week term set by the World Health Organization. The only thing that has given me pause here has been well answered by the noble Baroness, and that was the major reservation expressed in the critique of these proposals, especially the need to register stillbirths at a registry office. This, as was pointed out, would place additional burdens on mothers, including those who, for elective reasons, chose to terminate their pregnancies. Before hearing the opening speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, I was going to suggest that a light-touch registration could be devised in hospitals and clinics, where appropriate, without the need for a further visit to a registry office—not too difficult a task to achieve or monitor, especially in an age when so many transactions are carried out online. The noble Baroness has come up with an alternative solution based on research from the organisation Saying Goodbye. Whatever approach were to be adopted, I am sure that a way could be found around the pastoral concerns expressed. I commend this Bill to the House.

13:08:00

My Lords, I am so very glad that my noble friend Lady Benjamin has brought this issue to the Floor of the House. Two things in particular drove me to speak in this debate. Not long ago, I was listening to a programme on the radio about early stillbirth and listening to mothers talking about their feelings of loss and how emotionally debilitating it was to find that there was nothing—nothing to support you emotionally or financially, and nothing to legally mark that loss, except, as has been mentioned, the recent change which enabled one to get a certificate of loss acknowledging your baby’s existence. The loss of a baby is profound at any stage of a pregnancy. Women with this experience were saying things on the radio such as, “It felt like the world moved on in seconds, but I was frozen in grief. Everyone thought it was early, but to me, it was absolutely everything”. The second thing was that it made me remember my first pregnancy. I started bleeding at about eight weeks and had to take to my bed to rest. I was terrified that I would lose my baby. I did not. I was fortunate, and that baby is now 41. The feeling of potential loss and the fear was absolutely shattering and affected me for the whole of the rest of my pregnancy. That was at just eight weeks. This much-needed move to 20 weeks will be hugely significant in helping to reduce some of the horror and sadness and in acknowledging and marking the time needed for healing. Many parents experience profound grief after a loss before the current 24 weeks. Current legal or financial definitions can invalidate that experience. The mother who loses her baby at 20 weeks will often endure the same medical processes as one who delivers at 24 weeks. She may labour, she may require surgery and she will certainly require care. Yet the moment she leaves hospital, she finds that there is no recognition of her child—and until recently there was no certificate. There is no access to statutory bereavement leave or financial support. Her grief, while intensely personal, is made all the more isolating by its lack of societal acknowledgement. It is time that we changed that. Advances in medical imaging mean that many anomalies and most pregnancy complications are now identified at, or shortly after, the 20-week scan. The clinical, emotional and psychological experience of loss at this stage often mirrors that of stillbirth, yet the law continues to draw this sharp line at 24 weeks—a line that was originally based on neonatal viability in the 20th century, not bereavement realities of the 21st. There is no statutory acknowledgement of the grief that many women and their partners feel at such a loss. That sense is profound. I say again a big thank you to my noble friend Lady Benjamin. Recognising losses from 20 weeks onwards emotionally acknowledges the reality that attachment, planning and love will begin well before viability. Offering support at 20 weeks helps to remove arbitrary emotional hierarchies of grief. Also, many people feel isolated and abandoned because their losses “don’t count” legally. Changing this threshold, as well as mitigating some of the financial stress and enabling some time to recover, also signals that all loss matters, regardless of length of gestation. By April this year, over 100,000 baby loss certificates had been issued. Miscarriages and losses at 20 to 24 weeks are often treated similarly to stillbirths in clinical practice, so it is totally appropriate that legal recognition and support aligns with what is happening on the ground. Many hospitals and care providers already offer bereavement care, memorials and leave paperwork for losses around 20 weeks. Aligning state support with current clinical norms will create consistency and reduce confusion. Most importantly, parents who lose a baby between 20 and 24 weeks may need time off work, counselling or funeral support, and they are not always eligible for paid leave or benefits. Offering that support at 20 weeks helps avoid financial hardship during what is already a hugely traumatic time. This touches thousands of families each year yet remains too often hidden. Extending state support from 20 to 24 weeks is not an act of extravagance. It is a modest, meaningful gesture that says, “We see you, and loss matters”. The noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate have already raised the issues around termination, whether medical or by choice. I will not go there, but it is covered and it is an important point. I would not support any Bill that made life worse for people who are faced with that decision. So this is a compassionate Bill targeted to an existing framework and designed to bring equity. I urge this House to consider the emotional truth and the practical necessity of this change and to stand on the side of parents who are simply asking to have their grief recognised, their child acknowledged and their dignity preserved.

13:14:00

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in the gap, just to make one point. I have always been very supportive of the work of my noble friend on baby loss certificates. I have supported, for many years, the rights of people who have suffered baby loss, and supported adoptive parents to have better provision in employment rights. Our employment rights on these subjects are way out of date. My concern is solely about the mandatory nature of the recording and about those people who, for whatever reason, between 20 to 24 weeks, have to make the always difficult choice to have a termination. It is never a decision made lightly. It is often very difficult. I listened with great care to what my noble friend said, and I was very moved by her understanding that some people who undergo termination late in a pregnancy wish to be included in the recognition she is talking about. I just have a concern that there are some quite vulnerable people who end up in that position for whom the public declaration that they have had to make that decision and go through that might not be advisable, or indeed might be quite dangerous. Therefore, I would like us to be absolutely sure that we are not going to force people for whom it is not the right decision to have to make that public declaration. I take the right reverend Prelate’s point; it does not matter where it happens, it is about the nature of the declaration and the support which follows from it. I have no doubt that we are moving towards being a much more compassionate and understanding society in this regard. That is partly to do with the fact that medical care for women at that stage of pregnancy is advancing. I do not want to put anything in the way of women or doctors which would in any way inhibit their right to choose the right path as or for an individual woman in that case. So I suggest that we hold back on making this a mandatory scheme until we are absolutely sure that we are not jeopardising those women.

13:16:00

My Lords, I also speak in the gap, and I apologise for not having been able to put my name down earlier. I most warmly congratulate my friend—we have worked together for about 30 years—the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, on her powerful, evocative and sensitive presentation of her Bill. I quickly declare my interest as a mother of a consultant gynaecologist, so I am all too aware that a gynaecologist is constantly dealing with the most difficult situations of women having babies they really cannot bring up. Therefore, they look for a termination. Other women are in the most acute heartbreak because they are desperate to have a baby that they do not seem able to produce. So I was struck by the right reverend Prelate’s—he is my Bishop—earlier experience south London, where I also used to work. This is extraordinarily difficult. I was also the Secretary of State who handled the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. This was such complex and emotional legislation in 1990. It marked the time limit of 24 weeks at the time for the Abortion Act and when it was thought by consensus that a foetus was viable. I am extremely concerned about opening up that debate again. While I certainly support a Second Reading, I feel that in Committee there needs to be careful scrutiny about how the Bill would lie alongside our present arrangements concerning termination. That was a very important Act. It opened the door to the extraordinary number of IVF babies. They are now saying: every classroom has an IVF baby. Some one in 31 babies is now IVF, which is remarkable. Those babies are desperately wanted, so those involved in a stillbirth have all the greater agony. I was also involved with the Rosie Barnes Bill, which became the Still-Birth (Definition) Act, although a junior Minister handled it, where Lord Kilmarnock spoke very powerfully in this House. My particular debt is to a former colleague of this House, Baroness Cumberlege, who did so much on maternal health, infant well-being and infant viability. She was a supporter of midwives and nurses, and her lasting impact on the improvement of services is absolutely one I recognise. To look at this debate, we have to look at the context. As women we are very aware that generations ago, we would have lost any number of children in childbirth. We would have lost our own lives in childbirth; so many would have experienced the loss of a child. Now the situation is very different. A hundred years ago, for every 10,000 births, there were 800 deaths: now, for every 10,000 births, only 40 deaths. So, the loss of an infant by stillbirth is ever more unusual and all the more painful. The other thing we see is the changing age at which women are having babies. Whereas many women used to have their babies in their late teens and 20s, now 31% are over 40 when having their children. Therefore, a lot of complications and comorbidities, like diabetes, are more likely to be present. I am certainly one of those who says to young women: get on with it while you can, while you are young and healthy. But many do not have that opportunity. Something like 11% of IVF births are for people between 40 and 45—a remarkable achievement. I applaud the noble Baroness. I applaud the efforts that have gone in by others, such as, in the last Government, Tim Loughton, the MP for East Worthing and Shoreham— next door to my husband. I want to ask the Minister what she is going to do about implementing the criteria for coroners to become involved. This is really important. This was Part 2 of the Bill. I must finish quickly—I did not know the rules—by saying I support the Bill, but it needs careful scrutiny before it becomes legislation.

13:21:00

My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for securing this Private Member’s Bill and setting out its purpose so clearly. It was very hard to listen to the noble Baroness’s heartbreaking personal experience. She is to be applauded, as my noble friend Lady Bottomley said, for seeking to introduce compassion for other grieving parents and to speak up for and support them. There are truly no words that can capture the heartbreak of losing a baby, no matter when it happens. In our lifetime, most of us will have come across friends or family who have had to experience the devastating loss of a baby. It is deeply personal, and I speak with sincere sympathy and respect for all families and parents who have had to endure such heartbreak, as the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, set out so beautifully in her own very moving speech. It was really very heartening to listen to the account of the organisation that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford has set up to support vulnerable pregnant women in his own parish. The proposal set out in today’s Bill would amend the definition of stillbirth to apply from 20 weeks into a pregnancy, rather than the current 24 weeks. Although, obviously, it is terribly difficult, and I am wholly in favour of supporting parents who have to undergo the terrible grief of a stillborn baby, if we look more closely at the implications of the proposed change, it could lead to difficult challenges for our healthcare system. It is a difficult area. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service has said that changing the stillbirth definition would present complex challenges for both patients and medical professionals. We must recognise that for patients, changing the definition of a stillbirth would result in leaving women accessing abortion care in an even more vulnerable position. Women accessing abortion care after 20 weeks, but before the 20-week abortion limit, would be required to register the termination as a stillbirth with the registry office. Here, I very much share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. Although we must recognise the intentions behind today’s proposal, the complex impacts of the change mean that it is probably not right for it to be delivered through a Private Member’s Bill. If we look more closely at the impact on patients—women and girls who, through lack of understanding, fear of disclosure of their termination, or inability to attend a registry for this purpose without putting themselves at risk of domestic or honour-based abuse—they may find themselves inadvertently committing a criminal offence. We must be alive to the realities faced by these women. Some of the most vulnerable women in our society access abortion services, and it would be wrong to put them at risk in this way. Under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, there are legal implications for parents, as the Registrar-General may consent to the disclosure of the contents of the stillbirth register. This would mean that confidential records of legal abortion could be disclosed to third parties without their consent, as a matter of public record. For many women, the thought that such personal and private information could be exposed in this way would be profoundly distressing and could have lasting emotional social consequences, beyond the devastating grief they are left to live with. Parents who have to suffer this inconsolable loss have my deepest sympathy, but given the complexities, any proposed changes must be carefully weighed to ensure that they balance compassion with practical, legal and ethical considerations. The practicality of these implications presents unrealistic complications for these women. For these reasons, there needs to be very careful consideration before we upset the balance that exists, as my noble friend Lady Bottomley explained from her experience as Secretary of State. So while we remain deeply sympathetic to the parents and families who endure the profound grief of losing a stillborn baby, there remain concerns about the wider practical impact of the Bill’s proposals on the wider healthcare system and on vulnerable women. There would therefore need to be further consideration of such impacts before we could support the Bill.

13:26:00

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for introducing the Bill, and I know the importance this House places on ensuring that bereaved parents, regardless of the baby’s gestation, get the support and care they need. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for the huge amount she has done in the service of a very personal cause. She has raised awareness of pregnancy loss and campaigned for baby loss certificates, helping women and families to receive better support. I know what strength and courage is needed to speak about issues so near to one’s heart, and I thank all today’s speakers for their contributions about their own and friends’ experiences of treatment and care. I also congratulate my honourable friend in the other place, Sarah Owen, and the Women and Equalities Committee, for highlighting the gap in current support for those who experience a pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. Bereaved people need time to recover and grieve, and it is important that they are supported at work as they do so. We also recognise, as was underlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, the vital role played by the many charities supporting families who have experienced loss—including Sands, the Miscarriage Association, Birthrights, Mariposa International, Tommy’s and Bliss—in raising awareness and campaigning for the additional care and support that is needed. Overall, good and steady progress is being made to address the treatment, care and support for women and their families experiencing the trauma of pregnancy loss. I thank noble Lords for recognising this, as well as for highlighting the considerable amount of work that is in progress and still needs to be done. For example, the importance of bereavement leave has been stressed by a number of speakers. This Government have made it clear that we fully accept the principle of bereavement leave for those who have experienced pregnancy loss, in supporting women and families during such a distressing time. Under our flagship Employment Rights Bill, currently in this House, parliamentarians from both sides have spoken strongly on these issues. We look forward to further discussions on the matter as the Bill moves into its later stages. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, again acknowledged this movement forward. However, I must address the Government’s reservations about this Bill in relation to the proposed definition of stillbirth. The current definition is based on the gestation at which a foetus is considered viable—24 weeks. Sadly, babies born at 20 weeks do not survive: in 2022, 98% of the 305 babies born alive before 22 weeks in England and Wales died in their first week; and in 2020-21, only 5% of babies born at 22 weeks survived. Changing the definition of stillbirth to 20 weeks would, therefore, remove the link to foetal survival, moving us away from a clinically evidenced position. There is no medical consensus that the age of foetal viability is reduced below 24 weeks. Therefore, this proposal would create an inconsistency with the Abortion Act 1967. I understand the sentiments and force of the arguments and principles put forward by noble Lords, but I am afraid we cannot support the definition in the Bill. However, as I have stressed, I very much welcome the focus of the debate on the other important ways to support women who experience miscarriage, which is what baby loss before 20 weeks is treated as. In this context, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for highlighting that changing the definition would also allow bereaved parents access to support such as maternity pay and leave. The care that families receive after the death of their baby can have long-lasting effects. We cannot remove the pain, but we know that poor care can make things worse. Loss matters, as the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, emphasised. That is why the baby loss certificate is so important and why the Government extended eligibility for the scheme, allowing parents to officially recognise their loss, regardless of how long ago it occurred. The feedback has been incredibly positive and part of the healing process for many women experiencing loss, as noble Baronesses have said, with over 100,000 certificates issued to date, as a lasting memory of their babies. We are also improving bereavement services and making them available seven days a week. We will look closely at the outcomes of Tommy’s graded model of care for miscarriages pilot, which is due to report later this year. Noble Baronesses have particularly referred to the trauma of pregnancy loss leading to or worsening mental health issues, which is why we have introduced maternal mental health services in all parts of England to provide care for women with mental health difficulties arising from baby loss. As I have stressed, we accept that there is much more to do to improve care for women and families who have experienced loss. I now turn to address some of the points raised. I will endeavour to answer these, but I hope that the noble Baronesses will forgive me if I have to write to them. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said that, if her Bill were implemented, those having terminations between 20 and 24 weeks would be exempted from registering them as stillbirths. But changing the definition is likely to have other unintended consequences for abortion services and wider impacts; for example, around the disposal of the foetal remains and other issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, pointed to a number of the potential consequences that would occur. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and other noble Baronesses mentioned that there is a variation among other nations. We recognise that there is such variation in the definition of a stillbirth and that the UK’s position is not aligned with the World Health Organization. Countries may take a different approach to defining terms such as “stillbirth” and “miscarriage”. Reasons for variation include legal and administrative difficulties and approaches to collecting data. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, raised support for LGBTQ people. We recognise the complexities of baby loss for people from LGBT and other communities. Personalised care and support plans should be offered to all those accessing maternity services to ensure that care is tailored. The noble Baroness raised the concerns about the mandatory nature of declarations of abortions and the impact on the most vulnerable individuals, and I certainly understand that concern. She raised an important point about the recording of stillbirths, and I recognise the impact that this can have on the most vulnerable and on their decisions to have an abortion. We very much have regard to this. In closing, I thank the noble Baronesses—

I would be particularly grateful if the noble Baroness could come back to me on Part 2 of the 2019 Act, which authorises coroners to become involved in stillbirths.

I will certainly write to the noble Baroness on that. I thank the noble Baroness for bringing the Bill, and all who participated in this important and moving debate. We must continue to deliver services that acknowledge and support the heartbreak of losing a baby. The Government will work with the noble Baroness and others, endeavouring to support this and to consider how to offer families the care and support they need in all areas of their lives.

13:34:00

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this important issue. I also thank the Public Bill Office and the Library for their support and guidance; I am most grateful to them. I commend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford for sharing his personal experiences of working with those suffering from baby loss and showing empathy for those parents. That is what we are asking for. I thank my noble friend Lady Featherstone for her support; I felt we were kindred spirits as she told the House of her personal experiences and empathy to those who suffered a stillbirth before 24 weeks. It is heartbreaking. I thank my noble friends Lady Barker and Lady Bottomley for their brief contributions. My noble friend Lady Barker raised an important point, which I have taken to heart. As I said, however, my Bill is not asking for changes to the age of viability or changes to abortion law. By adding a specific exemption within the Bill, we will exclude termination between 20 and 24 weeks from the requirement of the Bill. I reassure my noble friend that we are going to make sure that people who have elective terminations do not have to register. We understand that some might be vulnerable, so we want to show compassion to their predicament. That is what this Bill is about: showing compassion and consideration. I hear the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. However, I repeat that precedent has been set by other Acts that there will be exemptions for those who suffer elective termination. I keep repeating that because it is really important. I do not want us to blindly go ahead and forget about other people’s feelings, because we are talking about those physical and mental emotions that need to be considered. Therefore, they will not be cast aside or not thought about in this Bill. I am deeply grateful to the Minister. I thank her for laying out the Government’s position and vision for making a difference to the care and consideration given to women who have suffered baby loss—in this instance, stillbirth—and for articulating so strongly the Government’s promise and commitment to make a difference to those who suffer baby loss. It is estimated that between 2% and 4% of baby losses occur between 20 and 24 weeks of pregnancy. The World Health Organization and many leading nations already recognise stillbirth from 20 to 22 weeks, paving the way for change for us in the United Kingdom. My Bill is not calling for something that has not already been adopted by nations around the world. My Bill will be there to help those who have experienced one of the most traumatic experiences anyone could ever go through: the loss of a child. It simply wishes to extend support by a mere four weeks. Those who elect termination will be protected. This Bill is asking government to show true compassion to bereaved parents and families across the country. I was pleased to hear that the Minister is happy to work closely with me and the Saying Goodbye charity on the issue to bring solace and consideration into the lives of those who need it. I am more than happy to work together to make changes. I will accept a compromise; that is what I am here for. I passionately commend this Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.