On Friday 4 July 2025, the House of Lords gave a second reading to Baroness Benjamín’s Still-Birth (Definition) Bill [HL], a Bill applicable to England and Wales to “Amend the definition of still-birth to apply from 20 weeks into a pregnancy; and for connected purposes”.

Background

A “still-born child” is defined in S12 Births and Deaths Registration Act 1926 and S41 Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 in the provisions which state, respectively:

• “still-born” and “still-birth” shall apply to any child which has issued forth from its mother after the [twenty-fourth week] of pregnancy and which did not at any time after being completely expelled from its mother, breathe or show any other signs of life.

• “still–born child” means a child which has issued forth from its mother after the [twenty-fourth week] of pregnancy and which did not at any time after being completely expelled from its mother breathe or show any other signs of life, and the expression “still–birth” shall be construed accordingly;

Through S1 Still-Birth (Definition) Act 1992 the words “twenty-eighth week” were substituted with “ twenty-fourth week”; in Scotland, in the definition of “still-born child”, the words “twenty-eighth week” were substituted by “ twenty-fourth week”, S56 Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965.

Debate

Clause 1 of Baroness Benjamín’s Bill makes the further substitution of “twentieth week” for “twenty-fourth week” and Clause 2 introduces changes to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. Baroness Benjamin stressed:

“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. 

[…]

“Let us be clear: this Bill proposes to change the definition of stillbirth to include losses from 20 weeks’ gestation until birth.

[…]

“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.

[…]

“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 heart-breaking decisions”.

Baroness Finn (Con) commented [emphasis added]:

“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”.

Concluding the debate, Baroness Wheeler (Lab), Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip, said inter alia:

“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.

The Bill will now pass to the Committee Stage, at a date to be announced.