Debate contribution: Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on 19 May 2026.

MLA

Ms Sinéad McLaughlin

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

19 May 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5549828

Read the official Assembly record

Text

This part of the Bill and amendment Nos 25 to 34 and Nos 44 to 46 deal with redress, and all of us recognise the weight that redress carries. For many victims and survivors, acknowledgement has been absent for most of their life. Many were ignored and dismissed and made to feel that what happened to them was somehow theirs to carry alone. Nothing in the legislation can undo that hurt, and no financial payment can restore the lost years, repair broken relationships or erase the trauma that people lived through in those institutions. However, redress and financial payments still matter. They matter because it is an acknowledgement by society — by all of us — and by the state that a profound wrong was done. That matters because survivors deserve more than sympathy; they deserve recognition, backed up by action. I will focus my remarks on amendment No 31, which stands in my name. It relates to the standardised recognition payment. It is not, as the junior Minister said, about harm; it is about universal acknowledgement, which, of course, is different from redress, and about lived experience. It is not about individual assessments. As the Chair of the Committee said, that will come in time. However, it could take a good bit of time for that to happen. In 2019, when the initial standard payment —

I will just finish this point. I will then let you in, junior Minister. In 2019, when the initial standard payment was made under the Historical Institutional Abuse Act, that payment was £10,000. I am not saying that this is like for like, but that was the point of entry in 2019. My amendment proposes to increase the payment available under the scheme from £10,000 to £12,000 in recognition of the time that has elapsed since that previous recognition payment. I do not think that anybody believes that there is a figure that could ever truly reflect the suffering endured by victims and survivors. That is not what the amendment seeks to do; it would ensure that the redress scheme reflects more meaningfully the scale of the failures that took place. The proposed uplift would cost an additional £9 million overall, but it is important that that figure is understood properly. It would not be paid in one financial year; it could be spread over a number of years. When considered against the decades of institutional harm, silence and neglect that survivors have experienced, the increase, which is, in many ways, modest on an individual basis, is justified. We are talking about people who were failed not only by individual institutions but by the wider systems of power and authority around them. They had decisions made for them. Their voices were ignored. They were treated as problems to be hidden away, rather than as human beings deserving of dignity and compassion. In that context, the amendment represents a reasonable and proportionate improvement to the scheme. It is also important that today's debate is not viewed solely through the lens of public funding, because, alongside state responsibility, there is the question of institutional responsibility. I give way.

That is welcome news. Thank you very much. That is acknowledgement that the people affected deserve more. They will now get more, albeit a small amount more. Given that many of the organisations connected to the institutions operated over decades and held immense influence in society, survivors will rightly expect those institutions to play a role in contributing towards redress. This is not about retribution; it is about accountability and ensuring that the acknowledgement is not limited to words. A number of the amendments in the group would tighten up definitions around eligibility and clarify the circumstances in which people qualify for payment. Those are necessary changes. Legislation such as this must be clear enough to operate fairly but sensitive enough to recognise the complexity of survivors' experiences. That is an important distinction for the operation of the scheme. We, too, will support amendment No 30. We believe that it is important that the legislation is as inclusive as possible for survivors and that unnecessary barriers are not placed in the way of eligibility or redress. Given the scale of the suffering involved and the number of people who have already passed away without ever receiving acknowledgement, our view is that, where there is an opportunity to strengthen access to the scheme, the Assembly should carefully consider doing so. I am glad to hear that others will support my amendment. That being the case, amendment No 32 will probably go by the wayside. However, I appreciate the rationale behind Gerry's amendment. My view is that amendment No 31 strikes the right balance between strengthening the recognition for survivors and ensuring that the scheme remains workable and deliverable for all.

While it was out to consultation, a lot of figures were brought in and a lot of areas were discussed. The Committee looked at all of them. Even the £12,000 is not based on the inflationary rate; it would probably be more like £13,500. Suggestions went from £10,000 to anything upwards of that. We recognise that this is not the entirety of the scheme; this is a standardised acknowledgement and an initial universal payment. Hopefully, proper redress for lived experience will not take that long and people will be rightly and justly recompensed throughout the scheme.

I agree with the Member, but a lot of people came back to say that they felt that £10,000 as a standardised payment was too low. I accept the Executive Office's rationale regarding the children's homes. It could shift the focus, and we cannot allow that to happen with the Bill. That is not to not recognise the experience of those connected to the institutions; we absolutely recognise them. Our understanding is that the regulations contained in the Bill already afford the flexibility for additional organisations to be added. We in the Committee felt very strongly that, if evidence becomes apparent throughout the process of the inquiry, there should be an ability to add institutions. We believe that that is the case with the Bill. However, I am keen to hear from the Member who tabled amendment on why he believes that it should be made. We look forward to hearing that. Throughout the entire discussion, our priority has been to ensure that survivors receive recognition and acknowledgement through the appropriate mechanisms available to them. Finally, I want to touch briefly on amendment No 46, which includes the mother of a deceased person as an eligible relative. I thank the junior Minister for her clarity on that amendment.

I ask for further clarification from the junior Minister about whether there is anything currently in the regulations or draft regulations that already prevents the mother from being eligible in those circumstances. I want to understand whether there is a blockage there. I too would like to hear from Gerry Carroll about any specific examples that he has on that issue before I decide whether this is something that we can support.

If there is a gap, clearly it deserves careful consideration. At the same time, I do not seek for the amendment to be accepted, and then find out later that it has caused harm, albeit unintended. Can the Committee, and maybe the Executive Office, look at that at Further Consideration Stage just so that we are really sure that it is not already provided for or that we need to think about it more carefully to make sure that no harm is caused? One of the most painful aspects of this history is how long people have had to wait simply to be believed. Many survivors have spent years carrying shame that should never have belonged to them, and some passed away before seeing any acknowledgement at all. As the Chair said, time is moving on, and some people do not have a lot of time for this. What this legislation offers cannot change that past, but it can demonstrate that society is finally prepared to confront it with honesty. Part of confronting it honestly means ensuring that the redress scheme is credible, compassionate and worthy of the people it is intended to support. That is why we support these amendments and why I hope that the House continues to strengthen the Bill as it moves forward.

Yes.

Which amendment? No 46?

Yes, it is. First of all, I thank you for your clarity in and around that amendment. I wanted to know whether there was anything in the current or draft regulations that already prevents a mother from being eligible in these circumstances. I just wanted a wee bit more clarity in and around that. Is that OK?

1,457 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:45 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.

Challenge this classification