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

Debate contribution by Mrs Pam Cameron on 19 May 2026.

MLA: Mrs Pam Cameron
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist 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 5549876

Text

This is an incredibly important day, as we consider the proposed amendments to the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill. I also came to the legislation at a later stage in the process, when the Committee was scrutinising the Bill. I declare an interest, in that I was a junior Minister along with junior Minister Reilly when the legislation was introduced. I thank both junior Ministers for their ongoing work on the Bill, because it is incredibly important. This is highly sensitive legislation, and I think that it is fair to say that all parties are united in welcoming the Bill's progress. I welcome the opportunity to speak to the group 2 amendments. They relate to one of the most sensitive areas of the Bill, which deals with entitlement to redress and the amount to be paid. At the outset, I acknowledge the victims and survivors, who have waited too long for truth, recognition and redress. No payment can ever undo the harm that was caused, and no scheme can restore what was taken from people. The Bill can, however, provide formal recognition, a route to redress and a process that is clear, accessible and trauma-informed. Throughout its scrutiny of the Bill, the Committee heard extensive evidence, including on concerns about eligibility, the adequacy of the standardised payment and the importance of ensuring that the process does not become overly complex or retraumatising. I thank the Committee Chair for all her work and for outlining the Committee's work in such detail today. I will not repeat what she said or seek to draw out the debate for any longer than is necessary, but it is important to recognise, as has been made clear, that the legislation deals with facilitating the much-needed and long-awaited public inquiry and making provision for an admission-based redress payment. It is not a harm-based payment at this stage. That will come later, once the inquiry has done its work on individually assessed payments. Amendment No 25 will remove subsection (3) of clause 31. On its own, the amendment appears to be technical, but it needs to be read alongside the later amendments, which restructure that clause and more clearly set out the relevant conditions. The purpose of the amendment is to make the entitlement provisions clearer and avoid duplication in the clause. Amendment Nos 28 and 29 are also to clause 31, which concerns the redress payment entitlement. Amendment No 28 will link entitlement to the new conditions that are set out in amendment No 29. Amendment No 29 will provide further detail. It makes it clear that the person must have been:
"born during the relevant years for the institution"
and that the primary purpose of the mother's admission was:
"to receive shelter or maintenance (or both) from the institution."
It also clarifies that that does not include shelter or maintenance that was only:
"incidental to the provision of medical, surgical or maternity services."
That distinction is important. It helps us to ensure that the standardised redress scheme is focused on the circumstances that it was designed to address, and it helps to avoid uncertainty in the consideration of applications. There will have been women who entered some of those institutions for what would we all recognise as healthcare that you would expect to receive in any hospital. The legislation was not designed to cater for them, and it is good that the amendment provides that clear distinction. Amendment No 30 refers to more than one payment where someone was admitted to more than one institution or qualifies in more than one way. The amendment raises an issue that many people understand emotionally, particularly where an individual has experience of more than one institution. However, the Bill, as drafted, creates a standardised redress payment, and that structure is intended to provide recognition without requiring every applicant to go through a detailed, individual assessment of harm at this stage. Any movement away from that standardised structure would have wider implications for consistency, administration and delivery. Those matters have to be considered very carefully, particularly when victims and survivors have already waited so long. On amendment No 31 in the name of Sinéad McLaughlin, I very much welcome that the standardised payment will be set in legislation. We have heard much evidence on that. The DUP will not be opposing the £12,000 payment. I thank the Member for her amendment and for outlining the reasons behind it. I put on record the fact that no amount of money can ever properly reflect the harm suffered, nor should it ever attempt to do so. Indeed, it is important to remember that the payment is standardised, and it is not to address the harm. It is, however, a way to recognise the shame and stigma that were so wrongly imposed on those who were placed in those institutions. The purpose of that element is to create a standardised payment that can be delivered in a clear and accessible way and, I trust, at speed. As has been mentioned, there is a future harm-based individual payment scheme to consider. That scheme will be the appropriate place for more detailed individual assessment, and I trust that the preparatory work for it will be progressed with urgency. Amendment No 33 deals with payments to eligible relatives. That is a deeply sensitive issue, particularly where a victim or survivor has died before receiving truth, recognition or redress. The position of families deserves sensitivity. At the same time, any change to the level of payment would have wider implications for the structure of the scheme and how it will operate. The central aim must remain that the process is fair, clear and capable of being delivered. Amendment No 34 strengthens Assembly oversight of any extension to the application period. As drafted, the Bill provides for a three-year application window, with the possibility of extending that to up to five years. Amendment No 34 requires such an extension to be approved by the Assembly. That provides for proper scrutiny, and I welcome it. It matters because the scheme must reach elderly victims and survivors, those living outside Northern Ireland and those who may only become aware of their eligibility later in life. The Assembly should have a clear role in considering whether the time frame remains appropriate. We therefore welcome the amendment. Amendment No 44, which has been tabled by the Department, provides a technical correction. The amendment to schedule 2 replaces "House" with "Hostel". It may appear minor, but accuracy matters in legislation of this nature. The names and descriptions of institutions must be correct not only for legal certainty but out of respect for those with lived experience that is connected to them. Amendment No 45 relates to three children's homes and raises the issue of whether further institutions should be added to schedule 2. I welcome the clarity from junior Minister Bunting on the amendment and why it is not appropriate. Where evidence supports the inclusion of further institutions, there must be a clear, transparent and evidence-led route for that to happen. The Bill already contains a mechanism for relevant institutions and relevant years to be set out and amended. The key point is that decisions on inclusion must be based on evidence, handled transparently and communicated clearly to victims and survivors. I thank the Chair of the Committee for her contribution on the topic. Amendment No 46 raises the question of who should be treated as an eligible relative. That is another sensitive issue. Families were affected in different ways, and the loss experienced by relatives should not be ignored.
However, any expansion of eligibility has to be considered carefully in respect of fairness, consistency and the overall operation of the scheme. I welcome the clarity that the junior Minister gave on that particular matter. This group of amendments goes to the heart of entitlement and payment. I fully understand why Members wish to test whether the scheme should go further. Those issues are not easy. However, the key responsibility of the House is to ensure that the redress scheme is clear, fair, trauma-informed, evidence-led and capable of being delivered without further unnecessary delay. The standardised payment scheme is not the end of that process. The future harm-based individual payment scheme will also be vital. Preparatory work on that must be progressed at pace, because, as I have said before, the victims and survivors have waited long enough. They need clarity, recognition and a process that works for them. The Bill cannot undo the past, but it can make an important step towards truth, accountability and redress. I put on record my thanks to the departmental officials and both junior Ministers for the vast amount of work that has been done. I am grateful for the good engagement throughout with the people who matter most — the victims and survivors — many of whom are here today to see the legislation reach another milestone in its progress through the House. The departmental officials also worked incredibly well with the Committee in order come to agreement on many of the amendments that were suggested during our scrutiny of the Bill; that was very welcome. Lastly, I thank the Committee Clerk and team who facilitated the many witnesses throughout the process and managed the process to this stage.

1,562 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification