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

Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on 22 June 2026.

MLA: Ms Sinéad McLaughlin
Party at the time: Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date: 22 June 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill: Further Consideration Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5638698

Text

When the Bill was introduced, one of the concerns repeatedly raised by the survivors and their families was about the people who had suffered the same experiences, carried the same hurt and lived in the same institutions but did not live long enough to see this process. The concern has been raised time and time again throughout the passage of the legislation, and it is important for us to listen to it. Before I turn to amendment No 11, I will briefly address the amendments tabled by Gerry Carroll to clause 32. The amendments are very well intentioned and motivated by a desire to ensure that nobody who suffered injustice is excluded or is not recognised, and I share that objective. However, just after 1.00 pm today, we received a letter from the First Minister and deputy First Minister raising concerns about the legal workability of the amendments, the ability to verify their eligibility and the potential implications for the legislative competence of the Bill. Specifically, the First Minister and deputy First Minister stated:
"we are concerned that an amendment this substantial and complex has been brought at Further Consideration, as it risks both delay and the overall deliverability of the Bill."
They went on to state:
"We do not wish to jeopardise the Bill's passage into law and, as a result, we cannot support these amendments."
A further legal paper was attached to the letter. At this stage, after everything that survivors have been through and the length of time that they have already waited, we should be careful to ensure that the legislation remains robust and workable. I want to hear the precise details of the issues with Gerry Carroll's amendments in the junior Minister's response to the debate. It is important that we get that detail. Amendment No 11 seeks to address a genuine gap in the legislation. Throughout the process, we have rightly spoken about the survivors. We have listened to their testimony and heard about the lives that have been shaped by shame, secrecy and stigma. We have heard about women who were judged rather than supported, women who were hidden away and women who were made to feel that they had done something wrong rather than that something wrong had been done to them.
We have heard about children and families whose lives were changed forever by what happened in those institutions.
There is another group of people, however, that we need to think about today: those who did not live long enough to see this day, to hear an apology, to see an inquiry established and to see the state finally acknowledge what happened to them. For many families, the original posthumous eligibility date felt deeply unfair, not because they were seeking special treatment or looking for something different but because they simply wanted their loved ones to be recognised alongside everyone else's. I understand that, because this process has never been solely about compensation. If it had been, I do not believe that so many people would have campaigned for so long. The process has always been about acknowledgement and ensuring that what happened is recognised. It has been about ensuring that the shame and stigma attached to those women and girls is finally lifted and placed where it belongs, and it has also been about ensuring that people are not forgotten. That is why amendment No 11 matters. It is not simply changing a date in legislation; it is about recognising that the passage of time does not lessen the harm that was done and that somebody's experience does not become less significant because they died before an arbitrary date in a Bill. It is also about recognising that the families who have fought for years on behalf of deceased relatives deserve to see those relatives included in the process. I know that there will be discussion about cost, and, of course, cost matters. Public money matters. However, we also have to ask ourselves these questions: what message would be sent if we knowingly left people outside the scheme who experienced exactly the same injustices as those who will qualify? What message would it send to families who have spent years carrying those stories? What message would it send to relatives who have campaigned not only for themselves but for their parents, grandparents and siblings who did not live long enough to receive acknowledgement in their lifetime? This is not a political issue or an issue that divides communities. Women, girls and families from every background were affected, and there is a shared responsibility on all of us to ensure that the legislation reflects that reality. For many families, this is the final opportunity to see their loved ones' experiences recognised through a redress scheme. The people whom they are speaking about cannot speak for themselves; they rely on others to tell their stories and to make the case that their experiences matter. I believe that, today, we have an opportunity to respond to that. We cannot undo what happened or get the years that they lost back for people, but we can ensure that those who died before vindication are not excluded from that acknowledgement. For that reason, I will support amendment No 11, and I encourage Members right across the House to do the same.

886 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