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

Debate contribution by Mrs Pam Cameron on 24 June 2025.

MLA: Mrs Pam Cameron
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 24 June 2025
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5046634

Text

I beg to move
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I speak for junior Minister Reilly and me when I say that we feel honoured to move the Second Stage of this important legislation on behalf of the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Executive. It is our view that it is one of the most significant Bills to be introduced in this Assembly mandate. It will establish a statutory inquiry for those affected by mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses and the associated redress scheme. It is a large, complex and sensitive piece of legislation. Last Monday morning, the First Minister, deputy First Minister, junior Minister Reilly and I met victims and survivors just before the Bill was introduced in the House. I wish to be as forthright with Members today as Ministers were in our meeting with the victims and survivors. It was important to us to be upfront and acknowledge at the outset the inevitability that the Bill will not and cannot be all things to all people. At our meeting with victims and survivors last week and in the days since, it was clear that some people feel hurt, disappointed and let down by some parts of the Bill. We need to acknowledge, reflect on and own that. We have also received positive feedback from some victims and survivors, and we agree that there is a lot to welcome in the Bill and in the wider process, which I will expand on later. To do this important legislation justice, we believe that it is important to outline why it matters so much, how we have got here and what the legislation will do. I appreciate that these practices impact on the lives of many, including some in the House, and I want to do them and the House justice. We believe that what we have in front of us closely aligns with the truth recovery design panel's recommendations, which were developed in collaboration with the wishes of victims and survivors. That required the delivery of a unique and groundbreaking set of aspirations. For example, it required a two-stage financial redress process that would ensure that victims and survivors would not have to wait for years for the completion of an inquiry before some financial redress could be progressed. The Bill will do that. A two-stage investigative process has been recommended to enable the victims and survivors who would prefer to avoid participating in what can often be an intimidating inquiry process to have the opportunity instead to provide their testimony in a more supported and informal setting — a safe forum where victims and survivors can have personal testimonies recognised and recorded. That valuable first stage of the investigation — the independent panel — spearheaded by a range of professionals and persons with lived experience, has been able to carry out its analysis of the evidence and will be able to present its findings to inform the statutory inquiry. It has also allowed the difficult and time-consuming but essential, process of securing access to institutional and state records. That novel approach should assist the statutory inquiry to get off to a running start, which will, in turn, help to reduce the overall time and cost of the entire investigation. The truth recovery design panel asked that we learn from other truth processes to ensure that victims and survivors would be properly supported throughout the process. To that end, we made sure that specialised support services were put in place as soon as possible. The bespoke portfolio of support services was co-designed with victims and survivors and has been in place since 2022. For a number of reasons, the Bill aims to put in place the first of two financial redress schemes. The scheme aims to be as simple and inclusive as possible, using the best elements from international examples. We carefully considered comparable inquiries in other places and did our best to develop something that seeks to learn lessons to avoid some of the well-rehearsed pitfalls. We paid close attention to the consultation responses and, as a result, made a series of important and worthwhile changes to the proposed policy. Those changes include simplifying the redress eligibility processes; extending the duration of the redress scheme; allowing separate, independent posthumous claims; and, perhaps most important, having the ability to establish a victim and survivors' advisory panel, which, if established, will provide a voice for victims and survivors at the centre of the investigation. All of those changes have helped us deliver what, we believe, is the measured and balanced Bill that is before the House. It is a welcome Bill as, ultimately, its outworkings will help shine a long-overdue light on this dark period of our past and, crucially, will ensure that many victims and survivors will receive some financial redress for the shame and stigma that they have endured and, in some cases, continue to endure to this day. It is important for us to recognise those who have done so much to help us reach this important stage of confronting the difficult truths of our collective past. To that end, we take the opportunity to thank the victims and survivors. The work was pioneered by those involved with the Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice group. It is thanks to that strong, courageous and determined group of women, who, for more than a decade, have continued to work tirelessly and to lobby for justice, that we are where we are today. We also thank all of those involved with the Victims and Survivors Consultation Forum. They represent an important range of voices and have helped to progress the five core recommendations in the design panel report. As we are all too aware, developing and progressing legislation can feel like a long and bureaucratic process. While that is necessary and important, it sometimes creates too much distance between what it seeks to achieve and those who are most affected — those who are at the heart of the matter. For that reason, I would like to take a moment to bring a human face to all of this. I will paint a picture to remind the House of the suffering experienced by so many and, importantly, of why we are gathered here today. Imagine, if you will, a vulnerable young woman or girl. Oftentimes, she is already a victim herself. Now, discovering that she is pregnant, she is even more vulnerable. Already filled with uncertainty and carrying the weight of stigma, blame and shame imposed by those around her, she is taken unceremoniously and hidden far from home, with little explanation or real understanding of what is happening. Far from being held close and feeling supported, she is now fearful and alone in a cold and alien place that most definitely does not feel like home. Without contemporaneous awareness of the unspoken power structures that were so firmly established in society, so many young women and girls were blamed and made to pay. They were hidden away behind closed doors and had their dignity and agency removed. Unbeknownst to that young woman or girl, she would soon be coerced into relinquishing her child to adoption. We have heard testimony after testimony of covert and overt pressure being applied and of manipulation, even threats, being used until those mothers felt as though they had no choice but to agree to surrender their baby to adoption. The unimaginable sense of trauma and loss is hard to fathom. Of course, a different sense of loss, although just as profound, will be felt by those adopted children, who are now adults and who, if they were ever told the truth, could have spent years, maybe a lifetime, wondering why or thinking about how different things could have been. That sadness is bound up in ancestral loss: in many ways, it is a lifetime of loss. So many have suffered in so many ways. We want to remember and honour all of them. We recognise the depth of feeling expressed by some about their loved ones not appearing to be included in the truth recovery process or the Bill, but that is far from the truth. It is important to state that redress takes many forms, not just financial: examples of what we see as redress include information retrieval; therapeutic and bespoke support services; memorialisation; and acknowledgement and apology. Speaking directly to family members advocating on behalf of their deceased loved ones, I say this: they and you are part of this process. Their and your experiences will not be lost. We want to hear the testimonies of the women and girls and their now-adult children who suffered due to the shame and stigma imposed by this society throughout the 100-year period that the investigation will examine. The collected testimonies of the victims and survivors who come forward need to be carefully recorded. Equally welcome and important are the testimonies of the family members who are, sadly, no longer with us. Every voice will help us to understand better what happened, why it happened and who was responsible. Every record will help to illuminate and form an important part of the tapestry of that shameful part of our past. That past needs to be woven together to help us to dutifully and respectfully acknowledge all of those who suffered at our collective hands. When I say "our", I mean us as individuals, as a society, as members of churches and as state agencies that permitted that to happen. The findings of the investigation and the repository of information that emanates from it will be central to the truth recovery process. It can then be held for ever in memorialisation and posterity for future generations to know about and remember the suffering of our sisters and their children. Before delving into the Bill, it is important to set out the developments that have led us to where we are today. Members will recall that the campaign to establish an inquiry into those affected by historical institutional abuse (HIA) followed damning findings in the institutional abuse inquiry in the Republic of Ireland. Within months, thousands had signed a petition that was delivered to the Assembly in late 2009, calling for a similar assessment of the scale of child abuse in Northern Ireland. The then Executive agreed to set up a public inquiry in 2011, and, the following year, the terms of reference were announced by the First Minister and deputy First Minister.
On the same date, retired High Court judge Sir Anthony Hart was appointed to chair the inquiry.
MLAs subsequently passed legislation to establish an inquiry to determine whether there were systemic failings by the state or institutions in their duties towards children under the age of 18. Crucially, however, the remit did not include the adult victims and survivors of Magdalene laundries. Given the age limitation, it also did not include the women in mother-and-baby institutions and therefore their children, who are now adults. At that time, Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice launched a campaign to highlight the need for a separate inquiry. Since then, significant work has been carried out, and it deserves to be accredited. In 2018, on behalf of the Executive, the Minister of Health commissioned a team to consider evidence and to research the operation of mother-and-baby institutions and Magdalene laundries. In January 2021, following the publication of research jointly conducted by Queen's University and Ulster University, the Executive agreed to undertake an independent investigation of the institutions. Although the research revealed some of the horrendous experiences of women and girls and their children who were admitted to institutions over many decades up until the late 1990s, it also left many unanswered questions. In March 2021, the Health Minister took the lead and established a truth recovery design panel, which was tasked with developing options for an independent investigation of mother-and-baby institutions and Magdalene laundries. Just seven months later, in October 2021, the truth recovery design panel published its findings in a report that shone a light on the shameful circumstances that occurred in the past and that persist, not least through their long-term impact, and identified the need for a transitional justice approach to remedy such wrongdoings. The panel recommended an integrated truth investigation of issues in mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. In addition, it identified the need to examine their pathways and practices, as it was those practices that led to women and girls moving into and out of the institutions. It also identified a number of related institutions, such as baby homes and private nursing homes and cross-border and international transfers of children and women. In summary, the research lifted the veil on the hidden experiences of women and girls and their children, who are now adults. Their experiences were affected by decisions taken by the state, by the Churches, by others and by society in general over many decades up until the 1990s. Testimonies collected as part of the research have been built on and will be enriched by the first stage of the investigation by the independent panel that was established in April 2023. The Executive agreed the report's implementation in November 2021. Since then, the Executive Office's truth recovery programme has engaged with victims and survivors to implement the report's five key recommendations. As I have already said, the truth recovery design panel's proposals were groundbreaking and novel. Importantly, they identified the need to recognise and support victims and survivors from the start of the process. One of the key recommendations was to establish a statutory inquiry and redress service, and bespoke primary legislation was required to put both in place, which brings us to the Bill before us today. The Bill is the result of much work over the past couple of years, and we hope that it will achieve the implementation of many of the ambitious recommendations made by the truth recovery design panel. Before I explain the Bill's key elements, it would be remiss of me to neglect to mention a few of the other key recommendations that have been implemented, as they will support the inquiry's work and hopefully improve the lives of those affected to a greater or lesser extent or at least make victims and survivors' engagement with the inquiry that bit easier. In addition, we have worked with our partners in the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS), WAVE Trauma Centre and Adopt NI to establish specialised, bespoke and co-designed support services for those affected. Those services have supported approximately 400 victims and survivors to date. As I mentioned, the Department also established an independent panel in April 2023 to initiate the first stage of the investigation, and it is due to report at the end of the year.
The 10-person independent panel, which includes victim and survivor representatives, has received positive feedback for the meaningful way in which victims and survivors have been able to provide oral testimony in an environment that is more supportive and less inquisitorial than that of a statutory inquiry. Another key area of work, which will hopefully pay dividends for those who engage with the upcoming inquiry, has involved the Preservation of Documents (Historical Institutions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. That has helped us to identify over 4,500 private records and to digitise many of them. That was done in collaboration with the institutions, the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) and the independent panel. The Department of Health, adoption agencies and some members of the consultation forum worked collaboratively to improve adoption practice guidance. Since its implementation, the feedback from many victims and survivors has been that significant progress has been made, which, in turn, has reduced the difficulties that were experienced. We know, however, that much more work remains to be done in that area. I could talk for much longer about achievements to date, but I know that the House is keen that I outline the key elements of the Bill, and I hope that doing so will help to inform the debate. I will outline some key elements of the Bill. The Bill comprises 47 clauses, four schedules and three Parts. The first Part deals with establishing the inquiry, the second with the initial redress scheme and the third with more general matters. The first 29 clauses relate to the inquiry, and many are similar to those in the Inquiries Act 2005. There are five clauses that are more specific to this inquiry, namely clauses 1 to 4 and clause 10. Clause 1 outlines the time period that is to be covered — 1922 to 1995 — but, importantly, has the flexibility to cover the effects up to today. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 establish a framework for the inquiry and propose key things that must be in the inquiry's terms of reference. The clauses outline a separate process for finalising the terms of reference, which will be informed through consultation with the inquiry's chair, and consideration of the findings and recommendations of the independent panel, which are due to be received later this year. The Bill provides for a human rights-centred investigation and process for all participants, which is to be based on the PANEL principles: participation, accountability, non-discrimination, empowerment and legality. To support those important principles, clause 10 provides the chair of the inquiry with the power to create a victim/survivor advisory panel. As I said, that will provide a voice for victims and survivors at the centre of the investigation. I wish to highlight another important power. Clause 16 will give the inquiry the power to compel evidence. The absence of such a power would, of course, frustrate the work of the inquiry. It is important to note that the inquiry is designed to be inquisitorial, as opposed to adversarial. In practice, that means that victims and survivors and others will not be subject to cross-examination. It should be emphasised that the PSNI's criminal investigation remains open and that the inquiry will, of course, have important disclosure protocols with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Public Prosecution Service (PPS). The inquiry cannot, however, determine civil or criminal liability. Instead, it will seek to find out whether there have been systemic failings in relation to those statutory, non-statutory and other bodies or persons that were involved in the pathways and practices of those women and girls, and their now-adult children, into and out of the institutions and places to which the evidence points. Ultimately, the inquiry's examination of the facts and testimonies that are provided to it will seek to establish what happened, why it happened and who was responsible. I turn to the second Part of the Bill. At its core, the first redress scheme is designed to provide redress, on a common basis and in a simple way, to a large number of people who were admitted to named institutions from 1922 to 1995. That is much harder to achieve than it may appear to be on the face of it and requires us to balance a large number of factors. This Part aims to do a few fundamental things. Clause 30 establishes an independent body to administer the redress payments. The other key element is clause 31, which provides for a standardised payment to the women and girls and the now-adult children who were born to them while they were admitted to any of the listed institutions between 1922 to 1995. That is an acknowledgement payment that has been designed to provide for those whose lives were impacted on by a system of institutions that were established for women and girls, admittance to which had gender-specific and undeserved shame and stigma attached.
That is an admission-based payment as opposed to a harm-based scheme. At this juncture, it is important to highlight the fact that a harm-based scheme will follow in due course in separate legislation. It is also important to explain a little of the genesis of the payment. After much consideration, particularly in light of the length of time that victims and survivors of mother-and-baby institutions and Magdalene laundries have waited to get to this point and especially given the age profile of many of the birth mothers, the design panel made its recommendation in an attempt to ensure that those women would not have to wait another period of many years until the inquiry is completed to receive financial redress. The proposed scheme will provide a £10,000 standardised payment for approximately 4,500 applicants, including the women and girls and their now-adult children who were born to them while they were admitted to a named, listed institution. It will also provide for approximately over 2,000 posthumous claims and a payment of £2,000 for each eligible relative of the deceased individual. It was essential to us that the payments not impact on anyone's social security payments, take into account other payments, require a person to sign a waiver or be subject to taxation. The Bill achieves that aim. Clause 31 also deals with proposals for a posthumous payment. We acknowledge that that is arguably the most difficult and sensitive part of the Bill, and we appreciate that some victims and survivors wanted us to go back to 1922 for the posthumous payment date. For an admission-based scheme, that would be without precedent and would inevitably present us with separate, difficult decisions in other parts of the scheme. As Members will know, posthumous payments that are available in redress schemes are ordinarily tied to a date on which a reasonable expectation was created that a redress scheme would become available, such as the date of a formal state apology or another date of state significance. In contrast, as Members will also be aware, the posthumous date for the historical institutional abuse (HIA) redress scheme was 1953. Unlike the proposed standardised payment scheme, which is an admission-based scheme, the HIA redress payment was harm-based. The date of 1953 was chosen because that was when state inspection records show that failings were formally recorded. In the case of the proposed admission-based standardised payment that is provided for in the Bill, which, unlike the HIA scheme, does not require a person to provide a statement of evidence of harm, a suitable date on which to land was less obvious. The consultation provided an example of the posthumous date of 15 November 2021, which was when the then deputy First Minister made a statement to the Assembly to mark the Executive's agreement to the recommendations of the truth recovery design panel. Following the consultation process, the Executive ultimately chose the date on which the inquiry into the institutions was announced — 29 September 2011 — when, arguably, the expectation of victims and survivors of mother-and-baby institutions and Magdalene laundries that they might receive a redress payment could be regarded as having been created. The Bill will also provide for all eligible family members of the deceased to receive payment of £2,000 each for an individual posthumous claim. That was another difficult area on which to arrive at a conclusion, as is illuminated by the wide and opposing consultation responses. As Members will appreciate, that area is fraught with sensitivity and privacy concerns. We hope that, with our effort to avoid causing any potentially devastating unintended consequences, clause 31 achieves a careful solution to that complex issue. To clarify that provision, eligible family members are the surviving spouse or partner and all surviving children, including a person who was adopted into another family. I hope that I have outlined the key elements and the purpose of the Bill to Members' satisfaction. Before concluding, I know that Members will be interested in a summary of the financial effects of the Bill. Given that it provides for a demand-led scheme with limited means of control, significant uncertainty about the cost is inevitable. As a result, that cost could be much higher than the estimate, or it could be lower. Based on the Bill as introduced, the main cost scenario is £80 million, which can be broken down into three parts. Part 1 relates to the public inquiry and is estimated at £14 million. Part 2 is estimated at £58 million and relates to the initial financial redress payments. Part 3 relates to the redress service and is estimated to cost £8 million.
As I said at the outset, the Bill is large, technical, complex and sensitive. We thank the Committee and especially the Chair and the Deputy Chair for their constructive engagement. We look forward to supporting the Committee's important work. Indeed, we express our appreciation to Ministers and Members for their ongoing interest in and support for the work of the truth recovery programme and the Bill in particular. Members will, no doubt, have views on the Bill, and, of course, we will listen carefully. I commend the Bill to the House.

4,152 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