Debate contribution: Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 24 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- 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 5046661
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you. I will go further and read into the record that the Committee has been very frustrated that, when we have asked the institutions to come before Committee, they have refused and have hidden under the cloth that they are all-island and that their headquarters are in Dublin. We need to find a way, through the Bill, to hold them to account. I will now turn to the inquiry itself. Under the "relevant persons" definition found at clause 5, we need to ensure that the following persons are included and appear in the Bill: those who entered mother-and-baby institutions having been raped and impregnated while residing in a workhouse. They should have been there and should have been cared for, yet they were groomed and then led a further traumatised life. Again, we need to find a way to ensure that those "relevant persons" also include the babies and children who died whilst staying in one of the institutions. On that point, the inclusion in clause 1(2) of the words "Truth Recovery" before "Public Inquiry" is superfluous. In closed session, the Committee took evidence from now adult women who had been placed in the Whiteabbey Girls Training School. They told us that they did not come forward during the Historical Institutional Abuse inquiry because they did not feel that it was relevant to them. What we need with this public inquiry is plain English. "Truth Recovery Public Inquiry" could fill a newspaper headline. We need to make sure that this speaks directly to people, so those words should be removed.
Those are the main issues that I wanted to raise at Second Stage. We can work with departmental officials and the Examiner of Statutory Rules on some of the technical issues in due course. I encourage anyone and everyone to get in touch with me and/or the Committee with any concerns about or unmet aspirations in the Bill. I end where I began by paying tribute to the women and adult adoptees who have campaigned for far too long to get us to this point. The inquiry and redress scheme must deliver for them, and I commit to doing everything in my power as a member of the Committee for the Executive Office and as an Alliance Party MLA to shape the Bill to make sure that we do not let them down again.
395 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.05 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.66 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.32 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:52 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.