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

Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on 24 June 2025.

MLA

Mr Brian Kingston

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist 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 5046671

Read the official Assembly record

Text

As a DUP member of the Committee for the Executive Office, I welcome the introduction of the Bill to legislate for an inquiry into the practice of mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses and to create a redress scheme for those affected by the poor practice in those institutions. This is an important stage in that process. The voices of victims and survivors are vital to ensuring that the legislation is fit for purpose. We value the engagement that we have had with them at the Committee so far and hope that that will continue. The operation of the institutions does not stand up to modern scrutiny. It is our collective aim that the inquiry should get to the truth of what happened, why it happened and who was responsible. We wish to listen to the lived experience of victims and survivors. Whilst it is not part of the Bill, the Committee will continue to push for recognition of culpability where institutions should properly contribute to recognition payments.

When we received briefings at Committee, it was disturbing to learn details of how the institutions operated and the negative impact that that had on so many lives. A substantial foundation for the inquiry has been provided by the research that was carried out for the Northern Ireland Executive by academic experts from Queen's University Belfast and Ulster University, led by Dr Leanne McCormick and Professor Sean O'Connell and published in 2021. Their research found that, between 1922 and 1990, around 10,500 women were admitted to eight mother-and-baby institutions and around 3,000 were admitted to four Magdalene laundries in Northern Ireland. The last mother-and-baby institution closed in 1990, and the last Magdalene laundry closed in 1984. Around 20 workhouses in Northern Ireland were operating under the Poor Relief Acts, although more work is needed to detail their inclusion in the Bill. Among the key findings in the universities' report were that a stigma was attached to pregnancy outside marriage; women and girls were admitted by families, doctors, priests and state agencies; they were required to undertake tough chores late into pregnancy; they had little preparation for childbirth; some had cold and castigating birth experiences; and many women and girls were separated from their children by the children's being placed in children's homes, fostered out or adopted. It was also found that there were significantly above-average infant mortality rates; women and girls entered Magdalene laundries by a number of routes, including from mother-and-baby institutions; work in the laundries was carried out without pay; some women spent a lifetime, died and were buried at a laundry; and the institutions were run by Roman Catholic, Protestant, state and charity authorities. It was further found that the most common reason why women were admitted to mother-and-baby institutions was family pressure to hide a pregnancy outside marriage; and, in some cases, the pregnancy was the result of a sexual crime, including rape, incest and unlawful carnal knowledge. Throughout the evidence that we received, I was left with the impression that whoever's interest was being served by the running of the institutions, it was not that of the women who were admitted nor their babies. It had a lot to do with the abuse of power. The report states:

"In the majority of testimony gathered on these four homes, women provided vivid accounts of being made to feel ashamed about their pregnancy and suggested that the atmosphere was authoritarian and judgemental."

Detailed information on the outcome for the babies is limited. For two homes, records show that just 26% of babies who were born there left the home with their birth mother; 32% of babies were placed in institutional homes; 23% were adopted; and another 15% were listed as going to foster parents. The reasons why women were admitted to Magdalene laundries covered a wide range of circumstances, including referrals by welfare authorities; the courts, as an alternative to imprisonment; family members; clergy; and from mother-and-baby homes, as a form of so-called penitence after giving birth. The report states that some women were sent to the Magdalene laundries because they had learning difficulties. It also states that girls and young women who were the victims of sexual assault and incest were placed in a St Mary's home at the direction of the courts or by a family member. In other cases, individuals referred themselves to one of the St Mary's homes due to a personal crisis. Issues included domestic abuse, alcohol addiction, homelessness or the breakdown of family networks. It is deeply disturbing that so many women and girls, in a wide range of vulnerable circumstances, were sent to those institutions where they experienced harsh conditions and a lack of the specialist support that they should have received. The redress scheme is proposed to provide a recognition payment of £10,000 for people who were admitted to one of the relevant institutions during the relevant years, including children who were born in an institution or just after their mother had been there. We welcome the simplified eligibility criteria, and we hope that everyone who can apply will do so. The power to establish a victim and survivor advisory panel to work alongside the inquiry chair is a positive move in ensuring that the voices of victims and survivors are heard throughout the process. We are pleased to note that the initial £10,000 payment will not impact on benefits, take into account other payments or require the individual applicant to sign a waiver. That is an important difference between this redress scheme and the HIA redress scheme. We welcome the fact that the £10,000 is an admission-based payment and note that a harm-based payment scheme will follow. We welcome the fact that family members, meaning a surviving spouse or partner and children, are all eligible to make an individual posthumous application on behalf of their deceased and to claim £2,000. We are aware of and have learned from truth recovery and redress schemes that have been implemented elsewhere, including in Scotland, Lambeth in London, the Republic of Ireland and Canada. The payment will not undo the hurt and suffering of the past, but it is an acknowledgement of the hurt that has been caused and the lives that have been impacted on. We thank those who have assisted us so far to uncover the truth. The shame rightly belongs to all parts of society that permitted women and girls to be placed into institutions where they and their babies were let down by all of us. The Bill will enable us to acknowledge that harm and to face our collective responsibility for it.

1,103 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification