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

Debate contribution by Miss Nuala McAllister on 24 June 2025.

MLA

Miss Nuala McAllister

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 5047165

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the legislation that has finally been laid before the Assembly. Women and adoptees have waited too long for a public inquiry and redress, so this is a welcome day. That is not to say that the legislation is perfect, and there will be opportunity to make changes. I note specifically the arbitrary date of 29 September 2011, but I will come to that. Unfortunately, across the island of Ireland, we are no strangers to the harm perpetrated against women and girls over the past century. Whether it is Magdalene laundries, mother-and-baby homes, the retention of babies' organs or symphysiotomy — if you do not know what the last named is, I recommend looking it up, because it is too graphic to describe — all those scandals have caused lifelong pain and distress for many women and their families across this island and those transferred across the globe. Since becoming an MLA, I have had the opportunity to meet many of the women and men affected by a mother-and-baby home or Magdalene laundry. The legislation is a big moment for many, because it is a step closer to accountability, validation and the truth about what they or their loved ones have suffered. I thank every one of them for their strength and resilience in ensuring that this day would come. Those women and men have been through trauma as a birth mother or adoptee. The initial report by Queen's University and Ulster University included the case of one woman who was born in a mother-and-baby home and was brought back to one later in life by her adoptive parents because she was pregnant. That in itself, just a single case, is very traumatic. That is just one individual, and we know that there are 15,000 individuals. Many aspects of the Bill will require greater scrutiny and, perhaps, amending, if required, so I particularly welcome thoughts by the junior Minister and by Members from Sinn Féin that there are some areas of the Bill that they are content possibly to amend.

There will be a lot of focus on the Committee Stage.

First, I will examine the issue of redress and the current timeline in the legislation. Understandably, many family members of victims are concerned about the date in the Bill if their loved one passed away before it. I do not sit on the Committee, but I have a particular interest in the Bill. I am unsure of the reasoning behind that date. My colleagues Paula Bradshaw, the Committee Chair, and Stewart Dickson have outlined that, during Committee hearings, sufficient answers were not given for why that date is there. Perhaps we can hear more about it from the junior Minister during her winding-up speech. Sorry, I think that I give the wrong figure. I said "15,000", but it was 10,000. There were 10,000 in the mother-and-baby homes and 3,000 in the Magdalene laundries. When you add those together, how many of them would be disqualified if we were to keep that date of 29 September 2011? I wonder whether the junior Minister in her winding-up speech can say whether any calculations have been done on how many people that might affect and whether TEO will examine that point. That said, it is important that the Bill is not delayed, so I welcome that it is being debated here today. We need to get it through Committee Stage and the House, but we need to make sure that it does not exclude victims. My colleagues spoke about the issue of support from victims. There have been a number of public statutory inquiries in Northern Ireland that have had the support of victims throughout the process, but there have also been inquiries from which victims have withdrawn their support because of the lack of support that they felt, be it in giving evidence or through legal representation. I think, for example, of the Muckamore inquiry. I know that some of the family members are not content with that process. It is really important, therefore, that we learn not just from the Republic of Ireland's public inquiry but from other public inquiries that we have held in Northern Ireland. We need to ensure that the individual harm payment is not delayed. When the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse Bill was going through its various stages in the Assembly in 2012, I remember victims coming to the Assembly to support the Bill and to sit in the Chamber and listen. Some of those victims were unable to make it to the date on which the redress payment went live. I know that their family members were able to avail themselves of it, but it was particularly sad to read about the death of certain individuals who had waited so long but were unable to get the redress payment. That is why we need to ensure that the individual harm payment is not delayed. I acknowledge the difficult work that has already been undertaken by the truth recovery panel, Queen's University and Ulster University. This is a difficult and complex part of our history. It is complex not because of the moral or ethical issues behind it — that is not difficult at all — but because of the trauma involved and because we may, at times, inadvertently or mistakenly re-traumatise people. I pay tribute to those people who have tried to work as diligently and sensitively as possible. The power to compel the production of evidence is so important in the public inquiry. The junior Minister outlined the reasons why that had to be included in the Bill. It is really important to highlight — this is one of the stains of our past — the fact that institutions did not come forward when they could have done so. I think, for example, of the retention of babies' remains. Many institutions could have come forward and offered up information before the legislation made it to the Floor of the House, but they chose not to. I think of the Historical Institutional Abuse inquiry when many people from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland had to come and give evidence. I think, for example, of Tuam. Whether it was the sisters or the religious institutions, they knew where those babies were. There were people who knew where those babies were all along, but they did not come forward before the legislation reached Parliament in the Republic or up here. Lessons can be learned from inquiries elsewhere and from the schemes in the Republic. The commission turned down two opportunities to brief the Oireachtas Committee on the final report but took part in external academic seminars. That is something that we must keep a brief on, ensuring that our Committee is given its right and proper process. Victims and survivors lost faith in the process, and an alternative report was published. We do not want to reach that stage, so it is important that victims and survivors are kept on board at all stages. I also reflect on the issue of vaccine trials. I do not sit on the Committee, so I am not sure whether that is included in the terms of reference of the inquiry, but it is important to clarify whether that is the case, because some of the adoptees have talked specifically about that issue. I turn my attention to burial sites. Junior Minister Cameron will be aware of the many conversations that we have had on that issue. Many women of mother-and-baby homes and their adoptees, and survivors of Magdalene laundries, chose not to talk about their experiences for years, but there were others who did talk. Whether they talked about it or not, everyone knew what was going on. People knew what was happening. They did not know the full scale of it, but they were aware. However, because of the way that society was then — not many years ago — they turned a blind eye. Then, back in 2016 and 2017, the Tuam site was excavated. I pay tribute to Catherine Corless for all the work that she did to painstakingly locate the records of all those babies and find out where they were buried. One of the issues raised by the initial report from Queen's University and Ulster University was the mortality rate amongst infants from mother-and-baby homes and associated children's homes. It is not at all surprising that we see parallels in Northern Ireland with the situation in the Republic of Ireland. I do not want to create fear or scare anyone by highlighting that issue, but it is really important, because we do not have the records for all the babies who were born in mother-and-baby homes. For those who died, we need to find out why they died and where they are buried. That brings me to the topic — it will be no surprise that I mention this — of the preservation and recognition of burial sites. Tuam showed us that, where there was no respect in life, there was even less in death for many of these precious souls. In this Chamber, I have raised my concerns many times about the protection of burial sites, particularly around Milltown cemetery in Belfast. We know that infants who died in mother-and-baby homes in Belfast were buried there, with some relatives speaking up and asking for help to locate remains. I think of Paul Vincent O'Hanlon. He is the big brother of Fionnuala Boyle and he died of bronchial pneumonia at seven months having been in the care of a mother-and-baby home. He lies at the bottom of Milltown cemetery, an area at risk of being disturbed by digging works. Works are already disturbing the burial grounds of thousands of infants. However, we do not know the true number of babies there who came from mother-and-baby homes. That is why I asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to include burial sites in the public inquiry. I was given assurances in the House that they would do that. Whilst the full detail of the terms of reference is not contained in the Bill, I am concerned about the preservation of those sites. I hope that that is something that the Committee can look at further and that it can be contained in the Bill. I am glad that the junior Minister mentioned the 4,500 records that have been preserved due to the 2022 legislation. It is also really important that records kept at hospitals and churches are accessed too, because we know that a number of churches right across Northern Ireland had links to various mother-and-baby homes and Magdalene laundries and that the churches have the records. I return to the issue of accountability. It is very important that this Bill aims to answer the question of who was responsible. We know it, see it and hear it in the stories of survivors: women were forced to give birth in secret and had their babies removed from them without their consent. We hear it in the spoken memories of women who were in the Magdalene laundries. Some, heavily pregnant, were forced to do hard labour. Let us reflect on that: they were forced to do hard, unpaid labour, yet some of the institutions claimed benefits for the women who were in their care, according to the testimony of some of the women who participated in the first Queen's University and Ulster University research. They claimed benefits for the women whom they forced to do hard labour, some of whom were heavily pregnant, and the women got no benefits themselves. That is another reason why redress is really important. Some women even worked until their death. A lot of them were under the care of religious institutions that, given their very origin, their religious beliefs and knowing how they should behave, should have known better. Yet, their so-called Christianity was not carried out in their works. Then there were the state and charity-run institutions. The state already has a greater responsibility to care for every individual, so it is important that the state be represented. We have moved miles, given that every member of every political party in the House is standing up to say, "That was wrong". Before I close, I will turn to the most important people involved: the survivors of the institutions. Whether they are a birth mother, a woman or an adoptee and whether they came to harm physically or psychologically, we owe a lot of care and attention to their lived experience. We must ensure that, throughout the entire process, they are at the heart of the legislation, the redress scheme and the public inquiry. I look forward to continuing to work with them and my colleagues on the Committee for the Executive Office to ensure that the Bill passes.

2,143 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:55 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