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

Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on 19 May 2026.

MLA

Ms Paula Bradshaw

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

19 May 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

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

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5549238

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I rise today as Chairperson of the Committee for the Executive Office to speak to the amendments from the Committee Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill. The Consideration Stage of the Bill is a huge moment for victims and survivors, many of whom have waited decades for recognition of the harm and suffering that they endured. I welcome those who have come to Parliament Buildings today. At this point, I put on record the Committee's thanks to all those who responded to the call for evidence, whether in writing or to the Committee directly, through the online survey or through our engagement events. I also thank those victims and survivors who gave evidence to the Committee in person for their courage and honesty in engaging with Committee members on the Bill. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will briefly outline how the Committee undertook an extensive and trauma-informed approach throughout its scrutiny. The Bill was introduced to the Assembly on 16 June 2025 and was referred to the Committee for consideration after Second Stage on 25 June 2025. The Committee received 91 written submissions and received oral evidence from 24 organisations, alongside numerous detailed briefings from departmental officials. In addition, the Committee held stakeholder familiarisation events, round-table discussions and dedicated sessions for victims and survivors, supported by advocacy and well-being services. The Committee tasked the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe) with examining the processes that were undertaken by relevant Governments in response to historical institutional abuse in Scotland, England and Wales, including public inquiries and redress schemes. That helped the Committee to identify good practice, and draw on lessons learned, and it helped inform its consideration of the Bill. Members and Committee staff undertook trauma-informed approach training with the Safeguarding Board in order to implement a trauma-informed process and approach for victims and survivors throughout our considerations. The Committee held three familiarisation sessions with stakeholders to outline the Committee Stage of the Bill ahead of our call for evidence. Committee staff also sought approval from WAVE, the Victims and Survivors Service and Adopt NI for all consultation material, including imagery and familiarisation session invitations, in order to ensure that the language and terminology that were used were appropriate and non-offensive to victims and survivors. The Committee also arranged round-table stakeholder events. Over the course of three sessions, the Committee hosted more than 90 individuals, demonstrating its commitment to hearing as many views as possible. The Committee unanimously supported the Bill in principle and used the Committee Stage to develop amendments that would strengthen transparency, enhance survivor involvement, improve accountability and ensure robust Assembly oversight.

With that summary of the process, I will move on to the Committee's amendments in group 1, which refer to the truth recovery public inquiry. Amendment Nos 1 and 2 relate to clause 2, which outlines how the terms of reference of the inquiry, including any amendments to them, will be prepared and published by the Executive Office after consultation with the chairperson of the inquiry. Members noted from the response to the call for evidence that there has been strong support for all actors — state, religious and private organisations — to be included in the terms of reference. The Committee agreed to seek two amendments to the clause. Amendment No 1 would require the terms of reference to be published no later than six months after Part 1 comes into operation. The amendment would prevent delay in establishing the scope of the inquiry. The Committee also considered provisions relating to other care arrangements under clause 2(2) that require the inquiry to determine whether there were systemic failings by institutions, public bodies or any other persons in certain circumstances. Amendment No 2 would ensure that the list is non-exhaustive, allowing the inquiry to consider any other relevant actors, as needed. The Committee also included a recommendation in its report that the inquiry should report on a modular basis to allow the inclusion of as many institutions as possible in the redress scheme. Amendment Nos 5 to 7 relate to clause 9, which outlines how assessors may be appointed to provide the inquiry with expertise in a particular field, where necessary, so as to provide the panel with the expertise that it needs to fulfil its terms of reference. The response to our call for evidence demonstrated a clear need for trauma-informed, survivor-sensitive experts to be included in the assessor cohort. The Committee agreed to seek three amendments to leave out the words "assessors" and "assessor" and replace them with the words "expert advisers" and "expert adviser" to better reflect the nature and purpose of the role. Amendment No 8 relates to clause 10, which provides the inquiry chairperson with the power to establish an advisory panel. The Committee sought to strengthen the clause by seeking to introduce a procedural safeguard for how the chairperson exercises his or her power in appointing advisers to the panel. Amendment No 17 relates to clause 20, which requires the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, acting jointly, to lay any report published under clause 19 before the Assembly when it is published or as soon as possible thereafter. Stakeholders emphasised the need for transparency and therefore welcomed requirements for those publications to be laid. The Committee agreed to seek an amendment to leave out the wording from "either" until the end of line 9, which would mean that the Ministers should publish reports at the time of publication or as soon as is reasonably practicable thereafter. The amendment would strengthen the clause by removing the flexible and potentially open-ended time frame for laying those reports before the Assembly. Amendment No 20 relates to clause 26, which sets out the time frame for applying for judicial review (JR). Throughout the call for evidence, it was clear that a 14-day timescale was regarded as being too short for bringing an application for judicial review. In response, the Committee agreed to seek to amend the provision to extend the time limit to 21 days, which would provide a more reasonable and workable time period. The last of the Committee's amendments in group 1 is amendment No 22, which relates to clause 27. The clause outlines the procedural regulations to be made by the Executive Office to govern how the inquiry operates. Throughout the Bill's Committee Stage, witnesses emphasised that victims and survivors should be granted core participant status from the outset of the inquiry. The Committee's amendment would ensure that core participant status is not discretionary but a built-in requirement, which would strengthen the role and voice of victims and survivors from the very beginning. Finally, the Committee welcomes the amendments in the group that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister tabled. They will give effect to the Committee's intent for a number of clauses. In several instances, the Committee withdrew its own amendments in favour of the Executive Office's wording, which we felt better reflected the broader book of the law. I advise the House that, as a consequence, I will not be moving amendment Nos 26 and 27 in the next group. I will now make some points as an individual MLA. I reiterate in a personal capacity my sincerest thanks as I pay enormous tribute to the victims and survivors who have given so freely of their time during the process. I am sure that, at times, it was not easy, but it was so hugely beneficial. I will speak to a number of amendments to give my personal reflection on why we are supporting them or opposing them. I will start with amendment No 2. As a Committee, we extended the opportunity to hear the voices of private hospitals, private maternity homes, general practitioners, social workers, clergy and private businesses. We felt that there were victims and survivors who did not see themselves in the Bill. In some ways, it was not necessary for us to do that because it will be up to the chairperson and the panel, through the terms of reference, to ensure that the process is as inclusive as possible. However, we felt that it was important that people felt that they had a sense of ownership of this. In many ways, where there is a call for more homes to be added to the list of relevant institutions, that will allow people who were in private hospitals, for example, to be moved across to the list of those who are eligible. That is why our Committee report states that the inquiry should be conducted in modular form so that, at the end of each section, it will give power and authority to the chairperson of the inquiry to move those institutions to that list, thereby opening it up and not requiring the whole process of the inquiry to be concluded. Obviously, we are pushing for that. In particular, I pay tribute to the Executive Office for tabling amendment No 3 to insert a new sub-paragraph (ia) to include:

"a woman or girl who had become pregnant while she was under the care of the workhouse;"

I am aware of one instance where a young woman — I think that she was possibly below the age of 18 and was technically a child — was under the care of a workhouse and became pregnant while staying there and subsequently was moved to a mother-and-baby institution to give birth. We have to, in this process, recognise the incredible trauma caused and the abuse of women and girls that took place at that time. Again, I thank the Executive Office for recognising that. It is one instance that I know of, and I am sure that there are others. I appreciate the fact that the Executive Office added that provision. Amendment No 10 proposes a new clause around contributions to payments. Again, that was tabled by the Executive Office, but the Committee pushed very hard for it. We have a strong sense of justice around this. The institutions that were responsible for the abuse and harm to those pregnant women and to the children should contribute to the redress scheme. I have no problem with the public purse contributing the majority of the money, but I think that the institutions should be paying. That new clause puts them on notice today that they cannot get away in that regard. They have, in many ways, dodged contributing to the historical institutional abuse redress scheme, and I would be very pleased to see that new clause in the Bill. Hopefully, if the amendment is accepted today, they will be on notice that contributions will be sought. Members will see that the proposed new clause refers to charity law, so, obviously, the Executive Office has looked at that. I think that that squares off any concerns that others may have. We will support Gerry's amendment Nos 12, 13, 14 and 16. They certainly add value to the Bill, and I appreciate the time that he has taken to submit those amendments. In Gerry's amendment No 21, he has sought to extend —

Thank you. I think that you are right, but I want the Bill to be as comprehensive as possible, and that puts the Republic of Ireland and GB on notice that they should be complying and cooperating with the inquiry. I agree that, in some ways, it might be superfluous, but it would be useful if it were in the Bill so that people are put on notice. As you say, amendment No 16 gives the chairperson the flexibility to publish a report where there is public interest in that. I move to amendment Nos 20 and 21. Gerry suggested in his amendment No 21 that the extension for applying for judicial review should be extended from14 to 28 days. I am open to that. A lot of judicial reviews stay open for three months, so I have no problem with that. On amendment No 22 to clause 27, core participant status, which we have talked about, is so important. We saw in the COVID and Muckamore Abbey Hospital inquiries that it is so important that the people directly affected are given, at the very start, support to access evidence and in their ability to question witnesses. That is all that I have to say on that group.

2,065 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:42 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