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

Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on 19 May 2026.

MLA

Ms Sinéad McLaughlin

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour 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 5549249

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I begin by speaking directly to every victim and every survivor who is watching and listening — there are many of them in the Public Gallery: this day is for you and about you; it has been a long time coming, as you know better than any of us in the Chamber. In March 2021, the Executive appointed Ms Deirdre Mahon, Dr Maeve O’Rourke and Professor Phil Scraton to head up the truth recovery design panel. The panel published its report in October 2021. It made five main recommendations, all of which the Executive accepted, and that led to the truth recovery programme. The Bill gives statutory footing to recommendations 3 and 5, the public inquiry and the financial redress scheme. Over the past five years, I have spoken many times in the House about the unmarked graves — babies buried without names and without dignity. I have spoken about women and girls who were stripped of their identities, forced to labour, separated from their children, and told that they were the ones who had to be ashamed. Let me be clear: the Churches' response to the issue has been, at best, inadequate and, at worst, a disgrace — no compassion, no acknowledgement of the suffering that they caused, and no love. That is simply not good enough, and the Assembly must seek every available means to ensure that they are held to account and that they pay. Our past is shameful. Women were hidden away, punished for nothing more than being pregnant. Their babies were taken from their arms. Some of the women spent their whole lives in those institutions. Yesterday evening, all MLAs got three photographs on behalf of Robert O'Connor's mother, who was in a Magdalene laundry: the Good Shepherd's Convent. I lived on the same street: I grew up on that street until I was 10 years old. I regularly saw those women going to and from the chapel. To me, they were old women, but, obviously, I was a child. They were not old; they were young. Those photographs are important as they show clearly the faces of stolen lives — of the women who never got out of the institutions once they were admitted. Robert's mother was buried under the wrong name. After much campaigning, Robert managed to get her name changed on the headstone, in memory of the woman who had been held in the Magdalene laundry there.

I have visited the grave, and it is beyond sad to read the names and bear witness to the tragedy of our past. Her name was Brigid O'Connor.

Today will be procedural and functional, because it has to be. However, before turning to the amendments in the group, it is important that we remind ourselves why the legislation is needed in the first place. Behind every clause, amendment and procedural discussion are real people, and, as I said, some of them are in the Gallery: women who were hidden away; young girls made to feel ashamed; and children denied identity, dignity and compassion. They were people who entered the institutions vulnerable and were left carrying the trauma that followed them for the rest of their lives.

Absolutely. We all speak with one voice in that, or, at least, I hope that we do. For decades, survivors were expected to remain silent about what happened behind the walls of the mother-and-baby homes. Many were treated as though they had done something wrong. Many lost children or family connections. Many were denied basic humanity at moments in their lives when they needed care and support. What deepens that hurt even further is that so many survivors spent years trying to be heard but were ignored. That is why the legislation matters: not because it can erase the suffering that people experienced — it cannot — but because it represents an opportunity to finally acknowledge that suffering honestly and publicly. If the Assembly is serious about that acknowledgement, we have to ensure that the process is shaped around survivors and their experiences. That is why many of the amendments in the group are important. Amendment No 1, from the Committee, places a clear time frame on the publication of the terms of reference, and that matters because survivors have already waited far too long. They deserve certainty and progress and to know that the process will not drift indefinitely while people continue to grow older and, in some cases, pass away before seeing justice delivered. I also welcome amendment No 2, which broadens the understanding of who may have been involved in systematic failings, because the suffering experienced in the institutions did not happen in isolation. It involved wider systems of authority and influence. It involved institutions, public bodies and individuals who either enabled abuse, ignored it or failed to challenge it. If the inquiry is to uncover the full truth, its scope must be reflected in that reality. We also support amendments intended to strengthen the structure and operation of the inquiry. I do not intend to go into every amendment in the group from amendment No 1 to amendment No 24, because the majority of them have been agreed by the Committee and changes were made by the Executive Office. Therefore, some of the Committee amendments were withdrawn, and the other amendments are widely agreed. We are very supportive of amendment Nos 1 to 24, and we support amendment Nos 12, 13 and 16 from Gerry Carroll. When it comes to amendment No 21, we discussed extending the JR period, and we landed on 21 days. Perhaps it should be 28 days; I would like to hear how the Member came to that, because, if that is a better amendment, I will have no problem with it. For many survivors, processes such as this — this is why I do not really want to get into it line by line; we have done it, and we have shared it — sometimes generate a lot of mistrust, particularly if someone has been the victim of a prolonged and torturous process, as, at times, this one has been. Too often in the past, systems protected institutions before they protected victims.

1,032 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