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 5549261

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you for that, John. A lot of time was spent on the amendment on contributions to payments. It is fair to say that the Committee was critical of the pace at which contributions were being sought from the institutions. We worked hard and took a lot of evidence on that. We are satisfied with and will support amendment No 10 that would insert new clause 12A — 12A(1) to 12A(4) — because not seeking contributions from the institutions that did the most damage would not be justice, and that would not serve the public or this place. I will address the issue that has caused deep hurt and frustration among survivors and campaigners in the past 24 hours: the decision not to select an amendment —

— that would have removed the posthumous cut-off date —

— for redress payments.

OK. I know that it is not —

— in the group.

Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, I do not think that it is respectful to say that I know nothing about what goes on in the background.

As things stand, anyone who died before 29 September 2011 will remain excluded from redress. I have to say honestly that many people are devastated by that outcome. Overnight, I received a significant number of emails from individuals and families expressing profound disappointment and upset. For many campaigners, the Committee's amendment represented a real, major breakthrough. It was seen as recognition that survivors who suffered the same trauma as others should not be treated differently simply because they died before an arbitrary date. Removing the opportunity to debate that has caused real pain, because, for many families, this does not feel procedural; it feels personal.

I agree. It feels like another reminder that some of the people who are suffering will once again go unrecognised. After everything that survivors have endured, nobody in the Chamber should underestimate the impact of that decision. The frustration reflects a wider point that runs through the debate, which is that survivors are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for fairness and, in many cases, justice. As Linda said, they are also asking to be acknowledged. They seek a process that reflects the full scale of what happened to them and their families. That is why the amendments on transparency, publication of reports and cooperation beyond Northern Ireland are so important. Truth recovery cannot operate behind closed doors, nor can it stop at borders. If relevant evidence exists elsewhere, the amendments tabled by Gerry Carroll on cooperation with bodies outside Northern Ireland and recording failures to provide evidence are significant. Where institutions refuse to cooperate, survivors deserve to know that. I pay tribute to those who have worked hard to make the Bill a reality. Many staff from the Executive Office have been exemplary. They have come to the Committee week in, week out to give evidence and to support the Committee through the process. I acknowledge that. I especially thank Professor Leanne McCormick and Professor Sean O'Connell, the co-chairs of the independent panel, and the members of the Executive Office, who have worked tirelessly. The responsibility is now on all Members not simply to pass the legislation but to ensure that that legislation is worthy of the people whose experiences made it necessary. That means building an inquiry process that is thorough, transparent and genuinely centred on survivors. That is what the amendments seek to strengthen, and it is why they matter.

580 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