Paula Bradshaw
South Belfast · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“They were places where those who were vulnerable were concealed, young mothers were stripped of their babies and children were stripped of their identities. Let us be resolute in our remembrance of what happened behind the doors of those institutions.”
“At all stages, the Committee has set out its clear support for the legislation's overarching aims and principles, which are to establish a statutory public inquiry into the systemic failings associated with mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses between 1922 and 1995 and to create a statutory redress scheme for t…”
“Again, I refuse to call them "mother-and-baby homes", for we now know that there was nothing homely about them. What the Bill can and must do is offer a tangible declaration that the state accepts its responsibility.”
“As Chairperson of the Committee for the Executive Office, I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Final Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill.”
“Key points were also made in relation to redress: the need to ensure that the Executive Office introduces clear guidelines for the scheme as soon as practicable; the need for the Executive Office to widely communicate and promote the scheme to all victims and survivors, including those who live overseas; and the need for the Executive Off…”
“The First Minister and deputy First Minister tabled a number of amendments that gave effect to the Committee's intent across a number of clauses. In several instances, the Committee chose to withdraw its amendments in favour of the Ministers' wording, where that better reflected the broader book of the law.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,444 lines we hold for Paula Bradshaw, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 49.
“I beg to introduce the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill [NIA 44/22-27], which is a Bill to grant the Department for Infrastructure functions with respect to flags and emblems displayed in public places.”
“They have finally brought us to this place today, and our country must honour them. <BR /> <BR />In closing, in a personal capacity, I thank my fellow Committee members. I thank the Committee for the Executive Office team, and I want to read their names into the record: Nick Mitford, Sarah-Anne McKinley, Andrienne Magee, Neil Porter and, most recently, Trevor Allen. I thank the Bill Office, especially Stephen Orme, and the communications team at the Assembly for facilitating our consultation with the victims and survivors. Last but not least, I thank the departmental officials for their constructive engagement throughout the Bill's scrutiny stage.”
“Again, I refuse to call them "mother-and-baby homes", for we now know that there was nothing homely about them. What the Bill can and must do is offer a tangible declaration that the state accepts its responsibility. It provides a mechanism for accountability, a pathway for support and an official permanent record that the survivors were right and the system was wrong. <BR /> <BR />Members, as we cast our final votes on the Bill, let us do so in full acknowledgement of what the moment demands, and let us pass this not just as a matter of legislative procedure but as a pledge, a pledge that we will never again allow the vulnerable to be hidden away, a pledge that we will protect human rights above institutional reputations and, above all, a pledge to the survivors who have long walked a painful march for justice.”
“They relived their darkest and most personal moments so that future generations would know their truth, their experience would be acknowledged and those responsible would be held accountable. We owe them and every campaigner who joined them a debt of gratitude that we can never fully repay. Their courage has broken the silence and forced the Assembly to back them. <BR /> <BR />The Bill and the accompanying redress scheme are a necessary, though belated, acknowledgement of the state's failure. No financial compensation can undo the pain of a stolen childhood, a forced separation or a lifetime of carried shame. No legislation can hand back the years lost in a damp, cold institution such as a Magdalene laundry or the sterile isolation of a mother-and-baby institution.”
“At that stage, they had gone from office to office and from meeting to meeting, and, again, I will use the phrase that Eunan used on that day and that stuck with me. He said that they were drowning in tea and sympathy. I want to officially and wholeheartedly acknowledge them today, for they kept pushing back against the excuses for progress not being made, the bureaucratic loopholes and hoops that they had to jump through. Yet, they refused to let the issue go. They and many of the campaigners who are here today have carried the heavy burden of their trauma into the public space. They campaigned, they organised and they provided support to one another. They testified, and they demanded to be heard.”
“For decades, the state looked the other way. Society chose comfortable ignorance over uncomfortable truth, but the truth, no matter how deeply buried, has a way of rising to the light. <BR /> <BR />As I previously said, in the Gallery of the Chamber and watching online today there are many brave birth mothers, adult adoptees and supportive family members who have campaigned so hard to get to this point. It was not because those institutions of power woke up one day and decided to acknowledge the abuse and seek to remediate it. <BR /> <BR />As I said in a previous debate, I first met Oonagh McAleer, Mechelle Dillon and Eunan Duffy in 2016 when they came to my office to seek support for their campaign as part of the wider Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice group.”
“They were places where those who were vulnerable were concealed, young mothers were stripped of their babies and children were stripped of their identities. Let us be resolute in our remembrance of what happened behind the doors of those institutions. We now know that women and children were punished for the supposed crimes of being poor, unmarried or vulnerable. They have had to carry that stigma and shame ever since. We now know that names were changed, records hidden and the natural, sacred bond between mother and child treated as something to be severed and sold. That was an erasure of their identity, and how incredibly cruel it was. <BR /> <BR />We now know that the institutions operated in an atmosphere of fear. The pregnant women had to comply with a regime of harsh forced labour, emotional abuse and systemic neglect.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee for the Executive Office supports the Final Stage of the Bill. The Bill represents a long-awaited milestone for victims and survivors, recognising the harm that they endured and providing access to redress. <BR /> <BR />Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, I will make some remarks as an Alliance Party MLA. We stand at a profound and important crossroads in our history. As we reach the Final Stage of the Bill, we are not merely passing legislation; we are confronting a dark, long-cast shadow that has stained our national conscience for generations. The mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses were not accidental failures of our past; they were deliberate, institutionalised systems of cruelty.”
“Key points were also made in relation to redress: the need to ensure that the Executive Office introduces clear guidelines for the scheme as soon as practicable; the need for the Executive Office to widely communicate and promote the scheme to all victims and survivors, including those who live overseas; and the need for the Executive Office to expedite the necessary preparatory work for the harm-based individually assessed payment scheme that is due to follow. <BR /> <BR />I thank everyone who engaged with the Committee, the Committee team, the Bill Office and other business areas across the Assembly for their work on the Bill. I thank WAVE Trauma Centre, the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS), Adopt NI and the consultative forum, who supported the unique scrutiny of the Bill.”
“The key points from that report include the importance of ensuring that the inquiry adopt a modular approach to allow for institutions to be included in the redress scheme, where evidence presents itself; the need for the Executive Office to communicate clearly to victims and survivors that the institutions included in the redress scheme may be highlighted in light of the inquiry's findings; and the need to ensure that the recommendations contained in the truth recovery independent panel's final report, which will be published on 7 July, relating to the inquiry are considered and that they inform and influence the inquiry's work, once it is established.”
“That will help to ensure that, once the inquiry begins, it can fully examine and determine the facts relating to the institutions between 1922 and 1995. <BR /> <BR />The Committee made important recommendations throughout the Committee Stage that are reflected in the Committee's report.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee also welcomed the majority of amendments tabled to offer tidying-up alternatives to a number of Gerry Carroll's amendments that had been successful at Consideration Stage. Again, the Committee asked the Department to engage further with the Member on the technical wording and to consider how the amendments could be strengthened in line with the policy intent. While the Committee did not support Gerry Carroll's amendments at Further Consideration Stage, I recognise the work undertaken by the Member. <BR /> <BR />While significant progress has been made to reach this stage, further work remains to be done beyond Final Stage to ensure that an inquiry chair is appointed without delay.”
“The First Minister and deputy First Minister tabled a number of amendments that gave effect to the Committee's intent across a number of clauses. In several instances, the Committee chose to withdraw its amendments in favour of the Ministers' wording, where that better reflected the broader book of the law. That reflects the close working relationship between the Committee and the Department throughout the passage of the Bill, which ensured that amendments were strengthened in line with the policy intent and that the language was aligned appropriately with other provisions in the Bill. I thank the departmental officials for the way in which they engaged with the Committee, adopting a constructive approach to help deliver the best possible outcomes for victims and survivors.”
“The Committee amendment broadens the eligibility for redress payments by addressing the issue of the posthumous cut-off date. It ensures that individuals who may previously have been excluded may now potentially be included in the scope of the redress scheme, therefore widening access for survivors and their family members. In particular, the amendment responds positively and directly to the concerns raised by victims and survivors, promoting a more inclusive, fairer approach. It helps to ensure that entitlement is not limited by a restrictive date, particularly in circumstances where the harms in question were known to the state over a much longer period.”
“As I said, although the Committee's amendment to remove the posthumous cut-off date was not selected for debate at Consideration Stage, an alternative amendment was successful at Further Consideration Stage, with the Assembly agreeing on a revised date of 28 April 1953. That date was chosen by the Committee because it reflects the posthumous eligibility cut-off date used in the redress scheme for survivors of historical institutional abuse. The date was adopted on the basis that it marks the point at which concerns were first formally raised by the Northern Ireland Government's Ministry of Home Affairs through a memorandum on conditions in such institutions and were therefore known to the state.”
“Although an amendment was not selected for debate at Consideration Stage, a revised date of 28 April 1953, which was tabled as an amendment by the Committee, was agreed by the House at Further Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />Members will recall that a consistent theme that emerged from the Committee's call for evidence was the strong opposition to the proposed posthumous cut-off date of 29 September 2011. Throughout Committee Stage, victims and survivors consistently advocated its removal in order to ensure a more inclusive approach. The exclusion of posthumous claims prior to 2011 was described as "arbitrary" and "unjustified", as it would create harmful hierarchies among victims and survivors.”
“Those contributions were invaluable. The testimony that we heard from victims and survivors did not simply inform our work but shaped and strengthened it. <BR /> <BR />The Committee unanimously supported the Bill in principle and used the Committee Stage to develop amendments to strengthen transparency, enhance survivor involvement, improve accountability and ensure robust Assembly oversight, including requiring the publication of the inquiry's terms of reference within six months; broadening statutory consultation requirements; amending provisions to ensure the explicit inclusion of women who became pregnant while in workhouses; ensuring multidisciplinary membership of the inquiry panel; strengthening the requirements around advisory panel consultation; extending appeal periods; enhancing transparency around restriction orders; introducing penalties for breaches; requiring Ministers to publish a post-inquiry scheme for pursuing financial contributions from institutions where systemic failings are identified in the public inquiry; strengthening public access, witness support and core participant arrangements throughout through amendments to the rule-making power; and removing the posthumous cut-off date of 29 September 2011.”
“At all stages, the Committee has set out its clear support for the legislation's overarching aims and principles, which are to establish a statutory public inquiry into the systemic failings associated with mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses between 1922 and 1995 and to create a statutory redress scheme for those directly affected. <BR /> <BR />The Committee undertook extensive, trauma-informed engagement throughout its scrutiny, receiving 91 written submissions, oral evidence from 24 organisations and many detailed briefings from departmental officials. In addition to formal evidence sessions, the Committee held stakeholder familiarisation events, round-table discussions across Northern Ireland and dedicated sessions for victims and survivors, supported by advocacy and well-being services.”
“As we move towards the public inquiry, I give a commitment that the Committee will continue to work with you in the time ahead through our role in scrutinising the delegated legislation, engaging on memorialisation and access to records and making any necessary recommendations for the successor Executive Office Committee to take forward in the next Assembly mandate, including on the individually assessed payment scheme. <BR /> <BR />I thank the junior Ministers for bringing the Bill to the Assembly today for its Final Stage. I also thank the Committee team, my fellow Committee members and other Members of the House for the respect shown and the quality of debate throughout the Bill's passage.”
“As Chairperson of the Committee for the Executive Office, I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Final Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill. I welcome the victims and survivors and their family members who have come to Parliament Buildings today, as well as those watching online. Today is a huge milestone for victims and survivors, many of whom have waited decades for recognition of the harm and suffering that they endured. <BR /> <BR />I put on record the Committee's thanks to everyone who gave evidence to the Committee and continued to engage with us throughout the process. In particular, I thank the victims and survivors who appeared before the Committee and engaged courageously and honestly with members on the Bill.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Six months ago, my party colleague Sian Mulholland approached Clerking and Member Support (CAMS) in this Building and asked that safeguarding training be provided to MLAs so that they know exactly what to do when they are presented with information. Can the Speaker's Office please chase that up? Given the circumstances, we all need either training or refresher training on what we should do in those circumstances.”
“In comparison, even the simple question of whether specialist support services similar to those accessible by victims of historical institutional abuse and mother-and-baby institutions will be put in place for victims and survivors of clerical child sexual abuse remains unanswered. <BR /> <BR />We have to be clear that a failure to see action in the area a full year on from receipt of the research will be looked on as —”
“They and we need to hear how the First Minister and the deputy First Minister have decided to proceed, including whether there will be a public inquiry. Victims and survivors have made the case for such an investigation to look at the extent of systemic institutional cover-up, the practice of the movement of perpetrators, the failures to report abuse and the use of secrecy agreements. What about the historical policing response, including refusals to take statements and the lack of insight into institutional complicity? That has to be interrogated as well. <BR /> <BR />Other questions remain, such as whether regulatory changes will be put in place to provide independent oversight of Church safeguarding measures to stop abuse happening now and in the future, because we know that such abuse is not just historical but continues today.”
“On 27 January this year, we debated a motion on the matter in the Chamber, and assurances were given that we would see progress shortly. At the end of May, the Committee for the Executive Office demanded the release of the reports, but we have not seen them. My most recent public call for their publication was just three weeks ago. <BR /> <BR />Frankly, victims and survivors have waited long enough. They have made clear their desire to see the publicly funded reports published. It is outrageous that they should have to wait a second longer. Endless delay does nothing for victims and survivors, who should be central to the process. That is hardly the trauma-informed approach that we in the Assembly have promised them.”
“This time last year, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister received research reports on clerical child sexual abuse. Unfortunately, 12 months on, questions remain about what has been done with the research and what actions have been or are being taken. Last week's revelations are only the most recent in a series that shows the clear and obvious necessity for urgent and transparent action on safeguarding in faith-based settings. <BR /> <BR />Members will recall that the Executive Office commissioned three separate reports to examine victims' experiences, historical record-keeping and safeguarding practices in religious organisations. I am not coming at the issue as a result of last week's revelations.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Can he outline how he would prove fraud when there is no fee framework?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I have grappled with the policy that set up the redress scheme. The HIA redress scheme was a harm-based scheme, and the applicants had to demonstrate the harm that they experienced. The Committee heard in its evidence sessions that the departmental officials deliberated on whether to go down the admissions route or use the harm-based approach. You are right: if we were to include in the scheme the pregnant women who went through the workhouses, it would put an undue burden on the women, girls and adult adoptees who went through the institutions, so it was a balancing act. The Committee got legal advice on whether it could be challenged, and, in many ways, they are policy decisions. While everything can be challenged in the courts, the Department is on safe ground.”
“I thank the junior Minister for giving way. The date in 1953 that we came up with relates to inspections of children's homes. Does the junior Minister agree that some of the pregnant girls who were admitted to mother-and-baby institutions were also children and that the state should have had a duty of care towards them to ensure that the institutions that they were in were fit for purpose and that they did not experience abuse or harm?”
“I thank the junior Minister for giving way. I was speaking to a number of the victims and survivors during the break, and some of them are genuinely concerned and distressed that pregnant women and girls who went through the workhouses are not included. Can you give a commitment tonight that, in the instructions to the inquiry panel, consideration will be given at a future stage to those women and girls being included?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I draw his attention to the large ledger that the Committee saw when we visited PRONI headquarters. It was a huge book that gave all the details. One column stated why people were in institutions. The vast majority were there because of "destitution". That was the only record, you will recall, Mr Gaston. How could the officials who administer the redress scheme be in any way able to differentiate between people who were pregnant and those who were not? Very few records related to pregnancy.”
“<BR /> <BR />In closing, I thank the campaigners who worked with me over the past few weeks to try to change the focus of the Further Consideration Stage.”
“I genuinely hope that a mechanism can be found to allow those who had loved ones who were admitted due to pregnancy to be included under a future iteration or phase of the redress scheme. I think that the individually assessed redress scheme should cover those pregnant women and girls who were admitted to workhouses. However, as it stands, the scheme would be open to too many applications and it would be extremely difficult to assess. We have heard evidence from departmental officials and PRONI about how difficult it is going to be under the current system to access records in order to assess whether admission took place. What we need to do right now is focus on the adult adoptees and their children who went through the mother-and-baby institutions.”
“The fundamental issue is that the redress scheme is based on admission. Women and men, the latter not always pregnant, were admitted to workhouses for a wide range of issues, including destitution and healthcare. Under the proposed redress scheme, it is not possible to distinguish those who were admitted for one from the other. That is why the Committee looked at the issue in great detail. We took a lot of evidence and spent a lot of time grappling with it, but we have left it to the public inquiry to make those recommendations to the redress scheme to expedite the inclusion of any institution, body or facility where the evidence presents itself. The Committee suggested that the inquiry should be conducted in a modular form so that the inquiry panel does not have to wait until the end to get additional people into the eligibility column.”
“Thank you so much. She is the Labour Party TD in the Dáil who has introduced the Civil Liability (Child Sexual Abuse Proceedings Against Unincorporated Bodies of Persons) Bill. It is about compelling religious orders to share in contributions towards redress, such as the HIA redress scheme. They have evaded payment and hid behind legal and financial barriers in not coming forward, and Executive Office officials should watch closely what they do in the Republic to force the hand of those religious orders. <BR /> <BR />Turning to the amendments in the name of Gerry Carroll, I fully understand and am fully sympathetic to them. He is trying to create provisions whereby a person who was admitted to one of the workhouses and then fell pregnant should be eligible for redress.”
“I totally respect their democratic right to do that and know the reasons that they are opposed to the new posthumous date, but I appeal to the DUP not to vote against our Committee amendment today. To them I say: you can make your views known in your contributions, but please abstain. Please do not put the amendment to a vote. I believe that we have the numbers in the Chamber to pass the amendment, and I implore the DUP not to force a Division, for it will cause unnecessary pain and hurt to those who are in the Gallery and who are watching online. <BR /> <BR />Before I move on to Gerry Carroll's amendments, I draw the Executive Office officials' attention to the Bill that Ivana Bachik — I might have mispronounced that.”
“The redress scheme, whether applied for directly or as a posthumous payment, is there to acknowledge the trauma, which, as I said, will have attacked every fibre of their being, every day since their experience in those institutions. It will have shaped the rest of their lives. We need to look at it in the round: not just at what happened in the institutions but at how that followed them after that. For me, it would be simply intolerable to draw a line between those who are eligible and those who are not. <BR /> <BR />At the Committee meeting at which we discussed this amendment and our previous amendment, the DUP representatives voted against it. Their votes are recorded in the Committee Stage report and the relevant minutes.”
“<BR /> <BR />On a slightly lighter note, I had a conversation with a birth mother who was able to get her child back and who went on to marry the father of her child. That is a unique outcome. She had two further children and said that she did not feel that she should be eligible for a redress payment. I said to her that her children got a different version of her as their mother than the one who they might have had, had she not experienced the trauma of living and giving birth in one of the institutions and then had to fight for years to get her child back. On reflection, she agreed. <BR /> <BR />That is why the posthumous date matters.”
“<BR /> <BR />Those birth mothers who are still living have been able to fill in and augment for me the picture of how their lives were irreparably changed. The Committee heard from one birth mother who said that she was afraid to take her subsequent children to a GP whenever they were sick for fear that she would be blamed for their illness, deemed to be an unfit mother and have her other children taken away from her. Imagine having to live with such a lifelong mistrust of people in authority — in the healthcare profession, for example — and positions of influence in our communities. The trauma will have lived in every fibre in their body. In every decision that they have taken as a mother, the trauma will live with them forever.”
“I have been working with the campaigners for the past 10 years, and I know that they have been campaigning since long before that. I do not have any statistical evidence for this, but I will make an observation from my engagement with those campaigners and hearing their personal stories. To pick up on the point from Mark's email about his mother dying at 54 years of age, I have spoken to many adult adoptees whose mothers died at a relatively young age. In my opinion, those premature deaths were a direct consequence of the trauma that those mothers experienced in the institutions and the lifelong pain that they have had to endure having had their children taken away from them by such a cruel and heartless system. It is my opinion that the existing posthumous date was not based on trauma-informed policymaking.”
“Mr McCollum included a photograph of his mother in his email. His mother was called Kathleen McGuire. He wrote:”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, I will read into the record part of an email that MLAs received in the last few days from Mr Mark McCollum. It is such a powerful email, yet it is drafted in such easy language that it allows us all to grasp the full impact that such institutions had on birth mothers and adult adoptees and the cultural and societal norms that existed at that time.”
“In so doing, we wanted to send a signal to the Speaker's Office, the Executive Office and the Bill Office that, for us, the issue was not going to go away. We were willing to work with anyone and everyone to get a fresh date that worked and on which there was broad consensus. I thank all the victims and survivors who have engaged with me over the past few weeks to ensure that they understood the process and why we as a Committee were moving forward with a new date of 28 April 1953. People will know that I did not want to see a posthumous date in the Bill at all. As far as I am concerned, an acknowledgement redress scheme based on admission should acknowledge every pregnant woman and girl and the children who experienced abuse in such institutions.”
“The Committee looks forward to the legislation moving one step closer to completing its legislative passage through the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />I will now make a number of remarks in my capacity as an MLA. I am so pleased that Committee amendment No 11 was selected for debate today. I firmly believe that immeasurable hurt and pain will be caused to the birth mothers, the adult adoptees and their families should the original posthumous date of 29 September 2011 remain in the Bill when it passes into law. Straight after the Consideration Stage debate, along with my Alliance Party colleague Stewart Dickson, I submitted a placeholder amendment for a fresh posthumous date of 1 January 1996 to the Bill Office.”
“In particular, the Committee requested further detail on how the truth recovery redress scheme would differentiate between individuals placed in workhouses for reasons other than pregnancy and those who were placed there due to being pregnant. A response was received from Ministers this morning that raised several concerns about the practicality, fairness and legislative competence of Mr Carroll's amendments. Given that it was received only this morning, the Committee has not been able to discuss or agree a Committee position on those matters. Hopefully, the junior Ministers can speak to the issues in more detail and provide clarity on any concerns raised during the debate. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I thank again the departmental officials, the Committee team and the Bill Clerk for their work in advance of Further Consideration Stage.”
“The Committee wrote to the Department on 3 June 2026 about those amendments and asked the Executive Office to engage further with the Member on the technical wording and to consider how the amendments might be strengthened in line with the policy intent. The Committee held an additional meeting on Tuesday 16 June 2026, at which TEO officials shared the amendments ahead of their being formally tabled. The Committee welcomed and appreciated the responsiveness to that request. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also wrote to the First Minister and deputy First Minister to seek their views on Gerry Carroll's new amendments to clause 32 and how they would operate in practice if selected for debate and made by the Assembly.”
“That will result in improved fairness and widen access to redress for victims and survivors and their families. In particular, the amendment responds directly to the concerns raised by victims and survivors, thereby promoting a more inclusive and fair approach. It helps to ensure that entitlement is not arbitrarily limited by a restrictive date, especially in circumstances where the harms in question were known to the state for a much longer period. <BR /> <BR />The Committee welcomes the majority of the amendments in the group, which were tabled to offer tidying-up refinements or alternatives to a number of Gerry Carroll's successful amendments at Consideration Stage.”
“Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice also proposed the date as an alternative, should the posthumous cut-off date not be entirely removed, as it aligns with the April 1953 precedent set by the historical institutional abuse inquiry. <BR /> <BR />The Committee formally agreed the amendment at its meeting on Tuesday 16 June 2026. The DUP opposed the change in the posthumous date, and it is for those members to set out the reasons for their position. The amendment tabled by the Committee strengthens the clause by broadening the eligibility for a redress payment. By addressing the issue of a posthumous cut-off date, the amendment ensures that individuals who may have been excluded previously are now potentially included in the scope of the redress scheme.”
“As the Executive Office did not subsequently table an amendment on the posthumous date, the Committee considered that it had an obligation to table such an amendment itself. <BR /> <BR />The Committee chose the date because it reflects the posthumous eligibility cut-off date used in the redress scheme for survivors of historical institutional abuse (HIA). The date was adopted on the basis that it marks the point at which concerns were first formally raised by the Northern Ireland Government's Ministry of Home Affairs through a memorandum about conditions in such institutions, which were therefore known to the state.”
“<BR /> <BR />Following the Committee's amendment to remove the posthumous cut-off date not being selected for debate at Consideration Stage, the Committee sought, ahead of Further Consideration Stage, legal advice on the robustness of an amendment that would change the date of 29 September 2011 to 28 April 1953. On the basis of that legal advice, the Committee was confident that an amendment to clause 32(6)(b) to change the posthumous date from 29 September 2011 to 28 April 1953 would be legally secure. Noting the Speaker's remarks in the Assembly on Tuesday 2 June, the Committee wrote to the Department on 3 June to ask Ministers to consider tabling an amendment to that effect.”
“I will first address the Committee amendment in the group and then summarise the Committee's engagement on the other amendments. <BR /> <BR />The Committee tabled one amendment — amendment No 11 — to clause 32, which sets out who is entitled to a redress payment. It is an extremely important provision in this significant Bill. I remind the House that the response to the Committee's call for evidence demonstrated strong opposition to the proposed posthumous cut-off date of 29 September 2011. Throughout Committee Stage, victims and survivors consistently advocated either an earlier date or the removal of the cut-off date entirely to ensure a more inclusive approach. The exclusion of posthumous claims prior to 2011 was described as arbitrary and unjustified, creating harmful hierarchies among victims and survivors.”