Sinéad McLaughlin
Foyle · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“After decades of silence, being believed matters; having your experience acknowledged matters; and knowing that society finally accepts the truth matters deeply. That is what, I hope, the legislation provides. <BR /> <BR />Throughout the process, I wanted to ensure that, where we could strengthen the Bill, we did.”
“Today is an important day because it is a day of accountability. I welcome to the Gallery all of the birth mothers, all of the adult adoptees and all of their family members. I thank everyone who has journeyed with you and loved you throughout the process.”
“As time passed, I believed that the original figure no longer reflected the recognition as strongly as it should have done, so I was pleased that Members from across the Chamber supported that amendment.”
“Behind every clause is a person; behind every amendment is someone's lived experience; and behind every decision that we make in the Chamber are people who have spent years carrying the consequences of decisions that they never made. That is why the legislation is so important.”
“It is often Members who receive the attention in debates such as this, but good legislation depends on the dedication and expertise of many people working quietly in the background. Today, we complete the legislative journey, but we should not pretend that justice begins and ends with the passing of a Bill.”
“We are here because survivors refused to accept that their stories would remain untold. We are here because they never stopped asking for what should never have been so difficult to receive in the first place: recognition, dignity and justice.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,912 lines we hold for Sinéad McLaughlin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 39.
“I hope that they will see a society finally prepared to acknowledge the wrong that was done to them; a society prepared to listen; a society prepared to recognise their suffering; and a society committed to ensuring that what happened will never be forgotten or repeated. The Bill cannot change the past, but it can mark another important step on the journey towards justice. For that reason, the SDLP is proud to support it at Final Stage.”
“It is often Members who receive the attention in debates such as this, but good legislation depends on the dedication and expertise of many people working quietly in the background. Today, we complete the legislative journey, but we should not pretend that justice begins and ends with the passing of a Bill. The redress scheme must now be delivered with compassion, the public inquiry must continue its work, survivors must continue to be listened to, and we must continue to seek answers to any unanswered questions. The responsibility does not end this afternoon; if anything, it becomes greater. <BR /> <BR />When survivors look back on today, I hope that they will see more than another piece of legislation passing through the Assembly.”
“To those in the Bill Office, thank you for the support, expertise and professionalism that you have shown through every stage of the Bill. I acknowledge Paula as Chair of the Committee and, indeed, all my Committee colleagues. It was an example of how, cross party, we can work together to deliver legislation that supports those who need it most: victims, survivors and families from across all communities.”
“I do not want to name individuals, but change happened because you — all of you — refused to give up. I also acknowledge the work that has taken place behind the scenes. In particular, I have enjoyed working with Marie Breen Smyth, as she sensitively supported and advocated on behalf of every victim and survivor. I also thank the departmental officials: you were outstanding in the work that you did on the Bill. I also acknowledge the Ministers: your contributions have been considered and welcome.”
“As time passed, I believed that the original figure no longer reflected the recognition as strongly as it should have done, so I was pleased that Members from across the Chamber supported that amendment. I hope that survivors saw that vote for what it was: a genuine attempt by the Assembly to strengthen the recognition in the legislation. <BR /> <BR />None of us has reached that alone today. That is why I thank every survivor who found the courage to come forward and tell their story. Many did so knowing how painful it would be, and many relived experiences that no one should ever have endured. The courage that they have shown has changed this society. I also thank the families, campaign groups and advocates who have stood beside survivors over many years and never allowed the issue to slip from public attention.”
“After decades of silence, being believed matters; having your experience acknowledged matters; and knowing that society finally accepts the truth matters deeply. That is what, I hope, the legislation provides. <BR /> <BR />Throughout the process, I wanted to ensure that, where we could strengthen the Bill, we did. That is why I tabled the amendment to increase the standard payment from £10,000 to £12,000. I never viewed that amendment simply in financial terms, because no amount of compensation will make up for what survivors endured, no figure could ever reflect their pain, and the loss of the lasting impact that the institutions had on so many lives will never be overcome, but compensation is still an important recognition of the harm that was suffered. It is one way of acknowledging that people were profoundly failed.”
“Behind every clause is a person; behind every amendment is someone's lived experience; and behind every decision that we make in the Chamber are people who have spent years carrying the consequences of decisions that they never made. That is why the legislation is so important. It is not that any Act of the Assembly can rewrite history, because it cannot. We cannot undo what happened, give people back the years that were taken from them or remove the hurt that so many survivors still carry, but we can acknowledge that what happened was wrong. We can recognise the profound harm that was caused, and, as a society, we can say that those who were failed have finally been heard. Sometimes, recognition can be as important as anything else.”
“We are here because survivors refused to accept that their stories would remain untold. We are here because they never stopped asking for what should never have been so difficult to receive in the first place: recognition, dignity and justice. For many of us, today's debate marks the end of the legislative process, but, for survivors, I hope that it marks another step forward. It is not the end of their journey, because there is still work to do, but it is an important step nonetheless. <BR /> <BR />One thing has stayed with me throughout the passage of the Bill. Every time that we debated amendments or discussed technical aspects of the legislation, I found myself thinking about the people behind those discussions.”
“Today is an important day because it is a day of accountability. I welcome to the Gallery all of the birth mothers, all of the adult adoptees and all of their family members. I thank everyone who has journeyed with you and loved you throughout the process. <BR /> <BR />After a long legislative process, we have reached the Final Stage of the Bill. There has been detailed scrutiny, with difficult conversations and thoughtful debate along the way, and that is as it should be. However, before the Bill completes its passage through the Assembly, it is worth reminding ourselves why we began the journey in the first place. We are not here simply to pass legislation; we are here because of the women, children and families whose lives were changed for ever by mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses.”
“We have also been clear that our employment law should recognise that workers are people first, with families and everything that goes with that. They have families, and they face life's joys and its deepest sorrows, and our laws should reflect that reality with compassion. The amended regulations do exactly that. They ensure continuity, remove uncertainty around legal barriers and give effect to what was always intended when the legislation was put in place. I thank the Minister and, as mentioned by Phillip Brett, the Minister in the previous mandate, for working towards what we have today. The SDLP is happy to support the regulations.”
“<BR /> <BR />The regulations simply remove an expiry provision that was included when the original scheme was introduced as an interim arrangement. At that time, it was always intended that those provisions would be temporary while the longer-term framework was put in place, and now we have reached that point. Removing the expiry clause ensures that there is no interruption to statutory parental bereavement pay and that everyone who is entitled to that support can continue to receive it. It is a small legislative change, but it provides certainty for employers, the Department and, most important, bereaved parents. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP has consistently supported stronger employment rights and workplace protections.”
“At first glance, the regulations appear to be highly technical, but behind them is something profoundly important. They are about ensuring that parents who experience the unimaginable loss of a child do not lose access to the support that, the Assembly has already agreed, they should receive. <BR /> <BR />None of us wants to imagine being put in that position. The death of a child is one of the greatest tragedies that any family could experience. While no amount of leave or financial support can ever ease that grief, we have a responsibility to ensure that parents are given the time and dignity to begin processing such an unimaginable loss without the immediate pressure of returning to work. That is what parental bereavement leave and pay are designed to do.”
“The Northern Ireland Civil Service should be there, proudly demonstrating that those values matter. I hope that the Minister shows leadership, reverses that action and ensures that the Civil Service once again stands alongside our communities, whom it exists to serve.”
“I ask Minister O'Dowd to look at that decision again and, please, reverse it. <BR /> <BR />Finally, this is about the kind of society that we want to build. Government should never be used to impose a particular moral or religious world view on everyone else. Our role is to serve citizens equally regardless of who they are or whom they love. Too often, in this place, we have seen equality treated as something to be resisted rather than embraced. We should have moved beyond that by now. LGBTQ+ people are part of every community across Northern Ireland. They contribute to our economy, our public services and our civic life. They deserve to know that their Civil Service stands with them, not that it steps back when doing so becomes politically difficult. <BR /> <BR />Pride has always been about visibility, dignity and inclusion.”
“However, that appears to rest largely on a High Court judgement in England involving Northumbria Police. That judgement is not binding here. Northern Ireland has its own legal framework and its own equality obligations. For years, the Northern Ireland Civil Service took part in Pride because it recognised that it was an inclusive employer, committed to supporting all its staff and demonstrating those values publicly. Nothing has changed fundamentally in Northern Ireland to justify abandoning that position. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, accountability matters, as we know. The Civil Service does not decide government policy; Ministers do. The Minister of Finance has responsibility for the Northern Ireland Civil Service. This is ultimately a policy decision and, with that, comes political responsibility.”
“I want to speak about a deeply disappointing and completely unnecessary decision. Last weekend, Dublin celebrated Pride with the participation of every Irish government Department. More remarkably, last weekend, Pride was celebrated in Hungary. They celebrated diversity, equality and inclusion in the face of growing challenges, yet in Belfast — in Northern Ireland — the Civil Service has quietly withdrawn from Pride without discussion or debate. That sends an entirely wrong message at the wrong moment in time. <BR /> <BR />I want to make three points. First, the legal justification simply does not stand up to scrutiny. The Civil Service has pointed to what it describes as:”
“That is how we create safer communities, how we reduce offending and how we build a justice system that works not only for those in custody but for the whole of society. For those reasons, the SDLP will support amendment No 96 and oppose amendment No 97.”
“<BR /> <BR />At a time when our prisons face significant challenges with rehabilitation, staffing pressures, overcrowding and safety, I am not convinced that the amendment addresses a pressing operational problem. Instead, I feel that it risks importing another culture war debate into legislation, when its is careful judgement and practical decision-making that are required. The people working in our prison system need flexibility to respond to individual circumstances. They need the ability to make decisions that protect everyone in custody. Blanket rules may make for simple political arguments, but they do not always work as good policy. <BR /> <BR />Our focus should be on ensuring that our prisons are safe, that people are treated with dignity and that rehabilitation remains at the heart of our justice system.”
“<BR /> <BR />Beyond the legal arguments, there is a broader point to make, and it is that amendment No 97 appears to focus on a single scenario, when, in reality, prisons are complex places. Prison authorities deal with a much wider range of complex and challenging situations. The responsibility of prison governors is to ensure the safety, dignity and welfare of everyone in their care. Decisions should be informed by evidence, risk assessment and professional expertise. I believe that they are, so we should support the Prison Service and those who work in it in doing their job. Politicians in the Chamber are not better placed to make those decisions than the professionals in whom we put so much trust and who manage our prison system every day.”
“That is precisely why I am concerned by an amendment that would impose a blanket legislative approach on an area in which nuance and flexibility are essential. <BR /> <BR />Northern Ireland is operating in an evolving legal environment. The Equality Commission has acknowledged the ongoing legal uncertainty following the For Women Scotland judgement and has sought further legal clarity before issuing definitive guidance. In those circumstances, it seems premature to legislate in such a prescriptive way before the work has concluded and before the wider legal position here has been settled. It is also worth remembering that Northern Ireland's equality framework is different from that operating in Great Britain. The Equality Act 2010 does not generally apply here, and that distinction matters.”
“Rather, the public interest is served when people are given the best possible chance to reintegrate and find stability and thus avoid reoffending. If we genuinely want safer communities, fewer victims and lower levels of reoffending, we should support the practical measures that will help make that happen. For those reasons, we will support amendment No 96. <BR /> <BR />I turn to amendment No 97, which the SDLP cannot support. Prison accommodation decisions are among the most sensitive and complex decisions that the prison authorities are required to make. They involve the balancing of rights, safeguarding concerns, welfare concerns and individual circumstances and require careful assessment and professional judgement.”
“Often, the people involved are vulnerable and on support medications that they need immediately. It is also about finding work and, hopefully, reconnecting with family and community support, the ground for that having been laid in advance of release. <BR /> <BR />It is about giving people a genuine opportunity to move forward, which is what the amendment seeks to support. It is important to be clear that it is not about reducing sentences or weakening accountability. It is not about being soft on crime; it is about being smart on crime. In reality, every person who successfully rebuilds their life after prison is one less victim of crime in the future. The public interest is not served when people leave custody and immediately face barriers to support.”
“Under the current arrangements, someone can be released on a Friday evening or before a bank holiday with little or no access to support. We heard some of the figures from Paul Frew last night. The number of releases on a Friday evening is incredible. No housing support, no healthcare, no addiction services, no benefits advice and no employment support or probation services until days later: that simply does not make sense. <BR /> <BR />If someone leaves prison with nowhere to stay, no access to support and no way of getting help until Monday morning, it is not surprising that things can and do go wrong. We often talk about rehabilitation as if it is something abstract, but rehabilitation is about practical things. It is about having somewhere safe to sleep. It is about being able to access healthcare in a timely fashion.”
“I have seen that first-hand on many occasions. My office on Spencer Road in Derry is next door to a bail hostel. Often, people are placed in that hostel over the weekend without support and maybe without medication. There are no doctors on call, so they can end up in A&E. Complete and utter chaos can be set upon them, which does not give them the chance that they need. People are often placed outside the area where they lived or were brought up, and they have no connections where they are placed. Those people are so vulnerable and can be preyed on in such situations. It is therefore really important that amendment No 96 be supported across the House. It can make the difference between rebuilding a life and returning to the old patterns that ultimately lead back into the justice system.”
“The SDLP will support amendment No 96 and oppose amendment No 97. <BR /> <BR />On amendment No 96, the Chamber should ask itself a simple question: are we setting people up to succeed when they leave prison, or are we setting them up to fail? Rehabilitation begins not the week after someone is released but the moment they walk through the prison gates. For many people leaving custody, the first few hours and days are critical, often making the difference between reconnecting with support services and falling back into the crisis that took them into prison in the first place.”
“For many families, this is the final opportunity to see their loved ones' experiences recognised through a redress scheme. The people whom they are speaking about cannot speak for themselves; they rely on others to tell their stories and to make the case that their experiences matter. I believe that, today, we have an opportunity to respond to that. We cannot undo what happened or get the years that they lost back for people, but we can ensure that those who died before vindication are not excluded from that acknowledgement. For that reason, I will support amendment No 11, and I encourage Members right across the House to do the same.”
“However, we also have to ask ourselves these questions: what message would be sent if we knowingly left people outside the scheme who experienced exactly the same injustices as those who will qualify? What message would it send to families who have spent years carrying those stories? What message would it send to relatives who have campaigned not only for themselves but for their parents, grandparents and siblings who did not live long enough to receive acknowledgement in their lifetime? <BR /> <BR />This is not a political issue or an issue that divides communities. Women, girls and families from every background were affected, and there is a shared responsibility on all of us to ensure that the legislation reflects that reality.”
“It has been about ensuring that the shame and stigma attached to those women and girls is finally lifted and placed where it belongs, and it has also been about ensuring that people are not forgotten. That is why amendment No 11 matters. It is not simply changing a date in legislation; it is about recognising that the passage of time does not lessen the harm that was done and that somebody's experience does not become less significant because they died before an arbitrary date in a Bill. It is also about recognising that the families who have fought for years on behalf of deceased relatives deserve to see those relatives included in the process. <BR /> <BR />I know that there will be discussion about cost, and, of course, cost matters. Public money matters.”
“There is another group of people, however, that we need to think about today: those who did not live long enough to see this day, to hear an apology, to see an inquiry established and to see the state finally acknowledge what happened to them. For many families, the original posthumous eligibility date felt deeply unfair, not because they were seeking special treatment or looking for something different but because they simply wanted their loved ones to be recognised alongside everyone else's. I understand that, because this process has never been solely about compensation. If it had been, I do not believe that so many people would have campaigned for so long. The process has always been about acknowledgement and ensuring that what happened is recognised.”
“We have heard about children and families whose lives were changed forever by what happened in those institutions.”
“We have heard about women who were judged rather than supported, women who were hidden away and women who were made to feel that they had done something wrong rather than that something wrong had been done to them.”
“A further legal paper was attached to the letter. At this stage, after everything that survivors have been through and the length of time that they have already waited, we should be careful to ensure that the legislation remains robust and workable. I want to hear the precise details of the issues with Gerry Carroll's amendments in the junior Minister's response to the debate. It is important that we get that detail. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 11 seeks to address a genuine gap in the legislation. Throughout the process, we have rightly spoken about the survivors. We have listened to their testimony and heard about the lives that have been shaped by shame, secrecy and stigma.”
“However, just after 1.00 pm today, we received a letter from the First Minister and deputy First Minister raising concerns about the legal workability of the amendments, the ability to verify their eligibility and the potential implications for the legislative competence of the Bill. Specifically, the First Minister and deputy First Minister stated:”
“When the Bill was introduced, one of the concerns repeatedly raised by the survivors and their families was about the people who had suffered the same experiences, carried the same hurt and lived in the same institutions but did not live long enough to see this process. The concern has been raised time and time again throughout the passage of the legislation, and it is important for us to listen to it. <BR /> <BR />Before I turn to amendment No 11, I will briefly address the amendments tabled by Gerry Carroll to clause 32. The amendments are very well intentioned and motivated by a desire to ensure that nobody who suffered injustice is excluded or is not recognised, and I share that objective.”
“Equally, the amendments that relate to reporting arrangements and transparency will help ensure that the inquiry can operate independently, while maintaining public trust in the process. <BR /> <BR />For survivors and families, the inquiry is not simply an administrative exercise. For many, it represents the first genuine opportunity to have their experiences properly heard and examined. That places a significant responsibility on us all to ensure that the inquiry is given the tools that it needs to do its work thoroughly and effectively. While no inquiry can undo the hurt that was caused, it can help establish the truth, provide answers for families and contribute to further understanding of what happened. That is why it is so important and why we will support all the amendments in group 1.”
“It will provide an opportunity to establish the facts, to hear directly from those affected and to examine how institutions and public authorities failed some of the most vulnerable people in society. <BR /> <BR />The amendments in group 1 are largely technical and tidy up the wording in the Bill. They are, however, important for ensuring that the inquiry can carry out its work effectively. In particular, I welcome the provisions to strengthen the inquiry's ability to seek evidence and information, including from organisations and individuals outside of Northern Ireland. If the inquiry is to command public confidence, it must be able to follow the evidence wherever it exists.”
“I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to the group 1 amendments, and I welcome the victims and survivors who have joined us today in the Public Gallery, as well as those who are following the debate online. <BR /> <BR />At the heart of the Bill is the establishment of a public inquiry into one of the darkest chapters in our society's history. For far too long, the experiences of the women, girls and children who were affected by mother-and-baby institutions and Magdalene laundries were overlooked completely, dismissed and simply ignored. Many survivors spent years seeking answers and acknowledgement and waiting for the state and wider society to listen to them. <BR /> <BR />The inquiry that will be established by the legislation is an important step towards addressing that legacy.”
“Those who shared their experiences with me showed enormous courage. I ask Members to support the motion today. However, more importantly, we need action, Minister.”
“I look forward to the Minister addressing some of those concerns in his remarks. <BR /> <BR />Why are there such significant differences in the technology and standards between NHS provision and the private clinics? Nobody should feel that their chances of success depend on whether they can afford private treatment. People should not be left to navigate a fragmented system, where the information is not properly shared between providers, and there is little support for those transitioning from NHS treatment to private clinics.”
“— and psychological impact of infertility and fertility treatment also deserves greater recognition. A lot of couples have to go to counselling after their experiences, and that too is very emotionally draining. The people whom I met spoke about their anxiety, stress and trauma. One individual described how a mental health assessment failed to take a trauma-informed approach and thus had a significant impact on them during an already difficult process. The process puts a strain on couples and their relationship, and we cannot separate fertility treatment from mental health because they are intrinsically linked. The stark difference between NHS and private provision was repeatedly raised with me, and people mentioned outdated equipment, long waiting lists and a lack of transparency about the treatment options.”
“Absolutely, and many have said it in here. The emotional —”
“Some people are entitled to only a couple of days' leave for IVF treatment, while others have no formal support at all. <BR /> <BR />We rightly talk about supporting working families.”
“They told me that if they had not been in the position to pay privately, they would not have the child whom they have today. That should give us all pause for thought. <BR /> <BR />The reality is that many people are simply being priced out of parenthood. The cost of treatment is only part of the story. There are also travel costs, the need for time off work, repeated appointments and medication, as well as the emotional strain that comes with trying to fit treatment around everyday life. One person described trying to integrate IVF treatment with every other aspect of their life as constantly juggling. Another told me that it can be an incredibly isolating experience, yet, despite that reality, workplace support remains inconsistent.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion today and thank Fairness (IN) Fertility for joining us in the Gallery. Behind every statistic on fertility treatment is a person, a couple and a family who have often endured years and years of heartbreak, uncertainty and disappointment before ever setting foot in a clinic. <BR /> <BR />In preparing for the debate, I met people who have gone through IVF and listened to their experiences. Some of what they told me was deeply moving, while some of it was deeply concerning. One couple told me that they had done everything that they were asked to do. They went down the NHS route first, but it did not work. After a lengthy process, they were left with just one embryo. Eventually, they made the decision to go private, despite the cost, because they felt that they had run out of options.”
“Thank you for that answer, Minister: it sounded positive. <BR /> <BR />Despite regional balance being a stated Executive priority, no legislation has been introduced by your Department or the Executive, and the gaps between the regions are getting bigger. My Bill would strengthen the Executive's response and put regional balance on a statutory footing. <BR /> <BR />I want to work with you on this, Minister. It is really important that the Department for the Economy works effectively on the Bill. Will you agree to meet me, as soon as you get feedback from your officials, so that we can move forward collectively? I will work with my colleagues on the Economy Committee in the coming weeks.”
“Last Monday, my Regional Balance Bill hit the floor of the Assembly for its First Stage. I was delighted, as it had been a long time coming. I have long argued that, if regional balance is good policy, it should be good legislation as well.”
“You have covered a lot of ground. Can you understand that the frustration is not with some of the areas of discussion? It is with how you have abused the institutions and the petition of concern. You have withdrawn all the validity from what you are saying, because you have used the system to disallow the democratic process from happening here today. That is what the great disappointment from the good Member of the SDLP here is, and my colleagues as well. That is where our disappointment lies: in that misuse and the appalling behaviour of voting against democracy.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I suspect that I am one of the "good" SDLP Members that you talked about.”
“Thank you, Minister. Most councillors whom I speak to want to use the powers that are contained in the Bill, but they are worried about the cost to ratepayers. What can you do to reassure them on that issue?”
“— the influence of those who profit from fear and mistrust.”