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 2 of 39.
“The public are entitled to know what impact those programmes are having and whether they are achieving lasting change, because what we have witnessed this week suggests that many communities remain divided and too many people remain vulnerable to —”
“Those young people have no experience of the conflict. They should be looking to their future but, instead, are being taught to fear and resent their neighbours. That should be a concern for every one of us. <BR /> <BR />If a generation born after the Good Friday Agreement is still being taught division, serious questions must be asked. We must ask whether enough progress has been made in tackling paramilitarism and whether programmes such as Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) and Communities in Transition are delivering transformation as promised. They are not. It is plain to see in those communities that there is no delivery of transformation at all.”
“He had only to listen to the words, a few minutes later, of Claire Sugden, who stood up in the House and gave leadership for the unionist community and all our communities. However, political leadership alone will not solve the problem. We also need leadership from our communities, and we have seen the best of it over recent days. I am proud to call them part of all of our communities. <BR /> <BR />The uncomfortable truth is that, in too many places, individuals and paramilitary organisations continue to exert control over our communities. They thrive on division, suspicion and fear. The vast majority of people want nothing to do with violence or hatred. The vast majority want safe streets, good jobs and opportunities for their children, yet we continue to see young people drawn into disorder and criminality.”
“First, our thoughts and prayers are with Stephen Ogilvie and his family. <BR /> <BR />The scenes that we have witnessed on our streets in recent days have been utterly shameful, and I think we can all agree on that. Families have been forced from their homes; businesses have been attacked; communities are living in fear; and people have been targeted simply because of who they are, where they come from and the colour of their skin. There can be no excuses or equivocation: racism has no place in our society. <BR /> <BR />Many of us have spoken about the need for political leadership, particularly when there are those who stand in the House and spout deliberate lies about immigration policy. I am sorry that Timothy Gaston has left the House. That is disgusting and irresponsible, and not all unionists feel like that.”
“Unfortunately, that legislation continues to be held up in the Executive. Every month of delay is another month in which carers are left waiting for protections that could make a real difference to their lives. For many carers, the debate is not about legislation but about whether they can accompany a loved one to a hospital appointment, respond to a crisis or continue caring without sacrificing their job. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP has consistently supported the introduction of paid carers' leave, because the right of people —”
“For carers, access to leave and flexibility can mean the difference between staying in work and leaving it altogether. That is why the 'good jobs' Bill is so important. The Bill has the potential to deliver important new rights for working carers, including for carers' leave. It is an opportunity to build a labour market that recognises the realities of our modern life and supports those who care for others in their community.”
“They provide compassion, stability and support for those who need it the most; yet, too often, carers feel overlooked. Many carers face financial pressures, poor mental health and isolation. Many are trying to balance caring responsibilities with work, often with very little support and very few protections. Too many people are forced to reduce their hours, turn down opportunities or leave employment altogether because caring for a loved one becomes impossible to balance with work. <BR /> <BR />We know that that burden falls disproportionately on women. Around 60% of unpaid carers are women, and many find their careers and earning potential limited because they have stepped in to provide care where support has been lacking. That is why employment rights matter.”
“I welcome the opportunity to mark Carers Week and to recognise the extraordinary contribution that carers make to our society every single day. Across Northern Ireland, hundreds of thousands of people provide unpaid care for a family member, a friend, a neighbour or a loved one. They support elderly parents, they care for children with complex needs and they provide comfort and dignity to those who are facing illness or disability. Their contribution is invaluable, and I thank them. <BR /> <BR />Without carers, our health and social care system would struggle to cope; indeed, I would argue that it would collapse. Carers save our public services billions of pounds every single year, but their value cannot be measured in financial terms alone.”
“Will the First Minister and deputy First Minister table an amendment to the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill to deal with the posthumous date? The Bill will, in its current form, do a real injustice to those who died before the stated date.”
“I beg to introduce the Regional Balance Bill [NIA Bill 35/22-27], which is a Bill to make provision for a statutory framework to improve regional balance in Northern Ireland; to impose a duty on the Executive to develop, adopt, maintain and implement a framework setting out how disparities in regional economic performance and living standards are to be addressed across government; to confer functions on the Department for the Economy in relation to the preparation of the framework, its reporting to the Assembly and providing guidance and research; and for connected purposes.”
“It is about recognising that every community deserves a fair opportunity to succeed and that the Government have a responsibility to consider the regional impact of decisions that they take. I firmly believe that a stronger and more prosperous Northern Ireland is one in which growth is shared more fairly and where every part of our region can realise its full potential.”
“Thank you. For too long, communities across Northern Ireland have experienced vastly different economic outcomes. As a public representative from Derry, I know that only too well. We see it in employment rates, economic inactivity and health outcomes. We also see it in the distribution of investment in our public services. While every region has strengths and potential, the reality is that that opportunity remains unevenly spread. That is not good enough. I wish to ensure that regional balance is no longer treated as an aspiration but becomes a core consideration in government decision-making. <BR /> <BR />I am trying to make this not about the Bill. It would require every Department to have due regard to regional balance in their policies, strategies and public services.”
“May I talk generally about regional balance?”
“I take this opportunity to mark an important milestone in a piece of legislation on which I have been working for some time. Today, my regional balance Bill will complete its First Stage, formally beginning its journey through the legislative process. The Bill has been born out —.”
“Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Domiciliary care workers are highly skilled individuals. You referred to the fact that they are at the back door of the hospital in order to support A&Es. However, Minister, an awful lot of money is spent on agency workers. It is a colossal spend. Is there any way that you could get to grips with that and move towards giving people proper pay for doing a really highly skilled job?”
“Again, I will wait to hear from the Member who tabled that amendment. <BR /> <BR />Throughout the debate, Members from across the Chamber have spoken about truth, accountability and dignity. That reflects the significance of what survivors have achieved in bringing us to this point. The legislation exists because of the courage of people who refused to allow their experiences to remain hidden; people who spoke out despite years of stigma and silence; and people who kept pushing for acknowledgement, even when many believed that they would never receive it. The Bill will not erase the past, but it can help to deliver something for which survivors have waited a long time: recognition, accountability and a process that finally places their experiences at the centre. Responsibility to deliver that now rests with all of us.”
“The amendments that relate to consequential changes across social security legislation are also important, because redress payments should not create unintended financial consequences for survivors and families. We talked about that at length in the process of scrutinising the Bill. The payments are about the acknowledgement of historical wrongs; they should not end up disadvantaging people elsewhere in the system. <BR /> <BR />While we understand the intention behind amendment No 42, we would seek assurances that any mechanism that is created to allow payments to be nominated to another individual, where no eligible relative can be identified, ensures fairness in the system. I agree that that might be better addressed through secondary legislation just so that there are protections in place and we understand those protections.”
“The amendments that relate to applications, appeals, legal assistance and public awareness all point towards the same principle: that survivors should not be left to navigate the process alone. For many people, engaging with a scheme like this will reopen many more painful memories and deeply personal experiences. The process therefore has to be survivor-led and focused at every stage. That includes ensuring that people are aware of the scheme; that there is access to advice and support; and that applications are dealt with fairly and sensitively. <BR /> <BR />We welcome the amendments that strengthen the governance arrangement for the service. Confidence in the process matters enormously. Survivors need to know that decisions will be made independently, professionally and with appropriate safeguards in place.”
“There are standout people. The Chair is right to recognise Marie Breen Smyth, who has been tremendous. She has been a conduit of support not only for the victims and survivors but for us, as a Committee, as we got into the body of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />At its core, the Bill is about recognition for people who were failed by systems of authority for too long. For decades, the survivors were denied their basic dignity. While many of the amendments in the group may appear to be technical in nature and a sweep to tidy up any loose ends, they are still important because they shape how accessible, compassionate and effective the redress process will ultimately be.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I said in my first contribution, it has been a long day for the victims and survivors who have joined us and those who are, perhaps, listening at home. I thank you for allowing us to take the journey with you. It has been difficult.”
“The group 3 amendments deal with the application process and are largely a tidying-up process. <BR /> <BR />This is the final group of amendments that we will consider today, so I want to take the opportunity to put on record my thanks to the Committee Chair, Paula Bradshaw. She has done tremendous work, has been very committed to the Bill and has ensured that it was given the transparency and scrutiny that it deserved. I really appreciate that. I also thank my colleagues from the Executive Office Committee. We have worked together on the scrutiny. We sometimes do not get the best press when it comes to working together, but this Bill was definitely a standout in that regard. I want to recognise that.”
“Yes, it is. First of all, I thank you for your clarity in and around that amendment. I wanted to know whether there was anything in the current or draft regulations that already prevents a mother from being eligible in these circumstances. I just wanted a wee bit more clarity in and around that. Is that OK?”
“What this legislation offers cannot change that past, but it can demonstrate that society is finally prepared to confront it with honesty. Part of confronting it honestly means ensuring that the redress scheme is credible, compassionate and worthy of the people it is intended to support. That is why we support these amendments and why I hope that the House continues to strengthen the Bill as it moves forward.”
“If there is a gap, clearly it deserves careful consideration. At the same time, I do not seek for the amendment to be accepted, and then find out later that it has caused harm, albeit unintended. Can the Committee, and maybe the Executive Office, look at that at Further Consideration Stage just so that we are really sure that it is not already provided for or that we need to think about it more carefully to make sure that no harm is caused? <BR /> <BR />One of the most painful aspects of this history is how long people have had to wait simply to be believed. Many survivors have spent years carrying shame that should never have belonged to them, and some passed away before seeing any acknowledgement at all. As the Chair said, time is moving on, and some people do not have a lot of time for this.”
“I ask for further clarification from the junior Minister about whether there is anything currently in the regulations or draft regulations that already prevents the mother from being eligible in those circumstances. I want to understand whether there is a blockage there. I too would like to hear from Gerry Carroll about any specific examples that he has on that issue before I decide whether this is something that we can support.”
“However, I am keen to hear from the Member who tabled amendment on why he believes that it should be made. We look forward to hearing that. Throughout the entire discussion, our priority has been to ensure that survivors receive recognition and acknowledgement through the appropriate mechanisms available to them. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I want to touch briefly on amendment No 46, which includes the mother of a deceased person as an eligible relative. I thank the junior Minister for her clarity on that amendment.”
“I agree with the Member, but a lot of people came back to say that they felt that £10,000 as a standardised payment was too low. <BR /> <BR />I accept the Executive Office's rationale regarding the children's homes. It could shift the focus, and we cannot allow that to happen with the Bill. That is not to not recognise the experience of those connected to the institutions; we absolutely recognise them. Our understanding is that the regulations contained in the Bill already afford the flexibility for additional organisations to be added. We in the Committee felt very strongly that, if evidence becomes apparent throughout the process of the inquiry, there should be an ability to add institutions. We believe that that is the case with the Bill.”
“While it was out to consultation, a lot of figures were brought in and a lot of areas were discussed. The Committee looked at all of them. Even the £12,000 is not based on the inflationary rate; it would probably be more like £13,500. Suggestions went from £10,000 to anything upwards of that. We recognise that this is not the entirety of the scheme; this is a standardised acknowledgement and an initial universal payment. Hopefully, proper redress for lived experience will not take that long and people will be rightly and justly recompensed throughout the scheme.”
“However, I appreciate the rationale behind Gerry's amendment. My view is that amendment No 31 strikes the right balance between strengthening the recognition for survivors and ensuring that the scheme remains workable and deliverable for all.”
“Legislation such as this must be clear enough to operate fairly but sensitive enough to recognise the complexity of survivors' experiences. That is an important distinction for the operation of the scheme. <BR /> <BR />We, too, will support amendment No 30. We believe that it is important that the legislation is as inclusive as possible for survivors and that unnecessary barriers are not placed in the way of eligibility or redress. Given the scale of the suffering involved and the number of people who have already passed away without ever receiving acknowledgement, our view is that, where there is an opportunity to strengthen access to the scheme, the Assembly should carefully consider doing so. <BR /> <BR />I am glad to hear that others will support my amendment. That being the case, amendment No 32 will probably go by the wayside.”
“That is welcome news. Thank you very much. That is acknowledgement that the people affected deserve more. They will now get more, albeit a small amount more. <BR /> <BR />Given that many of the organisations connected to the institutions operated over decades and held immense influence in society, survivors will rightly expect those institutions to play a role in contributing towards redress. This is not about retribution; it is about accountability and ensuring that the acknowledgement is not limited to words. <BR /> <BR />A number of the amendments in the group would tighten up definitions around eligibility and clarify the circumstances in which people qualify for payment. Those are necessary changes.”
“It is also important that today's debate is not viewed solely through the lens of public funding, because, alongside state responsibility, there is the question of institutional responsibility. <BR /> <BR />I give way.”
“The proposed uplift would cost an additional £9 million overall, but it is important that that figure is understood properly. It would not be paid in one financial year; it could be spread over a number of years. When considered against the decades of institutional harm, silence and neglect that survivors have experienced, the increase, which is, in many ways, modest on an individual basis, is justified. <BR /> <BR />We are talking about people who were failed not only by individual institutions but by the wider systems of power and authority around them. They had decisions made for them. Their voices were ignored. They were treated as problems to be hidden away, rather than as human beings deserving of dignity and compassion. In that context, the amendment represents a reasonable and proportionate improvement to the scheme.”
“I will just finish this point. I will then let you in, junior Minister. <BR /> <BR />In 2019, when the initial standard payment was made under the Historical Institutional Abuse Act, that payment was £10,000. I am not saying that this is like for like, but that was the point of entry in 2019. My amendment proposes to increase the payment available under the scheme from £10,000 to £12,000 in recognition of the time that has elapsed since that previous recognition payment. <BR /> <BR />I do not think that anybody believes that there is a figure that could ever truly reflect the suffering endured by victims and survivors. That is not what the amendment seeks to do; it would ensure that the redress scheme reflects more meaningfully the scale of the failures that took place.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will focus my remarks on amendment No 31, which stands in my name. It relates to the standardised recognition payment. It is not, as the junior Minister said, about harm; it is about universal acknowledgement, which, of course, is different from redress, and about lived experience. It is not about individual assessments. As the Chair of the Committee said, that will come in time. However, it could take a good bit of time for that to happen. <BR /> <BR />In 2019, when the initial standard payment —”
“This part of the Bill and amendment Nos 25 to 34 and Nos 44 to 46 deal with redress, and all of us recognise the weight that redress carries. For many victims and survivors, acknowledgement has been absent for most of their life. Many were ignored and dismissed and made to feel that what happened to them was somehow theirs to carry alone. Nothing in the legislation can undo that hurt, and no financial payment can restore the lost years, repair broken relationships or erase the trauma that people lived through in those institutions. However, redress and financial payments still matter. They matter because it is an acknowledgement by society — by all of us — and by the state that a profound wrong was done. That matters because survivors deserve more than sympathy; they deserve recognition, backed up by action.”
“Have you done any assessment of the number of people who would present themselves to get those multiple payments? It is our understanding that very few people would be eligible.”
“Will the junior Minister take an intervention?”
“— from the Department for the Economy. That is not me speaking but them.”
“Minister, we know that an election is not too far off, and we are probably at the point at which the focus sometimes shifts from delivery to division and delay. How can you tell businesses how good it is here if they are feeling the pinch? Businesses say to us that progress here is slow and productivity is lagging behind and that they need more support —”
“<BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“— that would have removed the posthumous cut-off date —”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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 —”
“<BR /> <BR />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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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. <BR /> <BR />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.”