‘Still opportunity’ to amend mother and baby home inquiry Bill, says Stormont speaker

By Rebecca Black, Press Association

There is “still opportunity” to make further amendments to the mother and baby home inquiry Bill, the Stormont speaker has said.

Edwin Poots made the remarks in the Assembly on Tuesday after concern was expressed at the apparent rejection of an amendment extending the time frame for eligibility for redress payments.

The passing of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill will allow the opening of a public inquiry into the former institutions in Northern Ireland, as well as a redress scheme for victims and survivors.

More than 14,000 women and girls are thought to have passed through institutions, which were run by the Catholic Church, religious orders, some Protestant denominations, and the state.

Many were found to have been mistreated, held against their will and forced to give up their children for adoption.

A payment of £10,000 is proposed to be made to eligible claimants and a £2,000 payment to eligible family members on behalf of a loved one who has died since September 29th, 2011.

Poots made a statement on the Bill after concern was expressed at the apparent rejection of an amendment to the legislation which would have allowed those who died before September 2011 the equal right to redress.

A group of survivors, Birth Mothers And Their Children Together, have queried the move.

Poots said while speakers did not give reasons for their decisions by convention, he would make remarks in “recognition of the sensitivity of these issues”.

He told MLAs it was for the Speaker to decide which amendments proposed to a Bill, if any, were debated.

“Often this involves complex issues and requires the Speaker to make balanced judgments,” he said.

“I fully acknowledge that I approach these matters both from a perspective of my experience as a minister and developments around legislation in recent years.

“I have previously told the House that I take a rigorous and cautious approach to my decisions, and members will be aware that the marshalled list for consideration stage of the Bill didn’t issue unusually until a Saturday, and that is because I went through those amendments in detail, over and over again, before I reached the decision.”

Poots said: “I want to be clear to the House that the fact that the committee amendment removing clause 31 of the Bill was not selected for the consideration stage should not be interpreted as meaning that a different amendment proposing an alternative date or approach cannot be tabled or selected at further consideration stage.

“Before the consideration stage, there was a positive and constructive engagement between the committee and the Executive Office, and this included ministers bringing forward amendments in response to the committee’s views and the committee agreeing to withdraw its amendments in support of those proposed by ministers.

“Members will also be aware that at further consideration stage, it is the last opportunity to bring forward amendments to a Bill, therefore normal that ministers bring forward amendments at that stage to tidy up changes to a Bill in order to ensure they are practical and effective, as well as to ensure that there is a coherent statue book.”

He added: “It would therefore be preferable for any attempt to address the concerns of victims and survivors in relation to the posthumous date to be taken forward by a ministerial amendment from the Executive Office, that is a matter for ministers to consider, and I am sure that the committee will be active in encouraging them to do so.

“It is also right that the committee and any other members should continue to engage with the department on the details and technicalities of any further amendments.

“I make these remarks today to emphasis that the passage of the Bill is not yet complete and therefore remains the ability to amend it in line with the principles agreed at second stage.

“I have gone further than a Speaker normally would before a Bill returns to the House. I hope that this helps clarify and manage expectations around just what is possible from my perspective.”