Debate contribution: Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Aisling Reilly on 19 May 2026.

MLA: Ms Aisling Reilly
Party at the time: Sinn Féin
Date: 19 May 2026
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill: Consideration Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5549609

Text

Absolutely. I fully concur with your remarks, Stewart. We have raised that issue continuously with the British Secretary of State and will continue to do so. You are absolutely right that during the period of direct rule, there were serious failings in this place. Those who were here and oversaw those failings should make contributions. The British Government are very much central to that. We will continue to press and make the case that they should contribute. As I said, people knew about what was going on. New clause 12A will do two things. First, it proposes to include in the Bill an obligation on the Executive Office to:
"publish a report on a scheme to seek financial contributions from any prescribed institution, public body or other person in relation to which the inquiry determines that there were any systemic failings".
Secondly, it includes a provision that would enable voluntary contributions to be made more easily. For instance, clause 12A(3) and clause 12A(4) provide that, if a charity were to make a financial contribution under the scheme, that contribution would automatically be treated as being in furtherance of its charitable purposes and covered by its constitution, providing a public benefit, and being in the charity's interests. Those inclusions are helpful, as they provide charity trustees with more legislative certainty, should they decide to make a financial contribution to the scheme. That enabling provision is there to help organisations to make payments. It is not to avoid or stop payments being made. Any additional legislative provisions are helpful, as they provide trustees with more certainty. Stewart, you made some comments earlier about the Charity Commission. Our officials have met the Charity Commission and the Department for Communities, both of which have a regulatory role for charities in clause 12A(3) and clause 12A(4). The Charity Commission has confirmed, after reviewing those subsections, that it is content with clause 12A's inclusion and wording. Taken together, that illustrates our shared commitment to seeking contributions. Amendment No 11 to clause 15 is to make sure that, when considering whether to restrict access to the inquiry, the chairperson is required to take into account the potential impact of such a decision on the ability of any relevant person to participate in the inquiry. We are clear that the inquiry should operate on the basis of openness and transparency. The default position is disclosure, not restriction. Public access should be limited only where it is strictly and demonstrably necessary. The amendment is intended to provide clear reassurance to victims and survivors that their interests and participation will be properly considered in decisions relating to public access to the inquiry and its proceedings. Its inclusion in the Bill would reinforce our strong commitment to openness and transparency and would strengthen the framework within which the inquiry would operate. Amendments Nos 12, 13 and 14 relate to clause 16. Amendment No 12 would mandate the chairperson to take "all reasonable steps" to obtain relevant information from outside this jurisdiction. Essentially, that is duplicative. At our appearance at the Committee for the Executive Office on 26 November 2025, we gave an undertaking that the cross-jurisdictional movement of women and children would be covered in the external terms of reference. I restate that commitment to the House today. Furthermore, the secondary legislation setting out the procedures to be adopted by the inquiry will closely follow the Inquiry Rules 2006, which require the inquiry to send written requests to anyone whom it wishes to produce a document or any other thing, irrespective of the jurisdiction. Similarly, for amendment No 13, once the terms of reference require the inquiry to investigate the facts concerning the cross-jurisdictional movement of women and children, it is incumbent on the Executive Office or, indeed, any other body here to facilitate the inquiry. We point to the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that is being developed by officials in our Department with their counterparts in the Dublin Government with regard to sharing data that is relevant to the institutions and their pathways and practices. Amendment No 14 would require the chairperson to report on all evidence requested but not received under clause 16 — not just cross-jurisdictional evidence — and report on those from whom it is sought. That would constitute a risk, however low, not least because it would compel the chairperson to make such reports even if there were a valid reason for not providing the evidence or not wishing to do so. For example, the information may not be available, or it could identify a specific victim, survivor or whistle-blower. As was mentioned earlier, that would force a report that mentions people who may not have wanted to participate in the process. It could also have GDPR implications. By way of reassurance, however, the chair will, in line with normal practice, be empowered to name and report those who fail to comply with a request or when required to provide information. We think that that approach is both fair and reasonable, however it is essential that the chair retains an appropriate degree of discretion. It is also worth mentioning that the power to compel was in the HIA inquiry but was not used. If Mr Carroll, who tabled amendment No 14, were minded not to move it today, we and our officials would be more than happy to work with him to bring forward a form of wording at Further Consideration Stage. Amendment No 15, which is to clause 18, provides clarity and assurance that the chairperson of the inquiry may provide a series of interim or modular reports to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister before making their final report. The ability to provide interim and modular reports throughout would encourage timely reporting of inquiry findings. A modular approach to reporting in the inquiry could serve to assure those who may be advancing in age of the progress of the inquiry. The effect of amendment No 16, which is to clause 19, would be that the chairperson could publish a report at any time without providing a copy to the First Minister and deputy First Minister, if it is considered in the public interest. The current provision allows for at least a two-week interval between Ministers receiving a copy of the report and its publication, or sooner if it is agreed between the chairperson and Ministers. It would, therefore, be entirely feasible for the chairperson to publish an urgent report within days of giving it to the Ministers, if they agreed. We also note that consideration of the public interest is an Executive function and is not one for the inquiry chairperson. It would simply be a matter of good governance that Ministers should be given an appropriate time to consider a response to an inquiry report that they have jointly asked to be held. Therefore, we do not feel that that amendment is necessary. Amendment No 17 is to clause 20, which deals with how reports are to be laid in the Assembly. The amendment is from the Committee, and we very much welcome it. Amendment No 20 is to clause 26 and was tabled by the Committee. It extends the period for submitting an application for judicial review from 14 days to 21 days. For context, the current requirement for 14 days follows the Inquiries Act 2005, where there is also a discretion to extend the period. We are keen to make sure that the inquiry proceeds in a timely manner for victims and survivors, and we also recognise that access to judicial reviews are a fundamental aspect of the inquiry process. Therefore, in our view, the Committee's amendment strikes an appropriate balance by providing additional flexibility while making sure that participants are not disadvantaged by overly restrictive timescales. Amendment No 21 to clause 26, tabled by Mr Carroll, seeks to extend the period for applying for a judicial review from 14 days to 28 days. For the reasons given previously, we believe that the Committee's amendment No 20 strikes the right balance between fairness and timeliness.
Again, as I mentioned before, we felt that 21 days strikes the right balance for victims and survivors without causing any more undue delay. The time of the judicial review starts from when the person is notified, not from when the decision is made. For the applicant, we believe that that is sufficient time for a judicial review to be brought forward. It also ensures that the inquiry is not unduly delayed, as I have mentioned before in respect of victims and survivors.
I will give way to Mr Brett and then Mr Carroll.
I am happy to give way to Mr Carroll.
Absolutely. We initially had "14 days" in the Bill, but, when the amendments were tabled, particularly the Committee's amendment, we felt that 21 days would strike the right balance. I think that we all agree that victims and survivors should have to wait no longer than is necessary. As I said, it runs from the time that they are made aware, not from when the decision is made. We therefore felt that 21 days struck the right balance. On this occasion, we favour the Committee's amendment, but other Members have made their position clear. The Committee's amendment No 22 to clause 27 would require the inquiry rules to include provision for the designation of core participants. The secondary legislation that we plan to introduce will be closely based on the inquiry rules of 2006, which already include provision for core participants. We recognise, however, that making that a requirement in the Bill is a valuable way to facilitate participation in the inquiry. We feel that that amendment would strengthen the participative nature of the inquiry and help make sure that victims and survivors' voices are heard. Mr Gaston spoke about cooperation and ongoing cross-jurisdictional work, particularly at the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC). I can confirm that we have had regular engagement with other jurisdictions. I raised the matter at a previous NSMC plenary meeting, and it was discussed. The First Minister and the deputy First Minister raised it again at the plenary meeting two weeks ago, because we feel that cooperation in that area is vital. Joanne and I met Minister Foley from the Dublin Government to discuss their scheme, and we spoke about how we could all take learning from it, particularly on records and the movement of women and babies across the border. We welcome the MOU between the Taoiseach and Keir Starmer that was announced recently. We also met Kate Forbes from the Scottish Government, and our officials are in regular contact with their counterparts. We have therefore been engaging regularly. Joanne and I meet officials weekly to review continually where we are and to discuss how we can move forward. I hope that that reassures the House.
That is a cause of frustration for us all, because, as I mentioned, those who are deemed to have caused serious harm to women and children should absolutely face the consequences of that, and they should pay. That brings my remarks on the group of amendments about the inquiry to a close. I again acknowledge Members' thoughtful contributions, which have informed the debate. We have sought throughout the process to listen carefully to what victims and survivors have said, and, alongside victims, survivors and Members, we will continue with that work as the Bill progresses. I hope that that demonstrates our commitment to developing meaningful and responsive legislation for the many thousands of women and girls and their children, who are now adults, who were resident in mother-and-baby homes, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. The inquiry provisions give effect to the ministerial commitments agreed through the truth recovery design panel, and survivors have been firmly placed at the centre. The provisions make sure than an independent and robust inquiry is capable of delivering the integrated investigation that survivors want and need. The amendments provide a clear structure for a timely, effective and focused inquiry to help establish what happened, why it happened and who was responsible. The Bill will provide a victim and survivor-centred process, with an advisory panel as a demonstration of that commitment. It will also make sure that the inquiry remains fair and independent. Taken together, the amendments will help make sure that the legislation delivers the truth, recognition and justice that victims and survivors deserve and have long waited for.

2,073 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification