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

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 19 May 2026.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

19 May 2026

Type

Debate contribution

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 5549886

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The amendments in this group, particularly those that would amend clause 31, are those on which the Committee spent the most time. The Committee invested significant amounts of time listening to and taking evidence from people who came forward. The whole idea of that was to ensure that the Bill would be the best that it could be within its limited scope. We cannot get away from the fact that the redress scheme was created as an admissions-based scheme. That was part of our deliberations. People who spent time in one of those institutions — whether it was a private, religious or state institution is immaterial — should not be discriminated against or excluded by a date. From the get-go, the architecture of the Bill was that it would be an admissions-based payment. The inclusion of the posthumous date of 29 September 2011, as set out in clause 31(5)(b), excludes and discriminates against people who were in institutions. I assure those who are watching that the Committee took every opportunity in front of it to try to make sure that that would not happen, but we tried in vain. I will look back on that with deep regret, because the Bill is going forward today with something that we could not sort out at Committee Stage. At Committee Stage, members raised legitimate concerns regarding the additional costs that would be incurred by removing that posthumous date. It is a democratic process, so they are entitled to set out their concerns. However, to go back to the reasoning for the Bill and its architecture, which is an admissions-based payment scheme: nobody should be left out because of the inclusion of a date. I deeply regret that the posthumous date will still be in the Bill after today. The Committee approached the Bill with the moral perspective of doing what was right. We left aside the religion of the institutions; that did not come into our thinking. It was a case of what was morally right to do by the victims and survivors. I look at it as a shame — a shame — that that amendment was not allowed to be debated on the Floor. Fair is fair, whether you were in one of these institutions or you were not. If you were in an institution, you should be entitled to an admissions-based payment. I said that the posthumous date and the amount payable were interlinked, and I was clear that, if the posthumous date was removed, I would have settled and compromised on the £10,000 —.

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The overwhelming evidence that the Committee received related to the removal of the posthumous date. I have come to the conclusion that, with that date still in the legislation, I am happy to support Sinéad's amendment to have a £12,000 payment. If we were looking at it with an inflationary increase, it would be between £13,000 and £13,500, as has been set out by Sinéad. I am happy to support her amendment. Amendment No 30 recognises a small group of people. I understand the pushback from the junior Minister and the concern that she has raised — I take those points on board — but my fear is that if Mr Carroll does not move his amendment and put it to the vote, and if there is talk behind the scenes, there is no guarantee that the amendment will make it on to the Marshalled List at Further Consideration Stage. On that basis, I encourage him to move his amendment. If discussions need to take place further down the line, they can take place and a further amendment brought back from TEO on that basis. Those are my remarks on the second group of amendments. People will leave here disappointed today. Many victims and survivors came into the process with optimism, but I believe that the news that they got at the start of the week has altered that. My thoughts are with them today. I can understand why they will leave this place feeling let down. People came to the Committee to give evidence and made themselves very vulnerable in doing so. They gave first-hand accounts of what they experienced and what happened to them in those institutions. The majority of Committee members, including me, tried our best to set up a scheme that would recognise that and not discriminate against anybody by a date being left in the legislation.

744 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:45 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

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

Challenge this classification