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

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on 19 May 2026.

MLA

Mr Gerry Carroll

Party at the time

People Before Profit Alliance

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 5549909

Read the official Assembly record

Text

As I said before, I do not sit on the Committee, but, like others, my party took direction from victims and survivors through various meetings and correspondence. I thank them for that, and I acknowledge, as I did earlier, the people in the Public Gallery. I will begin with the words of Lisa, a constituent of mine. She contacted other Members ahead of the debate. She is a daughter whose mother will be excluded because of the September 2011 cut-off date. She wrote:

"As a daughter whose mother will be excluded, I cannot put into words how heartbreaking this feels. My family has lived with the silence, stigma and trauma for years, only to be met yet again with rejection and exclusion. Survivors and relatives are exhausted from having to repeatedly fight to prove that our loved ones deserve acknowledgement and compassion."

It is worth putting that on the record, and it is the reality of what we are debating today. Justice for victims, survivors and families, in a general sense, cannot be dictated by budgets and balance sheets. I am concerned to hear talk of compromise already. When I hear that, alarm bells ring in my head. We talk about money in the Chamber in a general sense. We talk about whether the state considers certain lives to be worthy of acknowledgement and, in many cases, redress and payment. That is a moral and political question, not a financial one. The posthumous cut-off date of September 2011 is a disgrace. Like many Members here, I was contacted by Maria, an adopted adult, whose birth mother was placed in Marianvale. Maria's brother died by suicide in 2002. He suffered his entire life with depression and identity crisis as a result of his closed adoption. He was born in Marianvale, sent alone as a newborn to Nazareth House in Fahan and adopted back to the North just months later. He died never knowing the full circumstances of his birth. Under the draft legislation, his life and suffering do not count for anything. While his adopted sister, whose birth mother died in 2014, is rightly included — these are members of the same family going through the same institutions and impacted by the same trauma — the cut-off date undermines equality for them. Mark, who, I believe, is in Gallery, having travelled from Donegal to watch the debate, described the truth recovery process as:

"reputation management, acknowledgement rationed and compassion conditional".

He is right. I do not get the Minister's argument about tiers. This is about recognising abuse, especially when it happened to one person in different settings and scenarios. That is the point of the amendment in my name. When fundamental amendments on the issue were blocked without a vote, that only deepened suspicion amongst survivors about their campaign for justice. I note Members' comments that those survivors are owed an explanation. I will go through my amendments. Amendment No 32 increases the standardised payment from £10,000 to £20,000. Amendment No 33 increases the posthumous payment for eligible relatives from £2,000 to £5,000. Obviously, the original £10,000 was the same amount that was proposed under the HIA scheme back in 2017, almost a decade years ago. We have had a cost-of-living and inflation crisis since then. I know that the Committee heard from different groups and different figures. However, £20,000 was certainly mentioned. The £12,000 that the Member for Foyle is proposing is certainly better than £10,000. Frankly, I do not think that it is enough, but, going by the mood of the room, there seems to be consensus in the House on that figure. As, I believe, people said during the Committee's deliberations, people's lives are worth more than a whiplash claim. In a general sense, how come the cost is counted only when it comes to redress? The financial and emotional cost is rarely counted when it comes to the victims. Questions were raised about amendment No 30, which is fair enough. It provides for more than one payment for individuals who were both adoptees and birth mothers. Those are people who were admitted to institutions twice; once as children who were taken from their own mothers, and then again as pregnant women. My understanding is that, as other Members have said, they are a very small group of people. The additional cost is minimal, although cost, frankly, should not come into the debate. Their experiences —.

Yes. Amendment No 30 states:

"After 'for' insert 'more than'".

The "persons" in the original —.

That is fair enough. If I understand your question correctly, perhaps "persons" need to be added to it. I was referring to amendment No 30, but I am happy to move on. If "persons" need to be added to it, I can do that. Apologies, I have lost my train of thought. The group of people included under amendment No 30 is, in a general sense, small, and the costs would be minimal, but their experiences are distinct, and they deserve to be recognised on their own terms. Hopefully, that can be agreed on. There was a danger that the other junior Minister, when proposing the group 2 amendments, was trying to tie me up in bureaucratic knots. Not to be too disrespectful, but, frankly, that is how it seemed to me. A small group of people are being missed out, and I think that they should be included in the scheme, as do most people. There was some talk about unintended consequences from amendment Nos 45 and 46, but there could be unintended consequences from any legislation. Any legislation can be challenged in a court for not being wide-ranging, proper or approved of by the people on whom it impacts. I make that general point. Unintended consequences can apply to legislation as drafted or as amended. Amendment No 45 seeks to add St Joseph's Children's Home on the Ravenhill Road, Coneywarren Children's Home in Omagh and Nazareth House in Portadown to the list of eligible institutions. The junior Minister talked about the amendment being outside the scope of the Bill. I would challenge that. The Bill is about abuse and neglect, primarily of women, but if a child is taken from a mother without her consent, that will inflict huge emotional abuse and harm on both the mother and the child. We have Nazareth House in Donegal as well, which operated as a transit and destination point for children who were moved between jurisdictions. Those children were effectively trafficked across the border, with no oversight, to which others have referred. It should be on the list. Coleshill Children's Home near Enniskillen is another glaring omission. I am no expert. I am but one MLA, and I am not on the Committee for the Executive Office, but, from my communication with victims and survivors, I know that there are too many institutions absent from schedule 2. From my reading of things, it therefore does not make sense to vote against the inclusion of three other homes. Amendment No 46 seeks to include birth mothers as eligible relatives of the deceased so that they, too, can receive a posthumous payment. A mother who lost her child to forced adoption, and who may have spent the rest of her life searching, grieving and never recovering, should not be excluded from recognition of that loss. I will quote from a communication that we received from another victim and survivor from the forum on amendment Nos 45 and 46. Hopefully, it covers some of the issues that Members have raised. It states:

"In my circumstances I am hoping the children's home I was put is included and my mother can then qualify as a relevant person due to that. She was not admitted to any home but moved about to other accommodation by the adoption agency so not within the remit at present. It will allow mothers of babies put into certain places the ability to engage with the inquiry .... Without the mechanism in the legislation it will not allow this to happen in the terms of reference, even if the independent panel recommend the baby homes are looked into - our mothers will be excluded."

People should not be excluded from the legislation. I urge Members to vote for my amendments.

1,383 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