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

Debate contribution by Ms Carál Ní Chuilín on 19 May 2026.

MLA

Ms Carál Ní Chuilín

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

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 5550115

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I start by going to the amendment that Gerry has just spoken on. I have looked at it in the legislation again. What is in the Bill does not correspond with what the junior Minister said, to be frank — sorry — by way of explanation of what the pitfalls could be. Like all such legislation, there are issues. Basically, this is allowing people to determine who their beneficiaries are: I have no issue with that — none whatever — and I do not think that many other people have either. As I said about other amendments that we can and cannot support, we will give a rationale for what we cannot support. On what we can support or what we are not too sure of, we will ask for clarification.

I am pleased that the Department has looked at the appeal mechanism in clause 38, and junior Minister Bunting said that 30 days was far too short. That is another issue that consistently came up. Apart from anything else, it would be OK if it were a legal process in a court where legal advocates could act on people's behalf and thrash out aspects of the law. However, those people are going into a scenario — I do not mean this in any patronising way at all because some of those people are forces of nature as they have had to fight for years to get to where we are now — and we keep talking about a trauma-informed approach, but then we start talking in legalese. It does not correspond with us, and it does not feel right. However, the issue around the right to appeal in clause 38 is welcome, and it is very sensible. We will come to the other amendments in the group, but Phillip mentioned that I probably lamented about clause 17. However, with regard to orders restricting disclosure of information, I appreciate that the legislation is based on the 2005 Inquiries Act because there is nothing else to go by, and that is fine. However, we all want to make sure that there are no further impediments to people trying to access their actual birth dates. We have heard from many victims and survivors that they have the wrong birth certificates and their places of birth are wrong. We also found out that some victims have been buried in the wrong place and have been given the wrong name. Clause 40 relates to orders to restrict disclosure of information. We want to make sure that there are clear explanations. It is helpfully laid out here. However, one of the things we are still concerned about — I think that you need to leave the flexibility with the president or chair of the inquiry, albeit that there could be a modular approach — is that that needs to be made clear, because no one worth their salt would be happy with any institution trying to apply restrictions to basic documents such as birth certificates or documents that relate to places of adoption, a birth parent or parents. We want to make sure that we get it right. We are talking about the amendments, but the issue of advisers has been raised with us. People may be appointed as advisers to the service. There is a lot of talk here about making sure that the standardised payments are made as quickly as possible because it is admission-based. We are not talking about the individual payments, but we need to make sure that people have the choice about whom they put down. They do not need additional restrictions: it is their choice. I just want to make that clear. I will leave it at that, because we have had a long day. There are still some of our victims and survivors with us in the Public Gallery. I suppose that the message is that they are going nowhere until we get all this sorted out. I am happy with the clarification that Gerry provided. I asked him about a form that he has not seen, which was unfair, but I am giving you the general principles of it. A person should be able to define whom they nominate, rather than someone doing it through succession law, and that is fine. We are happy with the other issue that I raised earlier, which we do not support, and it is fair that we do that. We do not support amendment No 45 because it will expand the scope of the Bill. Maybe it is something that we can come back to if we get further information, but, at this stage, I will leave it at that.

779 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