Debate contribution: Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill: Further Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Aisling Reilly on .
- MLA
- Ms Aisling Reilly
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 22 June 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: Further Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5638606
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move amendment No 1:
At the outset of my remarks, I acknowledge and welcome some victims and survivors who are with us in the Public Gallery. They have sat through every stage of the Bill, and, again, they have travelled from far and wide to be with us for the Bill's Further Consideration Stage. I welcome the victims and survivors who, again, have made the journey to be with us. As we begin Further Consideration Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill, with the amendments that were made at Consideration Stage now forming part of the Bill, I thank Members for their engagement with the legislation throughout the process. I particularly thank Gerry Carroll and the Committee for the Executive Office for their engagement with the Department and our officials over the past few weeks. Collectively, we have been able to refine several of the amendments that were made at Consideration Stage on the public inquiry, which I will now speak to. Eight amendments have been tabled in the inquiry group. Members may wish to make comments and highlight concerns. I will listen to their contributions, and I hope to pick those up and address them in my closing remarks. I will take amendment Nos 1 to 3 together. They relate to the amendment that was made at Consideration Stage to clause 5, regarding the composition of the inquiry panel. Those amendments have been tabled in order to make sure that there is clarity and consistency in the wording throughout the Bill. They are minor in nature, and I ask the House to support them. Amendment Nos 4 and 5 relate to clause 17 and cross-jurisdictional matters. The Department has tabled two amendments, which maintain policy intent but better align the language with other parts of the Bill in order to, again, ensure consistency. I turn to amendment No 6, which also relates to clause 17. The Department appreciates the policy intent, and we want to ensure transparency around reporting where evidence that was sought by the inquiry has not been forthcoming. There may, however, be instances where the inquiry must have some discretion around the naming of information requested but not received. For example, the information may relate to ongoing court proceedings or may identify a whistle-blower, a victim or a survivor. Our amendment therefore provides an element of discretion to the chairperson in that respect. I now turn to amendment Nos 7 and 8, which are to clause 20. Amendment No 7 is a technical amendment that will ensure clarity in clause 20 so that it flows. Amendment No 8 aims to maintain Mr Carroll's policy intent and provide consistent terminology throughout the Bill, while also recognising that the determination of public interest is an Executive function and not that of an inquiry chairperson. Clause 20, if amended, will ensure that the inquiry chairperson has considerable scope to publish reports in full, including within the two-week period, if considered necessary or appropriate. That concludes my remarks on the supporting amendments that the Department tabled in group 1. I hope that Members will support the amendments, but, as I have said, I will listen to their contributions and reflect on them in my closing comments.
548 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.