Debate contribution: Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill: Final Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 30 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill: Final Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5653139
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I begin my remarks by putting on record, once again, my thanks to the victims and survivors who have campaigned for many years to bring us to this point today, where the Bill will pass its Final Stage. To those who started the process and are no longer with us; to those who came to the Committee and gave their very moving personal testimonies; to those who attended the consultation round tables; to those who individually submitted evidence to help shape the Bill; and to those who lobbied MLAs long before I came to the Chamber: thank you for your time, for your patience and, most importantly, for not giving up. Your time and efforts have made a difference. Yes, the Bill before us is not perfect, but it is better than it was when it was first introduced to the House. Throughout the process, the Committee has taken steps to ensure that victims and survivors of religious institutions, state homes and private homes see themselves reflected in the Bill. I trust that, by insisting that the inquiry takes a modular approach, we have ensured that the inquiry will be able follow the evidence and that, via that route, the institutions and bodies not currently listed in the Bill will be investigated, and that there will be access to redress where the evidence leads. It is only now, as the Bill passes its Final Stage and goes to obtain Royal Assent, that we will see the terms of reference of the inquiry. I trust that those who have worked diligently in the background on the terms of reference will reflect the requests of the Committee and those who have given evidence to ensure that they are victim-centred and that truth and justice will be pursued. From the get-go — on hearing from the birth mothers — the inquiry should lay the foundations for the remainder of its work. As we proceed into the inquiry, I acknowledge that some progress has been made on ensuring that records have been preserved and are accessible. However, much work still needs to be done to ensure that the records held by trusts will be accessible in a timely manner to those who need them. Today is not the end of the process for the Assembly. There is an onus on the Assembly in the next mandate to ensure that the work continues, with a second phase of redress that will consider individualised acknowledgement of the harm and trauma that the birth mothers and adult adoptees experienced. We must ensure, as a collective body and as a society, that the institutions that allowed those systemic failings and that abuse are held accountable and that they acknowledge their role in that shameful period in Northern Ireland's history. I want to record my thanks to the Chair of the Executive Office Committee and, indeed, all members, past and present, who worked on the Bill. I believe that members set aside their differences to come together for the common goal of putting victims and survivors first. I thank the Clerks and officials who have tended very diligently to the Committee. Although the Bill is not perfect, it is a start towards acknowledging the hurt and trauma that has been caused, and the start of ensuring that it never happens again.
552 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.81).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.42 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.40 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.15 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:08 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.