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

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .

MLA
Mr Gerry Carroll
Party at the time
People Before Profit Alliance
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 5653141

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I want to speak briefly on the Bill. The Bill should always have been about victims and survivors. Sometimes, it was, and the voices of victims and survivors came through and were heard, but, quite often, it was not, especially when it came to certain amendments not being heard, selected or voted for. I commend all the people in the Gallery and the people who are watching the debate for not being quiet or piping down because to do so might have suited some of those people in power. I commend them for speaking out and speaking up, and I commend the groups that work alongside them and support them. If we have learnt anything from the political events of the past week, it is that powerful people — powerful men, in particular — and institutions should always be held to maximum account when it comes to abuse, neglect and victims, and that victims and survivors should be believed and supported on every occasion. There are a lot of positives in the Bill — it would be remiss of me not to mention that — which have been welcomed broadly in the House and by victims and survivors more generally. It would, however, be remiss of me not to mention some glaring omissions. Workhouses, the people who were in them and their families are excluded from the Bill on payment issues. That is a massive oversight. My simple proposed amendment would have rectified that anomaly but was voted down by the Executive parties. I commend people for speaking out on the issue, especially Sharon Burke. I think that she might be in the Gallery. She has been emailing Members on that issue. I am happy to have played a small part — I emphasise that it was a small part — in the Bill and to have raised issues that were previously not included by working alongside victims and survivors to table amendments. I thank them for bringing issues to my attention, and I thank Members for voting for such matters as payments for people who were in an institution on two separate occasions and ensuring that the chairperson of the inquiry takes every single step to ensure that documents are obtained when victims and survivors reside outside the North. I hope that the inquiry process will not adopt a timid approach to truth and accountability but will take an aggressive and uncompromising approach when chasing down documents, seeking truth and ensuring that the state and religious institutions actually cough up the finance and documents that relate to their role in allowing and furthering abuse, neglect, people trafficking and many other crimes that happened on their watch. I commend the Committee members. I do not always agree with them and they do not always agree with me. Maybe that is no surprise. The Chair and members have, however, done important work. I commend Stephen and his colleagues in the Bill Office and the Executive Office officials, who worked closely with me to try to support, amend or help along my amendments — whatever way you want to look at it. I also want to commend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone who spoke out during the last few stages. I pay tribute to her and to her mother for speaking out and for being here. Today is about victims and survivors. That is right and proper. The fact that we are here debating the Bill is no accident: it is down to the tenacity and doggedness of victims and survivors who had doors shut in their faces for decades but refused to be quiet or to let that stop them. Never again should we allow any institution to lock up, imprison and abuse women or anybody else. I commend the Bill and offer my support for it at Final Stage.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.07 (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 (0.84).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
  • Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.08No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.06No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.05No
Controversy escalation0.07No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.84Yes
Overall judgement0.07At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.98
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.02
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.53
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.40
Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)0.04
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.02
No identity-related subject0.01

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.

Challenge this classification