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

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 22 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

22 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

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 5638632

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Like the other members of the Committee have done, I start by thanking the victims and survivors who have engaged with the Committee throughout the process. Some of the lived experience that was relayed to the Committee was very challenging to hear. It was certainly heartfelt, and that came across. Those people spoke for not just themselves but for all victims and survivors who have suffered abuse. I also thank those who sent in consultation responses and the vast number of those who attended the round-table sessions. I will limit my remarks on group 1 to amendment Nos 4, 5 and 6, particularly to the circumstances in which evidence may not be provided because there is a reasonable excuse for not doing so. Amendment Nos 4 and 5 will ensure that one of those excuses cannot be cross-border, and that even information held outside this jurisdiction can be sought, attained and part of the inquiry. Amendment No 6 refers to requiring the capture of:

"evidence, documents or other things sought".

Members outside the Committee might ask why such an amendment is necessary. The answer highlights what may prove to be one of the greatest weaknesses in the legislation before us here today: access to records. Throughout Committee Stage, we heard repeated warnings about the condition, accessibility and completeness of the historical records on which the inquiry will depend. I believe that all bar one of the religious orders have engaged with PRONI, which now holds the vast majority of the records. Only time will tell how complete those records are, as people start to come forward to request their personal records. We are dealing with records that, in the majority of cases, predate the digital age, but I want to focus my remarks on the access that we will have to, and the completeness of, the trust records, which are indeed pivotal to the inquiry. What do we know of those? We know that they are dispersed across the five health trusts, with many located in storage across multiple sites in each of the trust areas. Some have been catalogued and some have not. Some have been digitised and some still have not. Evidence presented to the Committee only last week illustrated the scale of the challenge that the trusts face to get their house in order prior to the inquiry. We are told that the South Eastern Trust has identified and catalogued more than 1,200 historical adoption files, yet many of the associated registers have been assessed as fragile. Nor is the position across the trusts in Northern Ireland consistent, and that concerns me. The state of the records differs from trust to trust and, in some instances, still remains unclear. That is why the Committee found itself discussing matters such as access to records, the preservation of historical documents, engagement with the Department of Health and the need for adequate resources to assist people seeking information about their past. That goes to the very heart of whether the legislation can deliver what many victims and survivors have been promised, because an inquiry can only follow the evidence that exists and can be readily obtained. If crucial documents cannot be located, have deteriorated, are beyond use or were never properly retained in the first place, the inquiry's ability to establish the full truth will inevitably be constrained, and it may prove to be impossible in some instances. That is why amendment No 6 matters so much. The Executive are effectively acknowledging that there will be circumstances in which evidence sought by the inquiry cannot be produced, and, where a reasonable excuse exists for that failure, it is important to have that documented. I fear that, for some victims and survivors, that may become the defining frustration of the entire process. Many have waited decades for answers, yet there remains a very real risk that, once the legislation is enacted, the records needed to provide those answers will not be available. In that sense, there is a danger that legislation has been introduced before the underlying problem with records in the trusts has been appropriately addressed. I remain of the view that much more work is required to identify, preserve, catalogue and, where possible, reconstruct the documentary trail upon which so many cases will depend. I still believe that there is a case for the records that can be moved centrally to be looked after by PRONI to ensure a more slick and efficient system, instead of each trust having a catalogue and those records being located across a number of locations. Prior to the commencement of the inquiry, all records need to digitised and made readily available so that, when people go looking for them, either for the inquiry or for redress, they are easily accessible and it will not hold up the inquiry or hold up those seeking redress.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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