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

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on 22 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Gerry Carroll

Party at the time

People Before Profit Alliance

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 5638683

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I ask Members to support the amendments in my name as I go through them. The aim of amendment Nos 9, 10, 13 and 14 is to extend redress to mothers and children who were admitted to workhouses. That is being achieved by tying entitlement to clause 4(1)(b). The redress scheme is, of course, admissions-based. It seeks to recognise a specific misogynistic discrimination faced by unmarried mothers and their children. In my view and that of many others, the current exclusion of workhouses from the redress scheme creates an unacceptable hierarchy of victims and goes against the spirit and aims of the Bill that the Ministers and the Executive more generally have introduced. That has been highlighted repeatedly by the truth recovery independent panel, including at its most recent evidence session at the Committee about two weeks ago. Any redress scheme that creates such a hierarchy of victims by excluding workhouse victims is fundamentally flawed and not trauma-informed. Even as it stands and as could be the case for any legislation, the Bill could be subject to legal challenge and a fight through the Supreme Court or anywhere else. Thousands of women and children had traumatic experiences in workhouses. That trauma was a direct result of state, societal and religious attitudes of the time. It is only fair that that omission is rectified, and we have a chance to do that through the amendment. I know that a communication is circulating to Members advising them basically not to support the amendment, and I will address some of the issues in that. As I said, any legislation is subject to legal challenge, including through the Supreme Court, if people deem it necessary and get the necessary support, and there is scaremongering going on in relation to the amendment. The Bill, by design, already identifies a workhouse cohort for the purposes of the inquiry that includes pregnant women and women who gave birth in workhouses and their children. If TEO — I say it respectfully — is concerned that the category in the amendment may be too broad for redress, that is more of an argument for having a more precise eligibility test than for excluding the workhouse cohort of unmarried mothers altogether. In general, drafting can be improved and finessed, but exclusion, if accepted, is a policy decision, and people are upset, annoyed and angry about that, to put it mildly. It is an obvious point that any Minister, a Member from any Executive party or any other Member who thought that the amendment was too broad could have proposed an alternative, but they decided not to do so. Concern about the drafting of the amendment is not a reason to exclude a cohort of people. On the equality argument, my understanding is that the Equality Commission has no objection in principle to the identification of a specific cohort where there is a rational basis for doing so. Where there is evidence of a particular experience or harm in a general sense, legislatures routinely distinguish between groups. Why can that not be done through my amendments to the Bill? The exact purpose of a redress scheme is often to identify and recognise a specific group that experiences a particular harm, abuse or other form of ill treatment. The existence of married women in workhouses does not prevent the Assembly recognising a distinct cohort of unmarried mothers if there is a legitimate concern. An argument is doing the rounds that the amendment could jeopardise the Bill: I reject and challenge that. The issue is not new, having been raised with Members for some time. If the Executive believed that problems existed and that the amendment could have been drafted differently — I say this respectfully — Ministers could have tabled another amendment, but they did not do so. The fact that concerns remain unresolved about people from workhouses being excluded from the scope of the Bill strengthens the argument for, rather than against, an amendment. I am happy to support amendment No 11 on posthumous claims, because 1953 marks a significant improvement on 2011, which was a completely arbitrary date and a slap in the face for so many families. I am happy to listen to Members' contributions, and I will do my best to respond to as many questions as I can.

721 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