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

Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on 22 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Phillip Brett

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

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 5638708

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I pay tribute to the Members who spoke before me for their bravery and for the testimony that they have just given. First, I oppose amendment Nos 9, 10, 13 and 14 in the name of Mr Carroll. I know that Mr Carroll articulated that he believes that the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in the correspondence that they sent to the Committee today, were engaging in scaremongering. However, the Chair of the Committee rightly articulated the expert-led evidence that we have received to date, particularly from PRONI and departmental officials, about the impact that a late change to the legislation may have on the overall deliverability of the Bill. I do not question that the Member is well intentioned, but, unfortunately, there are no further amending stages after Further Consideration Stage today. Should Members vote for Mr Carroll's amendments, although they are well intentioned, we do not have the luxury of a further Further Consideration Stage to tidy up the Bill and the difficulties that his amendments may create. My party will therefore oppose them. It is important to read into the record an extract from the letter from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. They do not come at the amendment from a position of political opposition but from the point of view of deliverability. They state:

"we are concerned that an amendment this substantial"

so late in the process:

"risks both delay and the overall deliverability of the Bill."

I do not think that any Member wants to delay the legislative process further. It is clear that victims and survivors have had to wait far too long to get to this stage. It would be a dereliction of duty for Members to take any action that could delay the Bill or risk its viability. We will support amendment Nos 12 and 15 in the names of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. I particularly welcome amendment No 15. At Consideration Stage, I flagged the fact that Mr Carroll's amendment No 42 had conflated two processes: that for an eligible relative for the purpose of making a posthumous claim and that for what should happen when an applicant dies during the process. Unfortunately, despite my warnings, Members voted the amendment through. There is, however, an opportunity now for that to be corrected. I will now speak to amendment No 11. I have been clear and consistent that the date in the Bill is the date that should be used. I have concerns that amending the date risks the deliverability of the Bill, but I recognise that my party and I are in the minority in thinking that. My position has not been an attempt to single out victims or to ignore how deeply unfair some of them believe that date to be, however. I come at this from the genuine position of wanting the Bill to be delivered, and I worry that amendment No 11 would undermine that happening. Although my concerns about, and opposition to, the amendment are on the record in Committee and in the House, given the nature of the amendment before us, the fact that I am in the minority and the importance of the Assembly's sending a clear message, my party will not divide the House on amendment No 11. I do remain concerned about the amendment, but it is not appropriate that we divide the House, given the impact that our doing so may have on victims and survivors.

582 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