Debate contribution: Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill: Further Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .
- MLA
- Mr Robbie Butler
- Party at the time
- Ulster 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 5638714
Read the official Assembly record
Text
At the outset, I want to be absolutely clear that the Ulster Unionist Party continues to support fully the overall purpose behind what is a really important Bill. The experiences of people who spent time in mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses are deeply distressing and resonate not only with the victims and their families but, indeed, with the many of us who have sat through a number of the debates on the issues. Survivors and their families have waited far too long for acknowledgment, accountability and redress. It is right that the Assembly seeks to address historical wrongs. I speak as someone who did not sit through the Committee's detailed consideration of the Bill, so I bow to Committee members' experiences, which I have listened to throughout the debate. I have, however, engaged with various people who have been impacted on by what were heinous wrongs. I will speak first to the amendments that Mr Carroll tabled. I can understand the motivation behind them. Nobody wants to see individuals be unfairly excluded from recognition or redress. I do not doubt for a second Mr Carroll's humanity in this moment. His amendments would, however, represent a significant expansion of eligibility. Increasing the level of payments to £12,000, as happened at Consideration Stage, has already caused a real but understandable additional cost pressure. The inclusion of workhouses now, as proposed by his amendments, would, I suspect, have a very significant financial implication. We would not be surprised at all if the true cost of that was difficult to determine at this point. It is really important that we understand the costs at this point. I fear that there may also be broader equality and legal concerns associated with that proposal, because it has not had time to go through due process and proper scrutiny. In those circumstances, we as a party simply do not believe that the Assembly has been provided with sufficient evidence or analysis to justify such a substantial extension of the scheme at this stage. As I have said, those amendments are, undoubtedly, well intentioned, but they would likely come at a cost of many tens of millions of pounds. As such, we will not support Mr Carroll's amendments. I want to address amendment No 11. I recognise entirely why the Committee has sought to table the amendment. When looking through the Committee report, I read some really powerful evidence from survivors and advocacy groups regarding the proposed posthumous cut-off date, and I understand the desire to ensure that as many people as possible are included in the scheme. However, amendment No 11 is not a minor or technical amendment. In fact, it would be one of the most important amendments made to the entire Bill, either at this stage, or indeed, the last. Moving the posthumous eligibility date from 2011 to 1953 would, I suspect, increase the cost of the scheme by a lot of money — maybe tens of millions of pounds. I am sure that the junior Ministers will cover that in their winding-up speeches. However, let us be clear about that. Victims have not been asking for the financial settlement as redress or as justice. It is just a token and an understanding of what they have been going through for decades. As Members in the Chamber, we will need to conclude whether such expenditure is justified. That is a judgment for each of us to make with our respective parties. However, I believe that we should be honest with ourselves and the public about the implications of the decisions that we are being asked to make today. TEO officials have been very clear that the scheme would be demand-led and that costs could increase further if claimant numbers exceed the assumptions that have been made. At a time when Departments across the Executive continue to face difficult choices, whether in Health, Education or other public services, we need to fully understand the full financial implications of any proposal that could add significantly to the overall costs of the scheme. Our concern is not purely financial. My colleague the Minister of Health has been engaging with the junior Ministers on the experience, and, to be honest, sometimes the real challenges, of survivors in accessing historical records and their personal information. The Committee report highlighted delays, resource pressures and the need for additional investment in record retrieval services. We were told that access to records remains a significant barrier for many survivors and, thus, puts more hurdles in the way of having their day of justice and truth. If we as an Assembly support amendment No 11, it will inevitably significantly expand the number of potential claims, and there will be real and significant consequences. As I have said, it is not the victims who are pushing for it. That is a fair assessment. If it is passed today, we need to look pretty urgently at what other support we can make available to meet the demand on the archives, record retrieval services, Departments and public bodies. Many of the records that are required to verify claims may, ultimately, sit within health and social care systems that are already under considerable pressure. We owe survivors more than good intentions. We owe them a scheme that is deliverable and capable of providing timely access to redress. For those reasons, we will not support Mr Carroll's amendments, albeit they are well intentioned. However, we welcome further clarification from the junior Ministers regarding the financial and record-access implications of amendment No 11. My colleague from the DUP said that his party will not divide the House on amendment No 11, and nor will the Ulster Unionist Party. Ultimately, if it is the will of the House to support amendment No 11, we will not oppose it.
968 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Awaiting analysis
This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.