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 5638724

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I will try to keep my remarks brief this evening. Initially, I will talk to amendment Nos 10, 11 and 12. Fundamentally, one needs to ask what the scheme is for. I will start by looking at Gerry Carroll's amendments. I will read a passage from the letter that has been referred to today, which we received from the First Minister and the deputy first Minister. Under the heading "Legal and workability concerns", the letter states:

"The ability to distinguish between individuals in a workhouse for the purpose of redress is a central concern in relation to the proposed amendments. As explored in the Equality Impact Assessment, there are potential issues in singling out a specific cohort, particularly within an admissions-based scheme".

Some people might take from that, "Well, there is nothing that we can do for those in workhouses", but I am of the opinion that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister are recognising that there was a cohort of people in the workhouses who should fall under the scheme. Let us face it: go back to the genesis and the very heart of the scheme. What was it all about? Why was it designed? I will read another paragraph:

"The Standardised Payment has been intentionally designed to acknowledge a particular historical injustice, namely the experiences of women and girls in a system of gender-specific institutions where admission carried undeserved shame and stigma."

Mothers in workhouses experienced the very same trauma. They experienced the same treatment as those who will be eligible for redress under the legislation that we are passing, but they will be treated differently.

I thank the Chair for her intervention, which brings me nicely to the 'Truth, Acknowledgement and Accountability' report. My understanding is that, when the independent panel was last before the Executive Office Committee, panel members said that it was possible to distinguish between married and unmarried mothers in workhouses. The testimony on page 4 of the report states:

"my mother gave birth to a beautiful daughter who she probably only caught a glimpse of. Two days later, my mother is lying on a thin mattress in the workhouse surrounded by the destitute and mentally ill. She is distraught and bereft. Meanwhile, just a ten-minute walk away, a happy, decent family has gathered in the church and they are cooing over my mother’s baby, who looks lovely in her white christening gown. The baby strains to hear her mother’s voice amongst the babbling strangers but she cannot pick her out. She screams in distress. When the ceremony is over the name of the person baptised is entered into the register. The baby is given two surnames. Her mother’s surname is in brackets and a stranger’s surname is elevated to prime position. The process of stripping the baby of her identity has begun".

I am not taking away from the Bill that we have been working hard on and that has nearly reached Final Stage, but that testimony tells me that there is a cohort of people who are not included. If this is a standardised payment that is intentionally designed to acknowledge that particular historical injustice, we have not got everybody. Those who were in the workhouses should be included. As we move forward, therefore, I am minded to back Mr Carroll's amendments. More work could and should be done, and, in light of the letter that came to Committee members today, at this late stage, I simply do not accept that there is no way of ensuring that the Bill can still progress while we look to narrow down those —.

I accept it and understand the point that the junior Minister has made. Indeed, that is why the Chair of the Committee proposed the modular approach, which I agree with. I fully accept that, but, while I am in the position to do so, I am putting on record the fact that, going back to the genesis and the heart of the legislation, it is for an admission-based scheme regarding historical injustices. A group of people who were in the workhouses need to be identified, whether through the inquiry or the amendments, if they are passed today, to ensure that nobody is left out. Let us face it: if those who were in the workhouses are not included at this stage, they will never be included. We will never come back to this issue once we have a second tranche of legislation about the specific abuses that people experienced. Those are my comments on amendment No 10.

Amendment No 11 concerns the posthumous date. Time after time, in evidence session after evidence session, the big thing that was raised by victims and survivors and adult adoptees was the inclusion of a posthumous date. As I said at Consideration Stage, I am of the opinion that there should not be a posthumous date at all, but I welcome the progress that we will make by moving from a date in 2011 to one in 1953. Although other Members have included caveats in their remarks and said that they do not want to divide the House, I have a very clear moral compass when it comes to what I have heard. The scheme should not include a posthumous date, but I will support the amendment to insert the 1953 date into the Bill. That will be significant progress in acknowledging the hurt that has been caused. I am happy to support amendment No 12 on the basis that, if somebody were born in one of those institutions and was admitted back in at a later date to give birth, that person — it is only a small group of people — should be allowed to receive two payments. We are making progress. I am disappointed that more has not been done on the workhouses. More work needs to be done in that regard, but I recognise that, because of the modular approach that is being taken and the flexibility that that provides, those people can be included at a later date. I highlight the testimony in that respect. There are ways in which to identify who should be included and who should not. Like some other Committee members have done, I place on record my thanks to the Committee staff, who faithfully served members' requests. Nothing was too much of a bother; they went away and gathered the information that members sought. I also pay tribute to the Chair of the Committee. We may have our differences most weeks, but she approached the legislation in a very sensitive way, which was good for the Committee as it allowed it to get its teeth into the Bill. All members, past and present, worked together to try to ensure that we have the best Bill possible. I welcome the debate this evening. I am minded to back Mr Carroll's amendments at this stage, and I look forward to the next stage of the legislation.

1,161 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