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 5638792

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank Members for their comments. Throughout the debate, the comments have been varied. There has also been a pattern of comments that I will try to address as much as I can. A lot of technical and legalistic arguments have been used for what is a political decision to omit workhouses, and that needs to be challenged. I repeat that the Bill already identifies a workhouse cohort for inquiry purposes, including pregnant women, women who gave birth in a workhouse and their children. The redress payment should therefore be extended to those people. I ask this question: why is redress treated differently? The word "workhouses" is in the title of the Bill. Some Members talked about my amendments being subject to legal challenge, but the legislation itself could be subject to legal challenge if people think that it is not reflective of what is in its title. There has been some insinuation that my amendments have not been adequately or properly drafted. What Members are effectively saying is that the Bill was not properly drafted, because the amendments in my name take something that is already in the Bill and extend the redress payment to cover it. I am not precious, but, if Members want to say that my amendments are not drafted properly, they are effectively admitting that the Bill was not properly drafted. I do not say that: I just think that there are omissions in it. The Chair of the Committee said that it may be difficult to assess who will be eligible under the remit of my amendment. That may well be, but it does not mean that we should not do it. It does not mean that we should not pass and implement the amendment. We are talking about trying to correct the historical wrong of institutional abuse, and the best way to do that for this cohort is to back the amendment in my name. Some Members mentioned complex changes and how the amendment could jeopardise the Bill but have not elaborated on why that would be the case. They have given no concrete examples, and any legislation can be challenged. Members opposite are taking through important Bills on free school meals in summer and the Irish-medium education workforce strategy that I support. However, any legislation can be challenged in the courts, so a blanket letter from the Executive Office on the day of Further Consideration Stage should not be used as an excuse not to support an amendment if Members think that its political aim is right and proper, which it absolutely is. There is an irony, which is not lost on me and others, that the Opposition are spooked and have, unfortunately, used a letter from the Executive Office that was presented on the day of the Bill stage as an excuse not to back the amendments. It is not right, and Members should not be spooked by letters that have been designed to do that. People have the right to do that, but Members should not be taken in by the letter. The admission-based element is being used as an argument against the amendments. My amendments are admission-based: the women were admitted to workplaces because they were pregnant. Therefore, my amendment is admission-based.

543 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