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 5638810

Text

I thank the Member for that intervention. I will come on to those concerns in a second. The point that I made at the start is that some are hiding behind legalistic arguments. I think that there is a financial motivation in some quarters — you can say who they are, and they can take exception to that or not — to not include workhouse families. Mr Butler raised that issue, and that is the point that I am making. I will come on to the delays that the Member raised. I have been working with victims for a similar amount of time as her. She may have been in the Assembly just before me, or maybe we came in around the same time. I have been working with victims and survivors for more than a decade, and the delay is not because of an amendment in my name or that of any other Member. The delay is because the women have been ignored and failed by the state and the Executive generally. I am not pointing at the Ministers here but at the Executive over the decades. That is where the delay is, not because of an amendment brought by me or any other Member. It is important to acknowledge that. Timothy Gaston summed the aims of the Bill up well and outlined how my amendment works in conjunction with what the Bill aims to do, is supposed to do and is about. I commend him for that. He also said that, if something is not put in the legislation by amendment at this stage, it will not happen. I have paraphrased what he said, and I absolutely concur with that. I have been in this place for quite a long time, and that is my experience. Despite people's best efforts and best intentions, something has to be in the Bill or it will not be there at all. In many ways, I am used to being fobbed off and patronised, and I am big enough for that, but I ask Members whether, if they do not accept my amendment, they will find it so easy to look victims, survivors and their families in the eye and dismiss them. Despite what Members may think of me or what I am saying today, they should stand by workhouse victims and their families and not fob them off. An Executive Office letter that came to Members this morning, I think, was referred to. I have had sight of it. It states:
"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."
If that does not apply to the women and their children who went through workhouses, I do not know what we are talking about with that description. Junior Minister Bunting talked about how the amendments might derail the Bill but provided no evidence or explanation on how an amendment could derail a Bill, and, in response to an intervention, she could not — I thought that this was quite significant — give a guarantee to, I think, the Chair of the Committee that workhouse victims and survivors will be included in future redress payment schemes. If people want workhouse women and their children to be in the scheme, they should, in my view, support the amendment. I hope that Members can do that this evening.

578 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.09 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.89).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.10	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.05	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.03	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.06	No
Controversy escalation	0.07	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.89	Yes
Overall judgement	0.09	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.99
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it	0.00
Adopts it	0.01

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups	0.58
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	0.40
No identity-related subject	0.01
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism	0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.00

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