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

Debate contribution by Mr Stewart Dickson on 24 June 2025.

MLA

Mr Stewart Dickson

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

24 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5047163

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. While Members find it somewhat frustrating when they are talking about a topic and have to break mid-speech, the next section of my contribution has even more meaning now because, in the interim, members of the Committee for the Executive Office have received a number of emails from people who have been and are involved in and affected by the implications of the Bill. Indeed, I prepared my next sentence to say that there are huge questions about those who have been left out of the Bill. This afternoon, I, at least, have received two emails from people who believe that they have been left out. One refers specifically to the posthumous redress for those who were in workhouses, and a second email, which came in even later this afternoon, also deals with those who have potentially been left out. Another Member referred earlier in the debate to the places that might be described as private nursing homes that are not specifically referenced in the Bill or, if they are, only tangentially. There are areas of serious question that we need to cover. I will pass both those emails on to the relevant Committee staff, and I trust that the Committee will be in touch with those correspondents, of whom there were at least two, later today to encourage them to come forward when we move into Committee Stage. I commit in the House today to take forward the issues that they have raised in their commentary to us. As I said, there are huge questions about those who have been left out, including survivors who were adopted abroad, people who lived outside Northern Ireland and those who, as I said, were in foster care or certain workhouses. We have heard that there may be people who could be described as slipping through the cracks. That brings me to an important point about ensuring that we get a clear message out that, if you believe that you or a relative have been affected or your family history tells you that you have had some involvement in that dark and miserable past, please come forward and speak to the Committee and to the structures that the Bill is setting up. We must ensure that no one is left behind. We then move to the question of who pays. Clearly, our Government are stepping up, but where is the financial input from the people and organisations that ran the institutions? Where is their accountability? It is not good enough to say that they might be invited to participate: they must be compelled to participate. If they put people in harm, they must be part not only of a financial redress scheme but of the healing. We need to hear clear, proper and fulsome apologies. We need to hear a genuine understanding of the hurt and damage that their predecessors caused over many years. I, for one, appreciate very much the human rights elements and protections that are built into those organisations and for those organisations. You cannot say that an organisation is guilty of one of these offences until that has been proved, but, equally, we have to balance that with the absolute human rights of the victims and survivors of that terrible past. Therefore, I am determined that we find a way forward — there has been failure in other jurisdictions, particularly the Republic of Ireland — that ensures that we explore every legal avenue to make sure that those who were perpetrators will be made to pay. That is a determination. I cannot make it a promise, but it is a determination that I have in seeing the Bill come to fruition. In Committee, I also asked about the role of those who recommended that girls and women go into those places. The truth is that people and systems were complicit but have yet to be named. Our inquiry must be wide-reaching enough to look at that. We need to be clear that this was not just a failure of care but a systemic abuse of power and one that was rooted in misogyny, shame and silence. There are to this day those who provide cover-up for those who pressurised or said or suggested that people should be placed in those positions. To put it plainly, no two stories are the same. Some people want justice; some want recognition; and some simply want an acknowledgement and peace in their life. Our job is to make sure that the inquiry and redress scheme are strong enough to meet all those requirements and flexible and respectful enough to hold all those truths. Legislation is not the end; it is the start. It will work only if survivors are not just consulted but are at the centre and heart of the legislation. That means changing what needs to be changed. That means being honest about where we have fallen short, and it means keeping our promises, especially to those who have waited decades for us to get to this stage. In passing the Bill at Second Stage and moving it to the Committee Stage today, we have a lot of hard work to do to make things better. Finally, I recognise the work and presentation that has been done by the Executive Office and the contribution of the junior Ministers present in the Chamber today. While I am not chiding, I will, nevertheless, say this: I express my disappointment that the First Minister and deputy First Minister are not present here today, whether they participated in the debate or not. I find it disappointing and, truthfully, disrespectful to the victims and survivors who are in the Public Gallery. I do not know what their diary commitments are, but I really feel that they should have been in the Chamber to hear the Second Stage debate today.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:55 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