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

Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on 19 May 2026.

MLA

Mr Phillip Brett

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

19 May 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

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

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5549300

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the opportunity to speak on today's Consideration Stage in what is an historic moment for victims and survivors in Northern Ireland. At the outset, I pay tribute, as others have done, to the victims and survivors for their bravery and dedication. When silence would have been easier, they stepped forward — not just for themselves but for their families and for the generations of victims that came before them. I must make it clear that I have not had as much involvement in the Bill as other members of the Committee. I joined the Committee relatively recently. I pay tribute to my colleagues who undertook work in advance of my arrival. I also pay tribute to Committee members from all other political parties for their work and, in particular, to the Chair of the Committee for her work, her diligence and her dedication to the process. It is telling that all of the amendments in the group tabled in the name of the Committee were unanimously agreed by the Committee. That is because all Committee members and, I believe, all Members wanted to ensure that the evidence that we received from victims and survivors was reflected in the Bill and the changes that we see today. That was their approach to the Bill. As a party, we will support all amendments tabled in the names of the Committee and the First Minister and deputy First Minister. I turn now to some of the amendments tabled by Mr Carroll. I know that the process is the process, but it is difficult to speak to amendments for which the amendments' proposer has not had the opportunity to articulate his case. However, I have some concerns, particularly in relation to amendment No 14. I hope that Mr Carroll will have the opportunity to speak to it. Amendment No 14 would insert:

"(8a) Where evidence requested under this section is not provided, the inquiry must record and report — (a) the nature of the evidence sought, and (b) the person, body or public authority from whom it was sought."

My concern is twofold. First, there is no requirement to record the reason why the information was not provided. For example, if the information was not available, that would not be recorded. I am also concerned that, if a request were sent to a victim or survivor who did not want to partake in the process or did not want to hand over evidence or information that they might have, their name would be placed on the public record as someone who had refused to engage with the inquiry. Mr Carroll's amendment may be well intentioned, but my concern is that it could have unintended consequences. It could wrongly attribute blame or concern in the public eye if the name of an individual or public authority that did not have the information were to be published or the name of a victim who did not want to take part in the process were to be published. I have concerns around re-traumatising them as a victim. I also have GDPR concerns in that regard. I hope that Mr Carroll is able to talk to those. I turn now to amendment Nos 12 and 13. Mr Carroll is not a member of the Committee, but junior Minister Reilly, junior Minister Bunting and officials gave a clear commitment that cross-border cooperation had already started and would continue in earnest. The intention of amendment Nos 12 and 13 is already reflected in the Bill. Maybe Mr Carroll can articulate his points when he has the opportunity to speak to those amendments. I do not want to get into political disagreement. The concerns that I have outlined are based not on party political concerns but on a concern that the amendments, although well intentioned, may undermine the process or the integrity of the Bill. I also want to address the attempt that was made in the House to challenge the Speaker's decisions. That was disappointing. The Speaker does not have and has not had the opportunity to respond to that. He receives procedural advice and takes decisions based on that advice, but let us be clear: the Speaker's record in supporting victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse (HIA) is second to none. He championed those issues, and I find it repugnant that any Member of the House would attempt to undermine the credibility of the Speaker or his decisions.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:42 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