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

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 19 May 2026.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

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 5549330

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Like all other members of the Committee who have spoken before me, I want Hansard to record my appreciation and thanks to all the victims and survivors who stepped forward to give evidence to the Committee in the room, at the stakeholder events or through correspondence. The oral testimonies that we heard were powerful, as many victims and survivors relived their traumatic experiences that took place in the institutions, the laundries, the workhouses or, indeed, the private settings. From the outset of hearing the testimonies, I knew that the Bill would leave many people disappointed. The very legislation itself, when it was introduced, was of limited scope. The Committee has tried, and it has tried in vain, to include as many people as possible in order to recognise the hurt and trauma that many victims and survivors experienced in those places and to recognise that what was allowed to happen was not right. As we looked back and heard from those who gave oral testimonies, we recognised that what was permitted to happen was a shame. I am pleased to see that the Executive Office has taken on board many of the Committee's amendments and tabled them in its own wording. It has listened; it has reacted; and it has put the amendments into its own words. On that basis, I pay tribute to the officials who came to the Committee, listened to our concerns and did something about it. Moving on to the amendments, I start with amendment No 1, tabled in the name of the Chair, Paula Bradshaw. It is a very important amendment that will ensure that the terms of reference are published in a timely manner. I say this to the Executive Office: the House will not have seen the completed terms of reference before Members are asked that the Bill be given full approval at Final Stage. I trust that those who are charged with writing the terms of reference have listened to the victims and survivors and to the Committee members and will take those points on board. In particular, as I mentioned at Committee, I want to see that birth mothers are called forward first to give evidence in the inquiry. I believe that is important to ensure that a firm foundation is laid for the duration of the inquiry, and there is no better place to start a public inquiry than to hear directly from those who suffered harm at the hands of the institutions. Amendment Nos 2 and 3 are about people seeing themselves as being part of the Bill, which is very important. The Bill relates not only to religious institutions and state-run settings but to people who were in private settings and those who worked in them. The inquiry must hear from those people. Part of the deliberation and focus on ensuring that that was included in the Bill was so that people can read the Bill and see for themselves that they are part of it. That is why the Committee pushed for private settings to be included. Their stories are paramount to ensuring that no voice is left out of the inquiry, and it gives as many people as possible the opportunity to have their thoughts heard and their experience considered.

I absolutely agree with the Chair's contribution. The pathways that led people to the institutions were great. They were vast. That is why I am glad that the Committee unanimously got to the position and pushed to make sure that it was included in the Bill so that people can identify themselves in it. During the Committee Stage, I had two objectives that I wanted to see delivered in the legislation. The groundwork for one of those objectives was delivered with amendment No 10, which is new clause 12A. That relates to the contributions that are very important moving forward. Many victims and survivors who gave testimony to the Committee do not care about the money from the redress scheme. What was important for them was to get to the truth and to finally get some acknowledgement from the religious institutions that what took place in their settings was wrong. For many, this will be the first time that they have got any form of justice, the first time that they have been listened to and the first time that oral testimonies will be taken forward in a way that will bring justice and bring those accountable to task. That is very important. The state should not be left to pick up the cost for the entire redress scheme and the inquiry. It is very important for victims and survivors that the settings that allowed that practice of abuse to happen are brought to task. It will bring some form of closure for many and for some who take part in the inquiry, but it is not the end of the road, and it will not bring complete closure. That is why we need to have contributions. Indeed, the Deputy Chair alluded to it. It is something that the Committee grappled with at length. We were told that we could not put anything like that in the Bill, but the Committee took the stance that it was a red line. We needed something included in the Bill for future legislation so that, if systemic failings are identified, the House and the Government will pursue those who are responsible. I have a slight concern regarding new clause 12A(3)(c). I trust that none of those who are in charge of enacting the legislation will allow so-called charities that are asset-rich but cash-poor to shield those assets and keep them aside so that they cannot be sought for their contribution.

If systemic failings are found to have occurred in institutions that have cash or assets, we need to do everything in our power to make sure that they pay towards the scheme. Amendment Nos 12, 13, 14 and 16 —.

I absolutely agree with the Deputy Chair of the Committee. We need to make sure that those whom we task with going after those organisations seek justice and accountability and that they will not be put off by those who hide behind the fact that they have no capital. If they have assets, they have capital, and that should be available to fund part of the process, which includes the inquiry and the redress scheme. Amendment Nos 12, 13, 14 and 16 stand in the name of Mr Carroll. I have no problem with any of them and am happy to support them. I put this to whichever junior Minister responds to the debate on the group 1 amendments: there is all this talk at all these meetings of cross-border bodies, including the North/South Ministerial Council, but how many times has the Bill been raised at them? Has it been raised? Has agreement been reached on the need to make sure that contributions are paid by those organisations that reside in the South so that they cannot hide behind the fact that they are in another jurisdiction? I want to hear from the junior Ministers about the steps that they, or the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, have taken to ensure that the South plays its role in handing over not only any information that may be available but the contributions that need to come from there. In his intervention, Mr Stewart made a number of points about amendment No 20. Yes, I was deeply unhappy and uncomfortable with the time limit of 14 days in the Bill as introduced, as it is a significant departure from usual practice. Indeed, usual practice ranges from 30 days to six weeks or three months. I was willing to compromise when we were able to get the Committee from 14 days to 21 days, but I am happy with Mr Carroll's amendment No 21. On that basis, I am content that the period to apply for JR be extended to 28 days. Regardless of whether it is the mind of the House that it be 21 or 28 days, it is very important for the wording to mean that that period is from the date that the person is made aware of the decision, because we need to give those people as much time as possible to apply. They have waited for years to see the legislation get to this stage, so the least that we can do is give them adequate time, should they be turned down at the first hurdle and a judicial review be required, to get the necessary legal advice and, if necessary, the legal representation to take forward a judicial review. Those are my comments on the group 1 amendments.

1,455 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