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

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on 19 May 2026.

MLA

Mr Gerry Carroll

Party at the time

People Before Profit Alliance

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 5549349

Read the official Assembly record

Text

OK. I thank the Member for that. I will, perhaps, come back to that in debate on the group 2 amendments. Turning to the amendments in this group, I am broadly supportive of them all. However, I have some concerns that, hopefully, can be addressed. Clause 15 sets out the extent to which the inquiry proceedings can be held in private, evidence can be withheld from the public domain or a person's identity can be concealed. The balance there remains enormous; obviously, survivors must be protected and should not be retraumatised by exposure that they did not consent to. There is a difference, however, between protection for survivors and protection for institutions. I have some concerns about that, and I am sure that others do as well. The evidence that the Committee received raised concerns about the misuse of clause 15 in order to shield institutions. I have some concerns about that, to put it mildly, and there were widespread concerns about it amongst Committee members, so I hope that the relevant Minister can address them. Restriction orders must not become a mechanism by which the Churches or organisations that were responsible for the abuses can avoid public accountability. Transparency and victim protection are not mutually exclusive. As I said, however, we need to be careful that clause 15 is not weaponised against the very purpose of the inquiry, and assurances will be welcome. Clause 17 deals with the privilege of witnesses before the inquiry in relation to requests for information. I have concerns about the potential for public interest immunity (PII) to be used and misused. Historically, PII claims have been used by powerful institutions and state bodies in order to suppress uncomfortable truths. Given the nature of the inquiry and the track record of some of the organisations involved, we need to be careful and watchful, for want of stronger words —

Sure. I will just finish my point — that protections are not exploited in order to withhold evidence that survivors have every right to see. I give way to the Member.

OK. I thank the Member for that. Assurances need to be provided. I will check those commitments in the report. Clause 25 provides immunity from civil action for inquiry panel members, legal advisers, advisory panel members, assessors and staff. I understand some of the rationale behind that. I think that the evidence to the Committee broadly supported protecting inquiry staff, but there are concerns about the accountability of other participants, particularly representative organisations and the institutions.

I agree. I thank the Member for that. My point was that, although those individuals and everybody facilitating the inquiry should be protected, concerns have been raised about a broader culture of immunity, especially for institutions and the people who caused harm in the first place. I thank Members for their supportive comments about my amendments. The intention of my amendments is to strengthen the inquiry and make it better by extending its purpose and usefulness. As Members have said, amendment No 21 seeks to increase the time limit for judicial review from 14 days to 28 days. I think that the Committee amendment seeks to change that to 21 days. Obviously, that is an improvement, but, frankly, the longer the time limit, the better. It was clear from the evidence that the Committee received that 14 days is completely inadequate. Survivors are dealing with complex trauma and may be accessing support, taking time to process decisions or information, or awaiting legal advice. How many times in this Building have we heard about the pressures on the judiciary and the judicial system? I do not think that a fortnight is sufficient in anybody's estimation. Trauma-informed flexibility is a necessity. I urge Members to support the longer extension in amendment No 21. I believe that the Victims and Survivors Forum supports it. Some people are calling for an even greater time limit, but I think that 28 days is sufficient. Amendment Nos 12, 13 and 14 speak to cross-jurisdictional evidence and cooperation with authorities outside the North. If that work is already happening, that is, obviously, welcome, but putting it in the Bill would strengthen it.

Yes; go ahead.

It is quite clear what they are. The phrase "reasonable steps" is used in most pieces of legislation. There is precedent for what that means.

Sure.

I thank the Committee Chair. I am not on the Committee, but I have the right, as has every other MLA, to try to amend the Bill. I appreciate that clarity. If the amendment passes and could then be added to at Further Consideration Stage, I would certainly be open to working with the Member, or anybody, on that. As I said, the general aim of the amendments is to strengthen the inquiry's ability to seek cooperation across borders and to expose and report non-cooperation where that occurs. The Member for North Belfast raised some concerns about that. Obviously, it is up to the House to vote for, which, hopefully, it will, or against the amendment, but, if it passes and there are gaps in it, it could be tightened up at Further Consideration Stage.

Yes.

I thank the Member for that. That is not my reading of the amendment at all, but, again, if that is his reading, I am happy to seek an amendment at Further Consideration Stage.

In one second, yes. It mentions the body or public authority from whom it was sought. It does not mention the person who requested it — the victim and survivor information. Again, if the Member is content with the general aim of the amendment, vote for it. If he wants to discuss what is normally called a tidying-up amendment or a strengthening amendment, I will be happy to look at it. Was it the Chair who asked for an intervention?

975 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