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

Debate contribution by Ms Aisling Reilly on 19 May 2026.

MLA: Ms Aisling Reilly
Party at the time: Sinn Féin
Date: 19 May 2026
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
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 5549417

Text

Yes, thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to interject if we need to take a break. That is absolutely fine. This is a significant moment. The issues addressed in the Bill reflect a shameful part of our past. Today marks an important step in acknowledging the stigma, trauma and loss of identity that has been endured by victims and survivors. While we cannot undo the harm or restore the years that have been lost, we can make sure that what was once hidden is now brought into the light with honesty and dignity. The Bill is not only about systems or records; it is about restoring dignity. It is about acknowledging the truth and finally hearing those voices. For many, this moment has taken a lifetime, and some are no longer here to see it, which places a clear responsibility on all of us to get this right. Today is important, but it is not the end. We must recognise not only the suffering that has been endured but the remarkable courage that has been shown by survivors. This is about lives that were interrupted and a truth that has long been denied. Today's debate is about amendments, and the Final Stage debate will be an opportunity to reflect on the legislation and all those who got us to this point. However, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to take a few moments to acknowledge those who, by their participation and scrutiny, helped to make the Committee Stage such a meaningful process. First, and most importantly, I thank all the victims and survivors who campaigned and contributed to the process. That includes all of those who, many years ago, started the Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice group. Secondly, we extend our sincere thanks to all who contributed and participated in the Victims and Survivors Consultation Forum and the Committee evidence process. We are pleased that many survivors are able to join us here in person, but there are many who are watching online. Finally, place on record our appreciation to the Committee, its Chairperson and members, its officials and the Bill Office for the constructive and thoughtful way in which they engaged with the Executive on this legislation, for the manner in which the Committee conducted its scrutiny and evidence sessions and for its willingness to fit in extra sessions. I thank you for the comments about our officials, and we reiterate our thanks to them as they have been exceptional throughout the process. I will now turn to the business at hand and the amendments that relate to the inquiry. A total of 24 tabled amendments relate to the inquiry, and the Department and Executive have considered them carefully. I will consider each amendment and speak to all of them, outlining our position and our reasoning. I thank all Members who have so far contributed to the debate, spoken of personal experiences and made the debate as reflective as it could possibly be. So, thank you for your contributions. Amendment No 1 requires that the terms of reference for the inquiry be published no later than six months after the Bill becomes an Act. We consider that to be a welcome addition. That sets a clear and reasonable time frame to provide the detailed terms of reference outside the Bill, while allowing time for consideration of the truth recovery independent panel's report and for the chairperson to be consulted, which is required by the legislation. I am sure that we all agree that victims and survivors, as was mentioned, have waited far too long to get to this point, and six months is an appropriate upper time limit. The amendment helps to provide certainty and time for the consultation. I turn to amendment No 2. We recognise that the Committee's proposed amendment seeks to specify categories such as private hospitals, clergy and businesses in relation to other persons within the Bill. To reassure the House, the Bill, as introduced, is already sufficiently flexible to include adoption agencies, baby homes, private hospitals, private nursing homes, cross-border transfers, either as a pathway in practice of a prescribed institution, or as another institution. However, we recognise that the amendment will provide further assurance and clarity on the types of institutions that the inquiry can include within its investigation. We have listened carefully to survivors and to the Committee on the issue and understand the importance of the information and accept its presence in clause 2. Amendment No 3 has been tabled by the Department. It relates to the "relevant persons" as defined in clause 4 of the Bill. It seeks to make clear that the experiences of those who became pregnant while resident in a workhouse are within the scope of the inquiry. That was mentioned by Paula and others, who felt that including that was very important. I turn to amendment No 4. The Bill as introduced provided for either a single chairperson or a chairperson with one or more panel members. Again, during the evidence sessions, the Committee and other contributors expressed strong views that a multidisciplinary inquiry panel would better support the inquiry chairperson and bring a greater breadth of expertise to that complex and sensitive area of investigation. We have listened carefully to those views and, in recognition of them, tabled amendment No 4, which will make sure that the inquiry panel consists of a chair and at least one additional panel member. Amendment Nos 5 to 7 relate to clause 9 and were tabled by the Committee. They replace the term "assessors" with "expert advisers". We are content with that amendment and understand the Committee's view that that better reflects the role encompassed by individuals who will provide specialist advice and expertise in the inquiry. Related amendments to support that change — amendment No 18 to clause 22, amendment No 19 to clause 25 and amendments Nos 23 and 24 to clause 29 — have been tabled by the Department. Those additional amendments will ensure that there is consistency and clarity across the Bill. Amendment No 8, which was tabled by the Committee, relates to clause 10 of the Bill. We consider that that amendment will provide an opportunity for the chairperson's decision about the membership of the advisory panel to be informed by the wider range of experience available in the inquiry panel, which we welcome. We heard strong support for the advisory panel during the evidence sessions. However, we are also mindful that that is a matter for the inquiry panel to consider. It is important to remember that the inquiry panel plays a pivotal role in the investigation, and we must ensure that it is afforded the independence necessary to carry out its work effectively. It must have the confidence of the majority of victims and survivors, which is why it is best for the inquiry to exercise that power. Amendment No 9 relates to clause 11. That departmental amendment reflects the evidence presented by the Committee, in that Ministers must make an oral statement in the House in the event that they notify the chairperson that they intend to suspend the inquiry in line with the provision in subsection 1 of the clause. An oral statement would clarify to the House the reason for such a suspension and provide greater democratic accountability. While we hope that that provision will never have to be used, it creates an important role for the House, which we hope that Members will endorse. Deputy Speaker, if you do not mind, I will stop there.

1,267 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification