Joanne Bunting
East Belfast · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Their input was instrumental in shaping the Bill that the Assembly will shortly be invited to pass. <BR /> <BR />For those affected by the mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and related pathways and practices, the process has taken too long, but we can be pleased that we got there, for the victims' sakes.”
“It is still cruel, disheartening and difficult to fully comprehend. I hope that the experiences of the many women who were affected by those institutions and practices will serve as a challenge to us all.”
“We thank all who participated in the Victims and Survivors Consultation Forum. We know that that has not always been an easy space, but we hope that, today, they can reflect on all their efforts with pride.”
“<BR /> <BR />To victims and survivors considering whether to engage with the redress service, I send an unequivocal message: the scheme exists because your experiences matter, and you need not face the process alone.”
“<BR /> <BR />Of course, the experience did not end with the institution itself; rather, for the victims and survivors — those women and children — the period has been a thread of pain that has woven its way through their entire lives.”
“It is not an exaggeration to say that today is a momentous day. It is an honour and a privilege for me to move the Final Stage of this important legislation on behalf of the First Minister and the deputy first Minister, junior Minister Reilly and, indeed, the Executive.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,152 lines we hold for Joanne Bunting, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 24.
“<BR /> <BR />To victims and survivors considering whether to engage with the redress service, I send an unequivocal message: the scheme exists because your experiences matter, and you need not face the process alone. <BR /> <BR />Today, through the Bill, to victims and survivors we say this: we see you, and we hear you; we feel for what you went through and endured; we acknowledge your experiences; we recognise the injustice that was done to you; and we are committed to uncovering the truth about the past and providing meaningful acknowledgement of its impact. The Bill cannot undo what happened, but it can help to ensure that it is never forgotten, never ignored and never denied. <BR /> <BR />Today is a good day for Northern Ireland, for the House and, most especially, for victims and survivors. I commend the Bill to the House.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill establishes an independent redress service to administer the scheme fairly, consistently and independently. We thank the Justice Minister and her officials for their support in establishing the shadow redress service and for taking forward important preparatory work in advance of the Bill passing and the scheme opening. The service provides powers to obtain relevant evidence and information, which will help applicants to overcome barriers that often arise when dealing with events that occurred many decades ago. <BR /> <BR />We also recognise the victims and survivors who, sadly, did not live to see this day. Many campaigned tirelessly for truth and acknowledgement but have not lived to witness the Bill's passage. Their absence is keenly felt.”
“The standardised payment provided for in the Bill is not about financial compensation. It is an acknowledgement of the shame, stigma and lifelong consequences imposed on so many women, children and families. Many of us have been deeply moved and, honestly, forever impacted on by the harrowing details of what we have heard and read of how women and children were treated in those places of supposed care and shelter. We will not forget them or their lived experiences. We fully appreciate that no payment can erase the grief, loss, separation and trauma, but the scheme can provide some tangible recognition to as many people as possible that those experiences mattered and that society accepts a responsibility to acknowledge that the wrongs occurred.”
“Their input was instrumental in shaping the Bill that the Assembly will shortly be invited to pass. <BR /> <BR />For those affected by the mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and related pathways and practices, the process has taken too long, but we can be pleased that we got there, for the victims' sakes. Many have spent decades feeling lost while searching for answers, records, recognition and acknowledgement of the profound impact that the institutions had on their lives. That is why the Bill establishes a statutory redress scheme alongside the inquiry. That approach reflects the recommendations of the truth recovery design panel, agreed by Ministers, which recognise that victims and survivors should not have to wait until every aspect of a truth recovery process has concluded before receiving meaningful acknowledgement.”
“Together, we sought to arrive at deliverable solutions. We worked our way through the challenges and disagreements together, as we should. We did so sensitively, given the nature of the issues, and we afforded respect to one another, including in the debates. We saw constructive engagement between the Executive and the Assembly throughout. I trust that what we witnessed throughout the legislative process will bring some confidence and reassurance to our citizenry and those who care about democracy. The democratic process together with the perseverance of victims and survivors have delivered the final version of the Bill. We congratulate the victims and survivors on all that they did to bring it to fruition. We extend our sincere thanks to all who engaged in the process, recognising the significant achievement.”
“The inquiry is about more than examining the past; it is about listening, acknowledging and, above all, ensuring that those whose voices were ignored for far too long are finally heard. <BR /> <BR />Alongside the inquiry, the Bill delivers something that victims and survivors have consistently told us is essential: meaningful acknowledgement in the here and now. Final Stage is not about revisiting policy arguments or decisions on what was or was not passed, yet it was important, necessary and right that the Executive's position was placed on the record. Nevertheless, today is a good day. Moreover, it is a historic day. We are delivering for victims and survivors, as we should. <BR /> <BR />Everybody concerned approached the Bill with the best of intentions and mindful of the hurt and harm of the past.”
“It is still cruel, disheartening and difficult to fully comprehend. I hope that the experiences of the many women who were affected by those institutions and practices will serve as a challenge to us all. It is a challenge to us as a society to reflect on what more we can do now to treat women and girls with respect and care and to offer hope for a better future. <BR /> <BR />Ultimately, the success of the inquiry will depend on its ability to uncover the truth. That truth will be stronger, more meaningful and more powerful if those with lived experience feel able to participate. I must say that hearing their lived experiences hits home. It is immensely powerful. I encourage everyone who feels able to engage with the process to do so. They should feel confident that every effort will be made to treat them with dignity, respect and care.”
“That is important not only for those who were directly affected but for society as a whole. We cannot change the past or undo the suffering, separation, loss and trauma that were experienced by so many women, children and families, but we can and will seek the truth. We can and will investigate what happened thoroughly and independently. We can ensure that experiences are recognised and recorded, never to be forgotten, and we can help future generations to understand that dark chapter of our history. <BR /> <BR />The practices of these institutions may have been hidden or not spoken about openly, but they were never accidental. They were the product of systemic misogyny, and we continue to see misogyny today from some; it is just in different guises, and that is the ugly truth.”
“Through the wider truth recovery programme, dedicated counselling and therapeutic support services were made available through the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS) via its community partners WAVE Trauma Centre and Adopt NI. Over 600 people have accessed those supports to date. The Executive remain committed to ensuring that engagement with those processes is conducted with sensitivity, compassion and respect, and that support remains a central and vital part of the process. <BR /> <BR />To anyone considering whether to engage with the inquiry, let me say that we hope that it will be seen as an opportunity to contribute to a fuller understanding of our shared past. Every testimony matters, as does every piece of evidence. Together, they can help to establish a clearer and more complete picture of what occurred.”
“Important work has also been undertaken by officials in the Department of Health and the trusts to improve access to relevant records, but we appreciate that there is much more to do. We know that the records situation is not perfect, but, nevertheless, we hope that the steps taken thus far represent progress, and we trust that that progress will continue. We are grateful to the Health Minister for his support in advancing that work, and we will continue to engage with him on preparations for the redress scheme and the inquiry. <BR /> <BR />In shaping the framework for the inquiry, we learned valuable lessons from other major inquiries on how best to support participation, engage with vulnerable individuals and ensure that processes are conducted with compassion and care.”
“To date, more than 6,000 institutional records have been preserved, digitised and catalogued. That covers over 32 record collections and almost 60,000 digital images. Those records can now be made available to the inquiry chair without any unnecessary delay. That is a significant achievement and one that, hopefully, brings victims and survivors closer to obtaining the answers that they have sought for so long.”
“It also recognises the broad scope of the work of the inquiry, encompassing communities across this jurisdiction while acknowledging the importance of understanding the experiences of those who were relocated elsewhere on these islands or further afield. <BR /> <BR />If you will indulge me, Mr Deputy Speaker, today is also an important and appropriate moment to reflect on the importance of the Preservation of Documents (Historical Institutions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, passed by the Assembly almost four years ago to the day. That legislation laid essential foundations for the work that follows and for the inquiry that this Bill seeks to establish. It has enabled colleagues in the Public Record Office to ensure access to records held by institutions within the scope of this programme.”
“It will provide a formal and authoritative process through which experiences can be acknowledged, evidence can be gathered and the historical record can be strengthened. It will have additional powers to examine the evidence and the power to compel new evidence that may not have been accessible to date. <BR /> <BR />We welcome the creation of the advisory panel, which is a distinctive and important feature of the legislation. It goes beyond the standard provisions of the Inquiries Act 2005 and is designed to ensure that the perspectives of victims and survivors remain central throughout the work of the inquiry, while still fully protecting its independence and integrity.”
“The other provides acknowledgement now by creating a redress scheme that provides a financial payment that represents society's acceptance that those affected should not have to wait any longer to receive tangible confirmation that their experiences mattered. <BR /> <BR />To recap, the legislation before the House has been carefully designed to establish an independent and effective public inquiry that is capable of carrying out the comprehensive investigation for which survivors and advocates have long called and that they deserve. It will be built on the important work of the truth recovery independent panel, whose report will launch next week. The establishment of the inquiry matters, because it will do more than examine historical events.”
“We also take this opportunity to express our appreciation to our own officials, who have worked tirelessly with care, sensitivity and dedication on the Bill with us, with the Committee and, most important, as they engaged with victims and survivors. Likewise, we commend the Office of the Legislative Counsel for its support and drafting expertise. <BR /> <BR />While no legislation can undo the extent of the suffering endured, it is our hope that the Bill represents another important step towards recognition, accountability and healing. The inquiry and the redress scheme represent two parts of a single commitment. One seeks to uncover the truth: what happened, why it happened and who was responsible.”
“We thank all who participated in the Victims and Survivors Consultation Forum. We know that that has not always been an easy space, but we hope that, today, they can reflect on all their efforts with pride. We say a special thanks to Marie Breen Smyth, current independent chair of the forum, and Avila Kilmurray, the previous chair, for their great support of the forum and the programme more generally and to Danny Taggart for his support as clinical psychologist to the forum. <BR /> <BR />We express our gratitude to the Committee for the Executive Office and Assembly staff. The Committee Chairperson and members undertook their scrutiny with diligence, sensitivity and respect. Throughout the process, their engagement with victims and survivors and with the Department reflected the gravity and importance of the issues under consideration.”
“<BR /> <BR />Of course, the experience did not end with the institution itself; rather, for the victims and survivors — those women and children — the period has been a thread of pain that has woven its way through their entire lives. For many, the past has, indeed, been a lifelong struggle to be heard, to be believed and to be acknowledged. The harm that they experienced did not end when an institution closed its doors, nor did it end when records were filed away. Many victims and survivors carried the consequences throughout their lives, affecting identities, relationships, families and futures — effects that have echoed across generations. <BR /> <BR />I thank all who have contributed to the process. First, the victims, survivors and relatives have been central to the truth recovery programme from the very beginning.”
“They challenged a silence that had endured for far too long. They encouraged others to come forward and helped them to find their voice. They refused to be cowed, and they rejected the shame and stigma that had been wrongly placed on them by others — a shame that was never theirs to bear. I believe that it is true to say that, for them, it has been a monumental fight to be heard. It is a fight to be acknowledged, and it is a fight to hold to account those responsible for the pain and suffering that they visited on those women during that dark period of our past and since. I think that I can speak for all of us when we say that we are sorry that they have had to fight at all.”
“We are deeply grateful to those who, often at great cost to themselves, have shared their painful, personal experiences and to those who have engaged constructively and thoughtfully through the consultation forum and the various consultation processes. Without question, they have helped to shape the policy and legislation before the House today. Their willingness to participate in the process has made the Bill stronger, more informed and more meaningful. <BR /> <BR />Special recognition must also be given to the women who began this journey and never gave up: we all know who they are. We specifically acknowledge the women who started Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice all those years ago, as well as those who stood alongside them. Those women showed extraordinary courage.”
“It is not an exaggeration to say that today is a momentous day. It is an honour and a privilege for me to move the Final Stage of this important legislation on behalf of the First Minister and the deputy first Minister, junior Minister Reilly and, indeed, the Executive. <BR /> <BR />Before turning to the detail of the Bill, it is right that we pause to recognise those who have helped to bring us to this point. This moment has truly been many years in the making. It has been shaped by the courage, perseverance and determination of countless individuals, some of whom are with us today in the Public Gallery. Others will be watching or listening remotely, and to all of them we offer our sincere thanks. <BR /> <BR />Most of all, I pay tribute to the victims and survivors whose experiences sit at the heart of the legislation.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it right for the Member to infer that I could not give such a guarantee when he knows well that all of that is based on decisions of this House? It is not for me to pre-empt decisions of the House on what a consultation might be and what Members might approve or otherwise. It would be wrong to give guarantees in that circumstance.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. The Member reflected on correcting the record about the Exceptional Further Consideration Stage. In my time here, which dates back to 1998, the Exceptional Further Consideration Stage has happened once, as I recall. I stand to be corrected, but I recall that it has happened once. It is not a standard procedure, and the key to that is the word "Exceptional".”
“For those reasons, we ask the House to support the Executive's position on the amendments.”
“<BR /> <BR />The scheme already goes further and is more inclusive than any scheme anywhere else on these isles and more inclusive than international comparators. It forms part of a carefully balanced package of measures developed from the truth recovery design panel's recommendations. The package represents years of engagement, consultation and careful policy development and scrutiny. It seeks to provide not only financial recognition but a lasting legacy of remembrance, understanding and healing. I caution Members to be careful not to put that progress at risk. Today, we have an opportunity to deliver a scheme that is compassionate, inclusive and capable of being implemented without further delay. I therefore urge Members to support the Bill and help ensure that long-overdue recognition and redress can finally be delivered.”
“<BR /> <BR />Similarly, I want to be clear that the debate on the posthumous date is not a choice between acknowledgement and non-acknowledgement; it is a question of setting a date as best we can in a way that is principled, consistent with other schemes and, ultimately, deliverable. The Executive agreed that 29 September 2011 provides the strongest foundation for doing so. Extending eligibility for relatives back to 1953 would introduce significant practical, financial and evidential risks, with the potential to delay redress for those whom the scheme was intended to support and the potential to raise expectations that cannot ultimately be met. Before voting for the amendment, Members should be fully aware of its potential impacts, assess the risks and, accordingly, make their decision on which way to vote.”
“<BR /> <BR />As we discussed earlier, the inquiry can establish whether mistreatment of pregnant women occurred at a systemic level across the 20 workhouses here and whether their treatment was distinct from other workhouse residents' experiences. That will inform whether further recognition or responses may be appropriate. It is also important to remember that redress is not limited to financial payments. The wider framework includes other forms of recognition and support, including memorialisation, access to records, counselling and support services, all of which play an important role in acknowledging past harms.”
“The inclusion of workhouses would represent a significant broadening of the scheme beyond its intended scope, as set out at Second Stage and agreed at Consideration Stage. It is not because the experiences of those connected to workhouses are being dismissed — I want to be really clear about that — but because workhouses occupied a different place in the wider institutional and welfare landscape. Workhouses were not directly comparable to mother-and-baby institutions alone. They shared characteristics with a range of institutions, including children's homes, hospitals and other forms of institutional care and therefore must be understood in that broader context.”
“Options that are being explored include a specialist team and a central index to make records easier to locate. We have also funded PRONI's work to digitise institutional records, which should improve access and streamline the redress and inquiry processes. I will not go into that further, as Mr Butler is not in his place. <BR /> <BR />I place on record my thanks to the Committee, Members of the House and, indeed, officials for all their significant work on this very important Bill. <BR /> <BR />While the amendments tabled by the Committee and Mr Carroll are clearly well intentioned, they would significantly alter the design, scope and, potentially, the deliverability of the scheme, and thus they create the risk of unintended consequences.”
“That includes provision for a procedure enabling the applicant to nominate an individual to receive a payment, which we believe was the policy intent of the original amendment. <BR /> <BR />I will address a couple of points that Mr Butler raised about records. He asked me to comment on whether or not there has been investment in relation to records. There has been investment in preservation, access and standardisation via PRONI and the trusts, but we appreciate that there is much more to do, as we said in the debate at the Bill's previous stage. Junior Minister Reilly and I have met the Health Minister on that important issue, and we know that that area has been and will continue to be vital for the victims and survivors. We are working closely with the health and social care trusts to manage the expected increase in requests.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 15 is the Department's redrafted version of Mr Carroll's amendment to clause 43(2)(f), which was moved at Consideration Stage. Mr Carroll's original amendment conflated two distinct processes: what happens when an applicant passes away during the application process, and posthumous payments whereby eligible relatives of the deceased may make an individual claim for £2,000. As it stands, that risks creating confusion and undermining the coherence of the legislation. The redrafted amendment removes the reference to "eligible relative" and instead provides that the Executive Office may make regulations setting out what is to happen in the event that an applicant passes away while their application is ongoing.”
“It would create clear inequalities, with some individuals receiving significantly more than others, based solely on the number of admissions, and could risk further deepening feelings of hurt and unfairness that are already felt by some victims and survivors due to the amendment having passed at Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 12 also allows for up to two posthumous payments to an eligible relative of a deceased person who would have met the criteria under subsections (2) and (3). That approach balances eligibility in the Bill while ensuring that the posthumous payment remains grounded in the entitlement and expectation of the deceased. We ask Members to support that amendment.”
“At the same time, the amendment makes it clear that a person who was born in hospital and then admitted to an institution immediately afterwards will receive one payment only. That reflects the view that, in such cases, the shame and stigma arises from a single set of circumstances: namely, being born to a woman who was under institutional care. <BR /> <BR />Mr Carroll's amendment would also have allowed for a payment per admission to each institution. We have consistently been clear that the standardised payment is an acknowledgement of the impact of the system as a whole and that enabling a payment for each admission would move the scheme towards an open-ended model, thus undermining the core principle of a standardised payment.”
“Amendment No 12 seeks to address those issues in a balanced and proportionate way. It provides that individuals who are eligible under subsections (2) and (3) may receive up to two payments. The limit of two payments reflects the structure of the scheme, which recognises two distinct routes to eligibility: being born while your mother was under institutional care and being admitted to an institution. Amendment No 12 allows for both of those experiences to be recognised, in cases where they are genuinely separate. It recognises that being born to a woman who was under institutional care may carry a distinct shame and stigma that is separate from the experience of being admitted to an institution later in life.”
“It is also important to recognise the fact that eligibility for the scheme extends beyond adoptees and birth mothers. Not all those born to women who were under institutional care were adopted, and not all those admitted to institutions later in life were birth mothers. Magdalene laundries, for example, did not generally admit pregnant women. A narrow approach that is based solely on those examples would therefore risk excluding others who had comparable experiences.”
“Members will recall that eligibility under those subsections is split between those who were born while their mother was under the care of a relevant institution and those who were admitted to an institution themselves. The drafting is deliberately broad and inclusive so as to reflect the wide range of lived experiences of victims and survivors. As amended at Consideration Stage, however, clause 32(9) would give rise to what are, we presume, unintended consequences. For example, a child who was born in hospital and admitted to a mother-and-baby institution immediately afterwards would also be eligible for two payments. That would be a significant number of applicants, as most mother-and-baby institutions did not contain a maternity ward, and most women gave birth in hospitals.”
“That is what the House voted to support. However, Mr Carroll's amendment as made provides:”
“Extending eligibility in the way proposed would not only depart from that principle but introduce significant practical, financial and other risks. <BR /> <BR />We appreciate the sensitive and complex nature of the issue, but, should Members pass the amendment, it is important that they do so with full knowledge of the potential consequences for the scheme and for victims and survivors themselves. <BR /> <BR />I will now address amendment No 12. This is the Department's tidied-up version of Mr Carroll's amendment to clause 32(9). Moved at Consideration Stage, it relates to multiple payments. During the debate that day, Mr Carroll explained the policy intention behind the amendment, saying:”
“For example, applicants are not required to provide detailed or potentially re-traumatising statements about their experiences in order to access a standardised payment, nor are they required to sign a waiver preventing them from pursuing future legal action. <BR /> <BR />Unlike many other redress schemes, this scheme is also inherently intergenerational in its design, recognising mothers and all children — now adults — who were born in those institutions. A core principle of state redress schemes is that finite public resources should be directed towards those most directly affected. In that context, it is essential that we focus on what can be delivered now to those for whom the scheme was established.”
“In those cases, the scheme would risk causing further distress rather than providing the recognition and support that it is intended to deliver. <BR /> <BR />The scheme developed by the Department and agreed by the Executive is firmly grounded in the recommendations of the truth recovery design panel. It has been carefully designed to provide meaningful redress while minimising unnecessary barriers for applicants. The scheme comprises two elements: a standardised payment providing recognition through a straightforward and accessible process; and an individually assessed payment that will allow a person's individual experience to be taken into account. It adopts a compassionate, inclusive and trauma-informed approach and compares favourably with international schemes.”
“Most importantly, there is a risk of raising expectations that cannot realistically be met. As eligibility stretches further back in time, the likelihood increases that records will be incomplete or unavailable altogether and that applications cannot then be verified by archival records alone. The scheme has been designed so that where records are incomplete or do not exist, there is flexibility to consider alternative forms of evidence such as signed affidavits. However, surviving family members, the service and the system generally may not always be able to provide the level of detail required to support an application. That creates a real risk of people coming forward in good faith only to find that the system cannot confirm their eligibility.”
“Yes. The Member is right in that it is a demand-led scheme. Regardless of that, we are aware — there was a debate about it earlier — of the black hole in the Budget, and that picture is not going to get any brighter, so Members need to understand the implications. The funding will not just come from TEO's budget; other Departments will be impacted on. It is important that that is on the record and that Members who will vote on this understand the full picture. <BR /> <BR />Demand for historical records, family tracing and support services could rise substantially. Social work services that already operate under considerable strain would be required to absorb that increased demand, potentially impacting on the quality and, indeed, availability of support for current service users, including victims and survivors.”
“The issue is not merely one of increasing resources; it is about ensuring that the appropriate resources and the necessary specialist expertise are in place for the benefit of those seeking help and, indeed, their information.”
“Decisions of this nature will always have financial implications, but I emphasise that cost has not been the primary driver in setting the date. Rather, it reflects a considered and principled policy decision grounded in standard practice and precedent. However, the House should know and understand that the £30 million of additional funding would have to be met from the Executive Budget and thus come from other Departments. <BR /> <BR />We have engaged with the Health Minister on some of the issues that Mr Butler raised, and it is clear that this amendment could place significant additional pressure on health trusts in particular, as well as on existing services.”
“<BR /> <BR />By way of explanation, the further back eligibility extends, the more difficult it becomes to verify claims, to locate records and to establish family connections. It is a question not simply of volume but of the nature of the cases that the system would need to handle. There would also be cost implications, which must be raised with the House. Extending the scheme in that way would increase costs by an estimated £22 million in redress payments, alongside a further £8 million for support services and information retrieval. I will say again that, as elected representatives, we have a responsibility to balance how we address the legacy of the past with our ability to meet the pressing financial demands of the present. What the Executive can do and what they would like to do are not necessarily the same thing.”
“<BR /> <BR />For the benefit of the House, and to be absolutely clear, no other scheme in the world has used such an early date — the 2011 date — in combination with an admission-based scheme. That means that there is no established precedent for operating a scheme on this basis. It would significantly increase the number and complexity of posthumous applications. As a result, it carries substantial risks for the overall operation, administration and deliverability of the scheme. Using 1953 would add thousands of posthumous applications to the scheme and, more significantly, increase alongside that the complexity of the cases. That would inevitably result in longer processing times and potential delays for victims and survivors who have already waited too long for redress.”
“It is clear that nobody in any of those institutions should have experienced abuse or harm; that is the purpose of everything that we are doing. It is repugnant that people who were placed in those institutions for safety and care were treated abominably, that we are in this situation today and that these people have to live for the rest of their lives with what happened to them and to their deceased mothers. It is repugnant in every way. I concur that nobody should have had to face such abuse and treatment in places where they had been put for care and shelter. It is astonishing for all of us to consider, and it is to the shame of the state in those days.”
“I fully understand the point that the Member makes. They are incredibly sensitive issues, but I must outline for the House, for the record and for those who are with us the rationale behind the 2011 date and why the Executive agreed that date. It is fundamental that people understand why. Did the state fail in many ways? Without question. Nevertheless, it is incumbent on me to outline why we went for 2011 and why it is important. It is vital that that rationale is on the record for full understanding.”
“More broadly, 1953 does not represent a clear point of state acknowledgement or a moment when an expectation of redress could have been reasonably formed. Thus, it does not provide the same foundation as the 2011 date and those used in other jurisdictions.”
“We also carefully considered alternative posthumous dates and approaches, including international examples, but all carry different risks. We understand that the Committee amendment reflects the 1953 date used in the historical institutional abuse redress scheme. That date flowed from an inspection report on the Sisters of Nazareth children's homes. It is important to note, however, that those institutions are not relevant for this scheme. It also sits uneasily alongside other contemporaneous findings in the inspections of institutions that are in scope. That illustrates the difficultly of selecting a single historical moment or document and applying it uniformly across a complex and varied institutional landscape.”
“Crucially, that date also represents the earliest point at which it is reasonable to say that an expectation of redress could have been formed. The date provides a clear and principled anchor for the scheme grounded in state action rather than retrospective interpretation of historical events. We fully recognise that that date has been difficult for many families, particularly for those whose loved ones passed away before that point. That disappointment is understood, and work is ongoing with victims and survivors to ensure that there are meaningful and appropriate ways to commemorate those who are no longer with us beyond financial payment alone. <BR /> <BR />We understand that the Committee's proposal to move the date to 1953 is well intentioned.”