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 11 of 24.
“Thank you. I am aware of that, Mr Speaker. If I had been permitted to finish my question, it would have been clear that I was not going to stray into that territory. Given that this is a serious matter of public importance, I am attempting to offer the Minister an opportunity to make it clear categorically, yes or no, whether she or anyone else on her behalf intervened in any way during or after any investigation.”
“I am glad that the Minister has clarified that, because she will be aware that an issue has arisen in relation to an Alliance Party councillor.”
“— and their safety that is diminished and compromised. In full knowledge of the disturbing statistics around the backgrounds and mental well-being of women in prison, rather than championing the rights of those who want to be women, will the Minister move to protect actual biological adult human females in the prison setting?”
“I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, but the issue of self-identification has the potential to be a predator's charter. As we have seen in England and Scotland, predators will cynically exploit any loophole, and, in all of those circumstances, it is the hard-won rights of women that are depleted —”
“It is no longer our remit, and there is nothing that this office can do now. You'll have to go to the ICRIR". The ICRIR will then rightly state that it cannot answer questions related to another body's report, and thus there will be the passing of the proverbial buck. It is as predictable as it is despicable. I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but I fear that I am not. I publicly call again on the Office of the Police Ombudsman to release this report immediately.”
“There are a few problems with "in due course". We have heard it all before. The Office of the Police Ombudsman's actions vary considerably from the current ombudsman's words, and, again, she demurs to specify a date for the report's release, despite the families being advised a number of years ago that it was finished. So, which is true? Is it complete or is not? How long will it take? The ombudsman's office has been investigating this for 13 years. Unfortunately, the natural conclusion is that the body is running down the clock to the deadline relating to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR). You could write the script. The report will be released at the deadline, at which time, when the family ask questions, they will be told, "The time has passed.”
“<BR /> <BR />I need not go into the horrors of that night; I recounted the events in a previous debate. However, Members will be aware that there has been an ongoing campaign for the Office of the Police Ombudsman to release its report. We are now nine months on from the conclusion of the inquest, when the coroner advised that they would be in receipt of the report, and still nothing. I recently wrote again to the ombudsman, and here are excerpts from her response:”
“Last Sunday, 5 January, marked the 49th anniversary of the Kingsmills massacre in which 10 Protestant workmen were mercilessly murdered by the Provisional IRA after being lined up along the side of their van on a dark country road. There was a lone survivor. It has been my honour to work for Mr Black and the family of John McConville. I pay tribute to the families for their fight for truth and justice, which has lasted just shy of half a century. They have even had to take on the very bodies established to help them. What kind of system is it when it exacerbates the pain of the innocent victims who have already suffered unspeakably for such a protracted period? Mr Black sums up the situation as "cruel". It should be a source of grave embarrassment to those concerned.”
“<BR /> <BR />I congratulate everybody at Nexus for all that they do in what is an extremely difficult, traumatic and disturbing area of work, which, I am certain, takes its toll on the well-being of the people who give of themselves to help. You all make an immense difference in the lives of many, and, without question, you have saved countless lives too — literally and in many other ways. I commend and congratulate you, and for as long as you are needed, I hope and pray that, in every way necessary, you will be provided with all that you need for your life-changing work.”
“Certainly, the stigma and shame once felt by victims are being broken down and, instead, placed squarely where they should rightfully be: at the feet of the perpetrators. Society is becoming increasingly intolerant of abusers. This debate provides another timely reminder to all that sexual abuse is a repugnant and reprehensible crime that will not be tolerated. I encourage anybody who is being abused to tell somebody. Seek help and advice when you are ready. Tell the police as quickly as possible, but however you proceed, do not keep it to yourself. Tell somebody, and then get the support that you need.”
“I strongly believe that being sexually attacked is one of the worst things that can happen to a person, but it is also true that it is one of the worst crimes of which to be wrongly accused. Both can leave a person and their family forever damaged. Nevertheless, for survivors of sexual abuse who decide to seek criminal charges, sentencing is key. Likewise for the general public's confidence in the justice system. Victims will never forget. They will move forward, but they will never forget, and seeing their convicted abuser face justice can be cathartic, provided that the sentence befits the crime and is seen to do so. <BR /> <BR />Societally, people are more prepared than ever to speak about their experiences in order to aid their recovery, and, importantly, to come forward and talk to the police and make formal complaints.”
“We need to provide them with proper and readily available facilities for health and housing, financial and legal advice and counselling where it is required. We must also protect the most vulnerable, in particular those, young and old, in care settings, from whom the evidence can be difficult to obtain. Importantly, the police must investigate thoroughly, with open, inquisitive minds and without bias, following all the evidence that they can gather wherever it may lead. That having been said, we still must ensure that the law is not misused or weaponised and that justice is blind, allowing, where possible, complainant and accused to have their day in court.”
“In recent years, progress has been made, but there is still much more to do. Legislatively, in Northern Ireland, we have seen a plethora of new offences created, and the foundations for some additional protections put in place, albeit some are not yet implemented. We have strategies in place, and the Executive have made ending violence against women and girls a priority, which is certainly to be welcomed. However, it is important to bear in mind that not all abusers are men and not all victims of abuse are women. Therefore, the processes, provisions and support systems that are in place must be mindful of the needs of all. <BR /> <BR />Strategies are all well and good, but with words must come actions and, more importantly, practicalities. We need to make it easier for people to protect themselves and to leave abusive relationships.”
“Thankfully, there are organisations such as Nexus that help people not only to come to terms with one of the worst things that can happen to anybody but more: they help them to rebuild, go on with their lives and thrive. They may never forget but they will forge a path where they are no longer consumed by or defined by such an experience.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is important to remember that not all sexual attacks are for gratification. The weaponisation of sexual contact is as old as mankind and can be so much more about coercion, control and power.”
“Sexual abuse is nothing less than a scourge on our society and, indeed, on the world in general. It is an ever-present looming shadow that knows no bounds of class, gender or creed, and its impact can be absolutely devastating. In some cases, it is the most fundamental breach of trust and the most brutal harm that can be exacted and inflicted, because not all sexual attacks are by strangers. It is so often a hidden crime that is covered up, reliant on the guilt, shame and fear of victims to keep them quiet and compliant. It is a violation of body and, often, of trust, causing immense damage that can fundamentally alter a victim's life as they turn in on themselves and turn the blame on themselves, questioning themselves, their decisions and their choices at every turn.”
“<BR /> <BR />In my capacity as justice spokesperson for the Democratic Unionist Party, I reiterate that we were satisfied that any of our queries around the technical Bill and its LCM were addressed by departmental officials and by the assurances that we received by way of correspondence from the FSB and the Law Society. On that basis, we in the DUP are content to endorse the motion.”
“<BR /> <BR />Given those assurances and having considered the evidence available, at that 24 October meeting, the Committee agreed that there were insufficient changes between the previous Bill and this one to merit further consultation with the organisations from which we had previously heard and that it was content with the proposal to extend the provisions in the Arbitration Bill to Northern Ireland. Therefore, the Committee for Justice was content for the LCM to be laid before the Assembly as soon as possible. The legislative consent memorandum for the Arbitration Bill 2024 was laid by the Minister of Justice on 8 November 2024, and, following consideration of it, the Committee agreed to support the Minister in seeking endorsement of the motion.”
“Officials suggested that major amendments were unlikely due to its technical nature. They also commented that there is broad support for the Bill. The Committee heard that the Law Commission in England and Wales had carried out two consultation phases and received a large number of responses. Officials stated that there had been good engagement with key stakeholders, including those in Northern Ireland through the Law Commission and Mr Justice Scoffield. The Committee for Finance also responded to us to note that it was content with the proposal to include Northern Ireland in the Bill, subject to approval by the Executive.”
“<BR /> <BR />In October, the Department of Justice wrote to the Committee to inform us of the Minister's intention to lay a new legislative consent memorandum before the Assembly for the Arbitration Bill that is currently before Parliament. The Committee, at its meeting on 24 October 2024, considered correspondence from the Department on the background to the Bill and its provisions. We also heard oral evidence from officials, who informed us that the scope of the Bill was very similar to that of the one that fell previously and that they were of the view that there were no Northern Ireland-specific issues that would require a different approach from that in England and Wales. The Committee sought clarification on a number of issues, including the likelihood of changes being made to the Bill as it progressed through Parliament.”
“We were in receipt of a written briefing from the Department of Justice on the LCM for that Bill, and we requested and received further information following that. The Committee also wrote to the Law Society of Northern Ireland and the Bar of Northern Ireland to seek their views. We subsequently considered correspondence from the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) and the Law Society, both of which were largely supportive of the changes to the Arbitration Bill. Indeed, the submission from the Federation of Small Businesses said that the business community in Northern Ireland would likely welcome the proposed changes, as the Bill should provide greater clarity and simplicity and address anomalies in the current legislation.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion as Chair of the Justice Committee. I declare an interest, in that I have an immediate family member who works in the legal profession. The Minister outlined the purpose of the legislative consent memorandum, and I see no reason for repetition. Instead, I will focus on the Committee's approach to the LCM for the Arbitration Bill, which seeks to amend the Arbitration Act 1996 and has 18 clauses, all of which, as the Minister outlined, would apply to Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />The Committee initially considered an LCM for the Arbitration Bill that fell due to the dissolution of Parliament when the general election was called earlier this year.”
“What will the Minister do to ensure that roadworks are carried out as quickly as they can be and, where possible, in months that have lighter traffic or during the night, particularly on major arterial routes into and out of the city? What will he do to ensure that no more than one arterial route in each area of the city will be worked on at a time to make sure that alternative routes are available?”
“On a more general point, the current messaging that says that if you are in traffic, you are traffic is rather dismissive of those for whom public transport is not an option due to the nature of their work. It does not take account of the fact that the park-and-ride at Dundonald, for example, is at capacity or of the fact that our public transport system is limited and not like those in other cities. It does not take account of the inordinate difficulties that there are with public transport or otherwise of crossing the city, such as getting from the east of the city to the north in normal rush hours never mind in the current situation.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for his answer on this important subject. However, I am advised by those in the community and voluntary sector who undertake a lot of the front-line work, particularly around mental health crisis, that additional moneys that are allocated seldom reach them. They are often absorbed further up the chain by bureaucracy, administration and strategy, rather than being spent on the people who need the help. What action will he undertake to review the systems and processes and strip away some of those additional layers, thus allowing the funding to reach the point of need and pay for vital services on the ground?”
“The Minister will be well aware that there is a dearth of social housing in East Belfast and that, indeed, we are lagging considerably behind other areas in Belfast on social housing supply. Therefore, what does this strategy mean for East Belfast and will it result in more and new social housing in my constituency?”
“That approach is crucial if we are to reduce reoffending rates and ensure a justice system that is effective in delivering positive outcomes for prisoners and for the good of wider society when they are released. <BR /> <BR />I have no doubt that the officers will not rest on their laurels but will build upon those excellent foundations. In the interim, all that remains is to wish them hearty congratulations and continued success.”
“that His Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons has "inspected in England and Wales." <BR /> <BR />It is immensely difficult for prisons to achieve that standard, especially given the extent of issues that they face, including the high levels of remand prisoners, for whom there is little incentive to engage in rehabilitation, not to mention the extent of the complex needs of the prisoners with whom they work. Those outstanding reports are therefore a testament to the dedication and commitment of officers as well as to their ethos and attitude of getting to know the prisoners whom they are looking after and encouraging them to engage and change, including through offering a wide range of activities and learning opportunities.”
“I rise to commend and congratulate the governor and prison officers of Hydebank Wood, following an unannounced inspection by the Criminal Justice Inspection in June, the reports on which have just been released. The great news is that Hydebank Wood has attained the highest achievable level for prisoner outcomes against the healthy prison tests, and that is a first for any prison in Northern Ireland. It is a tremendous result, given how the prison has transformed itself in a mere 10 years. Such success should be lauded far and wide, and it is right that we in the House should recognise and praise such a significant achievement after such considerable efforts and work. <BR /> <BR />Indeed, the Criminal Justice Inspection, in its inspection reports into both the secure college and the women's prison, stated that Hydebank:”
“<BR /> <BR />We are doing our best to be practical and not to over-egg but, rather, to build in what, at this stage, we think, are reasonable timings. That is not easy to do when there is a lot still to come, but we will keep it all under review, be flexible where we can and report early if we may. However, we will not apologise for being responsible and for trying to ensure that we have adequate time. Once the House agrees an extension date, it is set, so we are better to go long than run short, and I trust that Members will see that. We in the DUP support the motion and trust that others will do likewise.”
“The entire Committee is clear, as are we as Democratic Unionist Party members, that we are not in this to needlessly or pointlessly delay. We will put our shoulders to the wheel and do the job that we were elected to do, but we get one go at this. With haste often comes error. It is our responsibility to minimise that, as best we might, in the context of recent judgements and the advice that we have received. That is not to say that things will not go wrong. They may well do, because nothing is perfect, but the Committee and the House should at least be able to stand over our efforts and say that we did the best that we could, took account of the advice that we were given and tried to ensure that we learned from the mistakes of the past.”
“If there are Bills in front of us, we will scrutinise them; indeed, we look forward to that. <BR /> <BR />Even taking into account this time frame, by our provisional scheduling, we still have only around three meetings to cover children and young people, around six for biometrics and four for serious crime. Remember that we will have other Committee work on top of the Bill, like statutory rules (SRs). The complexity of biometrics alone is borne out by the fact that, after stress-testing the Bill with the PSNI, the Department has already had to add 22 amendments and a new schedule. <BR /> <BR />The DUP has no interest in delay for delay's sake: none. That would be to nobody's benefit. Some may seek to get it done quickly; that is their prerogative. We will seek to get it done right, properly and within an appropriate time frame.”
“Parts of the Bill are carry-overs from the last mandate, so the Department has institutional knowledge. We must read ourselves into those matters, enquire about the consequences, intended or otherwise, and give due regard to the conventions. Those are not small affairs, and legislation is a serious business. We too are entitled to time to look into those areas. <BR /> <BR />Some have suggested that the extension will impair the opportunity for further Bills. I reassure those who hold that concern that that is not our intention. I emphasise that at no point have we indicated that we would not scrutinise more than one Bill at a time. Of course, it is not the ideal or preferable way to do it, but that does not mean that we will not do it. It happens regularly towards the end of a mandate, as Members know only too well.”
“<BR /> <BR />With the greatest respect to those outside the Committee — they are certainly entitled to their view — it is not for them to assert what the Committee must or should do and the way we must or should do it when they are not privy to what we have front of us, the extent of that which is still to come or the advice that we have received at every turn. There were lessons from the Committee scrutiny of the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme regulations and the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, and we, as a Committee, are determined to learn them. <BR /> <BR />We must also remember that the Minister and her Department's officials have been considering some of the policy areas for years.”
“<BR /> <BR />Given some of the commentary — unfair, in my view — on the proposed extension, the easy option would be to set a much shorter extension time frame that is, potentially, more to the Department's liking. However, what if we reach our deadline and the work has not been completed? We will have nowhere to move, the clock will have run down and the Assembly will have a complex and technical Bill that has not been fully scrutinised and a report that does not fully inform the House from a Committee whose deliberations are incomplete. It would be a colossal dereliction of our responsibilities to set ourselves a date that we could not meet. It is far better to allow ourselves the time that the issues merit and build in flexibility, should it be required. If things work out better and happen faster, that is ideal for all concerned.”
“Some may suggest that elements of these topics seem straightforward on the face of it, but, until we see the actual text and the full extent of the clauses and consider the meat of the issues and what the implications may be, we cannot fully or accurately know, so it is imperative that we build in time in case it is required. <BR /> <BR />In the course of all this, the Department has given indicative times for various documentation, some of which have been a movable feast. For example, with the delegated powers memorandum, the Department indicated that it needed more time and wanted to get it right. It is likewise for the Committee, and, just as the Department was not curtailed in the work that it had to do, the Committee should not be either.”
“We deliberated over the options, the pros and cons and the knowns and unknowns, and we took advice. We then reached a decision without having to divide. Some, including me, expressed concern about the time frame, and all of that was debated on a number of occasions over various meetings. Ultimately, however, after considering the provisional schedule for each subject in the Bill and recognising the "limit, not a target" mindset, the Committee came to its decision together. <BR /> <BR />I fully understand that such a time frame is not necessarily ideal, but nor is it ideal that we must specify a date for the completion of our work when we do not yet know, beyond the policy intent, exactly what it is that we must scrutinise in its entirety.”
“We are political representatives after all, and that will also play out in the House. Thus far, however, none of that has arisen, and the Committee has been a constructive and collegial place in which to work. By and large, we operate by consensus where we can. While we may come from different perspectives and give our views, it is done respectfully, including when it comes to matters on which we disagree. Nobody is in there with a closed mind, and we recognise that in each other and bounce off each other as we tease out issues. Thus far, we nine have enjoyed a good dynamic and worked together well. I really hope that that continues. <BR /> <BR />As we deliberated over the length of the extension, I did not seek to steer the discussion or decision and sought to ensure that every view was heard and considered.”
“We take our responsibility seriously. At Second Stage, we were disappointed, as were most Committee members, to be honest, to hear those who are not members of our Committee criticise it for taking its time and suggest that there were politics at play. That is not the case. Thus far, my experience of the Justice Committee has been that it is a committed, engaged Committee, members of which take a genuine and avid interest in justice subject matters and have an eagerness to do our best by the justice family and the citizens who engage with the system. Anyone who has seen the extent to which we all ask questions will bear that out. <BR /> <BR />There will inevitably come a time when we each take a different political view on an issue. That is natural and to be expected.”
“<BR /> <BR />At Second Stage, I finished my remarks as Chair of the Committee by expressing the Committee's desire to work collaboratively with the Minister and the Department throughout the passage of the Bill. On behalf of the Committee, I reiterate that desire today. Let us proceed with that shared purpose. Today, I will finish my remarks as Chair by stating that the Committee's only aim throughout the process has been to conduct robust and effective scrutiny. That will continue to be the case. We want to ensure that what is added to the statute book is effective, clear, coherent, fit for purpose and future-proof. <BR /> <BR />I will now make a number of points in my capacity as the DUP's justice spokesperson. My DUP colleagues on the Committee and I are committed to making the process work and doing the right thing.”
“Indeed, the potential need to meet more than once a week as the mandate progresses has already been mentioned during Committee meetings. We want to manage our time effectively. <BR /> <BR />Although not ideal, it is not unusual for Committees to be in the position of scrutinising more than one Bill concurrently. We are not actively seeking that, but we will devote our time to scrutinising legislation robustly, efficiently and effectively, should such a situation arise. Any future Bills that are referred to the Committee will also be scrutinised thoroughly. Issues such as complexity and the completeness and timeliness of the information provided by the Department will be factors in the time that we require to do so.”
“One phrase that has been used during the deliberations a number of times is that the requested extension date is "a limit, not a target". I assure the House that, if the Committee can report earlier, it will, but that will depend on a number of factors, including departmental engagement and responsiveness and the Committee properly addressing issues raised during the process. <BR /> <BR />The Committee has no influence whatever over when Bills are referred to it, and that is how it should be. If the Committee needs to scrutinise more than one Bill at a time, that is what we will do. To be clear, we are not seeking to bottleneck or artificially delay legislation. That is in no one's interest. Rather, we seek to take a responsible approach to scrutiny in the circumstances in which we find ourselves.”
“The Committee will work hard to progress scrutiny, and we are conscious of those points. We are aware of the Minister's intention to introduce two further Bills, and the Committee will build those into its forward work programme and timetable. The Committee wants to see those Bills progressed. Scrutinising legislation is the Committee's top priority. That will drive our work. We will act responsibly to do the job properly.”
“<BR /> <BR />There has been some commentary here and in the media — indeed, concerns have been raised directly with the Committee — that this proposed extension to the Committee Stage will have an impact on the passage of subsequent Bills that the Minister plans to introduce later in the mandate. I emphasise in the strongest possible terms that that is not the Committee's intention. The Committee recognises the importance of giving legislation priority and of being efficient and effective. We take our responsibility for planning and reviewing our timetabling very seriously. That efficiency must be seen in the context of conducting robust scrutiny for each Bill. The Speaker made remarks in the House yesterday about ensuring effective conditions for scrutiny and has previously spoken about the risk of overloading Committees.”
“It is still the Committee's belief that a Keeling schedule would be very useful in that context. <BR /> <BR />Furthermore, the delegated powers memorandum to which I refer should have been with the Committee before Second Stage, which took place on 1 October 2024. At its meeting on 26 September, the Committee was told that the memorandum would be with us within two weeks. However, we received it almost four weeks after that. We are fully aware that things can slip, but that further demonstrates the fundamental need to build flexibility and contingency into our approach to scrutiny.”
“We do not want the same to happen this time. Not only must there be an open engagement process to bring such issues to the fore, but we must clearly evidence that we, as a Committee, have taken steps to probe the issues fully. However — again, I do not want to rehearse arguments that have already happened here and elsewhere — it is important to point out that the Committee has been disappointed by the Minister's reluctance to provide it with a Keeling schedule to aid its scrutiny. As I mentioned earlier in a different context, the delegated powers memorandum from the Department stated:”
“One aspect of the judgement that I draw to the House's attention is that the court noted that the rationale that was given in evidence for a certain decision about the provisions in question:”
“The Committee agrees with that sentiment. <BR /> <BR />That brings me to another important aspect of the Committee's consideration: the High Court judgement regarding the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Members will be aware of the details of that judgement, so I will not go into specifics now. There are differing views about the judgement, but, regardless, the judgement has been made, and it contains strong criticisms of the Assembly. The Committee would have conducted robust scrutiny in the absence of any such judgement, but it has added emphasis. There is a particular onus on the Committee to conduct focused and effective scrutiny, notably where the Bill engages the European Convention on Human Rights.”
“The Committee's view is that it is essential that it scrutinises the clauses of the Bill as well as the policy intent, and that stakeholders should be afforded the same opportunity. If, for some unforeseen reason, which we know can happen, the legislation were to become the subject of a judicial review, we would not want a lack of proper scrutiny to be a factor in any such situation. A failure to take evidence on the detail of provisions would increase that risk significantly. The need for robust scrutiny of the legislation is a key factor in the Committee's considerations. As one departmental official said when advising the Committee to take the time that it felt that it needed in order to conduct its scrutiny:”
“An initial reading of the proposed amendments suggests that it is more than finessing. <BR /> <BR />The Committee wants to conduct its scrutiny role to the best of its ability and to be efficient and effective. However, scrutinising a Bill before all the provisions are added is extremely difficult. We need to take focused evidence on the detail of what is being proposed, not an outline. We need to build in additional time for that. During Question Time on Tuesday 22 October, in response to a question about whether the Committee should wait until organisations can see the full content of the Bill before forming opinions on it, the Minister stated:”