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 12 of 24.
“<BR /> <BR />Indeed, last week, the Committee received the proposed text of some of the amendments, as promised by the Minister and her officials. I should say at this point that, although the text of the proposed amendments has been circulated to Committee members, the Committee has not yet had the chance to consider them formally. What jumped out immediately, however, was that the proposed amendments to Part 1 of the Bill, which covers biometrics, run to eight pages and look to insert a new schedule. <BR /> <BR />At its meeting on 26 September 2024, the Committee was told by a departmental official:”
“Subsequently, the Committee was informed that the plan is now to add six new provisions at Consideration Stage. The additional provisions include amending rehabilitation periods to shorten existing periods and to allow more convictions to be able to become spent. Those are not insignificant provisions. <BR /> <BR />The Minister and her officials have committed to providing the text of the amendments as soon as possible, for which the Committee is grateful. We will be eager to see them, but, given that the Committee was initially told that four substantive provisions would be added, which was then increased to six, there was some concern that other changes might yet occur. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, that is in the context of the need for amendments to an existing provision already having been identified.”
“It is important to refer to it, however, because it was one of the Committee's considerations when seeking an extension. The Committee is being asked to take a decision on the necessary time for Committee Stage without seeing the text of the proposed new clauses. Accordingly, we have had to take significant precautions in order to address the potential for slippage and for unforeseen issues arising. <BR /> <BR />Back in March, the Committee was informed that the plan was that four substantive new areas were to be added by way of amendments at Consideration Stage. In addition to provisions on live links, we were told that the proposed amendments would include provisions to repeal vagrancy legislation and provisions to insert the new offences of directing and participating in serious organised crime.”
“<BR /> <BR />Part 4 covers a range of areas, from functions that relate to the police to functions that relate to criminal proceedings, legal aid, criminal records, certificates and court security. Many of the provisions in Part 4 aim to amend other legislation. Again, it is clear, even from an initial reading of the provisions, how complex many of those issues are. <BR /> <BR />I refer to the various Parts of the Bill to highlight, as I said, how the Bill is not, in our view, narrow in focus. That is before the Minister's planned addition of a large number of substantive provisions by way of amendments at Consideration Stage. I do not want to rehearse the arguments on the appropriateness or otherwise of introducing a Bill when it was known that numerous amendments to add provisions would be tabled at Consideration Stage.”
“It is the Committee's contention that the Bill is anything but "narrow in focus". <BR /> <BR />Part 2 relates to bail for children. The Committee has already been told that there is a need to consider how aspects of Part 2 will be supported by statutory partners, particularly regarding providing appropriate accommodation for children on their being granted bail. That is a key consideration and reflects a wider need for cross-departmental working. <BR /> <BR />Part 3 relates to the use of live links for police interviews and when people are in police detention. The Committee is aware of how important it is to strike the appropriate balance between the efficient use of resources and the rights of detained persons and the potential need for the new arrangements to be monitored, which may take the form of a review.”
“There can be no doubt about the complex nature of the Bill, and, so far, I have referred only to Part 1. <BR /> <BR />During Question Time on Tuesday 22 October 2024, the Minister of Justice stated:”
“We have now been told that more interaction with the PSNI only days after the Bill's introduction has led to the identification of the need for amendments. That demonstrates, as though the provisions themselves were not evidence enough, that this is a highly complex area and one that can change quickly. Indeed, during an evidence session on 26 September 2004, we were told by a departmental official that Part 1 of the Bill is a "complex and technical area". Furthermore, a delegated powers memorandum that the Committee received states that the Bill:”
“<BR /> <BR />We had a situation in which the Department was unable to commence those provisions in 2015 because of an intervention by the then Chief Constable.”
“The Committee understands why that section was not commenced, but why is that relevant to today's motion? Well, again, as I mentioned at Second Stage, a mere nine days after the introduction of the Justice Bill, the Committee was informed that a need to amend the biometric data part of the Bill had been identified. That information was provided to the Committee in an evidence session with departmental officials. We were told that the need came from the Department's stress testing of the provisions with operational partners when the drafting of the Bill was considered to be complete. During the Second Stage debate, the Minister of Justice clarified that the stress testing was with the PSNI.”
“I repeat my remarks from the Second Stage debate, because it is important to emphasise just how complex an area it is. <BR /> <BR />It is not the first time that the Department of Justice has legislated in that area. Section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2013 (CJA) is "Retention of fingerprints, DNA profiles, etc.". As with the current Justice Bill, the intention was to amend the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. Section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2013 was never commenced. A Department of Justice consultation on proposals to amend the legislation governing the retention of DNA and fingerprints in Northern Ireland, published in July 2020, stated:”
“The Committee has also been made aware of a number of databases across the UK that hold biometric data, and the different retention regimes that are in operation, in which the PSNI also participates, were outlined to us:”
“At every stage, we have been advised to take our time and do our best to get it right. <BR /> <BR />One of the main factors that the Committee considered was the complexity of the Bill. Part 1 is "Biometric Data: Retention etc". As I stated at Second Stage, the Committee is aware of how:”
“However, it is the product of the particular circumstances of the Bill. The complex nature of the mixed content Bill, the fact that it is proposed that substantive provisions will be added by way of amendment at Consideration Stage and the High Court judgement on the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 were among the matters that the Committee considered when coming to its decision to seek the extension. <BR /> <BR />So far, the Committee has received briefings from the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe), the Bill Office, the Clerk Assistant with responsibility for the Bill Office, the Assembly's Legal Services and officials from the Department of Justice. Much of what the Committee heard during those briefings informed its view that an extension of this length is necessary.”
“As Chairman of the Justice Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion, and I declare that I have an immediate family member who works in the legal profession. <BR /> <BR />I emphasise in the strongest possible terms that the Committee did not take its decision to seek an extension of this duration lightly. We are required to take a decision about the time we need to complete scrutiny and report to the House within the period set out in Standing Orders. In this case, the Committee has had to do that against the backdrop of complexity and significant uncertainty. <BR /> <BR />The date in the motion provides for a longer period than has been normal; we recognise that. Looking at it without the appropriate context, it may appear that the extension is very long.”
“The DUP believes that the door to justice must never close on innocent victims. We stand firmly with Alan Black, the McConville family and all innocent victims, who deserve truth and justice. Alan Black — the sole survivor of that horror — has shown remarkable courage and resilience. He has carried the immense trauma of that day and shown extraordinary determination in his pursuit of justice not only for himself but for the families of those who were cruelly taken. We want to ensure that Alan gets the answers that he so deserves in his lifetime. The Office of the Police Ombudsman must release that long overdue report without further delay. I call on all MLAs to support the motion.”
“The families did not need an inquest to tell them that the IRA was responsible, but they need to know why it was allowed to happen and why the subsequent police investigation failed to follow basic lines of enquiry, which impacted significantly on its effectiveness. Shamefully, some of the information will likely never be released due to national security, although, for a layperson, it is hard to fathom what or who needs to be protected after almost 50 years. That is why it is all the more important that what can be released is released immediately. Forty-eight years of waiting is long enough; it is far too long. <BR /> <BR />The Police Ombudsman must release the report without further delay. I call on the Department of Justice and the Secretary of State to intervene to ensure that that happens. Justice delayed must not be justice denied.”
“Subsequently, Mr Hughes was told to get out of the line and "Run down the road." The report also states:”
“The sole Catholic on the bus by then testified that:”
“The workmen were told to line up against the side of the van and put their hands on it. Mr Hughes — more of whom later — gave evidence that:”
“I wish Members to hear the following excerpts:”
“You would think that the possibility of the security forces arriving at any moment would cause haste. There were three army patrols within a mile and a half of the murder scene at the time of the incident. You would think that even the physical impact of adrenaline in the body in such a situation would cause them to run, but no. It was execution military-style. First, the men were shot in the legs to prevent them from running. They were then murdered one by one as the gunmen walked through the groaning, bullet-ridden bodies strewn on the ground, calmly and casually walking away from the scene. No haste, no hurry. Why? What did they know? Did they know that nobody was coming? Was there collusion with the IRA to protect informants? <BR /> <BR />The horror was vividly clear from listening to the coroner's report.”
“It is important to note that, over the course of the inquest, there were several times when it was stopped to allow private discussion between the coroner and lawyers for the state; secret discussions in which the families' lawyers were not permitted to partake or even to be present at. <BR /> <BR />Likewise, the Government in the Republic have questions to answer. They may have passed laws to allow for disclosure to Northern Ireland, but to what effect when the Attorney General will decide what is "relevant" to be released? What is "relevant"? That is just weak and obfuscatory. In truth, the guards sent "relevant" newspaper clippings. Newspaper clippings. That is the extent of the efficacy of legacy disclosure laws in the Republic; the mere semblance of helping. <BR /> <BR />Bear in mind that the gunmen were in no hurry to get away.”
“He feels that he owes it to them to pursue the truth until his dying day. They are owed justice and explanations. John McConville and his family lost the promise of his future and all that it held. His family, too, have spent their lives having to campaign. Every gathering and happy event is tinged with the loss, the empty chair and the absolute barbarity of what happened on that night. <BR /> <BR />The Secretary of State also has a role here. Recent government decisions on legacy issues have perpetuated a hierarchy, suggesting that some murders are more deserving of investigation than others. Kingsmills offers the Government the chance to address that imbalance and show genuine support for victims who seek truth and transparency.”
“After that April 2025 deadline, the ombudsman's office will cite that it no longer has any statutory powers or responsibilities on events of that era as a result of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, and other bodies to whom that case may be passed will rightly state that it is not their report and, therefore, they are unable to comment on it or answer to it. Thus, the families will be stonewalled again. You could write the script already. It is grotesque. <BR /> <BR />Mr Black and John McConville's sisters Karen, Tania and Mandy have fought long and hard against everybody, including the state, for the truth in a way in which they ought never to have had to. Mr Black survived but has spent the rest of his life in a fight for justice for his murdered friends.”
“<BR /> <BR />Six months after the conclusion of the inquest, the ombudsman's office continues to withhold the report despite numerous repeated requests from the families' solicitors and elected representatives, denying the families full disclosure as they seek the truth. That is no way to treat innocent victims. It is shameful. They feel that the Office of the Police Ombudsman is purposely running down the clock. Just because it can take until 30 April 2025 to produce its report does not mean that it should. To do so is completely unacceptable. It will leave the families no avenue to pursue the questions that they may have arising from any published report.”
“Bear in mind that the initial complaint was in 2013. He fails to understand why the Office of the Police Ombudsman would treat him in that way. He believes that it is cruel. It is. <BR /> <BR />The coroner indicated that the families should get the report as soon as the inquest was over. That was six months ago. They have been provided with nothing but mixed messages. They were told by one of the ombudsman's investigators that the report was completed in 2020. Later, they were advised that it was not and was still being worked on. That office, on which many victims rely for the truth, cannot even seem to get its own story straight. Why the hold-up? Why is it not handing over the report? The families are entitled to the information and the report expeditiously. They have been through enough.”
“No one has ever been held to account for the murders, nor has the inquest answered all the questions that the families had hoped. For eight years, they could see that there was information that they would not be given, and they watched that play out in court, but the coroner speculated that missed steps could have provided evidence from both the RUC and the guards, who were reported to have taken samples of the vehicle connected to the attack. That is one of the many reasons why the Police Ombudsman's report is so important. <BR /> <BR />Mr Black is now 81 years old and in poor health. He has endured an eight-year inquest that raised more questions than it answered. As a result, he has pinned his hopes for getting to the truth on the Police Ombudsman's report but fears that he may not live to see it. The matter should have been resolved.”
“It is profoundly unjust that the families affected have waited so long for answers. On 4 October, Mr Black even had to issue a second pre-application protocol letter on the Office of the Police Ombudsman to try to secure the section 62 report on the Kingsmills massacre. Each time, he has had to use money that he has saved to pay for his funeral. As far as I am aware, to date, there has been no response.”
“<BR /> <BR />As if what happened to those men is not bad enough, it is appalling that, some 48 years after that most ruthless, callous and sectarian of murders, which caused embarrassment even to the IRA, their families still have to fight, at every turn, the very systems and statutory bodies that were set up to help them and support them to get to the truth.”
“I am honoured to propose the motion on behalf of Alan Black, the sole survivor of the Kingsmills massacre, and the family of John McConville. Innocent victims are a priority for the DUP. We consider it a privilege and a solemn obligation and duty to support these families in their quest for truth and justice. <BR /> <BR />The Kingsmills massacre is one of the most horrific and blatantly sectarian atrocities in our history. The brutal murder of 10 innocent Protestant workmen by the IRA on 5 January 1976 remains a painful reminder of the hatred that fuelled terrorism and robbed so many of their futures. The fact that some in high office suggest that there was no alternative to such sectarian murder is utterly repugnant.”
“The Committee was advised that the Examiner was content with the rule and did not plan to draw it to the special attention of the Assembly. That was confirmed in the Examiner's report, which was published the next day. On behalf of the Committee for Justice, I support the motion before us today. <BR /> <BR />In my capacity as justice spokesman for the Democratic Unionist Party, I reiterate that we agree that there is a need for such provision in the courts and that, while it is not ideal that they are afforded by way of the extension of powers in the Coronavirus Act, we are aware that that will be addressed as the Justice Bill makes its way through the House. On that basis, we support the motion.”
“As the House will be aware, the Minister plans to add provisions on the wider use of live links by way of amendments at Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill. The Committee has concerns about that approach, but those concerns have been rehearsed elsewhere, so I will not focus on them now. <BR /> <BR />For today's motion, as I stated at the beginning, the Committee's position remains the same. Most, if not all, members are broadly supportive of the use of live links and agree that they should be a feature of our court system. The Committee considered the statutory rule at its meeting on 24 October 2024 and was content to recommend that it be approved by the Assembly, subject to the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules. At that meeting, the Committee received an oral briefing from the Examiner of Statutory Rules.”
“At that time, the Committee also requested an update on the Department's plans to make permanent provision for the use of audio and video links. As I said at the time, the Committee was advised that the Minister was satisfied that there remains a clear role for the continued use of the provisions in order to tackle the backlog of cases that have accrued during and since the pandemic and that it may take until 2028 to clear it without extra resources. The Department also advised that it was the Minister's intention to include provisions for the wider use of live links in the first Justice Bill of this mandate. The Committee was assured that reliance on the powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020 was, therefore, an interim arrangement.”
“I rise on behalf of the Committee for Justice, and I declare that I have an immediate family member who works in the legal profession. The Minister has outlined the intention of the statutory rule (SR), so Members will have grasped the subject matter, and I will not repeat it. <BR /> <BR />This is the third time that the current Committee for Justice has considered a statutory rule to extend the provisions. The Committee's position has not changed. During previous debates on motions to extend the provisions, I pointed out that the Committee had agreed to ask the Department for its views on whether the continued use of the powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020 was appropriate and proportionate in the post-COVID environment.”
“I am aware that some from the legal profession have had sight of the Burgess report. What is the Minister's timeline for the Justice Committee to receive that report, and when will it be published?”
“The whole thing becomes a farce and, thus, is far removed from being a deterrent or a means to prevent repetition. <BR /> <BR />If the will were there, it would be done. I believe that it is the will of the House and of the people of Northern Ireland, so let us get it done and provide more than lip service to issues of animal welfare and protection.”
“She stated that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had the power to refer animal cruelty cases to the Court of Appeal, if he deems that the sentence handed down in certain Crown Court cases is unduly lenient. That might be fine, if any animal cruelty cases went to the Crown Court, but they almost never do. From where is the appeal request on lenient sentencing to come? <BR /> <BR />In my first meeting with the Lady Chief Justice, the issue of sentencing — the public's understanding of it and lenient sentencing — arose, so I took the opportunity to bring to her attention the public concern over the sentencing in some cases and the inability to appeal. The bottom line is this: if bans are to be meted out as part of a sentence, that sentence must be enforced, and it is impossible to enforce such a ban if there is no register.”
“In the last mandate, I asked the Minister whether she would make representation to the then Lord Chief Justice to ensure that judges made full use of the sentences available to them for animal cruelty offences. I am told that Northern Ireland has some of the most stringent sentencing available on animal cruelty. There are, however, few examples of stringent sentences being handed down. There are multiple repeat offenders, and sentences involving a ban on keeping animals cannot be implemented or enforced, which renders the sentence redundant and subjects further animals to cruelty and mistreatment. <BR /> <BR />The Minister indicated that sentencing was entirely a matter for the independent judiciary, taking into account all relevant factors in the individual case.”
“I know that a Minister is not bound by a predecessor's views. However, it is clear that work was being done to progress the register, which matters to a multitude of our citizens and all right-thinking people but now appears to have stalled. <BR /> <BR />In March, the Justice Minister indicated that she had not had formal discussions with her colleague in DAERA about the register, as policy sits with his Department, but was open to discussing how best her Department could support his on the penalties and fines attached to animal welfare offences, whether that is through a register or otherwise. <BR /> <BR />Let us turn to sentencing. Many in Northern Ireland have been horrified by the cases that they have seen and are, at best, unhappy with the sentences meted out. Those are only the ones that receive press attention.”
“<BR /> <BR />At that time, the Minister cited considerable concern in the DOJ about how to handle and engage in compliance with existing procedures. He said that he hoped that, before we reached the end of the mandate, DOJ would be in a position to give the new Minister room to move it forward in conjunction with a future AERA Minister. Here we are, again seeking to move it forward. It is clear that there was movement and progression at the previous Minister's direction and under his leadership. All that remains is for the current Ministers to pick up his mantle. <BR /> <BR />Shortly after the restoration of devolution, I asked the current Minister whether he would bring forward proposals on an animal cruelty register, to which he responded that he was aware of the case for it and that his Department had identified operational challenges.”
“He further cited issues of data protection, human rights and cost that had to be overcome but said that he was engaging with DOJ and would continue to do so to see whether those issues could be resolved. He indicated that he had requested his officials to take those efforts forward and develop potential next steps before the end of that year. <BR /> <BR />Mr Poots elaborated, saying that he did not get all the issues around data. Since most of the offences are public, the cases have been through the courts and so are already in the public domain. After all, the issue is to ensure that those who have been found guilty of cruelty to animals do not have the opportunity to do it again. The more people who are aware of that, the better.”
“I am extremely passionate about the issue. Cruelty to and the mistreatment and neglect of animals are utterly repugnant. Many of us believe that there should be zero tolerance, yet we find ourselves in the most bizarre of circumstances: although some have been banned from keeping animals, there is no official record of them beyond the court and, therefore, nobody to ensure that the court's judgement of a ban is upheld and enforced. It is clear that, in the last mandate, progress was being made. The key now is to build on it and finally move to establish the register. <BR /> <BR />In 2020, I raised questions with the then AERA Minister, Mr Poots. He advised that the responsibility for creating a register was not entirely in his gift, as the data was held by the Department of Justice.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for her answer. She will appreciate that, in the current climate, it is important that all options are available to help people who find themselves in such situations. She cited the year-on-year costs, which are, indeed, significant for the Department. Can she outline why that is; the rationale behind the year-on-year increases; and, perhaps, how that reflects on the potential success of various strategies?”
“I therefore ask the Minister whether he can give some indication of what practical measures will be brought forward and implemented as a matter of urgency and without delay to help people who are in abusive relationships to escape before any more lives are lost.”
“While I am disappointed that the Justice Minister is not in her place, I am grateful to her colleague for stepping up and answering such a serious question on a serious issue that faces our society at present. <BR /> <BR />As the Minister outlined, the woman who have been killed in the past six weeks are: Sophie Watson, on 18 August in Magherafelt; Montserrat Martorell, on 25 August in Londonderry; Rachel Simpson, on 13 September in Belfast; and Mary Ward, on 1 October in Belfast. <BR /> <BR />The Minister will appreciate, as we all do, that strategies are useful and provide a long-term intent and framework, but actions speak louder than words on a page.”
“<BR /> <BR />On that basis, I seek to correct the record and ask the Minister to reconsider her decision not to accede to the Committee's request to provide that schedule in order that changes to the Justice Act and various Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) schedules and other legislation that is mentioned in the Justice Bill can be tracked and traced by the Assembly.”
“Mr Speaker, I submit that, thus far, three Keeling schedules have been provided: one to the Committee for Justice on the Legal Aid and Coroners' Courts Bill in 2014; one to the Committee for Finance on the Government Resources and Accounts Act (Northern Ireland) 2001; and one to the Committee for Education on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill in 2015. Whilst a Keeling schedule was not specifically found for the Committee for Employment and Learning on the Employment Bill in 2015, there is a clear commitment to provide one in this case, and it is clear and unequivocal.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer to the Second Stage of the Justice Bill, which occurred on 1 October. At that stage, I stood in my capacity as Chair of the Committee. Today, I do so in a private capacity as an MLA. At that time, further to the Committee's request for a Keeling schedule, the Minister outlined this in her response to me:”
“The Minister knows well that I was seeking clarification on a point about whether those offences would invite a prison sentence. I sought clarification, and the Minister chose to twist the meaning of what I asked.”
“I think the Minister knows well what I intended.”