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 2 of 24.
“<BR /> <BR />When the policy proposals were consulted on in 2024, the proposed posthumous date was 15 November 2021, the day when the Assembly accepted the truth recovery design panel's recommendations, which included the establishment of the redress scheme. Following the consultation, however, the date was moved further back to better reflect the beginning of a process of formal state acknowledgement leading to the redress scheme. The Executive-agreed position of 29 September 2011 is taken from the announcement of a public inquiry into historical institutional abuse. That moment led to the birth mothers' campaign for inclusion in the inquiry and UN bodies' recommendations for redress for those who had been harmed in Magdalene laundries and similar institutions.”
“I would like to address the proposed amendment to move the posthumous eligibility date from 2011 to 1953. Without question, that is one of the most complex and sensitive parts of the Bill. It is important to be clear at the outset about the role that posthumous dates play in state redress schemes. They are not arbitrary. They are a standard feature in schemes where posthumous claims are allowed and are generally linked to a clear moment of state recognition, whether an announcement, an apology or another significant step towards acknowledgement and accountability. For example, the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme is anchored to the Stormont House Agreement of 2014. In the Government of Ireland's mother-and-baby institutions payment scheme, the posthumous date is tied to the formal state apology, which was issued in 2021.”
“There is a real risk that they could have significant consequences for the Bill, including major delays if questions of legislative competence require referral to the Supreme Court or, worse, unintentionally wreck the Bill. That is not the fair or right way forward, and therefore we cannot support the amendments. They would prove hugely detrimental, and we ask the House to oppose them.”
“Doing so risks not only creating inconsistencies but undermining the fairness of the scheme and the fundamental competence of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />A further issue is that Mr Carroll's amendments do not provide for posthumous payments to eligible relatives of deceased victims and survivors associated with workhouses. At this stage, it is unclear whether that was intentional or an unintended consequence of the drafting, but the effect could be unequal treatment of surviving family members under the Bill. I caution that Further Consideration Stage is not necessarily the time to introduce such significant policy changes. Please bear in mind that there will be no further opportunity to amend the legislation before it is enacted. <BR /> <BR />In short, the amendments cause us genuine concern.”
“Under Mr Carroll's amendments, any pregnant woman admitted to a workhouse and every child born there would potentially become eligible for redress. What basis is there to positively discriminate? <BR /> <BR />Members will understand that that would represent a significant and unintended expansion of the scheme far beyond those whose experiences it was designed to recognise. As Members are aware, the Bill was drafted to be deliberately inclusive within its defined scope. It takes an admissions-based approach without requiring an assessment of individual experience. As outlined in the equality impact assessment, it is difficult to justify providing redress to one group solely on the basis of their admission to a workhouse, while excluding others who may have had similar or worse experiences in the same place.”
“That is a different context from the gender-specific shame and stigma that the scheme is intended to address. <BR /> <BR />Mr Carroll's amendment, while seeking to recognise those difficult experiences from 1922 to 1948, would fundamentally alter the scope and intent of the scheme and, consequently, the nature of the Bill. For context, workhouses formed part of a broader system of public provision, and many operated as hospitals, providing healthcare to local communities. Those infirmaries were later absorbed into the National Health Service, following its establishment in 1948. That wider healthcare role is important. It means that thousands of women will have given birth in workhouse infirmaries, the majority of whom returned home shortly afterwards with their children.”
“Those were not general welfare settings but institutions rooted in societal judgement of women, and there were no equivalent provisions for men. <BR /> <BR />Workhouses were fundamentally different in purpose and design. They were established to provide relief or support to the poor and destitute of both sexes, including children, the elderly and those with disabilities. They formed part of a broader social welfare framework rather than a system that was specifically targeting women and girls. It is certainly important to acknowledge that experiences in workhouses could be very difficult and that stigma could attach to those who entered them, but the key point is that the stigma was not unique to one group. It applied more broadly to all who required that form of relief and, regrettably, to poverty itself.”
“In the worst case, it could place the legislation at risk and, ultimately, jeopardise the opportunity to provide long-overdue recognition and redress to victims and survivors. <BR /> <BR />I want to be unequivocal. The experiences of pregnant women in workhouses and those of their children, now adults, are an important part of the process. That is why they are within the scope of the inquiry, which is the proper space for those experiences to be fully examined. The standardised payment scheme, however, has been deliberately designed to recognise a distinct historical injustice, namely the impact of a system of gender-specific institutions with undeserved shame and stigma attached to admission. That is why the redress scheme focuses on mother-and-baby institutions and Magdalene laundries.”
“I cannot give a guarantee, but I can reassure the Committee Chair and those who are watching that all of this will be consulted on. There will be a chance for people to feed into that, and, more than that, the Assembly will again have its say, because all regulations will be passed by the affirmative resolution procedure. I trust that that provides some reassurance. <BR /> <BR />With regard to what I have just said, I must outline for Members that, most significantly, there are material risks in relation to legislative competence, equality considerations and compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. That would result in substantial delay to the Bill and thus the delivery of redress.”
“<BR /> <BR />The intention of amendment Nos 9, 10, 13 and 14 is to make pregnant women admitted to a workhouse and children born in a workhouse eligible for a redress payment of £12,000. We are in no doubt that the amendments are well intentioned, yet we must be clear that, should they pass today, the Bill would be derailed and essentially wrecked. That is not the intention behind the amendments, but such would be the scale of the change to the scheme's scope and such would be the departure from the policy that has been consulted on and developed over a number of years that the scheme would require fundamental reconsideration and be potentially unworkable.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. This group of amendments addresses important and sensitive issues, and I begin by again recognising the lived experience of all those affected, some of whom are with us in the Public Gallery today. Further, I commend Members on the tenor of the debate, given the extremely sensitive nature of the subject. <BR /> <BR />The Bill has been carefully designed to deliver a fair, consistent and robust redress scheme that is focused on addressing a specific historical injustice. In considering the amendments in the group, it is essential that we remain anchored to that purpose, while being mindful of the practical, financial and deliverability implications of any changes to the scheme's scope.”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. In light of the things that he has said, does he accept that part of the reason for having the inquiry was to get to the bottom of what happened in the workhouses so that there could be an evidence base and we could take the matter forward from there? The inquiry will inform the response and the next steps. Its purpose is to ensure that all those issues can be addressed in one way or another. Does he accept that and understand the point that I am trying to make?”
“Thank you very much. <BR /> <BR />I will conclude by saying that, to our mind, we are taking a balanced and responsible approach that is focused on getting the legislation right. I urge Members to support our position on the group 3 amendments.”
“I am afraid that I am not able to give the Member an answer on that at this stage. I do not wish to comment, as I have not been fully briefed and could therefore mislead the Member and, indeed, the House. If he will forgive me, I will not get into that issue now, but we will provide him with an answer in writing, if he is satisfied with that. Is that OK?”
“I am grateful to the Member for her clarification. We raised that issue with the Health Minister and his officials, as well as the sensitivities and how difficult it is for people to be in that circumstance. In fairness to the officials, they pointed out that, at times, there are valid reasons not to disclose. Other family members may not be aware that somebody had a child in those circumstances. It is not necessarily straightforward, but I take on board the Member's point.”
“I stand to be corrected, but my understanding of the clause on orders restricting disclosure of information is that, where information held by the redress service is potentially leaked or misused, there would be a sanction on a person for such behaviour that is in keeping with the sanctions for the abuse or misuse of information in regard to the public inquiry. My understanding is that the clause is less about not disclosing information or the ability to withhold it and more about imposing a sanction on people where they have behaved badly with the information that they have. Does that clarify matters, Ms Ní Chuilín? It would be helpful to understand your point.”
“I thank the WAVE Trauma Centre and Adopt NI, which have provided excellent support thus far. <BR /> <BR />I turn to Ms Ní Chuilín's issues with orders restricting disclosure of information. I want to clarify whether we are on the same page. In that whole business, we are moving towards a presumption of transparency and disclosure. We understand the difficulties that arise in circumstances where public bodies know more about individuals than those individuals know about themselves. That is a difficult circumstance to be in.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Carroll made a point about knowing a person who is completing an application form and the issues that have arisen. I raised a similar issue with officials about that. I point out that the application forms are in draft. It is important that we get feedback. That is part of the further engagement and consultation on what does and does not work that I proposed. All those issues could be considered, and the form could be adjusted. It is purely in draft. My feeling is that that could be worked on as part of the next steps. <BR /> <BR />I concur with the Chairperson's comments about legal support versus support from the community and voluntary sector. Where it is at all possible, redress support should come from the community and voluntary sector.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My remarks on the group will be brief. <BR /> <BR />Before I sit down, I pay tribute to the victims and survivors in the Gallery and thank them for their courage and attendance today, as well as for sharing their lived experiences, some of which have been incredibly harrowing and difficult to hear. I commend them for their strength. I also commend them for taking the time to be here and their patience. The process can often be turgid, so I am grateful to them for being here. I admire them and their courage. <BR /> <BR />In closing the debate on group 3, I want to bring Members back to the central purpose of the amendments. Group 3 is about ensuring that the redress service is not only well intentioned but capable of delivering in practice. The amendments that we are supporting are sensible and necessary.”
“Those were provided to us by the Minister for Communities and his officials, and we thank them for their help in ensuring that a redress payment will not affect an applicant's ability to access social security benefits. That is an important reassurance for victims and survivors and indeed the House. We therefore ask Members to support those amendments.”
“That will provide greater certainty to those appointed to those roles by clearly setting out the terms under which they hold office and the conditions under which those arrangements may come to an end. However, it is equally important to be clear that the power to remove a member is a safeguard, not a routine measure. It would only be exercised where necessary and in clearly defined circumstances. We therefore ask Members to support the amendment. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 47 to 63 to schedule 4 set out technical amendments to social security legislation that are required as a consequence of the Social Security (Income and Capital Disregards) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025.”
“Given that the Bill already provides flexibility for any process in the event of an applicant's passing, and in light of the concerns outlined about the confusing terminology used, as well as the clear merit in undertaking further exploration and engagement on the issue with victims and survivors, we do not consider the amendment to be necessary. We therefore ask Members not to support amendment No 42 and to consider that area of work as part of secondary legislation. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 43 will bring important clarity and assurance to the governance of the redress service. It sets out clear and proportionate provisions for the resignation and dismissal of service members, ensuring that there are appropriate mechanisms in place to support the service's effective functioning.”
“It is important that we do not seek to impose an unnecessary and potentially flawed amendment in haste at this stage, when a fuller and more considered consultation with victims and survivors is warranted and essential. Ultimately, it is a procedural matter, and the appropriate and natural place for it to be dealt with is in secondary legislation, where the necessary detail can be developed with care and proper scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />We must also be clear about the limited circumstances in which the issue would arise. The provision would apply only where an applicant passes away while their application is actively being processed. Owing to the expected relatively quick processing times for making the standardised payment, that should relate to only an extremely small number of cases.”
“That approach avoids placing additional strain on families at what is already a difficult time. The ability to nominate a beneficiary already exists in the making of a will, and there are important safeguards in place to do that. There is also a risk of creating conflict between the person nominated through the application process and the legal beneficiaries of a person's estate. I suggest to Members, and impress on them, that that is fundamentally a matter that would be better addressed through secondary legislation. That would allow space for careful consideration, informed by consultation and engagement with stakeholders, including victims and survivors, before any final approach is determined.”
“The legislation as drafted already provides a sufficiently broad power to cover any procedure in the event of an applicant's death. That power is deliberately flexible and would be capable of accommodating arrangements similar to the type that the Member proposes, should that be considered appropriate. <BR /> <BR />There are, however, important sensitivities to consider. The truth recovery independent panel has expressed reservations about asking applicants to nominate a single beneficiary. It has warned that taking such an approach could risk creating or exacerbating tensions within families. The panel suggested that, in those circumstances, any award should form part of an applicant's estate and be distributed in accordance with the ordinary rules of succession.”
“That parity is important for maintaining a coherent and robust framework in which the same standards of confidentiality and enforcement apply. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 42 would allow for regulations to establish a procedure to enable an applicant to nominate a beneficiary where no eligible relative can be identified. It is important to note that, under the Bill, eligible relatives are defined specifically as being those who may apply for a £2,000 payment on behalf of a deceased applicant. That is distinct from the separate situation in which an applicant passes away while their own application is ongoing. Introducing a provision for nomination in the context of eligible relatives risks conflating those two separate and distinct processes.”
“Amendment No 41 will create an important safeguard to protect the privacy and dignity of applicants who are engaging with the redress service. Making it an offence to contravene a restriction order issued by the president of the service reinforces the seriousness of the protections and ensures that sensitive information cannot be disclosed or misused without consequence. It is essential that applicants can engage with the scheme with confidence that their information will be handled appropriately. We ask Members to support the amendment, which brings the provision for the redress service into line with those already established for the inquiry under clause 23, thus ensuring consistency across the Bill.”
“Taken together, the provisions strengthen the scheme by aligning clear responsibility, practical support and appropriate safeguards, thus ensuring that victims and survivors are supported in a way that is meaningful and effective. We therefore urge the House to support amendment Nos 38. 39 and 40.”
“It is a critical element of the scheme because accessing redress should not be a complex, overwhelming experience, and it is essential that individuals can obtain the guidance that they need in a way that is accessible, sensitive and responsive to their circumstances. The amendments make clear that the support is not incidental and is a core part of delivery. <BR /> <BR />The amendments also provide for the redress service to meet legal costs in certain circumstances, such as where a signed affidavit is required. That is an important safeguard for cases where verification of admission through archival records is not necessarily possible. It ensures that applicants are not discouraged from engaging with the process due to financial barriers and that they can meet evidential requirements where necessary.”
“While the redress service will play a key operational role, ultimate responsibility for ensuring that appropriate advice and assistance is available lies with the Executive Office. A core principle of the scheme is that support should be accessible and delivered by experienced professionals in a way that is sensitive to the needs of victims and survivors, rather than relying on a process that is based on legal routes. Work is under way to develop a comprehensive support model in partnership with the Victims and Survivors Service, WAVE Trauma Centre and Advice NI to ensure that applicants are supported through every stage of the process.”
“That is particularly important in the context of these institutions, where shame and secrecy have often meant that individuals may not readily identify themselves as eligible or may be reluctant to come forward. For those reasons, we ask the House to support the amendment, which strengthens the scheme by placing a clear and active responsibility on the service, not just to inform but to engage and reach those who might otherwise remain unheard, ensuring that no one who is entitled to redress is left behind. <BR /> <BR />Next, I turn to the Department's three amendments to clause 39, and they are amendments No 38, 39 and 40. Those amendments provide important clarity about where the overall responsibility for supporting applicants sits.”
“We ask Members to support the amendment to extend the appeal time frame and ensure that the process remains accessible and fair, while maintaining momentum in decision-making. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 37 provides important clarity about where the responsibility for promoting the scheme sits. By placing a clear duty on the redress service to bring the scheme to the attention of eligible persons, it removes any ambiguity and ensures a proactive, structured approach to outreach. It also introduces an explicit duty to encourage applications. The aim of the scheme is to ensure that those who are entitled to redress can access it, and that requires more than simply making information available.”
“Ultimately, it is a sensible and proportionate measure, which equips the redress service to operate efficiently, while ensuring that decisions are taken at the right level, but only where the president considers it appropriate. We ask Members to support the amendment. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 36 extends the window for an applicant to appeal a determination from 30 days to 90 days. That change has been informed by what we heard directly from victims and survivors, as well as the views of the Committee, both of whom supported a longer time frame. We recognise that individuals who engaged with the process may need additional time to seek advice, gather information or simply consider their position carefully.”
“In those circumstances, the president may decide that it is appropriate for simpler applications to be determined by known judicial members or the secretary of the redress service. The amendment provides the redress service with the flexibility to manage its caseload effectively, and, if required, to scale up delivery. It also allows us to use judicial expertise where it is most needed, and that is on the more complex or contested applications. Without that flexibility, there is a risk that straightforward cases could be delayed unnecessarily, with judicial time taken up on routine applications, which could be resolved more quickly through administrative routes.”
“At the outset, before I address the specific amendments, I want to set out that the proposals are simply about ensuring that the Bill is as robust and workable as possible. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 35 is about ensuring that the redress service can operate in a way that is efficient, proportionate and focused on delivering timely redress for the applicants. The amendment will give the president the necessary discretion to allocate cases according to their complexity, but that power would only be exercised where the president considers it appropriate to do so. The majority of standardised payment applications are expected to be straightforward, based on admission to a listed institution, and capable of being verified through existing records.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />At Consideration Stage, it is right that we test the detail of the Bill. The amendments in this group are intended to probe how those provisions will function in practice and to address areas where there is potential for uncertainty or unintended consequences. They reflect the engagement with stakeholders and careful consideration of how the Bill will be applied on the ground. In that sense, they are part of the normal and constructive process of improving legislation rather than altering its fundamental direction.”
“These amendments focus on a specific element of the Bill where further refinement is both necessary and appropriate. Their purpose is to ensure that, as drafted, the provisions operate in a way that is clear, coherent and aligned with the broader intent of the legislation.”
“Our shared objective must be to ensure that redress is delivered quickly to those who have already waited for far too long.”
“The legislation represents a significant step forward. It reflects years of advocacy and engagement with and work by victims and survivors, and it forms part of the Executive's wider commitment to effective remedy, which goes beyond just financial redress. <BR /> <BR />As we conclude consideration of this group of amendments, we therefore ask Members to support the amendments as indicated and to oppose those that could delay redress, place the sustainability or core purpose of the scheme at risk or create outcomes that might re-traumatise victims and survivors.”
“We have dealt with some of those risks, but I trust that what I have said addresses the Member's query about blockage and shows that we did give consideration to it. <BR /> <BR />As I deal with amendment No 46, I take the opportunity to thank my predecessor, Pam Cameron, for her work on the Bill. <BR /> <BR />These are difficult and sensitive issues with which we have grappled throughout the policy development, for all the reasons that Members have raised. No decisions were made in haste. Rather, they are the outworkings of the Queen's University and Ulster University report, of the truth recovery design panel's recommendations, of the public consultation and of the ongoing engagement with victims and survivors. We engaged with schemes in other jurisdictions and looked at best practice locally, nationally and internationally.”
“<BR /> <BR />The more appropriate place for those extremely sad circumstances to be addressed is through the individually assessed payment scheme. With that, I will turn to amendment No 46, about which Ms McLaughlin raised some issues about blockage, and I thank her for her question about deceased mothers being added at a later point. Under schedule 3, "eligible relatives" currently means a spouse and surviving children. To confirm, there is no provision to change the definition of "eligible relatives" via secondary legislation. As I said, that would probably be best served being dealt with through the IAP process. We need to be careful about some of the risks involved from opening up the definition.”
“We must focus on what can be implemented now for the benefit of victims and survivors for whom the scheme was designed, rather than on pursuing changes that, however well intentioned, could undermine the deliverability of the scheme as a whole. Expanding the Bill's scope would inevitably add complexity, potentially leading to processing delays and longer waiting times, which would risk there being a negative impact on the very people whom the scheme was established to support. Extending posthumous eligibility to mothers could also raise complex questions about equality and the respective bases for payments. It would not ensure a posthumous payment for all birth mothers, including those who lost a child in infancy, and might instead risk re-traumatising individuals. Of that, we must be careful.”
“The inclusion of amendment No 45 would put additional strain on budgets across Health, Education and Justice and risk impacting on the delivery of front-line services on which the public and some victims and survivors rely. That is not to mention the impact on victims and survivors, which I will come on to shortly. <BR /> <BR />As elected representatives, our responsibility is to ensure that any scheme is not only fair in principle but deliverable in practice. That means maintaining a clear, focused and sustainable approach rather than making changes that could compromise its operation, delay delivery or create risks that cannot be managed effectively. Ultimately, it comes down to making difficult but necessary choices.”
“Amendment No 45, which seeks to add children's homes to the list, would fundamentally change that central focus. Although we fully recognise the experiences that informed the amendment, we have to focus on what the standardised payment is there to do. The Executive have already made a significant funded commitment in the Bill, with further costs to come through the individually assessed payment. I must point out that, at a time when public finances and services are under considerable and sustained pressure, we must be mindful of what can realistically be delivered and of the potential negative impact on other Departments and services if costs were to rise significantly.”
“That is because the scheme is intended to address a specific historical injustice: the experience of women and girls and their children with a system marked by gender-specific stigma and discrimination.”
“I hope that that provides some reassurance to the Member and, indeed, to the House. <BR /> <BR />I return to the points that I was making around redress. Further important elements of redress are still to come. They include options for memorialisation, and they must be developed carefully and in partnership with victims and survivors and at the right time. It is essential that those aspects are shaped by those directly affected so that they are meaningful, respectful and enduring. In designing the scheme, we have also been clear about its scope. It is intentionally focused on female-centred institutions and takes an inclusive approach in that all those who were admitted or whose mothers were admitted are eligible for redress.”
“I appreciate the Member's intervention. It allows me to clarify. We raised that issue at our meeting with the Health Minister, and there are difficulties, because some of those records are still used in current-day circumstances around adoption. To centralise them all could cause difficulty for people who are currently involved in adoption and some issues that arise around that. It is not as straightforward as the Member thinks, and we sought clarity on that. <BR /> <BR />With regard to how records are kept, we can certainly ask our officials to raise it with officials in Health, but I point out that preservation has now been agreed and implemented, so there should not be circumstances where records are being kept in a manner that means that they could degenerate.”
“We have also funded PRONI's work to digitise institutional records, which should improve access and streamline the redress and inquiry processes. PRONI has digitised approximately 6,000 private records across 32 collections, with over 57,000 digital images. That has helped the panel, and it will help the inquiry. I note that members of PRONI are in the Public Gallery, and we thank them for their excellent work on that.”
“<BR /> <BR />I understand the Member's point, but I think that I have made mine and made my rebuttal of his point. He may disagree, but we are where we are on that. I cannot concur with his analysis of it. <BR /> <BR />I want to come back to the point around records. As I said, there has been investment in preservation, access and standardisation by PRONI and the trusts, and we appreciate that there is more to do. We have met the Health Minister on the issue, and we know that it is an area that will continue to be vital for victims and survivors. Options being explored with regard to the increase in requests for health trusts are to include a specialist team and a central index, which should make it easier for records to be located.”
“I cannot stand up here and mislead the House. At this stage, I cannot verify the numbers. The issue, again, is that it is not about the numbers; it is about the principle at the point at which it is a standardised payment, and I have outlined why. There is a fundamental and inherent fairness issue around all of this. I understand the Member's point and have sympathy with all of it, but the point is that it is a standardised payment. Where all of the issues arise with multiple admissions, extended periods in the institutions, the potential harm and abuse that people suffered and the impact on their lives, those absolutely and fundamentally must come out in a public inquiry. They certainly will be taken into account for an individually assessed payment. This is not necessarily the right or best place for that.”