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 3 of 24.
“That is unfair. It is not the right thing to do. <BR /> <BR />I will give way to the Member, but I am keen to move on.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I was inordinately clear about why it should not be supported in the course of my opening remarks. The standardised payment is an acknowledgement that people were institutionalised. It is not a means by which to address the potential harm that they suffered, the experiences that they went through or the abuse that they may have suffered. The purpose of it was to enable people to get a quick payment, acknowledging that they were admitted to an institution. I will reiterate the difficulty with the Member's amendment: it would remove the element of standardisation. Although it would take into account an individual's experience and the number of times that they may have been admitted, it would not necessarily take into account the length of time for which they were admitted. I think that that —”
“We have met the Health Minister on that important issue, and we know that that area has been and will continue to be vital for victims and survivors. We are working closely with health and social care trusts to manage the expected increase in requests. Options being explored include a specialist team and a central index to make records easier to locate.”
“We have a comprehensive support package in place for victims and survivors, including through the Victims and Survivors Service. <BR /> <BR />Ms Ní Chuilín made important points about documentation and records. I will also reflect on Mr Gaston's point in that regard. We have been working closely with the Department of Health to improve access to records, recognising how important that is for many individuals seeking answers about their past and how difficult that has been for some. Our recent engagement with the Health Minister focused on that work and the improvements that will follow. There has been investment in preservation, access and standardisation via the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) and the health trusts, but we appreciate that there is much more to do.”
“The Executive have sought to strike a fair and balanced approach that compares favourably with that of other jurisdictions. The standardised payment recognises the need to provide meaningful, timely acknowledgement to all those eligible while reflecting the nature of the payment as a universal scheme based on admission, rather than individual assessment. Of course, individually assessed payments will follow the public inquiry. That scheme will provide an opportunity for people's lived experiences, including the severity and duration of harm, to be more fully considered. <BR /> <BR />Both truth recovery schemes are part of a wider redress framework. We must be clear that financial payment is only one element of that framework.”
“Both schemes are also more restrictive when it comes to posthumous claims, with the Republic of Ireland's using a date of 2021 and Australia's permitting no posthumous claims at all. As you can see, we gave consideration to all of that and tried to look at best practice in other places. <BR /> <BR />Another key design panel recommendation that we listened to was that the standardised payment should not require successful applicants to sign a waiver, preventing them from taking future civil action. That reflects the nature of the payment as one of acknowledgement, rather than compensation based on the specific circumstances of an individual case. <BR /> <BR />Those are tangible ways in which we have attempted to listen to victims and survivors. They are the direct result of the collaborative truth recovery design panel process.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am going to move on to amendment No 30. I will say again that allowing multiple payments risks undermining the approach. Members know that we looked at other jurisdictions and other countries' schemes. The standardised payment that we are proposing puts the mother, and the child, who is now an adult, on an equal footing. That differs from the Irish Government's mother-and-baby institution payment, whereby a child, now an adult, must have been in a listed institution for longer than six months in order to be eligible for redress. In Australia, Victoria's forced adoption redress scheme entirely excludes children, who are now adults, who were separated from their birth mothers.”
“That is a question for the members of the Committee to answer, not for me. <BR /> <BR />I will return to the rationale and some of the considerations behind that decision. Each of the points that were considered in the run-up to this represented an important step in the growing recognition of the issues and the development of a formal response. However, having considered those developments in the round, we considered that the date of 29 September 2011 represented the earliest point at which a reasonable expectation could have begun to form. That is not the first time that that has happened with regard to decision-making. It reflects the point at which these matters first began to enter the public and policy space in a meaningful way, with increasing visibility and engagement from government.”
“I hope that that will prove helpful to the Deputy Chair of the Committee.”
“I presume that, because there have been so many interventions, we have forgotten how I started my remarks and the points that I outlined. This is the point that I am trying to make. I am trying to demonstrate the rationale for how we reached this point. I can assure Members that various dates were considered, including 1953, for example. Numerous dates were considered, and some of that was before my time. However, I am certain that the Committee will have received evidence on that. I would be surprised if the Committee had not received details of what had previously been considered, and why and how that date was reached. Nevertheless, I will ensure that the appropriate documentation is afforded to the Committee so that its members can see for themselves, and understand and scrutinise, how the 2011 date was reached.”
“I accept the Member's point about people not being discriminated against because of records, but that is not the issue. The issue is also about being sensitive to what may emerge from that. Where records are not available, people would be put through a whole other series of hoops and so on. There are sensitivities around all of that, and we were trying to take account of those sensitivities. This is not a grand scheme to exclude people. I reiterate what I said when I gave evidence to the Committee. What the Executive would like to do and what they can practically do are not necessarily the same things. <BR /> <BR />If it is fine with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am going to move on.”
“It is not about TEO trying to narrow anything. As I indicated, posthumous dates are standard in redress schemes; they are absolutely standard. Where there is an issue is in landing on the right date. I will come to the issue of the records. The reason why I raised it in that context was to do with sensitivity and disappointment and trying not to put people through —.”
“There are a number of outworkings in respect of having much earlier dates, relating to records and so on. All those things had to be borne in mind. I also point out that other jurisdictions have gone with a much later date. The reason that we moved back 10 years was to try to find some means —. Look, I appreciate that that is not an easy decision for anybody. We have tried to work our way through it and find something that is reasonable and acceptable, but we must accept that nothing will be acceptable to everybody. We tried. It has all been a process of trying to find the best way and the right way to —.”
“I thank the Chair of the Committee for her intervention. <BR /> <BR />The truth is that numerous dates were considered for various reasons. I have no doubt that the Committee will be familiar with the dates that were considered. It is fair to say that victims and survivors themselves do not necessarily have an agreed time frame either.”
“I thank the Member for his contribution. <BR /> <BR />In considering the appropriate date, we carefully reflected on a range of significant milestones that aligned with the usual rationale for selecting a posthumous date: a meaningful point in state acknowledgement and the point at which an expectation of redress begins to form. Those dates included the recommendations from international bodies in 2013, the establishment of the interdepartmental working group in 2016 and the Assembly's acceptance of the truth recovery design panel's recommendations in September 2021.”
“We recognise that that date has been disappointing for many family members of the deceased, and we are committed to exploring other forms of memorialisation with victims and survivors to properly commemorate their deceased loved ones.”
“That led to the birth mothers' campaign for inclusion and UN bodies' recommendation for redress for those who had been harmed in Magdalene laundries and similar institutions. That date is also considered the very earliest that an expectation of redress could have reasonably been formed by a victim and survivor.”
“The Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme uses the date of the Stormont Agreement in 2014, for example, and the Irish Government's mother-and-baby institutions payment scheme is tied to the formal state apology made by Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin in 2021. <BR /> <BR />When we consulted on the policy for the redress scheme in 2024, the date proposed was 15 November 2021. That was the day when the truth recovery design panel recommendations were accepted in the Assembly. In response to victims and survivors and the truth recovery independent panel, we moved the date further back to better reflect the start of the process of formal state recognition and steps towards accountability and redress. On 29 September 2011, a public inquiry into historical institutional abuse was announced by the Executive.”
“I will point out that, while there may be some who are ineligible for the standardised payment, as the Bill is currently drafted, they are not necessarily ineligible for the individually assessed payment. It is important to have that point on the record. <BR /> <BR />If Members will bear with me, I have a number of notes, and I want to make sure that I address Members' points. With regard to the date of 29 September 2011, I want to make it clear to the House that posthumous dates are a standard feature of state redress schemes and are usually linked to an announcement or an apology that signifies a meaningful turning point in state acknowledgement and steps towards redress.”
“It means that every eligible person is treated equally, regardless of the length of time they spent in an institution or the particular circumstances of their experience. Again, I will say that that consistency is not intended to diminish anyone's experience; rather, it is intended to avoid forcing comparisons between different and deeply personal experiences. <BR /> <BR />I will address Mr Gaston's concerns around the posthumous date of 2011 in the Bill and the rationale behind the inclusion of that date, but, before I get into the specifics of that, we recognise the strength of feeling among victims and survivors on the desire for a broader scheme. However, the priority at this stage is to deliver redress in a manner that is workable and capable of being delivered now.”
“It is undoubtedly an unusual step, but it reflects the need to act now rather than ask victims and survivors to wait for what will inevitably be a longer evidential process. Our focus has been on what can be delivered at pace, while still ensuring fairness, consistency and sensitivity. <BR /> <BR />The truth recovery design panel also recommended a two-step redress process encapsulating a standardised payment and an individually assessed payment. I reiterate that the standardised payment debated today is not based on a detailed assessment of individual experience and does not require victims and survivors to provide a traumatic statement of what happened to them. Instead, it provides early recognition via a single fixed payment based on admission to a relevant institution. That is a fundamental design choice.”
“The scheme is the outworking of a sustained and innovative collaboration between the victims and survivors and the truth recovery design panel. That partnership has been central to shaping the principles and the practical delivery of the scheme before the Assembly today. <BR /> <BR />Many of those affected are now in an older age group. They have already waited far too long for recognition, and we, as Ministers, have listened and have been very conscious throughout the design of the scheme that further delay would risk denying that recognition altogether to some. That is why, in line with the design panel recommendations, the scheme is being brought forward ahead of a full public inquiry.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to Members for their contributions to the debate and for the considered way in which, and tone with which, the amendments have been debated. This has been and continues to be a deeply sensitive and important piece of work. It is right that the Assembly has taken the time to examine the provisions carefully and in a respectful manner. <BR /> <BR />At the heart of the Bill is a clear and urgent objective, which is to deliver redress to victims and survivors in a way that is timely, practical and underpinned by the five guiding principles of trauma-informed practice: safety, trustworthiness, collaboration, choice and empowerment.”
“I think so. You made reference to a blockage and asked for clarity around a blockage. I think that it was amendment No 46.”
“Just before the Member sits down, may I ask for clarity on a point that she asked for clarity from me on, just so that I can address it in the course of my winding-up speech? It might be beneficial to the House. The Member raised the issue of looking for clarity around "blockage". Will she reiterate that point so that we are clear about what she is looking for and what she means by "blockage", so that I can address it in my winding-up speech?”
“I advise the Member that we do not intend to oppose her amendment on the increase.”
“The loss of a child at any age is an unimaginable pain, and it is not one that the standardised scheme could satisfactorily address in any way. It would be more appropriate for such circumstances to be considered through the individually assessed payment scheme to allow for a more flexible and person-centred approach. Again, I ask the House to oppose that amendment, which would create complex eligibility and, potentially, equality issues for the scheme. <BR /> <BR />With that, I conclude my remarks.”
“No, I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I reject that point from the Member. My argument has been very clear, as has the rationale for our rejection of the amendment and our urging the House to consider the nature of the issues involved, the sensitivities and the implications. I urge the House to carefully consider what it intends to do in regard to that specific amendment, bearing in mind the consequences; the family dynamics, which have not always been a positive experience for many victims and survivors; and, indeed, situations where birth parents have potentially caused harm. That is not to mention the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights. I urge the House to be very careful about its decision on that amendment. <BR /> <BR />I will make one other point on that amendment.”
“Yes, in just one second, if I may, Mr Carroll. The issue is what those unintended consequences could look like and what they could open victims and survivors up to. They have already demonstrated that, for many of them, it is a very sensitive issue. It could involve perpetrators being in receipt of payment and redress. That is a quagmire that needs to be carefully considered before the amendment is moved.”
“I appreciate the Member's comment on the advice that he received. As I have outlined, the difficulty is the legal understanding and the legal implications of "mother" as referring to an adoptive mother. I also refer the Member to the fact that I outlined that, while the intention may be right and may be well-meaning, it is about the unintended consequences that follow. My remarks have outlined —.”
“We have heard from some survivors — this is important — that taking such a broad approach would be deeply uncomfortable, particularly where relationships were absent or harmful or where a parent may have been directly involved in their experiences. It is also true that some birth fathers will have been perpetrators of crimes, while others may not have known about the birth or not wanted their child to be put up for adoption. Those are complex and potentially traumatising issues that would have to be addressed if posthumous eligibility were to be extended to mothers and not fathers in order to ensure compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. Any difference in treatment on the basis of gender would have to be clearly justified.”
“To treat relationships equally, in a similar manner to the children, it would be necessary to consider whether all parents should be eligible, including birth mothers, birth fathers and adoptive parents. The amendment as drafted uses the term "mother", which, in a legal sense, would ordinarily refer to the adoptive mother rather than the birth mother, potentially leading to confusion and inconsistency in application. <BR /> <BR />The amendment also creates further, perhaps unintended, layers of entitlement. For example, it would extend beyond the relatives of the children, who are now adults, and result in the mothers of deceased birth mothers being eligible.”
“That approach also aligns with the closest relatives recognised under the law of intestacy. The scheme has been designed to reflect the complex and often sensitive family circumstances that arise in that context. In particular, many individuals who were adopted have told us that recognition as a child of their deceased parent is a key part of redress. For that reason, adopted children are included and treated on an equal footing with all other children, ensuring that they are recognised in the same way as any other child of the family, regardless of the legal or family structures that have shaped their lives. <BR /> <BR />Extending eligibility to include mothers, however, would raise significant issues of consistency and fairness.”
“The amendment, therefore, risks losing that clear focus and could weaken the scheme's ability to properly recognise and support those for whom it was specifically established. On that basis, we will not support amendment No 45 and urge the House to do likewise. <BR /> <BR />Regarding amendment No 46, the approach taken in the Bill reflects established practice in redress schemes where eligibility for posthumous payments is typically targeted at a spouse and children. That is consistent with redress schemes, such as the historical institutional abuse redress scheme and Redress Scotland. In addition to that, during the public consultation, the most common response to the question of who should be considered to be next of kin for the purposes of posthumous payments was spouse and children.”
“<BR /> <BR />The forthcoming inquiry will have the flexibility to examine children's homes where they form part of the pathways and practices associated with mother-and-baby institutions. The independent panel has also already considered a number of children's homes in its work. The findings from both processes will inform the ongoing consideration of any future redress measures, ensuring that decisions are informed by a full and robust evidence base. <BR /> <BR />Adding three children's homes to the list in schedule 2 today would fundamentally change the scheme from one that is focused on the experience of women and girls and their children, who are now adults, to one that covers the broader care system.”
“Extending the scheme to include all those who were admitted to individual children's homes, regardless of age or circumstances, would represent a significant shift in policy intent. Those homes were part of the wider care system and admitted children for a range of reasons and from varied backgrounds. The abuse of children in institutional care has already been the focus of the historical institutional abuse inquiry, and those institutions fell within the remit of that redress scheme. It is important to maintain clarity between the schemes to ensure that each addresses the specific harms and contexts for which it was designed. While institutions can be added via regulations to the list at schedule 2, any such addition must be evidence-based and in line with the scope and policy intent of the scheme.”
“The standardised payment has been deliberately designed to recognise a particular historical injustice: a system of gender-specific institutions that imposed undeserved shame and stigma on women and girls, and, by extension, their children, now adults. It is also clear that the state played a role in that system, including in the placement of women and girls and through regulatory inspection and welfare responsibilities. The scheme is therefore grounded in addressing that particular form of discrimination and the state's role in it. That is why eligibility for the children, now adults, in the scheme is tied to the mother's admittance to a relevant institution. Any person who was born following their mother's admittance to a mother-and-baby institution is included for redress, including those who were subsequently sent to children's homes.”
“Extending the scheme will inevitably have implications for the overall costs and operation, so moving from negative to draft affirmative resolution will ensure that any such extension is subject to a higher level of scrutiny and, indeed, explicit Assembly approval. Therefore, we ask Members to support that amendment. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 44 is a technical amendment tabled by the Department to change "Hopedene House" to its more commonly used name of "Hopedene Hostel". Again, we ask Members to support that amendment. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 45 would see the addition of three children's homes to the list at schedule 2.”
“Again, we must also be clear that the payment is not intended to reflect the full extent of harm. That is the role of the individually assessed payment that will follow the public inquiry and take account of a person's lived experience, including evidence of abuse. We understand why some argue that the payment should be higher. We recognise the strength of feeling behind those calls. However, it is important to be clear about the implications: for every £1,000 increase, the cost of the scheme rises by around £4.5 million. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 34 covers the Assembly procedure for extending the redress scheme from three years to a maximum of five years. That amendment arises from consideration during Committee Stage, when members highlighted the importance of stronger Assembly oversight.”
“There is a clear need to deliver financial redress as quickly as possible, rather than waiting for a longer evidential process to conclude. We have looked carefully at precedent and best practice, both here and in other jurisdictions. The standardised payment is a fundamentally different form of acknowledgement, based on admission alone. It does not require the signing of a waiver, nor does it take into account any previous payments. <BR /> <BR />The Executive agreed the standardised payment scheme as a universal acknowledgement available to all eligible applicants, regardless of the duration or severity of their experience. As such, it necessarily spans a wide range of circumstances, from those who spent years in institutions to those who were admitted for much shorter periods.”
“As I have said previously, the standardised payment has been developed from recommendations made by the truth recovery design panel. It aims to provide redress quickly and directly to victims and survivors, without requiring them to recount traumatic experiences. It is an acknowledgement payment based solely on admission to a listed institution and does not require a statement of experience or proof of abuse. That is a key principle of the scheme to minimise retraumatisation, while ensuring timely access to redress. The scheme is also taking the unusual, but appropriate, step of proceeding ahead of a full public inquiry. That reflects the reality that many victims and survivors are now part of an older age group.”
“I will address amendment Nos 31, 32 and 33 together, after I have paused for a glass of water.”
“Therefore, it is on that basis; it is not about the standardisation of experience but, rather, about the standardisation of the payment, because where experiences differ is where the individually assessed payment will kick in. <BR /> <BR />It is important for Members to note and understand — I will reiterate the point — that the standardised payment is not the only form of redress. A separate, individually assessed payment scheme will follow the public inquiry. That will provide the opportunity for individual experiences, including multiple or prolonged admissions, to be considered fully and recognised in a more tailored way.”
“Again, I understand the point that the Member makes. However, the issue is not about the standardisation of experience but about the standardisation of payment, because it is an acknowledgement-of-admission payment. For example, somebody may have been in an institution as a baby and have no recollection of that because they were a mere infant. Somebody else may have spent decades in the Magdalene laundries. It is important that we do not afford one experience greater acknowledgement than another. All the issues can be more properly addressed in the course of the individually assessed payment, where victims and survivors will have a chance to make statements and submit evidence about their lived experience and the treatment that they received. That is an important part of the process.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, I will address the Member's point in my winding-up speech. He makes an important point. It is right that the House discusses the point that he makes. I will come to it in my winding-up speech. I will stick with the points that we are getting through here. <BR /> <BR />As I said, it is something for which the victims and survivors asked. It is essential that we do not introduce distinctions that would differentiate and potentially create divisions and tiers between those in the scheme. As a result, we cannot support the amendment. It is important for members to note and understand that the standardised payment is not the only —.”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. Yes, I understand, indeed, that the numbers would not be enormous. The issue pertains more to the general principle of standardisation and not creating a system where there are tiers or where we compare and contrast people's experience. That is why I consider that people's lived experience will be much more properly addressed in the course of an individually assessed payment.”
“Victims and survivors themselves asked for that.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I indicated, the proposed amendment would risk creating a position where the same individual would become eligible for more than one payment even though the underlying experience is the same, but that would move the scheme away from providing a single standardised acknowledgement of the system as a whole. It is important that that is on the record. It could also lead to outcomes that are difficult to justify, particularly when that person's experience is compared with that of others whose experience, such as decades in a Magdalene laundry, would still attract only one payment. <BR /> <BR />We appreciate that it is a sensitive matter. However, one of the core principles of the scheme, as set out in the 'Truth, Acknowledgement and Accountability' report, is that there should be a single standardised payment.”
“I take on board the Committee Chair's point, but I reiterate that the purpose of this is a standardised payment. I accept that there were difficult circumstances for a number of people where there may have been multiple admissions to separate institutions and so on. The key, as I will come to, is that all those experiences are perhaps better addressed and more thoughtfully, considerately, properly and fully addressed in the individually assessed payment, where people's lived experience will be fully taken into account. That is entirely different from the purpose of standardisation. I will move on, if that is OK.”
“<BR /> <BR />The proposed amendment would risk creating a position where that same individual would become eligible for more than one payment even though the underlying experience is essentially the same. That would move the scheme away from providing a single standardised acknowledgement of the impact of the system as a whole.”