Debate contribution: Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Joanne Bunting on 19 May 2026.

MLA: Ms Joanne Bunting
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 19 May 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill: Consideration Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5549768

Text

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. 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. 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. Victims and survivors themselves asked for that.
I will, certainly.
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.
I will.
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. 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 will give 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. 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. 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.
I will address amendment Nos 31, 32 and 33 together, after I have paused for a glass of water.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Amendment No 45 would see the addition of three children's homes to the list at schedule 2. 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Extending eligibility to include mothers, however, would raise significant issues of consistency and fairness. 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. 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. 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.
Yes, I will.
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 —.
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.
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. I will make one other point on that amendment. 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. With that, I conclude my remarks.

2,332 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification