Debate contribution: Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Joanne Bunting on .
- 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 5549933
Read the official Assembly record
Text
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. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
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.
I will.
I thank the Member for his contribution. 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.
I thank the Chair of the Committee for her intervention. 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.
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 —.
Yes, I will.
1,072 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.