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 5549959
Read the official Assembly record
Text
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 —.
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. If it is fine with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am going to move on.
Yes.
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 hope that that will prove helpful to the Deputy Chair of the Committee.
Yes.
That is a question for the members of the Committee to answer, not for me. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. We have a comprehensive support package in place for victims and survivors, including through the Victims and Survivors Service. 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. 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.
I will.
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 —
That is unfair. It is not the right thing to do. I will give way to the Member, but I am keen to move on.
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. 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. 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. 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.
Yes, I will.
1,539 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.