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 5550002

Text

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. 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. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the Member and, indeed, to the House. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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 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 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. As I deal with amendment No 46, I take the opportunity to thank my predecessor, Pam Cameron, for her work on the Bill. 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. 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. 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.
Our shared objective must be to ensure that redress is delivered quickly to those who have already waited for far too long.
I beg to move amendment No 35:
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.
At Consideration Stage —.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
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. That parity is important for maintaining a coherent and robust framework in which the same standards of confidentiality and enforcement apply. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

2,824 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