Debate contribution: Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill: Further Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Joanne Bunting on .
- MLA
- Ms Joanne Bunting
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 22 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill: Further Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5638755
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Speaker. This group of amendments addresses important and sensitive issues, and I begin by again recognising the lived experience of all those affected, some of whom are with us in the Public Gallery today. Further, I commend Members on the tenor of the debate, given the extremely sensitive nature of the subject. The Bill has been carefully designed to deliver a fair, consistent and robust redress scheme that is focused on addressing a specific historical injustice. In considering the amendments in the group, it is essential that we remain anchored to that purpose, while being mindful of the practical, financial and deliverability implications of any changes to the scheme's scope. The intention of amendment Nos 9, 10, 13 and 14 is to make pregnant women admitted to a workhouse and children born in a workhouse eligible for a redress payment of £12,000. We are in no doubt that the amendments are well intentioned, yet we must be clear that, should they pass today, the Bill would be derailed and essentially wrecked. That is not the intention behind the amendments, but such would be the scale of the change to the scheme's scope and such would be the departure from the policy that has been consulted on and developed over a number of years that the scheme would require fundamental reconsideration and be potentially unworkable.
I cannot give a guarantee, but I can reassure the Committee Chair and those who are watching that all of this will be consulted on. There will be a chance for people to feed into that, and, more than that, the Assembly will again have its say, because all regulations will be passed by the affirmative resolution procedure. I trust that that provides some reassurance. With regard to what I have just said, I must outline for Members that, most significantly, there are material risks in relation to legislative competence, equality considerations and compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. That would result in substantial delay to the Bill and thus the delivery of redress. In the worst case, it could place the legislation at risk and, ultimately, jeopardise the opportunity to provide long-overdue recognition and redress to victims and survivors. I want to be unequivocal. The experiences of pregnant women in workhouses and those of their children, now adults, are an important part of the process. That is why they are within the scope of the inquiry, which is the proper space for those experiences to be fully examined. The standardised payment scheme, however, has been deliberately designed to recognise a distinct historical injustice, namely the impact of a system of gender-specific institutions with undeserved shame and stigma attached to admission. That is why the redress scheme focuses on mother-and-baby institutions and Magdalene laundries. Those were not general welfare settings but institutions rooted in societal judgement of women, and there were no equivalent provisions for men. Workhouses were fundamentally different in purpose and design. They were established to provide relief or support to the poor and destitute of both sexes, including children, the elderly and those with disabilities. They formed part of a broader social welfare framework rather than a system that was specifically targeting women and girls. It is certainly important to acknowledge that experiences in workhouses could be very difficult and that stigma could attach to those who entered them, but the key point is that the stigma was not unique to one group. It applied more broadly to all who required that form of relief and, regrettably, to poverty itself. That is a different context from the gender-specific shame and stigma that the scheme is intended to address. Mr Carroll's amendment, while seeking to recognise those difficult experiences from 1922 to 1948, would fundamentally alter the scope and intent of the scheme and, consequently, the nature of the Bill. For context, workhouses formed part of a broader system of public provision, and many operated as hospitals, providing healthcare to local communities. Those infirmaries were later absorbed into the National Health Service, following its establishment in 1948. That wider healthcare role is important. It means that thousands of women will have given birth in workhouse infirmaries, the majority of whom returned home shortly afterwards with their children. Under Mr Carroll's amendments, any pregnant woman admitted to a workhouse and every child born there would potentially become eligible for redress. What basis is there to positively discriminate? Members will understand that that would represent a significant and unintended expansion of the scheme far beyond those whose experiences it was designed to recognise. As Members are aware, the Bill was drafted to be deliberately inclusive within its defined scope. It takes an admissions-based approach without requiring an assessment of individual experience. As outlined in the equality impact assessment, it is difficult to justify providing redress to one group solely on the basis of their admission to a workhouse, while excluding others who may have had similar or worse experiences in the same place. Doing so risks not only creating inconsistencies but undermining the fairness of the scheme and the fundamental competence of the Bill. A further issue is that Mr Carroll's amendments do not provide for posthumous payments to eligible relatives of deceased victims and survivors associated with workhouses. At this stage, it is unclear whether that was intentional or an unintended consequence of the drafting, but the effect could be unequal treatment of surviving family members under the Bill. I caution that Further Consideration Stage is not necessarily the time to introduce such significant policy changes. Please bear in mind that there will be no further opportunity to amend the legislation before it is enacted. In short, the amendments cause us genuine concern. There is a real risk that they could have significant consequences for the Bill, including major delays if questions of legislative competence require referral to the Supreme Court or, worse, unintentionally wreck the Bill. That is not the fair or right way forward, and therefore we cannot support the amendments. They would prove hugely detrimental, and we ask the House to oppose them.
I would like to address the proposed amendment to move the posthumous eligibility date from 2011 to 1953. Without question, that is one of the most complex and sensitive parts of the Bill. It is important to be clear at the outset about the role that posthumous dates play in state redress schemes. They are not arbitrary. They are a standard feature in schemes where posthumous claims are allowed and are generally linked to a clear moment of state recognition, whether an announcement, an apology or another significant step towards acknowledgement and accountability. For example, the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme is anchored to the Stormont House Agreement of 2014. In the Government of Ireland's mother-and-baby institutions payment scheme, the posthumous date is tied to the formal state apology, which was issued in 2021. When the policy proposals were consulted on in 2024, the proposed posthumous date was 15 November 2021, the day when the Assembly accepted the truth recovery design panel's recommendations, which included the establishment of the redress scheme. Following the consultation, however, the date was moved further back to better reflect the beginning of a process of formal state acknowledgement leading to the redress scheme. The Executive-agreed position of 29 September 2011 is taken from the announcement of a public inquiry into historical institutional abuse. That moment led to the birth mothers' campaign for inclusion in the inquiry and UN bodies' recommendations for redress for those who had been harmed in Magdalene laundries and similar institutions. Crucially, that date also represents the earliest point at which it is reasonable to say that an expectation of redress could have been formed. The date provides a clear and principled anchor for the scheme grounded in state action rather than retrospective interpretation of historical events. We fully recognise that that date has been difficult for many families, particularly for those whose loved ones passed away before that point. That disappointment is understood, and work is ongoing with victims and survivors to ensure that there are meaningful and appropriate ways to commemorate those who are no longer with us beyond financial payment alone. We understand that the Committee's proposal to move the date to 1953 is well intentioned. We also carefully considered alternative posthumous dates and approaches, including international examples, but all carry different risks. We understand that the Committee amendment reflects the 1953 date used in the historical institutional abuse redress scheme. That date flowed from an inspection report on the Sisters of Nazareth children's homes. It is important to note, however, that those institutions are not relevant for this scheme. It also sits uneasily alongside other contemporaneous findings in the inspections of institutions that are in scope. That illustrates the difficultly of selecting a single historical moment or document and applying it uniformly across a complex and varied institutional landscape. More broadly, 1953 does not represent a clear point of state acknowledgement or a moment when an expectation of redress could have been reasonably formed. Thus, it does not provide the same foundation as the 2011 date and those used in other jurisdictions.
I fully understand the point that the Member makes. They are incredibly sensitive issues, but I must outline for the House, for the record and for those who are with us the rationale behind the 2011 date and why the Executive agreed that date. It is fundamental that people understand why. Did the state fail in many ways? Without question. Nevertheless, it is incumbent on me to outline why we went for 2011 and why it is important. It is vital that that rationale is on the record for full understanding.
It is clear that nobody in any of those institutions should have experienced abuse or harm; that is the purpose of everything that we are doing. It is repugnant that people who were placed in those institutions for safety and care were treated abominably, that we are in this situation today and that these people have to live for the rest of their lives with what happened to them and to their deceased mothers. It is repugnant in every way. I concur that nobody should have had to face such abuse and treatment in places where they had been put for care and shelter. It is astonishing for all of us to consider, and it is to the shame of the state in those days. For the benefit of the House, and to be absolutely clear, no other scheme in the world has used such an early date — the 2011 date — in combination with an admission-based scheme. That means that there is no established precedent for operating a scheme on this basis. It would significantly increase the number and complexity of posthumous applications. As a result, it carries substantial risks for the overall operation, administration and deliverability of the scheme. Using 1953 would add thousands of posthumous applications to the scheme and, more significantly, increase alongside that the complexity of the cases. That would inevitably result in longer processing times and potential delays for victims and survivors who have already waited too long for redress. By way of explanation, the further back eligibility extends, the more difficult it becomes to verify claims, to locate records and to establish family connections. It is a question not simply of volume but of the nature of the cases that the system would need to handle. There would also be cost implications, which must be raised with the House. Extending the scheme in that way would increase costs by an estimated £22 million in redress payments, alongside a further £8 million for support services and information retrieval. I will say again that, as elected representatives, we have a responsibility to balance how we address the legacy of the past with our ability to meet the pressing financial demands of the present. What the Executive can do and what they would like to do are not necessarily the same thing. Decisions of this nature will always have financial implications, but I emphasise that cost has not been the primary driver in setting the date. Rather, it reflects a considered and principled policy decision grounded in standard practice and precedent. However, the House should know and understand that the £30 million of additional funding would have to be met from the Executive Budget and thus come from other Departments. We have engaged with the Health Minister on some of the issues that Mr Butler raised, and it is clear that this amendment could place significant additional pressure on health trusts in particular, as well as on existing services. The issue is not merely one of increasing resources; it is about ensuring that the appropriate resources and the necessary specialist expertise are in place for the benefit of those seeking help and, indeed, their information.
Pardon?
Yes. The Member is right in that it is a demand-led scheme. Regardless of that, we are aware — there was a debate about it earlier — of the black hole in the Budget, and that picture is not going to get any brighter, so Members need to understand the implications. The funding will not just come from TEO's budget; other Departments will be impacted on. It is important that that is on the record and that Members who will vote on this understand the full picture. Demand for historical records, family tracing and support services could rise substantially. Social work services that already operate under considerable strain would be required to absorb that increased demand, potentially impacting on the quality and, indeed, availability of support for current service users, including victims and survivors. Most importantly, there is a risk of raising expectations that cannot realistically be met. As eligibility stretches further back in time, the likelihood increases that records will be incomplete or unavailable altogether and that applications cannot then be verified by archival records alone. The scheme has been designed so that where records are incomplete or do not exist, there is flexibility to consider alternative forms of evidence such as signed affidavits. However, surviving family members, the service and the system generally may not always be able to provide the level of detail required to support an application. That creates a real risk of people coming forward in good faith only to find that the system cannot confirm their eligibility. In those cases, the scheme would risk causing further distress rather than providing the recognition and support that it is intended to deliver. The scheme developed by the Department and agreed by the Executive is firmly grounded in the recommendations of the truth recovery design panel. It has been carefully designed to provide meaningful redress while minimising unnecessary barriers for applicants. The scheme comprises two elements: a standardised payment providing recognition through a straightforward and accessible process; and an individually assessed payment that will allow a person's individual experience to be taken into account. It adopts a compassionate, inclusive and trauma-informed approach and compares favourably with international schemes. For example, applicants are not required to provide detailed or potentially re-traumatising statements about their experiences in order to access a standardised payment, nor are they required to sign a waiver preventing them from pursuing future legal action. Unlike many other redress schemes, this scheme is also inherently intergenerational in its design, recognising mothers and all children — now adults — who were born in those institutions. A core principle of state redress schemes is that finite public resources should be directed towards those most directly affected. In that context, it is essential that we focus on what can be delivered now to those for whom the scheme was established. Extending eligibility in the way proposed would not only depart from that principle but introduce significant practical, financial and other risks. We appreciate the sensitive and complex nature of the issue, but, should Members pass the amendment, it is important that they do so with full knowledge of the potential consequences for the scheme and for victims and survivors themselves. I will now address amendment No 12. This is the Department's tidied-up version of Mr Carroll's amendment to clause 32(9). Moved at Consideration Stage, it relates to multiple payments. During the debate that day, Mr Carroll explained the policy intention behind the amendment, saying:
"It provides for more than one payment for individuals who were both adoptees and birth mothers. Those are people who were admitted to institutions twice; once as children who were taken from their own mothers, and then again as pregnant women." — [Official Report (Hansard), 19 May 2026, p62, col 2].
That is what the House voted to support. However, Mr Carroll's amendment as made provides:
"A person who was admitted to more than one relevant institution, or who is eligible under both subsection (2) and subsection (3)"
of clause 32 may receive
"more than one payment."
Members will recall that eligibility under those subsections is split between those who were born while their mother was under the care of a relevant institution and those who were admitted to an institution themselves. The drafting is deliberately broad and inclusive so as to reflect the wide range of lived experiences of victims and survivors. As amended at Consideration Stage, however, clause 32(9) would give rise to what are, we presume, unintended consequences. For example, a child who was born in hospital and admitted to a mother-and-baby institution immediately afterwards would also be eligible for two payments. That would be a significant number of applicants, as most mother-and-baby institutions did not contain a maternity ward, and most women gave birth in hospitals. It is also important to recognise the fact that eligibility for the scheme extends beyond adoptees and birth mothers. Not all those born to women who were under institutional care were adopted, and not all those admitted to institutions later in life were birth mothers. Magdalene laundries, for example, did not generally admit pregnant women. A narrow approach that is based solely on those examples would therefore risk excluding others who had comparable experiences.
Amendment No 12 seeks to address those issues in a balanced and proportionate way. It provides that individuals who are eligible under subsections (2) and (3) may receive up to two payments. The limit of two payments reflects the structure of the scheme, which recognises two distinct routes to eligibility: being born while your mother was under institutional care and being admitted to an institution. Amendment No 12 allows for both of those experiences to be recognised, in cases where they are genuinely separate. It recognises that being born to a woman who was under institutional care may carry a distinct shame and stigma that is separate from the experience of being admitted to an institution later in life. At the same time, the amendment makes it clear that a person who was born in hospital and then admitted to an institution immediately afterwards will receive one payment only. That reflects the view that, in such cases, the shame and stigma arises from a single set of circumstances: namely, being born to a woman who was under institutional care. Mr Carroll's amendment would also have allowed for a payment per admission to each institution. We have consistently been clear that the standardised payment is an acknowledgement of the impact of the system as a whole and that enabling a payment for each admission would move the scheme towards an open-ended model, thus undermining the core principle of a standardised payment. It would create clear inequalities, with some individuals receiving significantly more than others, based solely on the number of admissions, and could risk further deepening feelings of hurt and unfairness that are already felt by some victims and survivors due to the amendment having passed at Consideration Stage. Amendment No 12 also allows for up to two posthumous payments to an eligible relative of a deceased person who would have met the criteria under subsections (2) and (3). That approach balances eligibility in the Bill while ensuring that the posthumous payment remains grounded in the entitlement and expectation of the deceased. We ask Members to support that amendment. Amendment No 15 is the Department's redrafted version of Mr Carroll's amendment to clause 43(2)(f), which was moved at Consideration Stage. Mr Carroll's original amendment conflated two distinct processes: what happens when an applicant passes away during the application process, and posthumous payments whereby eligible relatives of the deceased may make an individual claim for £2,000. As it stands, that risks creating confusion and undermining the coherence of the legislation. The redrafted amendment removes the reference to "eligible relative" and instead provides that the Executive Office may make regulations setting out what is to happen in the event that an applicant passes away while their application is ongoing. That includes provision for a procedure enabling the applicant to nominate an individual to receive a payment, which we believe was the policy intent of the original amendment. I will address a couple of points that Mr Butler raised about records. He asked me to comment on whether or not there has been investment in relation to records. There has been investment in preservation, access and standardisation via PRONI and the trusts, but we appreciate that there is much more to do, as we said in the debate at the Bill's previous stage. Junior Minister Reilly and I have met the Health Minister on that important issue, and we know that that area has been and will continue to be vital for the victims and survivors. We are working closely with the health and social care trusts to manage the expected increase in requests. Options that are being explored include a specialist team and a central index to make records easier to locate. We have also funded PRONI's work to digitise institutional records, which should improve access and streamline the redress and inquiry processes. I will not go into that further, as Mr Butler is not in his place. I place on record my thanks to the Committee, Members of the House and, indeed, officials for all their significant work on this very important Bill. While the amendments tabled by the Committee and Mr Carroll are clearly well intentioned, they would significantly alter the design, scope and, potentially, the deliverability of the scheme, and thus they create the risk of unintended consequences.
The inclusion of workhouses would represent a significant broadening of the scheme beyond its intended scope, as set out at Second Stage and agreed at Consideration Stage. It is not because the experiences of those connected to workhouses are being dismissed — I want to be really clear about that — but because workhouses occupied a different place in the wider institutional and welfare landscape. Workhouses were not directly comparable to mother-and-baby institutions alone. They shared characteristics with a range of institutions, including children's homes, hospitals and other forms of institutional care and therefore must be understood in that broader context. As we discussed earlier, the inquiry can establish whether mistreatment of pregnant women occurred at a systemic level across the 20 workhouses here and whether their treatment was distinct from other workhouse residents' experiences. That will inform whether further recognition or responses may be appropriate. It is also important to remember that redress is not limited to financial payments. The wider framework includes other forms of recognition and support, including memorialisation, access to records, counselling and support services, all of which play an important role in acknowledging past harms. Similarly, I want to be clear that the debate on the posthumous date is not a choice between acknowledgement and non-acknowledgement; it is a question of setting a date as best we can in a way that is principled, consistent with other schemes and, ultimately, deliverable. The Executive agreed that 29 September 2011 provides the strongest foundation for doing so. Extending eligibility for relatives back to 1953 would introduce significant practical, financial and evidential risks, with the potential to delay redress for those whom the scheme was intended to support and the potential to raise expectations that cannot ultimately be met. Before voting for the amendment, Members should be fully aware of its potential impacts, assess the risks and, accordingly, make their decision on which way to vote. The scheme already goes further and is more inclusive than any scheme anywhere else on these isles and more inclusive than international comparators. It forms part of a carefully balanced package of measures developed from the truth recovery design panel's recommendations. The package represents years of engagement, consultation and careful policy development and scrutiny. It seeks to provide not only financial recognition but a lasting legacy of remembrance, understanding and healing. I caution Members to be careful not to put that progress at risk. Today, we have an opportunity to deliver a scheme that is compassionate, inclusive and capable of being implemented without further delay. I therefore urge Members to support the Bill and help ensure that long-overdue recognition and redress can finally be delivered. For those reasons, we ask the House to support the Executive's position on the amendments.
4,197 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.