Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): We welcome Mrs Judith Thompson, the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors; Mr John Beggs, secretary to the commission; and Mr Adrian McNamee, head of policy. You are all very welcome. Judith, on behalf of the Committee, I congratulate you on your appointment and wish you well in your important work. I invite you to make some opening remarks, please.

Mrs Judith Thompson (Commission for Victims and Survivors): Thank you for the opportunity to come before the Committee today and to provide you with some information on the work of the Commission for Victims and Survivors. It has been a privilege and a pleasure to accept my appointment as the new Commissioner for Victims and Survivors in Northern Ireland, and I am fully committed to promoting and safeguarding the interests of victims and survivors during my period in office.

My priority over the past eight weeks has been to meet as many victims and survivors as possible. People have described to me the impact that our troubled past still has on them and their communities, and I have a deep respect for their dignity and their resilience. I also fully appreciate that the gap in the position of commissioner over the past year has, despite the ongoing work of the commission and of the victims' forum, left a void in proactive advocacy for the needs of victims and survivors. I intend to provide robust support for those whose needs have only become greater in the past year.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge my predecessor, Kathryn Stone, and the fine work that she did, and also to recognise the staff at the commission and the forum, who have continued with a difficult work programme in the absence of a commissioner. I have had the opportunity over the past weeks to listen to the hopes and concerns of victims and survivors in relation to the measures that are proposed in the Stormont House Agreement. I know that I am taking up post at a time when there is a great deal to play for for victims and survivors. Whilst there are aspects of the proposed legislation that have caused concern, the measures contained in the Stormont House Agreement do represent a huge opportunity for victims and survivors. For the first time, we have a set of proposals and the resources to make them work. Victims and survivors have waited a long time for institutions to effectively address all of these needs, and we should not turn our back on this opportunity. However, it is essential that the proposed legislation, as well as the manner of its implementation, be victim-centred. We need to take time to get this right. It is not about political expedience but delivering what has been promised to those who have suffered most.

In the rest of my opening remarks, I would like to give a quick overview of the three business areas that we have in front of us at the commission, to say a few words about what I see as the challenges and the opportunities, and to outline some priorities going forward. I am currently carrying out an extensive programme of engagements with individuals, families, groups and organisations. I want to listen carefully to what the victims' forum, groups and individual victims have to say.

The impact of not having a commissioner in post over the past 15 months has constrained the work of the commission in a number of ways. It has not been possible to issue new policy advice, and there was a lack of a public profile and voice for victims and survivors in the media. Whilst the Victims and Survivors Forum has continued to operate, it has had to do so with a reducing membership. By February 2016, I intend to have a new corporate plan for the commission for the period 2016-19, which will be coterminous with my tenure as commissioner and with the final years of the strategy from 2009 to 2019 for victims and survivors. I want to raise the profile of victims' issues by developing a clear communications and engagement strategy that will reach out to the silent and hidden victims, of whom I know there are a great many.

Currently, the commission has three main areas around which its work programme is based. Those are dealing with the past; the present, which mainly concerns services; and building for the future. I propose to give a brief outline of what we are working on in each of those areas and to outline my plans going forward. In relation to dealing with the past, victims and survivors are currently concerned with the proposals outlined in the Stormont House Agreement and, in particular, the areas for which draft legislation has recently been tabled.

The previous commissioner provided advice for the First Minister and deputy First Minister in March 2014, which highlighted four areas: acknowledgement, truth, justice and reparation. I believe that the implementation of the current proposals, as outlined in the agreement, would significantly benefit most victims and survivors. However, I am aware that not all victims and survivors are content with what they understand the draft legislation to contain, and significant concerns have already been raised with me.

Yesterday, the commission hosted a major seminar in partnership with the Northern Ireland Office, the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) and the Department of Justice in order to address those concerns. We were very pleased to have more than 100 victims and survivors advocates there, and we believe that that good attendance provided an opportunity to hear victims' concerns. Those concerns included what the historical investigations unit (HIU) will actually deliver and how constrained it will be by security concerns. Concerns were also raised and, I think, to a great degree answered, about the impact that the independent commission for information retrieval (ICIR) is seen to have or might have on justice. The implementation and reconciliation group (IRG) and its absence from legislation was raised. In a much more general sense, the point was raised that we were talking to a roomful of people who had been through this before, and there is an issue about trust. There is an issue about confidence building, and transparency is very important in that. As progress is made and as things move forward, the commission hopes to be in a position to host similar events again. It is clear to me that dealing with the past and further discussion around the proposed measures contained in the Stormont House Agreement will be a top priority for the commission at this time.

It is also vital that the approach to all of those issues is victim-centred. A very detailed piece of work was done by the victims' forum and adopted by the commission in March this year, which looked at the Stormont House Agreement and what a victim-centred approach might mean in practice. The principles outlined, which I am sure you are all aware of, were co-design and collaboration, which is particularly pertinent at this time as the legislation emerges and its implementation is planned; victim-centred, ie based on choice, sensitive to the needs and bringing support as well as measures; independent, impartial and free from political interference; inclusive; and fit for purpose, properly resourced and transparent. The forum asks, as do I, that your parties take cognisance of and embed those principles in the legislation and its implementation.

In my role as commissioner, I have a duty to keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness of law and practice. The hosting of the seminar yesterday was part of fulfilling that duty, but I also intend that the draft Bill, as it emerges, will be reviewed against the principles identified by the forum. In addition, the commission and the forum will be meeting the Lord Chief Justice tomorrow to look at those principles again and to consider how they can inform and improve the legacy inquest system.

In relation to services and the present, as the Committee is well aware, my predecessor had many criticisms of the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS). In my short time here to date, I have met the chair on a number of occasions and the acting chief executive. Yesterday, our services working group met members of its board. My aim is to develop a robust tripartite relationship whereby the three organisations — ourselves, the service and the Department — collaborate and communicate in a robust and challenging way in order to improve services for victims. Those regular meetings and quarterly reports will continue, as will our forum, which I am pleased to report also meets the VSS board on a regular basis.

The independent assessment of the service detailed 70 recommendations for improvement. Of those, 53 have been implemented, as you know. As the remaining 17 recommendations relate directly to strategic direction, the co-design programme that we agreed with the Department will incorporate the outstanding recommendations. I think that we are close to closing off quite a number of those. In fact, the commission, the Department and the service have been working together in this co-design process with the aim of improving the service delivery model. That has involved examining the victim support programme, the individual needs programme and the assessment tool used by the VSS.

The commission's research programme, a very robust piece of work, has made an important contribution to improving services and will continue to do so. We are currently evaluating the pilot project, looking at personalised budgets. The commission is also currently reviewing its minimum standards document, and a working group made up of representatives from the groups, the service, the Department and the health sector, chaired by commission officials, is currently working on a new draft of that document with a view to going out to consultation before the end of the year.

As part of building for the future, in March this year the commission launched a major piece of research entitled 'Towards a Better Future' and held a conference to discuss its findings. We will seek to implement the recommendations on raising awareness of the trans-generational impact of the conflict on children, families and suicide rates. I hope that this short summary gives you a flavour of value and impact.

I want to quickly highlight what I see as some of the key challenges and priorities moving forward. I believe that there are still significant challenges for the sector to address in a number of areas. In relation to services, the sustainability of the sector is a major issue. It is evident from the experience of the Victims and Survivors Service — I think that you heard evidence of this last week — that demand is rising. We believe that there is a fairly consistent trend of a 10% increase per annum in people presenting. The budget demonstrates a positive commitment from Ministers but, as we look ahead into further years, we can see that austerity is coming down the line at all of us, and the need to be clear and to prioritise will become greater. Clarity on the funding stream for next year is also important for groups and for the service, and we would certainly ask for information on that as soon as possible. Organisations need to plan for their staffing and activities for the coming year.

Other things that have been raised with me in my earlier meetings include siblings, which is a category currently excluded from some measures, and the use of disability living allowance (DLA) criteria as a threshold, which is seen as imperfect by many groups and individuals. Those are things that the Victims and Survivors Service and the commission are currently looking at with the Department, and I look forward to hearing the outcome of those discussions with a view to making improvements to the scheme for individuals.

The issue of eligibility for those who live outside Northern Ireland has also been raised with me. I am travelling to Warrington next week to hear for myself the concerns of victims living elsewhere. The commission took advice on this in 2014, which we are currently following up with some numbers and scoping on the likely cost.

We have also been working closely with the Department of Health on proposals for a mental trauma service, and we would welcome a statement from the Health Minister. The 'Towards a Better Future' research, which we published earlier this year, provided very important evidence for putting that service in place, and I am pleased that we made such a contribution. I also look forward to working together with OFMDFM and the Department of Health on the implementation of that.

The VSS, with the Department, is securing £17 million of Peace IV funding over the next five years, which also represents a very significant investment. Between those two developments, Peace IV and the mental trauma service, we have a significant opportunity to make a strategic impact on addressing the needs of victims and survivors as we go forward. I will also be appointing independent evaluators to assess all areas of progress in delivering the current strategy and producing a review of that strategy by the end of this year.

In short, the priorities are an immediate focus on replenishing the Victims and Survivors Forum with a view to bringing in new members by the end of March next year and, building on yesterday's event, continuing with the implementation of the Stormont House Agreement, and making sure that the way that happens is in collaboration and co-design with victims and survivors and in keeping with their principles. It is also important that the necessary funding for groups and individuals continues to be available, and I will lobby for that strongly. I will also continue to engage with the wider victims community and commission research to provide an evidence base in order to improve services, deal with the past and build for the future. I believe that the commission has a very important role to play over the next few years and I am looking forward to putting in place a very robust strategy and plan for that period. Thank you all.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Judith, thank you very much for those opening remarks. There is plenty to discuss. I should begin with not a declaration of interest but just a declaration, for visitors to the planet, that I was a commissioner for victims and survivors a few years ago. I am interested in your first impressions over the past two months.

Mrs Thompson: Over the past two months, I have been meeting as many groups as possible. At one level, the immediacy of the impact on people of historical experiences is all the more striking when you sit in a room with them. I have been struck by the extent to which what is currently happening politically and in the Stormont House Agreement is absolutely fresh for people and by the impact that it has on their memories, concerns, future needs and expectations. I have met groups and individuals who have affirmed for me things that I had believed already. I have also met groups and individuals who have opened up ideas and experiences to me that I had not fully appreciated before. I have been struck by the importance of the role, which, obviously, you will be aware of, having been a commissioner. It is an honour and a privilege.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): You majored on the Stormont House Agreement. I was struck that you said that it is important to take time to get it right. Some would argue that we have had an awful lot of time to get something right.

Mrs Thompson: I accept that argument. The agreement itself and the measures in it were consulted on thoroughly. That is the feeling amongst the groups and individuals I have spoken to. The concern has been about the actual process of producing the legislation. It has been trailed in the press and, on occasions, it has been misrepresented in the press. There has been a great deal of concern and anxiety produced in that process. People who had hopes and aspirations are now beginning to feel either that these things will not happen or that dangers they had not foreseen are emerging. It is that bit of it that we need to take time to get right. People keep saying to me that the devil is in the detail and that they have not had the chance to see and understand that detail. In some cases, I think that they have been deliberately misled.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I will not comment on the latter, because I do not know who is briefing the media. However, there have certainly been reports in the media that are inaccurate and, therefore, damaging, because people read and assume. Without breaching the confidentiality of the talks going on down the hill, the detail is not agreed. To a large degree, the detail does not yet exist. In the same paragraph, you talked about delivering what victims and survivors have been promised. What do you think they have been promised?

Mrs Thompson: While listening to the people who attended our event yesterday, I heard statements around greater truth and justice. People understand the difficulties of that and the need to be realistic about what can be delivered, but there is a sense right across the piece that greater information and truth, and a better level, at least, of acknowledgement, has been inherent and implicit in the agreements that have been delivered.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Those are three of the four characteristics you named, the fourth being reparation. What is the expectation of the people you are talking to with regard to reparations?

Mrs Thompson: I am going to let my colleagues comment after I have said a couple of things because they have been dealing with the detail of this for a great deal longer than I have. In the broadest sense, there is a mixture of expectation around reparations. Some see as reparation the services that are delivered by the Victims and Survivors Service, as well as things like pensions for the severely injured or disabled, and the mental trauma service. Some see those as reparation; others see them as needs-led. For some people, reparation has nothing to do with financial payments, but, for others, it does. It is an area where maybe there has not been as much clarity as there could have been and where expectations are sometimes conflicting. I invite my colleagues to say something because I know that this is a complex area that has been dealt with in terms of the service and proposals for pensions.

Mr John Beggs (Commission for Victims and Survivors): Judith has answered it fairly well in any case. The reparations element came out in our 'Dealing with the Past' advice, which was issued last year, just before Kathryn Stone finished her term in office. We got that theme from a major conference that we held on dealing with the past. Victims and survivors did expect some element of reparations. Reparations as a word can be debated, but there was some expectation around a package of reparation. As Judith said, the Victims and Survivors Service itself does that to an extent. The pension is certainly seen as a form of reparation for those who were severely injured. Indeed, elements of the Stormont House Agreement around the mental trauma service and advocacy services are seen in the main as a package of reparation. What is being proposed in the Stormont House Agreement matches what we think and have researched in terms of victims' needs and wants.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Can I just go through the elements of the Stormont House Agreement in dealing with the past to get a headline sense of where you are? With regard to the HIU, I think you said there was a concern about national security and what impact that would have on truth and justice.

Mrs Thompson: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Is that across the board or within specified sections of victims and survivors?

Mrs Thompson: To a degree, it is across the board. I am thinking of different groups and different experiences. There are specific issues that cut right across. Those who believe, rightly or wrongly, that the use of informers or other security issues impeded the investigation of their loss come from all parts of the community. Those concerns cut right across, so that is relevant to the limitations on what the HIU can disclose to families. I believe that that is cross-cutting.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): If we go back to the Haass/O'Sullivan talks two years ago, which was the first step to where we are today, there was discussion about legacy inquests being subsumed into the HIU. Is that something on which you take a view?

Mrs Thompson: At this point, no, but it is a matter that we are actively engaging with in that we have had a meeting with the Lord Chief Justice, and he agreed, as he picks up responsibility for the coronial service, to attend a forum meeting tomorrow. We met the coronial service and talked to them about how well they feel that process is going to deliver for victims and survivors. I believe that the Lord Chief Justice is genuinely keen to engage with victims and families but I think he also is concerned to manage people's expectations. As things move down the line, we will learn better how many of the 50-something cases that are currently waiting for legacy inquests can really be dealt with effectively by that system. I would be happy to report back on that when we know more.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I appreciate that. What are the concerns on the ICIR, the information recovery unit, which is a body that is hermetically sealed, not part of the criminal justice system and will not offer an amnesty?

Mrs Thompson: You have just named one of them. I believe that that concern has been well addressed. Of course, that came up again yesterday and it has come up in meetings. That is the major one. People are still asking questions. The perception and idea that somebody can go and seek information — I have met individuals who have said to me that, even in cases where perhaps someone has been convicted of a murder, they just want to know how much someone suffered or how something happened. There are quite detailed things, as you will know, that become really significant for people to know. They see that process as one where they can retrieve that information.

Despite what any of us might think — I know that it is easy to be paternalistic about this kind of thing — if an individual says, "What I imagine, and keep imagining, is worse than anything someone could tell me", then they should try to get that information. Those people also know that that information is not going to be verified in the way that things that go through a court of law are, so there are concerns and there is that sense that the information might not be fully verified, but I hear people saying that they want it. On the flip side of that are people who are afraid that, rather than being a victim-led opportunity, it might become something that could be misused by someone to dump information. I think we have had as much reassurance as we may get from the Northern Ireland Office on that. The issue continues to play around though.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): You have articulated the concerns that you can mitigate and be aware of but can never actually totally manage. I think you said there was a concern that the implementation and reconciliation group would not be on a statutory footing. Again, I hope I am not going too far in terms of the confidence of the talks but, to my understanding, there has been no decision on that yet. I think that it would be very useful to understand whether you think victims and survivors as a group have a common definition of what reconciliation means.

Mrs Thompson: In relation to the IRG, I suppose what we saw was acknowledgement in terms of somebody not just saying, "I'm sorry for your loss", but, "Your loss was somebody's responsibility and they now say that it shouldn't have happened." Those kinds of statements, I think, are incredibly meaningful. It is not just one type of victim, group, or section of groups that I have heard that message from. In the more general sense, you pose a very good question. I would like to be in post for more than seven weeks before I answer it.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): It is my impression that perhaps there is not a common understanding out there and that, even if you gave the five parties in the talks a blank sheet and said that they had 20 minutes to define "reconciliation", you might get five significantly different views. I will not stray too far into that.

Will you comment on the oral history archive?

Mrs Thompson: We had a really nice and very informative session with the Public Record Office on that yesterday. The concern that I have heard most about it is people's sense that history can be rewritten. The answer to that, which I heard yesterday and I hope will take a clearer form as things go forward, is that such an exercise has to articulate different narratives properly and in a balanced way. It has been a striking experience and a privilege to visit all the different groups, many of which have their own archives. The meaningfulness of that for those individuals and the importance of being able to bring something and put it into a collection somewhere that will last beyond them or the people they are remembering is very powerful.

That piece of work has immense potential, and could be very imaginative and creative.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): As you say, it reflects the fact that we will never get to an agreed narrative. We respect the fact that there are multiple narratives. I suppose that in contrast to that is the historical timeline, which is factual and no one can dispute; certain things happened at certain times on certain dates in certain places. The narrative of why and the implications, however, take us into another sphere.

Mr Hazzard: You are very welcome, today and to your new role. I will start with the oral archive. I do not want to put you on the spot or anything. Do you have a view — some people do — on whether the archive can be sufficiently independent if it rests with PRONI? If independence is very important, do we need to be more imaginative in how we approach this?

Mr J Beggs: The chief executive of PRONI, Maggie Smith, was very clear yesterday that it would be free from political interference. She, as deputy keeper of the records, will have oversight of that information. There were concerns, not just about compiling the information and where it is held, but about the academics who bring it together. As we all know, academics can take different perspectives on oral history and historical timelines. Other than that, we have not heard any more concerns about that.

Mr Hazzard: When the guys from VSS were in lately, I took the chance to raise the issue of the absence of an appropriate gender lens when dealing with victims. Margaret Bateson was here and, I think, accepted that there is no strategic gender lens, but I think that the VSS, at a board meeting, either yesterday or today, is considering a paper on this. Do you plan to look at that yourself? Is it on the horizon?

Mrs Thompson: Absolutely. I have certainly read the papers and looked at what came out of the gender launch event recently. I met with some of the people who produced that research, and tomorrow, at the victims' forum, we are carrying out an exercise looking at the different elements of the Stormont House Agreement, which will ask them to consider a gender perspective on each of those. I think that the point has been well made, and we intend to take it forward.

Mr Hazzard: That is very positive. My other point, and you alluded to it earlier, is on siblings and eligibility. In 2012, the commission decided that they would not be eligible. You mentioned that this was, not so much under review, but certainly on your to-do list. What is the process? What is it that you are looking at? Is it to overturn this? Are you looking at how best to do this in future?

Mrs Thompson: The dilemma that faces us is that, from talking to people and walking around the groups, it feels like a fairly arbitrary criterion. It is almost like any criterion, though: once you meet people, you find places where it does not fit. It is certainly on the radar, amongst a number of things that we are looking at, to focus, prioritise and make sure that a tight resource is best used. I think that, going forward, the steps that we have in prospect are conversations and possibly some workshops with the service itself and the Department, as we have a refreshed look at how we try to target resources where they are most needed. That could mean a fresh way of identifying and defining who is eligible.

Mr J Beggs: We hear it continually, and we appreciate that it was part of previous commission advice. It was originally linked to the financial assistance scheme; siblings were not seen as having a financial dependency on the person who was taken away. However, since then, we have heard of numerous situations where siblings within a family circle have been excluded from availing themselves of any services at all, and it does not feel right or fair. We are tackling it at the moment. If we have a workshop on eligibility, we have to be conscious of the pressure on resources; but we do envisage looking at siblings to see if there is a way to bring them back into some of the schemes.

Mr Hazzard: I have one last question. I definitely hear what you are saying about acknowledgement. Is there an issue with who is left to do the acknowledging? If you had a loved one who was killed by the UDR, or at the hands of republican or loyalist paramilitaries, who does the acknowledging? Is that an issue that we need to tackle in greater detail?

Mrs Thompson: I believe that it is. It is certainly one that has been raised to the effect that a number of people have said to us that everybody needs to acknowledge; it cannot be only one or more governments, even, that do that.

Mr J Beggs: It was very much a key theme in our previous advice on dealing with the past. Acknowledgement and apology were key themes that we heard from victims and survivors. That is why we raised the issue about the IRG. We see that as the opportunity to bring all this information together at the end. If there are apologies, from wherever, those should be made at that time, if possible, on the evidence that they have.

Mr Hazzard: Thanks. Thanks, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): On that, has the five-year timeline proposed in the Stormont House Agreement been discussed? Is it broadly accepted?

Mrs Thompson: The most specific thing that comes to mind in relation to that was what I heard, yesterday, from Brian Grzymek from the Department of Justice, when he was talking about the work of the historical investigations unit. He acknowledged that five years would be a very challenging timeline within which to achieve what that unit has to do.

Mr J Beggs: That five-year period, as we understand it, is ticking, so, we are already half a year into the first year. It is not just the timeline; it is the associated resource of £150 million that was set aside for the dealing with the past elements of the Stormont House Agreement. We are concerned that any of that money could, potentially, be handed back if it is not being used for victims and survivors.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): It was £150 million over five years, and those five years were not open-ended. This is the first of the five years, and it has a budget line to it. It would be reasonable to assume, halfway through the year, that it will be very challenging to spend that money. I would stray into saying that it will be impossible to spend it all.

Mr Lyttle: Thank you very much for your presentation. I give you a sincere welcome to your post. I had really good working contact with former commissioner Kathryn Stone. The thoroughness and comprehensive nature of your presentation is very encouraging. Victims and survivors will be glad to have their commissioner back in post and active. I am sure that the detailed and on-the-ball nature of your presentation is in no small part due to the excellent staff team that you have available to you. I genuinely found your presentation very encouraging. I think that you have highlighted a lot of the key issues that victims and survivors will want to see you working on for them. I certainly look forward to working with you on those issues. The Committee has worked closely with the victims' forum. I was involved in the Haass talks process. There is no doubt that it has been the most emotionally challenging matter that I have ever had to work on as an MLA. I am reassured and glad to hear what you have had to say today.

On some of the specific issues that you raised, I know from engaging with the victims' forum and some victims and survivors, in particular, that the pension for the severely injured is a major issue for them. Have you had any update or indication from OFMDFM as to what stage they are at in relation to making substantive proposals on that matter?

Mrs Thompson: Thank you for your comments. Absolutely. I am very fortunate to follow Kathryn Stone and to benefit from the work of the commission. It has been hugely helpful to me, coming in as I do.

You asked about the pension for the severely injured. One of the first groups I met was the severely injured group. I have had subsequent conversations with the Department and individuals. We have been involved in putting together further advice for the Department. I feel that it is one area in which people are getting older, their needs are getting more pronounced, and they have waited a long time. It is something that, like my predecessor, I would very much like to see some progress on soon. We are working closely with the Department on that.

Mr Lyttle: That is helpful to hear. My understanding was that the commission provided specific advice to the Department on a potential framework for a serious injury pension. The Committee has sought to engage with that advice via the Department, but the Department has declined to provide us with that advice to allow us to engage in a proactive and positive way. Can you speak to any of that advice?

Mrs Thompson: I suppose that I could at a reasonably broad level, and then I will pass over to Adrian to go into more detail.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Are you going to pass out copies? [Laughter.]

Mrs Thompson: We have provided advice on costings and have sought to outline some thoughts and options around eligibility. That is at a stage of development at the moment. We will talk to the Department and, we hope, to all the different parties and individuals involved in that.

Mr Adrian McNamee (Commission for Victims and Survivors): As you probably know, we submitted advice in June 2014, and that advice was accompanied by a major piece of research on costs and the various issues concerned with it. We had a substantial proposal in that advice. Obviously, there are other issues around eligibility, numbers and costs. The Department has come back and asked us to do some work on those issues, and, as Judith said, we have recently submitted a paper to the Department. There are a number of questions, but, as a commission, we stand ready to give more actuarial advice if it is needed and if there is more legal research needed around the pension. We are ready to carry out whatever is needed.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Is there anything to stop you publishing your advice?

Mr J Beggs: As Adrian said, the advice was issued in June 2014. It was one of the last pieces of advice that Kathryn Stone issued to the Department. We got a response from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister acknowledging it, but we have not been given permission to release it, and, without a commissioner, I did not have any statutory authority to go ahead and publish. We can potentially now revisit that with the Department.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Now that you have a commissioner.

Mr J Beggs: Now that we have a commissioner. It is an incredibly valuable piece of research, and it would be good to have it published. It contains all the mechanical details and outlines the purpose. It gives clarity on the background to the pension, which, I think, would be helpful. That is where we are.

Mr Lyttle: I can understand your reluctance, in the absence of a commissioner being appointed by OFMDFM, to go down that route, but it gives us a stark reminder of how long ago that advice was given. It has been over a year since that. Rather than put you on the spot any further, I will say that I presume that, for that type of provision to become a reality, it will be required to pass through the Assembly and therefore all political parties. I do not see any advantage in the people who have the power to bring it into the public domain, and to allow people to begin to proactively engage with it, delaying that any longer, given the urgency around the issue and how eager victims and survivors are to see it properly debated, properly engaged with and delivered. Hopefully, progress will be made on that in the near future.

I found it helpful that we had another opportunity to clarify that there has never been any suggestion whatsoever of amnesty as part of the Stormont House Agreement or, indeed, as part of the Haass process prior to that. Misinformation has led to unnecessary distress for many victims and survivors. I am glad that we have another advocate in post who can continue to clarify the proposals around that and, better still, engage and bring victims and survivors into the process of engaging with the proposals. Much of the Haass, and therefore Stormont House Agreement, proposals on dealing with the past and legacy issues were as a result of all political parties, in fairness, engaging directly with victims and survivors. They were very much victim- and survivor-led, and, hopefully, with you in post, we will continue to ensure that that is a victim-centred process right through to fruition.

One of the key aims of the strategy for victims and survivors, probably the most important aim, is to achieve a measurable improvement in the well-being of victims and survivors. Where do you think we are in achieving that key aim?

Mrs Thompson: That lies with the work programme. It is very much on our agenda that, with any of these initiatives — be it the mental trauma service or the pension, advocacy and support; all the existing services — we really need more information not just on what is being delivered — I take on board the improvements that the service has made in that respect — but on the impact and what is being achieved. I see it as very much the commission's job to have a research programme that runs alongside all of this and brings robust data, which tells us stuff that we need to know, whether or not it is stuff that we want to hear, about what is actually being achieved.

Mr Lyttle: That is really important. Often, when we ask questions of the Department about provision for victims and survivors, we are given information on the amount of money invested and processes but not on outcomes and impacts. That is something to look at. It is encouraging to hear that that is going to be on your work programme as well.

Mrs Thompson: Very much so.

Mr J Beggs: Monitoring, evaluating and measuring outcomes has been a key focus for us in the commission. I want to give some credit to the Victims and Survivors Service, which, over the past 12 months, has been engaging with groups to gather outcome data and outcome measures for health and well-being social support. For the first time ever, it has got those groups engaged in that as well. We are hopeful that, by the end of the year, we will have some fairly good outcome measures coming through from the service. If the service gets the model right, that could then be used in other areas for victims and survivors. So, there are developments there as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I have a couple of questions about the commission to finish. First, what sort of hit has your budget taken this financial year?

Mr J Beggs: We have taken a considerable hit over the years since you were a commissioner, Mike. We started with a budget of £1·5 million in 2008. We are now down to £880,000. So, there has been a 42% reduction since we started. We have had a reduced number of commissioners, but our statutory duties and statutory remit have not changed. So, it is a big issue for us. In this financial year, we took a 12·8% hit, which we have absorbed. We have sought to make as many efficiencies as possible internally. We are moving accommodation from Headline Building to Equality House, which will save money. However, we are struggling at a time when we need to do a lot of research and work on advocacy around the Stormont House Agreement.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Is it impacting on your ability to fulfil your statutory functions?

Mrs Thompson: I would be very quick to let the Committee know if I felt that that were happening. I believe that, this year, we have managed our situation through a very wise decision to move offices. There have been considerable savings there. But, yes, it is a concern for me, and it is one that I will certainly raise if it begins to happen. This is far too important, and the time at which it is happening is far too important, for us not to be effectively engaging victims and survivors in some very formal consultation around what is happening. We need that research programme, and it has to be robust. We have to make sure that services are as good as they can possibly be. It is a concern.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Judith, in your opening remarks, you talked about aligning a corporate plan through to the end of the departmental strategy in 2019, which would coincide with the end of your current contract. Is that an endgame?

Mrs Thompson: I do not believe that it is. Obviously, we hope that the period that we are in does not last forever. However, I certainly think that there is work for the commission beyond that period. That is the next point on the horizon, but I believe that there will be work beyond then.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Paragraph 33 of the 'Strategy for Victims and Survivors' for 2009-2019 states that:

There is a very explicit commitment to mainstreaming in the strategy. Is 2019 the time to mainstream?

Mrs Thompson: You are asking me quite a tricky question at an early stage, so I will give you an answer with a health warning. My early-stage impression is that this is quite complex and so are these needs. My feeling at this point is that, while statutory services have a great deal to offer, I am not convinced that, as a person with a very specific experience as a consequence of a Troubles-related incident walking into a public sector service, the very particular nature of one's needs, the nature of the assessment one might want to go through and the things that people should avoid putting you through in those situations, would be properly or easily met. But that is an answer with a health warning. I am only eight weeks in post.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): That is reasonable.

Mr McNamee: I have a point to add to Judith's answer. A very important piece of work that is coming up for the commission in the next few months, looking forward to 2019, is a review of the strategy. We are aware that we have passed the midterm of the strategy, and we are going to set about commissioning independent evaluators to look at the four parts of the strategy with the Department, the commission, the service and the forum, which are all mentioned there, and at how they have performed to date. The strategy was to put a lot of that architecture in place. We are now at the point where we can take a look at it, how we have performed, where we are on delivering that strategy and what we need to do up to 2019 and beyond to deliver for victims and survivors.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): It is useful that you say that, because my next question was about a midterm evaluation or post-midterm evaluation. Should that be conducted by the commission or the Department?

Mrs Thompson: We gave that a lot of thought, and we felt that, at the end of the day, we were the least worst option. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Sorry, I should not have laughed.

Mr J Beggs: We have given that consideration. We have not started the review at the moment. It is in our work programme. We have consulted the Department, and it has been approved in that sense. As Judith said, we are part of that infrastructure, but we have all been subject to independent reviews over the years. So, that can come into the mix. We are also the organisation with independent legislation. Least worst option? Yes. Who else would do it? Certainly, our doing it, rather than the Department, is the preferred route.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I will finish by going back to reconciliation, because, as an objective, it is one of the most important things that we can pitch at, if we agree what it is. In the 10-year strategy in 2009, at paragraph 39, the Department wrote that:

Is that still valid?

Mr J Beggs: Yes, it is still valid. We have talked about the midterm review of the strategy. If we are being honest and open, the building for the future and reconciliation part of the strategy is the area that we have made the least progress in. We have been consumed by dealing with the past, generally, over the past number of years, and we are hopeful at the moment with the Stormont House Agreement. We have been consumed by services, in the work of the commission and, indeed, our forum. We would openly admit that, on the building for the future part, we just have not really got to that conversation yet. We have to move along at the same pace as everybody else. I think that dealing with the past needs to be addressed more fully before we move on to that.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Thank you for that, and thank you for your time.

Mrs Thompson: My gut feeling, to agree with my colleague, is that it is still relevant.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): John, Adrian and Judith, thank you very much indeed. I hope that you will keep in touch and keep us apprised of developments and concerns. Once again, we wish you well with your work.