Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): I welcome to the meeting Fiona Ryan, Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse (COSICA). The session is being reported by Hansard, and the transcript will be published on the Committee website.

Before I invite you to brief the meeting, Fiona, I want to say a few words about Wednesday's meeting. I have already apologised, on behalf of the Committee, directly to you, Fiona, and, even more importantly — if you will allow me to say that — to the victims and survivors of institutional childhood abuse. I was mortified that the meeting lost its quorum. One of our members was ill, and three others gave apologies for their absence for either all or part of the meeting. The result, which no one intended, was to worsen the impact on survivors of the abuse that they suffered as children and the continued neglect of their welfare since. While I have been able to apologise, on behalf of the Committee, directly to some of the survivors and victims and their groups, I wish to do so wholeheartedly again now. It was unacceptable, and we are sorry for the further hurt that we have caused you.

Ms Fiona Ryan (The Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse): Good morning, Sinead.

First of all, I acknowledge your apology on behalf of the Committee. As I said to you during the week, when you apologised to me, the apology is due to the survivors; it is about them. We all live in the real world where things happen, but I would be neglectful if I did not convey to the Committee the deep hurt and upset of survivors about what happened on Wednesday. It is important for all of us who have a real commitment to working in this area to understand that many survivors have had a lifetime of their experiences being denied or minimised and their reality being rejected. They have spent a lifetime carrying a burden that was never theirs to take on. Many of them communicated to me that what happened on Wednesday brought up those feelings again, but I know that your apology and that of the Committee will go a long way to, at least, acknowledging that hurt.

I said on Wednesday that I was saddened and disappointed that I had not had the opportunity to speak with the Committee and that I thought that that was a missed opportunity. I am really glad that, this morning, we have a chance to recapture that opportunity. I am happy to brief the Committee and move forward. If it is OK with you, Chairperson, I will repeat the briefing that I gave on Wednesday.

Thank you again for the invitation to appear before the Committee. I am always grateful for the Committee's interest in our work and in the wider issues of historical institutional childhood abuse. My intention is to provide an overview of the work of my office a year on and of some of the general issues relating to historical institutional childhood abuse, before proceeding to discuss the public apology to survivors on which the Committee asked me, in November, to provide a briefing.

My first priority is to thank the survivors' representatives for their time and generosity in sharing their experience and knowledge with me, since I took up post as Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse a year ago. I also thank them for their incredible patience, because they have been asked to have a lot of patience. I am mindful that, while I have asked the Committee and the Executive Office to consider that 20 January will be the fifth anniversary of the publication of the report of the inquiry into historical institutional childhood abuse, January also marks the ninth anniversary of that inquiry starting. We all need to reflect on and be cognisant of that. I am grateful for the patience that survivors have had with me as I have worked to develop the capacity of my office. Thank you to them.

At the time of taking up the post of commissioner, I said that it is a privilege to do this work. A year on, I believe that to be even more true, as I have had the opportunity — albeit not as much as I would have liked in current circumstances — to engage directly with survivors and hear from them. For all of us who work to improve the situation for survivors, it is one thing to read about it in a report and another to meet survivors face to face, whether that is in Derry, Belfast, other parts of Northern Ireland or, indeed, the Republic of Ireland. I am conscious that I have spoken to survivors in Britain as well. I would have liked to have gone over there, and I hope to do so in 2022. It is another thing to actually hear from them about their experiences, the impact on their lives and how they continue to carry the burden. For the most part, we are talking about people who are in their 60s and going into their 70s. I have also spoken with people who are in their early 80s. You are talking about a lifetime legacy of carrying a burden of abuse. At the same time, I am highly conscious that many people have passed before their time. I am conscious that we are coming up to Christmas week, but it is sombre to consider that.

We have received over 519 separate queries since we started on 14 December last year. This week is our first anniversary, in fact. Approximately half of those queries relate to applying for redress and the general redress process. Under the legislation, my office has a responsibility to provide general advice and information on applying for redress. We also separately provide information via our website — www.cosica-ni.org — along with the most frequently asked questions regarding redress, which are set out there. As of the end of November, the board had received over 2,199 applications, with 1,663 having been considered by a panel.

On finding support and services, while my office does not provide services directly, we signpost survivors to appropriate services when they contact us in person and through our website, where we list the key services and their contact details. We primarily refer survivors to the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS). It is also the first anniversary of the VSS this month in that it launched its services to victims and survivors of historical institutional childhood abuse two weeks before us in December last year. So far, 439 survivors have engaged in and accessed support and services. It is worth noting that many survivors access more than one intervention. They may avail themselves of counselling or choose a non-talking therapy, for want of a better term.

A year on, our intention, as the commissioner's office, is to reach out to the survivors and services and to find out what we can do better. We want to engage further with general services to identify how they meet the needs of survivors and to identify the gaps where, potentially, we can all work together to improve how we meet those needs. One gap that survivors have highlighted to us is the communications gap. They have highlighted the need to raise awareness of services, the Historical Institutional Abuse Redress Board and, indeed, my office. I recognise that we need to do more to increase awareness. I have raised with the Executive Office the need for an integrated awareness raising campaign to do just that. I further advised the Executive Office to consider an awareness campaign and to, as a priority, implement a campaign to publicise redress services and the commissioner's office. There is a precedent for that type of campaign: I think of the inquiry's campaign in 2013, which used a variety of communication channels to reach out to survivors. In response, the Executive Office has told me that it has started scoping the publicity campaign and will focus on it in the new year. I look forward to working on that campaign initiative with the Executive Office.

In the meantime, we are seeking to increase our own communications capacity to build on engagement with survivors in Northern Ireland and those outside this jurisdiction. We are in the process of reaching out to the Irish centres in Great Britain to engage with survivors; the inquiry itself will have done that. We do so in recognition of the fact that approximately one in eight applications for full redress are from survivors in Britain and that one in six VSS applications are from survivors in Britain. There is a significant communications and outreach job to be done with survivors outside this jurisdiction.

We had a real case in point at the start of this week, when it emerged that redress awards would be disregarded in the context of benefits assessment for survivors in Britain. Under the legislation, redress awards had already been disregarded in Northern Ireland. Survivor representatives communicated to the Committee, the Executive Office, the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee their concerns that that was not the situation in Britain. I raised the issue with this Committee on 21 April and followed that up by writing to the Secretary of State and others. I congratulate the survivor representative groups that campaigned on that issue and highlighted the gap in the legislation almost as soon as it was passed. I express thanks to the officials who have succeeded in achieving a legislative solution. I am glad that the situation now appears to be resolved and that appropriate legislation will come in January, with interim measures in place until that point. That is the result of consistent awareness raising by the survivor representatives, and, again, it highlights effectively the need to communicate to survivors in Britain.

That, in turn, brings me to an issue that I have raised with the Committee: the lack of research into survivors of historical and institutional childhood abuse, particularly population research. As I said at the start, it is nine years since the inquiry started. For decades before that, survivors themselves had to raise the issue of what happened and of their abuse. Yet, we are still asking simple questions. Where are the survivors? A key challenge in engaging with survivors is the relatively low rate of disclosure of abuse, even to loved ones. It behoves us to take a population approach and to try to figure out where survivors are. I know that you have a business background, Chair. It will be important to have that knowledge if we are to communicate effectively with survivors. My intention in 2022 is to scope, with other interested stakeholders, the capacity for research in this area and to assess how we can go forward.

The Committee asked me to provide my views on a public apology, as recommended by the inquiry into historical institutional childhood abuse. For context, it is worth remembering that, as I said, it will soon be five years since that inquiry published its report on 20 January 2017. I urge all of us to consider and reflect on the significance of the upcoming fifth anniversary of the publication of that report. We might also want to consider that, as I said, January marks the ninth anniversary of the inquiry's formally being established. Nine years: that is nine years of survivors campaigning and nine years of survivors waiting. Many of those survivors are no longer with us; in fact, Sir Anthony Hart remarked that, sadly, there are those who passed even during the inquiry.

Five years since the publication of the report, it is important for us to look at and ask what has been done and what is outstanding from the inquiry's recommendations. A brief survey would have to include public apology, memorial and the institutions' contributions to the cost of redress and specialist services. We all have to ask ourselves how we can undertake the actions that are needed to make most difference to survivors. I am highly conscious that this is the last Committee meeting of this year and before we go into a new year. I am equally conscious that this Assembly's mandate is due to run out in the first quarter of next year. We really need to concentrate our minds on this.

As noted in my briefing to you on 18 November, the inquiry stated in 2017 that there were mixed views regarding the apology, with some survivors firmly demanding an apology and others saying equally firmly that they see no point in one and would not accept one even if it were given. The inquiry, while acknowledging the spectrum of views, recommended that the Northern Ireland Executive and those who are responsible for each of the investigated institutions where systemic failings were found should make a public apology on a single occasion at a suitable venue. The inquiry saw the value of the apology as a formal recognition by government, a public authority or an institution that they or their predecessors had made mistakes in the way that they treated children whom they were responsible for. If you do not mind me observing, "mistakes" is a very mild word to describe decades-long systemic abuse of children, with the forced break-up of families and denial of basic human rights.

It is worth noting again that the inquiry found that it is not only the religious and voluntary bodies that provided and organised the institutions that were investigated and found to be at fault. The inquiry also found systemic failings at the time on the part of public authorities; health and social services boards; the Ministry of Home Affairs; the Department of Health; the Northern Ireland Office, where it was responsible for criminal justice institutions; and the RUC.

Coming close to the fifth anniversary, anyone looking at the legacy of the inquiry would have to say that there are and have been significant delays in implementing its recommendations. I would suggest that not only have there been delays but the relationship between the recommendations could have been more fully understood and appreciated in terms of prioritisation, sequencing and how the constituent elements of the recommendations relate to each other in the context of an overall state programme on historical institutional childhood abuse.

The observation on sequencing and prioritisation is important. Those may sound too much like business terms to be used in this highly emotive context, but we have seen their impact in the context of apology and its relationship, for example, to the proposed review of the redress process. As I have stated at the Committee and to the Executive Office, my view, from engaging with survivors, is that the issue is not whether there should be an apology. Even among the survivors to whom an apology personally means little, there is a recognition that an apology is a meaningful, symbolic and necessary closure for other survivors. For some survivors, the issue has been that the review of the redress process takes place in advance of the apology, because they view it as a matter of accountability that goes to the heart of and impacts on the authenticity of the apology. They have told me that they resent being in a position where it seems as if they are being asked to choose whether it is an apology or a review of the redress process. As they have pointed out to me, they have consistently raised issues about the redress process. I think that it was back in April that I came before the Committee and raised issues. In July, the Assembly passed a motion calling for a review of the redress process. I was delighted that, this week, we heard an announcement of a review of the redress process. However, this is 15 December. Those outstanding recommendations require urgent attention.

We need to recognise that survivors have incredibly strong feelings about the apology being independent of any other development, because an apology is a recommendation of the inquiry, it is needed for closure, and people are passing before receiving that apology. There are other views that it would be remiss of me not to share with the Committee. Some survivors have said to me, "Certainly, we want an apology, but we don't believe that the Executive or the institutions will give an authentic and real apology". That is based on what has happened to survivors. We need to be cognisant of that spectrum of views.

I recognise the legitimacy of all the views that have been expressed to me, because they are all based on the real, lived experience of survivors. Nonetheless, the apology is a recommendation of the inquiry. Therefore, the review of the redress process should be progressed in parallel with preparations for the public apology and with resources allocated appropriately in recognition of the urgent nature of these matters. However, an apology should not sacrifice the comprehensiveness of the review. Victims have waited long enough, and it is incumbent on the Executive to deliver on commitments.

As I said, I welcome Wednesday's announcement that a review of the redress process is due to take place, but I say again that we are in December and the motion was passed in July. Survivors have had to wait too long for their voices to be heard and to receive the long-awaited recommendations set out in the inquiry report nearly five years ago. I cannot stress it enough: many survivors are of advancing years, and some are in poor health. Time is of the essence.

I am conscious that we are talking about what needs to happen and I keep speaking about what the inquiry report said five years ago. However, it is important for all of us — in particular, those of us, like me, who are relatively new in this space — to recognise that what I am saying to you is not new. Six months after the inquiry report, Sir Anthony Hart wrote this to Assembly party leaders:

That was in June 2017. Survivors need a date for the apology, and it is fair to say that the services that support survivors also need a date. It would be prudent to consider that some services may need additional resources to respond to an increase in demand for services and support. Sir Anthony Hart noted:

It is not outwith the realms of possibility that, welcome as the apology may be for many, the fact — I am conscious that I am speaking about it this morning and that the Committee will ask questions — that these are deeply emotional issues means that an apology has the potential to traumatise even those who want it. We need to make sure that supports and services are there for survivors as we go forward on the journey with them. As I have said, for so many, the apology is important for closure. We need to remember that, for many, it comes too late. Their memory needs to be acknowledged through the process. There is an opportunity for survivors to come forward if they choose to. It is always important to say that it is about survivors' choice and their agency. They were denied that choice at the earliest age. What they choose to do is their choice, but we need to make them aware of the information, that there are supports and that they have the right to apply for redress.

Other recommendations from the inquiry are outstanding, including the institutions' contributions to the cost of redress and specialist services. I welcome the appointment of independent facilitator, Paul Sweeney. My office has engaged with Paul in order to facilitate his meeting with survivors' representatives, so that survivors' views on that important issue can be incorporated into his overall report to the Executive.

Another outstanding issue is a memorial, which I referenced. The inquiry noted that there is a spectrum of views, with some people wanting a memorial and others not wanting one; again, both views are for good reasons. It is a complex issue, but, on balance, the inquiry report recommended that there be a memorial. In the context of historical institutional childhood abuse, a memorial forms part of the symbolic reparation on the part of the state. It should, therefore, be viewed as part of the expression of recognition, justice and accountability. Again, however, time has been lost in implementing that recommendation. Initial discussions on a memorial commenced in 2017, but that process stopped. I recently met the Arts Council of Northern Ireland to understand how the recommendation can be taken forward. I look forward to coming back to provide some insight into that.

I thank the Committee for its time, and I am happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): Thank you very much for that briefing, commissioner. It is extremely moving to hear you talk about the urgency and the time that has passed since the inquiry. We are talking about how survivors have been waiting for an apology for nine years or five years. I would say that they have been waiting for an apology for a lifetime, whatever that lifetime is for the individual survivor. It has been too long. One thing that is really upsetting about it all is that survivors seem to be caught in a process that is not effective and does not put the victim at the centre. The process seems to be out of sequence, as you said.

There is much to be said, but I will leave my remarks and questions for a few minutes. One of our members has a funeral to attend, and I want him to have an opportunity to ask a question. I will ask my questions afterwards, commissioner, if you do not mind. I will bring Alex Easton into the spotlight.

Mr Easton: Thank you very much, Chair.

Commissioner, thank you for your presentation. It is my view that the Executive should apologise quickly. The longer the institutions and the Executive fail to apologise, the more insincere it will feel if and when they do. I want an apology to be made as quickly as possible.

You said that over 2,000 people have come to you to talk about redress. I did not catch the figure: can you give me it again? It strikes me that, as you alluded to, the number is on the low side. You mentioned that you are doing an awareness campaign. Have you any thoughts as to why that figure is so low? From what I hear in the media, I imagine that the real figure is considerably higher. I am keen for those who should be part of the redress to come forward and for us to reach as many people as we can.

Ms Ryan: Thank you very much. Forgive me: I am getting over sickness, so I probably could have said it more clearly. The figure that I spoke of relates to the redress board. The redress board had received over 2,199 applications until 30 November, and 1,663 had gone to be considered by a panel.

You raise some interesting points that go back to what I said about research. The reality is that there was an estimated number of survivors expected to go before the redress board and apply for redress. However, that was a guesstimate because we have little information on numbers. That is indicative of the lack of research that has been undertaken into survivors of historical institutional childhood abuse. You have provided, eloquently, a reason why we need to carry out that public health research. I hope to engage with the Public Health Agency (PHA) in the new year and have a conversation to at least scope out what is possible.

We simply do not know whether that number of over 2,000 applications for redress is low or high. We know that thousands of individuals went through the institutions. What should we do then? I have been wrestling with it. My background is as chief executive of the largest front-line services organisation for victims of domestic abuse — women and children — in the Republic. At least one in five of those women had experienced sexual violence. I can tell you from my experience of working in that area that there are generally low rates of disclosure of abuse.

That is common; talk to anyone in Northern Ireland. Since I have taken up post, I have reached out to a number of services and spoken to them about disclosure rates. The inquiry was aware of the fact that, by the very nature of child abuse or any form of abuse, people may be reluctant to come forward. It is always a survivor's choice whether they come forward, but we need to create a supportive situation for them to come forward. The redress board, for example, was up and running nine months in advance of the establishment of services for survivors, because it was deemed a priority.

Since I have come into post, I have argued with civil servants that, regardless of the redress process, we need to understand that the very fact that people are being asked to provide information on and recount details of the worst time in their life — effectively, re-engage with their trauma — means that they should have the support of services from the time that they contemplate doing that, all the way through their application and then afterwards. We need to build wrap-around services around survivors to give them a choice. If any of us were asked to consider the worst period of our lives, put it on paper, submit that to a solicitor and then go through a process, we would see that it is a difficult experience.

I am delighted that services are up and running and that they are available to survivors to support them through the redress process. That goes to the heart of the awareness campaign that we have been talking about. Rather than creating awareness of just redress, just the services or just my office, we have to understand that we need to put forward — again, I use a business term, and I do not mean to minimise things by using it — an integrated marketing, awareness campaign. I suggest that that needs to happen partially in advance of the apology in recognition of the fact that, even if the apology is welcome, it can be traumatising for people to have the issues brought up in the public sphere. Survivors have rung my office to say, "It's great that you're talking about this, but will you please remember as well that this is really triggering for us? Is there any way that you can do something with the media to create awareness around this?". We have spoken of the need for research and an awareness campaign.

I will say, on the basis of my engagement with survivors rather than on any scientific basis, that a lot of survivors are very humble. They start their response to almost every question or query about redress by saying, "Look, this is not about the money", or, "Look, I just want to say it. I don't want to go for that in case people think I'm just after the money". They feel as if they do not have the right to apply for redress. We need to get it across that they are entitled to apply for redress.

I do not know if that answers your question.

Mr Easton: That was helpful. We need to find some way of finding more of the victims to see if they want to come forward for redress and to help them. I would love to hear any ideas on what, if anything, we, as a Committee, can do to help push that forward. Thank you very much.

Ms Ryan: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): Fiona, what is your response to the statement on the review that the First Minister and deputy First Minister issued earlier this week?

Ms Ryan: I welcome the review. Many survivors will welcome it, although there are different opinions. When I came before the Committee earlier in the year, I shared the fact that there are concerns about communications and the survivor experience of engaging with the redress process. Any opportunity that survivors have to engage and to share their experiences with a view to providing better outcomes of the redress process is to be welcomed. There is concern. Survivors who want the review of the redress process want it to be as comprehensive as possible. However — this is not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good — the review was called for earlier in the year, so, while it is welcome, the review is coming almost five months after the Assembly passed a motion calling for it. That is challenging. As has been said to me by more than one survivor group representative, "Fiona, our people are getting older. They are passing. They don't have time to wait".

Ethically, all of us are beholden to ensuring that we have a better redress process. I am conscious that, under the legislation, my office has a responsibility to provide general information and advice on how to apply for redress. As I said, since we opened up, we have managed over 519 queries, half of which relate to redress. My office, the services and the board need to look at how, together, we can improve what we do for survivors. We need to put humanity into it and, as we spoke about earlier, make sure that survivors feel valued and that we understand that it is important that they are seen and heard.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): Commissioner, when we raised the issue of a review, it was to be short, sharp and delivered quickly. When that motion went through the Assembly in July, it was to be over in three months and we would move on. The delay has been significant, and the review is just starting. Realistically, do you believe that the review can be done within three months? You talked in your briefing about the fact that time is running out. Time is running out for the victims. They are getting older, and there is a sense of urgency and all of that. As you mentioned, the mandate's time is also running out. Realistically, there will be three months of the mandate left when we return after recess. Can this review be done and done well and fulfil thoroughly and exhaustively its remit and terms of reference within that three-month period?

Ms Ryan: That is a good question, Chair. The reality is that the Executive Office tells us that we have three months. It has appointed Supporting Justice, which has a good reputation in this area, to carry out the review. Simply, I cannot pre-empt what a review will find or how Supporting Justice will go forward. I know that the Executive Office has engaged with survivor representatives on the terms of reference of the review. I have gone on the record that to say that time is of the essence. We must implement the actions that need to be undertaken in a managed and timely way, so that we do not sacrifice any quality or comprehensiveness.

I hope that we can achieve the review so that survivors who have expressed their concerns about it on the record — to this Committee, to other Assembly Members, to the Executive Office and to Ministers — can find satisfaction from the process. We have talked about encouraging survivors to come forward. It would be a sign of the commitment and robustness of the system if it could review itself and signal clearly to survivors, "We have looked at ourselves. Here is how, we think, we can do this better. Here is how we will go forward".

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): Can you see any reason why the process of getting a full official apology that brings together the state, the agencies etc should be affected by the review of the redress process? Is there any reason why they cannot work in parallel or why one cannot be delivered without the other?

Ms Ryan: I am on the record as saying to you that, among the survivor representative groups that I have engaged with, there is no issue about having an apology. Some survivors say, "Look, Fiona, honestly, it is too little, too late, but I understand how important it is for other survivors, and that is why a public apology needs to happen". Other survivors and survivor representatives say to me, "Look, there are real issues with the redress process, which is part of the framework of reparation to us as survivors. We are meant to accept that an apology is wholesome, fulsome and authentic while we have issues with another part of that reparations framework".

As I said in my briefing to you in November, I would have preferred the review to have been undertaken earlier and progressed in parallel with preparations for the apology, in recognition of the legitimacy of the different survivor representative perspectives and positions on the issue. Do I think that preparations for the apology need to go ahead? Yes, I do. Do I think that the review of the redress process needs to go ahead? I do. They need to be in parallel. I have encouraged the Executive Office to put the resources in place to get the review across the line in a timely manner, without sacrificing any comprehensiveness.

As I have mentioned a few times at the Committee, 20 January will be the fifth anniversary of the publication of the inquiry report on historical institutional childhood abuse. That is a milestone date. As you rightly pointed out, we are also coming to the end of the Assembly's mandate. Many survivors, for closure, want and need an apology.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): They deserve it. I do not see any reason why something of significance cannot be delivered to mark that significant milestone on 20 January.

Before I hand over to the rest of the members. I will ask a load of questions about how the Department is managing the processes. As a Committee, our role is to scrutinise the Executive Office. How would you have done things differently? How could better outcomes have been achieved in the processing, the sequencing and all of that? It is as if the ball is dropped every so often and then there is a reaction and it is picked up again. There does not seem to be a strategic, succinct thread that moves along so that people get the results as they need them. I am really concerned about that. We are dealing with the survivors of historical institutional abuse, but we are also engaged with the process on mother-and-baby homes. We must learn where we did it wrong and how we can do it better. I am sorry to put you on the spot, commissioner, but how could we have done this differently?

Ms Ryan: That is a good question to ask and a tough question to answer. I will preface any comments that I will make by saying that I am sure that many departmental officials, in particular, will listen to this and say, "It's easy for you". However, I have been here for a year, and that is the perspective that I offer.

I offer the view that it would have been helpful and constructive to have adopted a programme of work on historical institutional childhood abuse; to have understood that the constituent elements of that depend on and influence one other; and to have understood the need to set out prioritisation and sequencing. To a certain extent, it feels like we are living with the legacy of what could have been done on sequencing and prioritisation; that is why we are in this situation. When we come back, there will be two and a half months until the end of the Assembly's mandate. I have gone on the record as saying to you that the apology process needs to be progressed. At the same time, I am conscious that a serious review of the redress process needs to be undertaken. Yet again, survivors are in the middle, waiting.

I gave the clear example of the development of services for victims and survivors of historical institutional childhood abuse starting nine months after a redress process had been initiated. Sir Anthony Hart recognised — I think that anyone would recognise — the traumatising potential of people being asked to give testimony, even if that was doing something positive in the context of the inquiry. To a certain extent, that is what they are asked to do when they go forward for redress: they are asked to recount, in writing, their experiences of their time in an institution.

A programme of work that was understood as a programme of work could have been taken on at a departmental level. I am not saying that work was not done, but, rather — again, this is my opinion and an observation a year in — that that work could have been understood in the context of interrelated projects that need to be prioritised and sequenced and that have interdependencies.

You mentioned mother-and-baby homes. Survivors have heard about the developments on mother-and-baby homes: the process of co-design, early consultation with survivors, and it being ensured that services are in place. They have shared with me that they are happy that that is happening. As, I am sure, you are aware, there is a certain amount of crossover between mother-and-baby homes and historical institutional childhood abuse. I have met survivors who were in the institutions and then in mother-and-baby homes. I have met survivors of the institutions who were in those institutions because their mums were in mother-and-baby homes. They say , "Well, it is great that the state is learning from this, but I think we have more value than to be an example to be learned from or a guinea pig. It would have been better if this had been understood when all of it was happening for us". As commissioner, all I can do is acknowledge and reflect that, which is what I have attempted to do by answering your question.

Yes, it would have been better if this had been understood, but, as I said to the Committee at the start, we have an opportunity to do something differently now. My experience from more recent engagement with the Executive Office is that there is better understanding of the interdependency of the work on redress, the services and my office. What I am looking for and what anyone who is involved in any form of project is looking for are dates, timelines and action plans. We are beholden to playing our part in all of that as well.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): Thank you very much, commissioner. I did not mean in any way that we want to learn just for the next process. It is just about the connectedness to the next process of the learning from the review. It is about overcoming some of the difficulties with redress and the provision of services in and around it. The apology, the memorial and the redress can certainly happen in this mandate, albeit that there is only a short time left. It would be a failure of the Executive not to complete the work in the short time that they have left, because we have left a lot of things too long.

I may ask another question at the end, if you do not mind, but I will hand over to John Stewart to ask the next one.

Mr Stewart: Good morning, commissioner. It is good to see you again.

Ms Ryan: Good morning.

Mr Stewart: I will start by echoing the Chair's sincere apology for what happened on Wednesday. I spoke to you on Wednesday evening. What happened was very poor and disappointing. I commend you on your ongoing work on behalf of victims and victims' groups. I have spoken to groups and individual victims over the past couple of days, and I know of the hurt that they felt. Hopefully, on the back of today, a lot of that hurt will go and we can bring the focus back to what exactly needs to be done. I just want to put that on the record. Thank you for coming back and giving us more of your time; we really appreciate it.

We continue to hear from the First Minister and deputy First Minister, the junior Ministers and the Executive Office that they are fixated and focused on a victim-centred approach. Yet, the victims' groups and individual victims whom I speak to do not feel that that is the case, whether because of a lack of communication, missed time frames and commitments or just the process in general and the redress scheme.

One big issue is the failure to give an apology. There is so much to it, but, if you cannot get an apology right or even give a timeline for an apology, everyone will just think, "How will you get the more complicated aspects right?". As you mentioned, in January, it will be nine years since the beginning of the Hart inquiry and five years since the publication of its report. We should all aim towards having an apology then. Do you think that that is possible? Do you agree that that would be a fitting time to do it and get the apology right?

Ms Ryan: Thank you for your question. You have pointed out articulately that there are a number of moving parts. Symbolically, 20 January is an important date that allows us to concentrate our minds. In general, when an issue is discussed and talked about for so long, we almost lose a sense of the time that has passed. I was shocked when I saw that it will be nine years — nine years — since the inquiry started.

Mr Stewart: Crazy.

Ms Ryan: This will probably not be a popular perspective, but I will be honest with the Committee, as I always have been. I warned in April or May that, if we did not resolve the issues around redress, they would intersect with the issues around the apology. I, like you, hear strong views from survivor representatives. That is not just noise; it is very real for a number of survivor representatives. Yet, here we are in December.

My concern is that we will seek to do everything at once and rush in. At the same time, I am massively conscious of the urgency. We have 20 January as a date. My understanding is that this Assembly's mandate is over in mid March: is that correct?

Mr Stewart: That is right.

Ms Ryan: That date, 20 January, is definitely one to concentrate our minds on. This is my view; I have not had widespread discussion about it per se. It may be that we aim for the end of January or even the start of February, but the important thing for all of us is that we need a date that we can go forward with.

Mr Stewart: I absolutely agree. The sceptic in me and in victims' groups says that we keep being told it by the First Minister and deputy First Minister; in fact, nearly a year ago, the deputy First Minister said that an apology would be a top priority. I have no doubt that it is, but victims' groups and I cannot get our heads around why it is so difficult to get to that stage and why what seems so simple cannot be achieved within that time frame.

Do you think that TEO officials now have enough of the information that they require, given that they have been liaising with victims' groups for years? Are all the ducks in line to make it happen? Where is the backlog and the hold-up? Why can it not happen? Am I missing something?

Ms Ryan: Again, I will say that the apology needs to be understood as a process. One of the things that I advocated — probably because of my background of providing services for victims of abuse, albeit different forms of abuse — is that we need to create awareness in the wider service provision sector. Services need to be made aware. They need to be given a date. If we are to talk about an apology, as we are now, we need to understand that someone watching may well want to have a conversation about their experiences. It is really important that we understand that, while an apology is an event and, to reflect the language of the inquiry, a very important and symbolic initiative to undertake, there is a period before, during and after the apology in which survivors will need support and resources to be provided. I have said that throughout the year.

The Executive Office has engaged proactively, particularly in the last couple of months, with survivors and survivor representative groups to move it forward. That is hugely positive, and we have to give credit where some form of improvement or development happens. At the same time, we need a date. Survivors need a date. That is why I have been talking about 20 January and the symbolic significance of that date. At the very least, let us consider and reference it, because that date is a milestone.

Mr Stewart: I absolutely agree, commissioner. Hopefully, it can go out from today's Committee meeting that we speak with one voice in saying that that should and very much could happen.

You have led me into my next question about the resource and support in the Executive Office for victims. There is the newly formed team under Mr Gallagher. Are you content that the Executive Office has the resource in people power, finances and logistical support to do the work that is necessary within an appropriate time frame?

Ms Ryan: I understand the question that you ask. However, commenting on it is probably outside my remit. I can say to you that recruitment has been an issue for all of us this year. My office has been running at around 60% of our staffing capacity. I am happy to report that we have been able to get new staff in. My office was predicated on civil servants, for example, being seconded to us, but that could not and did not happen. Consequently, we have been running at about 60% capacity. We have been relying on agency staff. Obviously, we have prioritised engagement with survivors. We are looking forward to getting up to a full complement.

I know that the Executive Office has had issues with staffing and capacity, so I am not in a position to comment on its current arrangements. That would not be appropriate. I can say, however, that my role is to advocate on behalf of the interests of victims and survivors. Service providers are well able to advocate on their own behalf, but, if I perceive there to be a need for additional resources for services, for example, and a gap there, I will bring it to the attention of the Executive Office and say, "This is what's been said to us and what we've noticed. What can we do to move forward on this?".

Mr Stewart: Thank you.

Ms Ryan: You are welcome.

Mr Sheehan: Thank you, Fiona, for coming along again, especially in the context of what happened the other day. I reiterate Sinead and John's apologies for what happened. I fully appreciate and understand that victims and survivors felt insulted and disrespected as a result of what happened. It rarely happens, but unforeseen circumstances arose the other day. The Committee would have been quorate only my colleague Pádraig Delargy took ill during the meeting; he has since been diagnosed with COVID. Others had made apologies as to why they would not be at the meeting or, as in my case, would have to leave early. I give a heartfelt apology to you, Fiona, but especially to the victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse. I hope that our coming together again very quickly will allay some of the fears that the Committee does not care about the victims or what they have suffered over many years.

Fiona, will you characterise your engagement with the Executive Office — Ministers and officials — on the processing of an apology and on the review of the redress process?

Ms Ryan: Thank you. From the start, my view has been that it is my role to represent the interests of the victims and survivors of historical institutional childhood abuse in any process that is going forward. Since taking up post, I have prioritised engaging with victims and survivor representatives and individual survivors. When I engage with the Executive Office, it is very much based on that experience of hearing from survivors about their concerns. I was hearing strongly, as were the Executive Office and Ministers, that some survivors had concerns about aspects of the redress process.

For any commissioner advocating on behalf of a group, it is important to recognise that, while we have an advocacy responsibility and remit, we are not a substitute for the survivors. The survivors are the experts on their lived experience. They are the campaigners who have spent decades campaigning. My attitude is that we add our voice, but we reflect what individual survivors say to us and campaign or advocate in the context of the survivors. From early on, survivors and their representatives have let the Executive Office know that there are issues with redress.

I have set out that there is a spectrum of opinions on an apology, which reflects what the inquiry found almost five years ago. From my engagement with the Executive Office on an apology, I think that its thinking has evolved over time and that there is now a better understanding of the need to look at how the different moving parts of the overall response to historical institutional childhood abuse interact with each other. That is part of the learning and development for all of us in that space, particularly on services. Again, I hate using the example, but you can see how the learning from what has happened with historical institutional childhood abuse is filtering into the system and how that will, hopefully, benefit the mother-and-baby homes process.

I have sent any briefings or responses that I have been asked to provide, Pat. I have sometimes volunteered those whether or not I was asked to provide them. We want to look around for good examples of where apologies have happened. We have looked internationally. We spoke to the Danish Government, who issued a successful apology, about what they had undertaken and done. We gave that information back to the Executive Office. We provided a pretty comprehensive briefing to the Executive Office's implementation branch in May. We provided another briefing on apology in October or November.

We have been consistent all the way through. My view is that a successful apology is fundamentally an apology that works for the victims and survivors. We put forward the key principles of what makes a good apology, which I have included in the briefing to the Committee. They are based on Professor Anne-Marie McAlinden's work at Queen's University Belfast and on that of academics at Ulster University. On the basis of international good practice, we know what constitutes a good apology.

I do not know whether that answers your questions.

Mr Sheehan: Thanks for that, Fiona. On a number of occasions, you have mentioned the number of moving parts in all of this. One of those is the communications gap in raising awareness of services for victims and survivors. I presume that you have raised that with the Executive Office. How was that received? Do you think that a plan is in place? Have you advised of a plan that might be put in place to raise awareness of the services that, as you pointed out, survivors may need before, during and after an apology?

Ms Ryan: I have raised that with the Executive Office on a number of occasions, Pat. I included what I call an integrated awareness campaign — forgive me; I call it that because I come from a communications background — whereby we start by recognising what survivors will need and creating awareness about that. Like I said, there is a precedent from what the inquiry undertook in 2013. I have also engaged on that separately with the Executive Office. In my briefing, I said that the Executive Office has reverted and said that it will scope out the potential for a publicity campaign in early January and engage with us, the VSS and others — obviously, we are looking to engage with survivors as well — to take that campaign forward. I would like that to happen sooner rather than later, and I have advocated that.

Mr Sheehan: OK. Thanks very much for that, Fiona. I wish you well for your work ahead, especially in the next weeks or months. I hope that we reach a successful conclusion for all victims and survivors of this terrible abuse.

Ms Ryan: Thanks, Pat.

Mr Lunn: Fiona, thanks for your presentation. First of all, I reiterate what everybody else has said about last Wednesday. I had to apologise. It does not usually happen that we run out of quorum, especially for something as important as your presentation. In my case, it is compounded by the fact that, the last time you appeared before the Committee, I was getting my second vaccine jab, which did not go well, so I missed that meeting as well.

We cannot defend a five-year process that was supposed to be urgent. It is just terrible; everybody agrees with that. I hope that we can accelerate the system and the processes now and bring this to more of a conclusion. I do not think that the end of the mandate means the end of the process, to be honest. It is not like draft legislation, which will fall. Let us just hope that we can start to do our job properly.

You mentioned the low disclosure rates and the communications gap in services. I suppose that I should be encouraged by the fact that there are about 2,200 applicants already and that that figure will rise. However, from my recollection, the original estimate was for several times that: maybe up to 8,000. What is the manner of the communication that we use to reach out to survivors and victims? How are we going about that? What methods of communication do we use?

Ms Ryan: Thanks, Trevor, for your comments at the start and for your question. There is a lot to unpack in your question. First of all, we need to understand the nature of the abuse. The majority of survivors of any form of abuse generally do not disclose, particularly to any form of official authority. They may even minimise their disclosure to their friends and families. Sometimes, they minimise it to themselves. They may acknowledge a certain amount of abuse but not the full extent of it. It is a massive challenge, because that is a coping mechanism.

How do we engage with survivors? One of the things that my office has done is to try to figure out how we can reach out to survivors without, necessarily, knowing where they are or who they are and give them the message, "This is what is available, but it is always your choice". I always say that survivors had agency robbed from them when they were children. No matter how good our intentions, if we attempt to rob their agency as well, we would be doing it wrong.

In that process, we reached out to the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry and the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in London. I reached out to them not so much about the work that they are pursuing but rather on their approach to engaging with survivors. They have different approaches. We cannot get away from the fact that the majority of survivors whom we engage with are in their mid-to-late 60s, 70s or early 80s. That is the age profile of the survivors who engage with the Victims and Survivors Service. I am making gross generalisations, but, to reach people of that age group, we rely on traditional media. We use television, radio and newspapers and maybe some Facebook. The most important means of all is probably word of mouth among survivors. Creating publicity or awareness and trying to reach survivors is done primarily through those channels.

As of 30 November, there had been over 2,000 applications to the redress board. My understanding is that, when the redress board was developing a business case, it had to pick a figure. To be fair to everyone in the process, because comprehensive research has not been carried out, the numbers are very much an estimate. The redress board had considered that it could be looking at 5,000 applications but the figure could be higher. TEO was looking at the numbers that had gone through the institutions. The figure could rise exponentially. You are right: we imagine that there will be more than 2,000 survivors. That is why it is incumbent on us to create public awareness around historical institutional childhood abuse. In fact, I have advocated to the Executive Office that there will be a certain amount of publicity and interest when the apology is made and that, potentially, there will be an opportunity to create an awareness campaign around the apology and, afterwards, to build on the awareness that might have risen to begin with and reach out to more people to make them aware of what is there for them.

Mr Lunn: Thanks for that.

Ms Ryan: You are welcome.

Mr Lunn: Has there been cooperation from the institutions involved to identify survivors and victims? I know that some of them do not, but they should at least have records of who passed through the institutions. Would there be any mileage in contacting people through that medium?

Ms Ryan: You will be aware that Paul Sweeney has been appointed as the independent facilitator. He is engaging with the institutions on their contributions, the cost of redress and specialist services. This is an opinion, but I imagine that, due to their experiences with the institutions, many survivors would not welcome any form of engagement being mediated through the institutions. I imagine that there could also be GDPR concerns. There is learning for us in understanding where the main institutions were. For example, we know that, in Northern Ireland, there was a concentration of institutions in Derry and Belfast. From that, we can extrapolate that many survivors continue to live in those key urban areas. That could inform how we go forward with an awareness campaign. At the same time, we recognise that there were institutions across Northern Ireland. We need to make sure that it is a broad-based campaign, but we recognise the fact that a majority of survivors will still be based in those two main urban centres.

Mr Lunn: OK. The apology that we are looking for would, obviously, be a corporate apology from the Government. Have the individual institutions made any attempt to apologise, or would they feel restrained in doing so, perhaps by liability questions?

Ms Ryan: I cannot comment on the institutions because I do not have engagement with them. My understanding is that the Executive Office is engaging with the institutions on the apology.

Mr Lunn: OK. It is nice to meet you face to face at last.

Ms Ryan: You too.

Mr Lunn: I apologise again for what has happened in the past. We will try to do better in the future. Thank you very much for your presentation and fine words.

Ms Ryan: You are welcome.

Mr Stalford: Thanks, Fiona, for being with us. I am glad that we are able to have this conversation. Where would an apology sit?

A review process is ongoing. Is the review of the redress board, potentially, one of the reasons why the apology has not been forthcoming much more quickly?

Ms Ryan: I have represented here the spectrum of views on the apology and the redress review that have been expressed to me by various survivor representatives. I have said that I understand and respect the legitimacy of its perspectives. However, I am mindful of the reality that it is now nearly five years since the inquiry ended and nearly nine years since it started. Six months after the end of the inquiry, Sir Anthony Hart said that there must be an urgency in implementing its recommendations. I have outlined for the Committee what, I believe, are the outstanding recommendations: apology, memorial and the institutions' contributions to the cost of redress and specialist services.

I have said to the Executive Office and gone on the record as saying that there have been issues with the redress process; in fact, I said that to the Committee earlier in the year. The Executive Office did not need to hear that from me, but it did. The Executive Office also heard significantly from survivor representatives that there are issues with the redress process. The Executive Office has been aware of that fact and the fact that a review was called for by the Assembly in July.

Mr Stalford: I recall Enda Kenny's response to the publication of the Cloyne report, which, I think, everyone now sees as a seminal moment in the history of the Irish Republic. The wording of that was clear and direct. I recall that, some time later, there was criticism of the response given to those who had worked in Magdalene laundries, because it was felt that it was not an absolutely direct apology to the people affected by that slavery. Let us call it what it was: slavery. What should the process be to ensure that the words in an apology are absolutely right? You can do it only once, and it is essential that it is got right.

Ms Ryan: You are absolutely right. It can only be done once, which puts a really weighted importance on the process needed to achieve the apology. I very much underlined that to the Executive Office. First and foremost, what is our definition of a successful apology? This may sound ephemeral, but a successful apology is one that is met with the approval of victims and survivors. That is our starting point, and we work back from that. We are lucky to have academic experts who have worked in the space and examined what makes a good apology. I advocated early on that we should look at the findings of what makes a good apology; again, I provided those in a briefing to the Committee.

An apology needs to be a wholehearted acknowledgement and an undertaking of non-repetition. There cannot be equivocal language. You need to ensure that any apology is offered to survivors with no expectation that it will be accepted. I have put all those findings in briefings to the Executive Office, and I shared them with the Committee in November. The Executive Office have taken those on board in the process. The implementation branch has reached out to survivor representative groups and taken the five core principles outlined by Professor Anne-Marie McAlinden in her work on apology. Forgive me if I am being too technical here, but, for each principle, the implementation branch put forward core points. It then invited survivor representative groups to comment and come back. That is the process that it is pursuing.

Mr Stalford: It was indicated by, I think, the deputy First Minister — I cannot be absolutely certain about that — that progress had been made on

extracting a contribution from some of the institutions concerned. That has been a constant theme from me throughout the process. Of course, the state must make a contribution because, ultimately, the state handed people over to those institutions. Equally, however, some of those institutions sit on enormous resources, and it is essential that they make a fair contribution. Do you have any update on that? Is any progress being made on that? Frankly, my chief concern is that they will move their money and dispose of their assets before they can be made to pay. We have seen that happen elsewhere throughout the world. Do you want to talk to that?

Ms Ryan: As I said to you earlier, I have been facilitating the engagement of the independent facilitator, Paul Sweeney, with survivor representative groups. To be absolutely fair to Paul, he approached my office and said, "Look, I have been given this role. I want to ensure that survivors' views are heard in this process". That is why he has been engaging.

This is based on my conversations with survivors; it is anecdotal and not scientific. A significant number of survivors have told me that they see the institutions' contribution as a matter of accountability: "Do not tell us you are sorry if you are not willing to be accountable and to demonstrate that accountability". Other survivors have said, "Honestly, whether it is the state or the institutions is not our primary concern. We have basically had a lifetime of this, so, frankly, you go and resolve that with each other". Taking a step back, one survivor shared with me this view. Someone had been messing about the redress and said, "Well, you've got sorted now". There was the sense that they were being paid for it. The survivor said to me, "The funny thing is, Fiona, I have paid taxes all my life. Effectively, I have paid for my own redress". In the midst of all the really important, big issues that we are engaging with, that that person experienced that in their daily life might seem smaller, but it was hurtful. They feel, rightly, that they had the right to apply for redress. I say this to any survivors who are listening to this: you have the right to apply for redress; if you suffered or experienced abuse in an institution from 1922 to 1995, the conditions are there for you to apply.

I always stress the reality that survivors are individuals. They are people. They have had different experiences and have different opinions. You cannot just treat them as a homogenous group. What I am sharing with you are the experiences of individual survivors. I am cognisant of your point that it is about accountability. Some survivors have told me that they feel that very much, not in some remote way but in a real way in their lived lives.

Mr Stalford: Thank you.

Ms Sheerin: Thanks, Fiona. Apologies. I had to come in via my browser because, for some reason, my tablet would not allow me to hear anyone in the meeting. I have dropped in and out a few times and have missed some of the contributions. Thank you for coming in again. I reiterate the apologies that others have issued for what happened on Wednesday afternoon.

I had questions on the apology. You have discussed it at length, and most of what I wanted to ask has probably been covered. You focused on the date of 20 January. Would you consider setting a deadline? Would that be helpful? I am not sure. It would, perhaps, work in the opposite direction by inviting the insinuation that the apology was only issued because the Executive were compelled to issue it. I do not know how viable that would be.

From your presentation and the conversations that you have had with other members, I get strongly the message that the process has been completely drawn out, which has further compounded the hurt of victims and survivors. Everyone has had different experiences and different reactions to the trauma that they went through, and everyone wants different things out of the apology. What learning is there from that for the memorial, which, as you have outlined, is another priority to come out of the process? Notwithstanding that the apology has not been issued yet, from the process for the apology, do you have thoughts about what could be done better and what not to do on the memorial?

Ms Ryan: Thanks, Emma. Excuse me. I have to apologise too. I am getting over COVID — I had it two weeks ago — so my voice has probably been fading in and out on the call.

There are key learnings all the way through. In reality, all systems need to learn if they are to grow and develop. Sometimes, it has felt as though the learning has been slow to come through the system. I am sure that commissioners are not supposed to say things like that, but — what the hell? — I say it anyway. The learnings have been slow, and there have been frustrations, but that does not mean that we do not start learning now. Primarily, it is about understanding the need to hear the voices of survivor representatives and survivors in whatever we undertake.

You mentioned the apology. Anybody who has worked on anything will say that you need dates and timelines to work towards in order to concentrate minds. It is not so much about a deadline, because that implies, "You have to do this by then or else". However, we have an ethical and moral imperative to say, "Look, we need to find a date here". We need to give people something so that they can say, "Right. That is going to happen then. What do we need to do?". If nothing else, this is about ensuring proportionate and good management.

The memorial process — I appreciate that the Chairperson asked a question about it earlier — started in 2017. The inquiry recommendations are clear that there is a spectrum of opinion on a memorial. The report was definitive in calling for a memorial. It set out where a memorial should be and that its purpose would be to remind the Assembly of what happened to those children and to serve as a warning to ensure that, in the time to come, children are treated better. Like I said, the process had been undertaken. It was recommended that the Arts Council of Northern Ireland take it forward. That process just stopped in 2017. How do we breathe life into it again? How do we restart that conversation about a memorial? I have reached out to the Arts Council of Northern Ireland to have that conversation and see how it would go about restarting the process for the memorial.

In the new year, I would like to look at what is the best practice out there. At previous Committee appearances, I have gone on record as saying that the inquiry made a solid recommendation. That is our starting point. We know, however, that there are other innovative examples of memorials across the world, so let us look at what else is being done. A memorial is important. I believe, with respect to the fact that there is a spectrum of opinions, that the memorial that was specified as a solid recommendation in the inquiry report needs to happen. The first thing that we need to do, however, is to engage with survivors to find out what they want from a memorial. We then need to talk about the feasibility of achieving it in as satisfactory and timely a manner as possible.

Ms Sheerin: Thanks, Fiona. I concur with everything that you have said. That is the feedback that we have got consistently. From all of the inquiries into institutional abuse across the island, we see, overwhelmingly, that the slow response or reaction of the state and institutions compounds the hurt and belittles victims and survivors. It is insult upon their injury. We saw an example of that in the Twenty-six Counties in the past couple of weeks in how offensive the redress scheme for the mother-and-baby homes was.

Christopher made the point that those institutions are organisations that sit on massive wealth and have an obligation but are often not very forthcoming with it. Perhaps the Committee could write again to the First Minister and deputy First Minister to ask for a commitment to the apology being issued as soon as possible and for proper resourcing for the officials who are working on this.

Thank you again for your presentation and your answers. For my part, if there is anything that we can do, I will be keen to do it. Thank you.

Ms Ryan: You are welcome.

Mrs Dodds: Good afternoon, Fiona.

Ms Ryan: Good afternoon.

Mrs Dodds: I also want to associate myself with the Chair's apology. It is important that people understand, one, that it is not a normal occurrence but, two, that it is unfortunate and regrettable that it happened.

I am interested in the figures that you gave at the start. You said that there have been 2,199 applications to the board and that 1,663 of those have been considered. How many have had outcomes?

Ms Ryan: My understanding is that the figure of 1,663 relates to those who have gone in front of a panel. Those are the ones that have gone to determination.

Mrs Dodds: Have they had the determination? It is not that they have gone in front of a panel and are sitting there; rather, they have had the determination.

Ms Ryan: That is my understanding, yes. Obviously, it is for the redress board to answer that more appropriately —

Mrs Dodds: Yes.

Ms Ryan: — but, yes, they have gone to be considered by a panel. To be clear, we are talking about applications from survivors via solicitors. Those applications go through a portal to the redress board. They go through a verification process and, subsequent to a number of stages, are put in front of a panel to be considered.

Mrs Dodds: Are we pretty clear that those have also had an outcome?

Ms Ryan: Yes. I think that some of those included in the figure of 1,663 will go on to potential appeal and there may have been initial payments. However, they have had an outcome, if that makes sense.

Mrs Dodds: Another issue was not clear to me. On services for victims of abuse, where do you see the need remaining? This is very specific need because it is historical and, I presume, by now could even be intergenerational and so on. Where do you see the gaps in that need?

Ms Ryan: That is a great observation. I am conscious that, when I appeared before the Committee on Wednesday, I was preceded by a presentation on the trans-generational impact of trauma. It would be useful for us to understand that, when we talk about historical institutional childhood abuse, we are talking about childhood abuse. The reality is that most child abuse is reported historically, even that which did not happen in institutions. This is me bringing in my previous background. When we look at services, we are looking at providing a spectrum of services. Again, the important thing is always to start with survivors. What do we know that survivors need at different times?

The Victims and Survivors Service has undertaken considerable work in the area. With its community partner WAVE Trauma Centre, the VSS is seeking to address the needs of victims of historical institutional childhood abuse. As I said, I reached out to the VSS and was told that, so far, 439 survivors have engaged in and accessed support. They could be accessing more than one intervention at a time, which is important in and of itself. It is really important to get across to the Committee that, even if you allow for the fact that there have been 2,000 redress applications, look at the numbers accessing services and accept that there are some people who do not want or need services, there is also probably a significant number of survivors who are going through generic or general health services. That creates an imperative on all of us, particularly service providers, to be trauma-informed in our approach.

One of the things that we have been doing throughout the year in preparation for an apology is reaching out to service providers that were not specifically designated, shall we say, to engage with survivors of historical institutional childhood abuse — it could have been Victim Support, Nexus or other services — to say, "Look, the reality is that, while someone may not disclose their experiences, you could be engaging with someone who has gone through the institution and is a victim of historical institutional childhood abuse. It is important to keep that in mind by being trauma-informed and victim-centred in your practice". Of course, the services are already doing that, but, as commissioner, it was up to me to reinforce that message.

I talked briefly to Sinead about this before we came on to the call, and I have talked to the Victims and Survivors Service about it. In the new year, we would like to look at the survivor journey through all of the services that are ostensibly available to victims of historical institutional childhood abuse. We will engage with that ourselves because, while we, as the commissioner's office, are not a service provider, we signpost and make information available to survivors. We also want to look at the journey through the other services. If you imagine putting survivors at the centre, in the next circle out will be the agencies that engage directly with survivors. In the next circle out from that will be services that are used by survivors but may not be the specialist or specific services for them.

I do not know whether that answers your question.

Mrs Dodds: It does, in a sense. You talk about services: there is also a gap in policy. We need to focus some of our policy through the lens of survivors of abuse or terrorist violence. We see policy in very defined ways; we do not see it in the round. I intend to have a conversation with Jayne Brady, the new head of the Civil Service, who, I think, is open to new ideas. Sometimes, we need to see not just the services but the policy in a wider context. We have ways of doing that, and we have section 75 groups in Northern Ireland. However, we need to look at how we make policy and how that policy relates to the wider community, including people who have suffered institutional abuse.

You focus on 20 January as a specific date. Is there time to get an apology that is — I do not know how to phrase it — sufficiently comprehensive? Apologies need to be from the heart and meant. Is there time to do that in consultation with victims' groups? I have the same question about the memorial. My greatest takeaway from today is the sheer and utter frustration that you convey about the time that things have taken. You advocate eloquently for victims on that point. If the Committee takes anything away from today, it should be how we inject greater urgency into what has to be done. Anybody can apologise, but we need to apologise and mean it. I will also throw this in: does the lack of contribution from the organisations involved indicate a lack of willingness to take accountability? I am sorry: that is a lot of questions in one.

Ms Ryan: It is a lot of questions in one. You have made some great observations. I will take it from the top. I come from the third sector and the private sector, so I have a horror of silos and assembly-line thinking, for want of a better term, on complex social issues. That is why I outlined for you — you have very much picked up on it — the reality that there are specialist services for victims and survivors of historical institutional childhood abuse, which need to be there, and there are special services for victims and survivors of child abuse, particularly child sexual abuse, which need to be there too. We need to understand that, of course, there will be a crossover.

One of the things that we have been talking about doing with the Victims and Survivors Service is mapping the survivor journey and making it more survivor-focused, so that we are not trying to view this through the lens of agencies or policymakers. We should look at where survivors are and what they need. We should start with survivors and work out. Our service and policy responses should start with them and be driven by their needs, rather than us trying to impose a solution on them. You see that reflected in co-design. In my office, I try to get across the idea that we are all working on a project or programme basis and that we work cross-functionally and agilely. Those sound like buzzwords, but they mean that you work responsibly, responsively and flexibly to identified, emerging need that is based on evidence. Again, I highlighted to the Committee what I perceive as a lack of genuine research to inform us. Research evidence should be used to inform policymaking. It sounds trite, but it is important that we remember that.

If I sound frustrated, it is because I am, a little; well, actually, I am frustrated a lot. Yet, I do not have the right to be frustrated. I have been working in this role only for a year: I cannot imagine what it is like for survivor representatives.

Mrs Dodds: Yes.

Ms Ryan: That is why I thanked them for their expertise and patience. Frankly, the patience that survivors have been asked to demonstrate leaves me speechless. They have been asked to wait, in some cases, literally their whole life. As I said — it is really important to get it across — their experiences were frequently denied, minimised and rejected; we need to remember that. It really concentrates my mind to think that, in January, it will be nine years since the inquiry started and five years since its report was published. Sir Anthony Hart said six months afterwards that urgency is needed in the implementation of the recommendations, yet we still ask survivors to wait. At the same time — I appreciate the point that you make — there has to be a balance. We want and need to get it right.

I would be remiss if I did not say that I said in the earlier part of this year that there were issues with the redress process and that I was merely reflecting what I had been told by individual survivors and survivor representatives. I said that in the earlier part of the year, and here we are in December having a conversation about timing and feasibility. It is important to have that conversation, but you look back and ask, "Were there opportunities to move this forward in a more timely manner?". There probably were.

Mrs Dodds: Fiona, thank you so much. You eloquently convey the frustrations and annoyance of victims on the issue of time. Chair, there may be things that we can do to keep the pressure on to make sure that the timescale is lessened, which would be a good outcome in itself. Thank you so much for your contribution.

Ms Ryan: You are welcome.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): Thank you very much to all the members who asked questions. Great thanks to you, commissioner, for giving your time so freely and for the evidence that you have given to the Committee. You have been thorough, honest, direct and succinct. You have advocated very adequately on behalf of the victims. We heard the victims speak through you, and you are doing your job well when that happens. I sense the urgency. All the members reflected the need for urgency and the frustration at the lack of delivery or even the statement of a date when delivery will take place. The review process has started, which is welcome, but we need it done and quickly. We need outcomes. The apology must be moved forward with urgency. Hopefully, work on the memorial is being done as we speak.

I also thank any victims and survivors who are watching the Committee proceedings. I give them our full support. We will do everything that we can to ensure that the Executive Office acts with urgency.

Fiona, I wish you and your family and all the families who are listening in a happy, peaceful and joyful Christmas. Hopefully, there will be a successful outcome for all our victims early in the new year. The Committee will now reflect on your evidence and make our recommendations to the Executive Office. Thank you.

Ms Ryan: You are welcome.