Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We have Paul Sweeney, the independent facilitator, and Patrick Gallagher, who is the director of the victims and survivors division in the Executive Office. Thank you very much for joining us today.

Mr Patrick Gallagher (The Executive Office): Thank you, Chair. I will start, and then I will pass over to Paul for some opening comments.

First, I recognise the importance of financial contributions from institutions to victims and survivors. While no amount of money can take away the abuse that they suffered, we know that progress on contributions is seen by many as an important element of accountability. We are aware that the Committee had a number of questions at last week's session with the finance director, so I thought that I might start with an overview of where we are and try to pick up some of those questions, and then I will hand over to Paul to talk about his approach.

As the Committee is aware, the Good Shepherd Sisters made a payment in April and a further payment in July. Payments were also received from Barnardo's in August and the De La Salle Order in September. A voluntary contribution was received recently from the diocese of Down and Connor, specifically in respect of De La Salle-run homes. We welcome the engagement with those three institutions to date and their willingness to be proactive about making a contribution. Discussions on appropriate contributions from the Sisters of Nazareth, the Sisters of St Louis and the Irish Church Missions are ongoing. Some have indicated that they are committed to making a payment but wish to do so once the final figure is available after the redress board has determined all applications. These are sensitive and detailed negotiations, and it is important that there is space and time for them to continue in a constructive manner. Ministers are committed to publishing the details of payments once the process has concluded. Negotiations will not stop at the closure of the redress scheme on 2 April 2025, as the final total of the redress payments will be needed to calculate overall contributions from the institutions and this will depend on how many applications the board receives in those last few months and how quickly they can be determined.

Last week the Committee asked a couple of questions about what might be expected to be received from the institutions in total. The Committee will appreciate that I cannot get into the detail while negotiations are ongoing. It is important also to caveat this by noting that the redress board determinations are not disaggregated between relevant institutions in situations where an individual suffered abuse in more than one place, so any figures or analysis is something that we have developed for the purposes of our discussions with the institutions and is not the product of an official report from the board. That said, it is important to recognise that, of the awards made to date, from our analysis, we have identified that approximately 60% relate to abuse in institutions that were solely the responsibility of the state — for example, juvenile justice centres, prisons, hospitals and state-run children's homes. That is 60% of the total awards, representing approximately 50% of the money that has been paid to date. The state therefore continues to cover 100% of the redress payments in those cases, as the state had full responsibility for the care of children in those institutions.

The Committee will also be aware that Hart investigated 22 institutions, and awards have been made in respect of over 100 homes. Six institutions were found by Hart to have had systemic failings. Those six had 11 homes in total. Contributions are only being sought from those six institutions, as per the recommendation from Sir Anthony Hart. There have therefore been awards made in respect of some individual, non-state institutions where we are not pursuing contributions, as there is no basis to do so. That means that the maximum amount that is in the conversation around contributions is less than 50% of the total paid in redress to date, and that is before taking into account the responsibility that the state had and the failings found by Hart in respect of those six voluntary institutions, including the failure to undertake inspections and shortages in funding those institutions. Paul can say a bit more about how he factored that into the development of his framework. In addition, Hart acknowledged that, in negotiations, institutions may wish to argue that their funds or their other obligations are such that they are not in a position to make such a contribution or, in the case of institutions that have already made payments, that the payments or other outlay, such as travel costs from Australia, should be taken into account and set off against any contribution that they may asked to make so that they do not pay twice over for their failings.

I appreciate that this is not the full detail that will be provided once the process has concluded, but I hope that this has been useful in helping the Committee to understand the scope of the discussions. Thank you for the opportunity to make some opening remarks. I now pass to Paul to talk about his framework.

Mr Paul Sweeney (Independent Facilitator): Members, I am going to outline the way in which I approached the task of trying to seek an agreement on a fair and proportionate contribution from the six institutions. I have a presentation here but, if you want to stop me at any stage, that is OK. If you prefer, I will go through the presentation.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Sorry, just before you start, is there any way that that can be emailed to us?

Mr Sweeney: These are just my own personal written notes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Go on ahead. If it goes on too long, I will try to curtail it. Thank you.

Mr Sweeney: I was appointed in July 2021. I gather that the idea of appointing an independent facilitator was suggested by Archbishop Eamon Martin. I thought that that was interesting. It is worth making clear that I am not an advocate for the institutions, the victims and survivors, or the Executive. I am a truly independent facilitator trying to seek an agreement. As you might expect, I have met all six of the institutions on a number of occasions. I have engaged with the commissioner on a number of occasions, and I thought it was very important to reach out from day 1 to meet the various representative groups of the victims and survivors. I understand that there are six groups in total: there may be more. I met five of those groups and I sought to keep the victims and survivors' representative groups informed as the process unfolded.

At the outset, I should say that the six institutions have fully engaged in the process and have approached it with good faith. From their point of view, they are keen to reach an agreement on a fair and proportionate contribution. Justice Hart was clear that, if we could not reach an agreement, the process would go to mediation, and if mediation could not resolve matters, it would go to binding arbitration, which is bringing in lawyers and paying them loads of money. This process is trying to seek an agreement that might avoid the need to go down the route of mediation and, ultimately, perhaps, binding arbitration. The institutions understand that it is in everybody's best interests to resolve these matters. At the heart of this is a degree of atonement, a degree of accountability and a desire to bring it to some honourable resolution — I am reluctant to use the word "closure", because I do not think that you ever get closure on these matters.

Justice Hart did a terrific job. Nevertheless, he did not define how one would go about determining what a fair and proportionate contribution might be, so there is no formula, legal or moral, for calculating that. Indeed, the legislation that took forward the process — the Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Act 2019 — makes no provision for contributions and does not include a methodology for assessing what a fair and proportionate contribution might be. I acknowledge that these matters are very, very sensitive, complex and nuanced. At the heart of it is: what was the degree of culpability on the part of the state and what was the degree of culpability on the part of the institutions? That is where I sought to focus the discussions. You are trying to balance a number of competing considerations, and, frankly, where you land on that depends on who you talk to and what people's lived experiences might be.

As the independent facilitator, I was able to call upon legal advice from a firm of solicitors who, in turn, retained, on my behalf, a senior counsel's advice. It was important that I did not rely upon the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO) — government legal advice. I was able to access senior counsel advice on these matters. Broadly speaking, the brief that I put to the senior counsel covered three areas. First, I asked the senior counsel, based on domestic and international law, and drawing on the experience of similar redress schemes — particularly the redress schemes in the Republic of Ireland and in Scotland, due to proximity — whether there was a legal construct that I could apply to the process that would determine a fair and proportionate contribution. Secondly, I asked whether there was a legal basis or precedent for seeking a contribution from the parent bodies of the institutions — in this case, the Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland. The third part of the brief was what legal levers might be available to the Northern Ireland Executive to compel institutions to make a financial contribution.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Sorry, can you repeat that last line?

Mr Sweeney: The third one was what legal levers might be available to the Northern Ireland Executive to compel institutions to make a financial contribution. That, if you like, was my starter for 10 towards getting some part of the jigsaw from which I might take the discussions forward.

After various discussions, I was able to compile what I have called a framework document. Earlier this year, with the restoration of devolution, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister took the view that, in principle, the framework document that I had drafted could form the basis whereby we could seek an agreement from the institutions for a fair and proportionate contribution. As a result of that, officials, led by Patrick, have been able to get into what I call the more nitty-gritty discussions with the institutions, because we now have in place at least a broad framework through which we can move from the principles into the nitty-gritty of the negotiations.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Before you go on, just so that we can keep track of that, where were we in the calendar at the stage of agreeing the framework and bringing in TEO officials?

Mr Sweeney: Devolution was restored in February this year. I think that I met the First Minister and deputy First Minister in April.

Mr Gallagher: The meeting was in April.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That is OK. I am trying to get my head around it.

Mr Gallagher: We had been working on that basis before the Executive came back. We worked on it in the absence of Ministers, as we looked towards whether a decision would be made under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022, but when Ministers came back, it was not necessary.

Mr Sweeney: A framework that could form the basis for reaching an agreement is in place. There is a bit of a transition now, as we move from the generality of the framework into the negotiations that Patrick is taking forward. I am not directly involved in those negotiations, but I am available to Patrick or the institutions to be called in wherever they consider that I might have a helpful role to play.

I have tried to land on what is a fair and proportionate contribution. There is no legal construct so, at the heart of it, it is really just a moral argument. The issue is about the culpability of the state versus the culpability of the institutions. Not unsurprisingly, given that legal context that I have set out, I suggested that there should be a 50:50 contribution and that, whatever determinations might be reached against specific institutions about redress, you could split the difference. The institutions would be asked to make a contribution of up to 50% of those determinations against their respective organisations. Those are my ballpark figures. I know that the session is being recorded by Hansard, but treat the figures with a great deal of caution. As members know, the scheme concludes in March next year, which is a matter of months away. Of course, I assume that, after March next year, the redress board will need some time to process any outstanding applications. There is no real science behind this: it is my best estimate. In my view, and for the purposes of this afternoon, the whole scheme will probably come out at about £100 million in payments. As Patrick said, for the purposes of this conversation, you could allocate £50 million of the £100 million against the six institutions. If you were to apply my 50:50 suggestion, you would be asking the six institutions to make a contribution of up to £25 million.

I will now refer to Justice Hart's report, because this is what is really important:

Importantly, he went on to say:

It is useful to focus on that figure of £100 million on which the whole scheme might land, with £50 million of that being allocated to the six institutions. If my framework were to come to pass, the institutions would be asked to make a contribution of up to £25 million. However, the ongoing nitty-gritty negotiations with the officials are about applying that paragraph, where the institutions may want to pray in the fact that they have paid out money to date, that they have other ongoing obligations or, quite frankly, that they are not in a position to make the contribution. Justice Hart was quite clear on that. When Patrick says that the issues are sensitive and ongoing, you can understand it in that context.

I was not going to dwell on the fact that, as Patrick said, in some instances, a child could have attended more than one institution. There was one case of a child having been in seven institutions. It may be that they did not experience abuse in six of those but were horrendously abused in one. I will not go into the detail of all of that.

Importantly, Justice Hart said that the institutions should be asked to make a contribution towards specialist support services. I was not going to dwell on that at the moment, either. Should members wish to go there, however, of course we can.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I would appreciate your speaking to that.

Mr Gallagher: OK.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you.

Mr Sweeney: I am tempted to pause there to allow you to make best use of your time. The contribution towards the specialist support services will naturally flow later, I think.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK.

Mr Sweeney: Are there any questions around the logic of that framework?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Is it possible for us to see the framework?

Mr Gallagher: No. The Ministers have said that they will publish it when this is concluded.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you, both. I wonder about the issue of — this is why I asked about the timescale — engagement with the three orders: Sisters of Nazareth, Sisters of St Louis and Irish Church Missions. They are all at different stages of discussion. Can you speak more to that, please? Is there a reluctance, or is it a case of finding the right person with suitable authority to engage with?

Mr Gallagher: I will speak to that. As Paul said, we have got into the specifics. We have had good engagement and are engaging with the right people across all three of those institutions. As I said earlier, some have said that they are willing to make a contribution but that they want to wait until the end. For them, that is about not making a commitment at this stage for the purposes of financial planning. One relevant aspect that they may well be conscious of — some of them will have had the same experience in the Republic of Ireland — is that there was an agreement there based on estimates at the start, but the scheme mushroomed far beyond what anyone expected. Then there was a huge amount of recriminations and discussions around increasing the payments. An agreement had been made, and then suddenly an increase was sought. We have taken a different approach that is based on the actual figures instead of the estimates. We know the importance to the victims of seeing the money up front. There may be a rationale for waiting to make a final payment at the very end, but having the money up front shows accountability. We have asked for interim payments based on the framework and the actual figures to date. That is where we have got to with the first three. The fact that the other three have not come in does not mean that they are saying they will not make a payment when the figures are finalised. That could be some time in late 2025, depending on how many applications come in.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Paul used the term "fair and proportionate contribution" quite a bit. Can you go into further detail on how you landed on 25%? I am not a victim or survivor, but I would say that some of the terminology is a bit too generous for institutions that committed abuse to afford them that fair treatment when they did not afford fair treatment to the children in their care. I want you to speak to that. You talked about legal levers by which to compel. Is the Department looking at those?

Mr Sweeney: On legal advice, Justice Hart drew out the point in the inquiry that, when all is said and done, the state was responsible for those children. You cannot get away from that. That is the core principle. The state delegated some of its responsibilities to the institutions. I will quote from Justice Hart:

On the legalities of all this, when all is said and done, the state has ultimate responsibility. Try as I might to get some sort of legal construct that could ascertain state culpability versus institutional culpability, senior counsel could not land a legal formula for me. It is not about a pound of flesh, but, in such situations, the test of reasonableness is that you land on a 50:50 contribution. I cannot offer much more of a legal or moral construct around that, Chair. That is how I landed it. I had in mind that the Republic of Ireland scheme was predicated on that 50:50 contribution. The Scottish scheme is different because there was a much more pronounced role for local government, so its formula is one third from each of central government, local government and the institutions.

Mr Gallagher: I will come in there to clarify the 25%. It may be 25% of the total, but it is 50% from the institutions. The other 50% is not in the conversation because the state has accepted sole responsibility for that element.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. On the legal levers, from my point of view, if we do not see the religious orders and institutions stepping up in this space, we, as a public authority, should bring in legislation that would compel them to make those contributions. Will you speak to the conversations that you had about that?

Mr Sweeney: Yes. I will talk about due process in the event that the attempt to get an agreement based on the framework that I have just outlined fails. It may not fail in all six cases: Patrick and his colleagues have made good progress on a number of fronts, so it may fail in only one or two cases. On due process, Justice Hart was clear that failure to reach a voluntary agreement would be followed by a move to mediation, which, as I said, could be expensive, and thereafter to binding arbitration. Presumably — I want to show great respect in the company of legislators here — you would not consider the legislative route until the other processes have been exhausted. The legal advice that was provided to me was provided under privilege, obviously, but the general thrust of it was, "Tread carefully" when it comes to the legal levers that might be available to go down the civil law or perhaps even legislative route. You, as legislators, are well placed to scope out that field, but, based on the senior counsel advice that I received, it may be that the room to manoeuvre is limited.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I have loads more questions, but I am conscious that we are all interested in this area. I will come back in if my questions are not asked.

Mr Dickson: Apologies for not being there in person today. I will ask a general question that I think is important. How satisfied are you that the institutions that will be required to provide money actually have the resources and funds to pay?

Mr Gallagher: That is one of the specifics — Paul alluded to it — that we look at when we work through the paragraph that Hart put out. We look at contributions already made and at wider obligations, so affordability is a factor. We can certainly take advice on it, and we are looking at due diligence, requesting accounts and scrutinising them in detail. We have access to financial support if needed. We are aware of it as an essential part of the process, but it may be best not to get into the specifics of each of the six cases at this stage.

Mr Dickson: That is helpful. I am pleased to hear that due diligence is being performed on the assets and resources of the various institutions. However, first and foremost must come those who have to be compensated, even if that causes irreparable financial damage to the institutions. Are you prepared to go as far as that?

Mr Gallagher: All along, the approach that we have taken, and the approach that Paul has taken, has been based on Sir Anthony Hart's approach, which recognised institutions' obligations and the affordability. It is also about recognising the knock-on impacts. For example, where there are nursing homes or other services, there could be knock-on impacts on individuals who currently avail themselves of those services and, equally, on the state, as it would have to source replacements. There is a lot to take into account to make sure that the negotiations stick closely to what was recommended by Hart, and to make sure that there are no wider consequences that would impact on citizens.

Mr Dickson: Thank you. That was helpful.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you for the update. Your laying out of the methodology is really important for us to get an insight into the work that you have been doing since 2021. What has been the most challenging part of that work, Paul?

Mr Sweeney: Meeting the groups that represent the victims and survivors. It is still so raw for them. I said earlier that I do not want to talk about closure, because I do not think that there is any closure; whatever you experience in your childhood — this is true for all of us — you take to the grave. It was challenging.

There was a spectrum of views among the people whom I met. To put it in context, there will probably be about 6,000 cases, but I have met probably fewer than a dozen people; I do not want to give the impression that I have engaged with the whole cohort, or even a representative group of the cohort of victims and survivors. However, I have met people who have passionately committed to being advocates in the field. Some of them said, "Look, you really have to go after these institutions. If you can't get it off the institutions, go after the parent bodies. Go after the Catholic Church. Go after the Church of Ireland. Make these people pay. They're asset rich. I'll not be able to get any sense of closure until you really do that". At the other end of the spectrum, there are people who say, "Look, can we just get some kind of honourable soft landing for this process, where we can move on?". That was challenging. I landed at the heart of that spectrum, with the 50:50. I do not think that there is going to be a golden moment, where people can say, "Brilliant. This is all sorted". I think that, as with life, we are looking to land in an honourable compromise position.

Ms McLaughlin: Paul, I really do not like the word "honourable" here, because there was nothing honourable in any of it. Even as contributions and redress will be made, I do not think that there is going to be a great feel-good factor anywhere.

We, as a Committee, have talked to loads of victims, and they have made representations here. What I hear from them, although not universally, is that the institutions abused them. The places where they lived, and the people who were meant to look after them, failed them. I do not know whether they will see a 50:50 resolution as fair, but we will talk to the groups again and have those discussions. I want to see contributions being made by all the institutions. Even at this stage, they are waiting to see what the data sets look like: that is dishonourable. They have been reluctant to give us figures and numbers and all that. It has been difficult the whole way along. My consideration is that the people need redress as soon as possible. Everybody is getting older, time is moving on and they want to see it in their lifetime. I am concerned that we are still in the process, and some of the institutions are sitting with their cigars saying, "We'll wait and see". That is how it comes across to me: that it is a game for them. It is not a game. They need to be fair and do the right thing. That is all that I will say. There is nothing else that we can say.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Paul, for your work on this and for your presentation today. I found it helpful. I also thank Patrick for his work. Can you confirm that the redress payments to victims and survivors do not depend on the amounts paid by the institutions, and that the redress payments are effectively paid by the state in anticipation of the money coming in and also in recognition of the state's culpability, as you said? I see that you are nodding.

Mr Gallagher: I can confirm that.

Mr Kingston: At least victims and survivors are not waiting on the money coming in.

I might have misheard you, Paul. Did you say you had met five of the six institutions? In your notes, you said that all the institutions are engaging.

Mr Sweeney: No, sorry. I understand that there are at least six representative groups of victims and survivors. I have met five of those six groups. I have met all six of the religious institutions.

Mr Kingston: You have met all six. I missed that. You were talking about the survivor groups.

Mr Sweeney: Yes.

Mr Kingston: Right, that is fine. You have met all six institutions.

Mr Sweeney: On a number of occasions.

Mr Kingston: Right, that is fine. None of them is resisting. We hope to get all of them before the Committee, but they are all engaging with you. That is what your notes say.

I acknowledge that you have put a formula on the table. We can all talk about it, but you have suggested 50:50. Who decides that? Can we end up with consistency? I note that Good Shepherd Sisters has made two payments, Barnardo's has paid once, De La Salle has made a payment, as has Down and Connor in recognition of its role. Who will decide that? Is it ultimately the Department that decides?

Mr Gallagher: The payments that have been made are called interim payments. They are the first payment. They are a percentage of what the final payment will be. We cannot know what the final payment will be until the figures have been finalised. It is a payment set over a certain amount of time and awards. We will apply the framework and pay x% of that. The balance will be sought at the end, once we know the final figures. We have taken the approach of trying to get interim payments in, rather than waiting until the end and seeking six single lump sums, to show dedication to the process, engagement and accountability. As members have said, that is what the victims and survivors want to see. It is imperfect and, by necessity, we will have to go back for a second payment. The three institutions that have paid all understand that and have committed to that being an interim payment. We will keep the negotiations going and keep providing the data sets. When it is finished, we will continue those for the final payments.

Mr Kingston: Can you say — perhaps it is part of the confidential process — whether the redress payments that have been made have been made on a 50:50 basis?

Mr Gallagher: For those payments, we looked at a set point in time and made an offer of an interim payment, which reflects that that is not the full process. We will have five full years plus however many months are needed to finish the applications after 2 April, when the scheme closes to applications. That is only up to a point in time. Applications continue to be submitted and determined, and payments continue to be made. Every time that payments are made, that is another one added to the ledger, so to speak, that we will go back to, once it is closed, in order to seek a final settlement.

Mr Kingston: I am not sure whether you answered my question.

Are you aiming for a consistent approach across the six institutions? Obviously, circumstances will vary, but do you aim to have a consistent formula?

Mr Gallagher: Apologies if I did not answer that.

We are applying Paul's framework, which is a consistent approach across all six institutions. Initially, when Paul engaged to develop the framework and the Department started to engage, we had all six meetings within a couple of days of each other to make sure that we took a consistent approach, treated the institutions in the same way and said the same thing. The approach has diverged since then, because of the institutions' individual circumstances: we were sticking to the Hart recommendation on different individual circumstances, obligations and affordability. The intention in the framework is certainly the same — it is not adapted for each of the six — but how that ends up depends on the individual circumstances of each institution.

Mr Kingston: Are you talking about their financial circumstances?

Mr Gallagher: Their financial circumstances, their obligations and the payments that they have already made, which Hart recommended should be taken into account so that they do not pay twice over. Those factors differ across the six institutions, which will lead to a different outcome perhaps. For some, it may not, but the intended aim, as per Paul's framework, is the same across all six.

Mr Kingston: My concern is that it will be like people who set up different companies and say that the liability is with one small company, even though that company is part of a much wider organisation or network that, frankly, would be able to make the compensation payment.

Mr Gallagher: We are certainly aware of that. Most of the institutions are registered charities, which means that their accounts are available online. When we look at the financial figures, we can clearly see which accounts are held in, for example, Great Britain or the Republic of Ireland and can look at the wider picture, not just at where they are registered or where they have premises in Northern Ireland.

Mr Kingston: OK. Thank you.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much for your presentation. Paul, what has struck me is how respectful you appear to be to the institutions. The whole inquiry is happening because of fundamental failures. Do you agree that that is the reason for the inquiry?

Mr Sweeney: As I said earlier, I am not an advocate for the institutions, the victims and survivors or even the Northern Ireland Executive. The gamut of the inquiry goes from 1922 — the formation of Northern Ireland — up to 1995, so, shockingly, it is 30 years since the last case crystallised. The passage of time is amazing. At the start of the process, I embedded myself in all the evidence that Justice Hart and the inquiry had found. I come back to the point that, ultimately, the state was responsible. In the institutions, there was everything from a hostile environment to the most horrendous examples of abuse, but there were light-touch regulatory regimes, infrequent inspections and, arguably, low levels of state intervention. Justice Hart tried to be fair to all that context. That is why I have remained neutral. I am struck by the fact that the people who are now taking things forward were, largely, not directly involved. As I said, it is 30 years since the last case crystallised, so the people who are leading on behalf of the institutions are genuinely — I used the term "honourable" — trying to do the right thing for the process, and, yes, they have a fiduciary responsibility towards their organisation as well.

Mr Gaston: You can see it from our point of view as well. We, as a Committee, are tasked to look at the issue, but a number of the institutions will not even come before us, which gives me the impression that they are not facing up to their responsibilities. Yes, you have engaged with them, but they are stonewalling the Committee. That concerns me, and I am concerned by the softly-softly approach that, it appears, you are taking. Do you know how many victims have died between the publication of the Hart report and today?

Mr Sweeney: The short answer to that question is absolutely not. I would not even attempt to speculate. You mentioned the idea of the institutions coming before the Committee. Again, I do not advocate for any of the three component parts of this, but, if I were to give advice to the Committee, I would say that we have reached the delicate stage in all of this. The independent facilitator process has largely taken its course. I was acting on behalf of the Northern Ireland Executive. The nitty-gritty negotiations are taking place now between Patrick and his colleagues and the institutions. Ministers have made it clear that, when the music stops, there has to be complete openness and transparency about where this lands, so there will not be some kind of shady deal in a corner. Ultimately, everything will be completely on the public record, whatever the outcomes might be. I say this very respectfully, Chair: I am not sure what added value the Committee might bring at this stage.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): With your indulgence, Timothy, when we took evidence from representatives of Survivors (North West), they said that the institutions were put on notice in 2010 that they would have to make a contribution. We are, I think, frustrated on their behalf that, 14 years later, only three of them have come on board, in the past few months. That is where all this comes from.

Sorry, Timothy. Go ahead.

Mr Gaston: Absolutely, and I agree with your point. It is very valid.

You mentioned the 73-year period from 1922 to 1995. Why was 1995 the cut-off date?

Mr Sweeney: I do not know the answer to that. Do you, Patrick?

Mr Gallagher: No, sorry, I do not. I have no idea.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I think that there was a change [Inaudible.]

Ms McLaughlin: A lot of them closed down.

Ms Sheerin: I think that the last one closed in 1996.

Mr Gaston: On contributions from institutions, our briefing paper states that six institutions:

Is there a legal duty on them to make contributions?

Mr Gallagher: No, there is not, and apologies if that is in our briefing paper. That might be loose wording. It should have been "recommended by the inquiry". As Paul said earlier, there is no legal requirement, but there is a recommendation under Hart. That was an attempt to differentiate between the six where Hart identified systemic failings and the others, where systemic failings were not identified.

Mr Gaston: Three of the six have paid money. If the other three turn around and say, "We are not engaging", where do we go from there?

Mr Gallagher: First, as I said, three are engaging. We have been engaging with them, and some have committed to making payments at the end. If there is a refusal, which, at the minute, we are not seeing, as Paul said, issues would be submitted to mediation and then to binding arbitration. That was the road set out by Sir Anthony Hart.

Mr Gaston: Is there no legal route to go down?

Mr Gallagher: No.

Mr Gaston: That concerns me.

I will move on. You mention, for talk's sake, £100 million in payments, and you spoke of up to £25 million from each of the six institutions. So, if there is £100 million —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): It is £25 million in total.

Mr Gaston: Yes, in total. So, £100 million in payments. How much is the inquiry in its totality costing? When you talk about 50:50, is that based purely on what has been paid out, or is it 50:50 based on the total cost of the inquiry? Are, for example, the payments to you for the work that you are doing and the payments for running the redress scheme taken into account, or is it just 50% of the payments to the victims?

Mr Sweeney: For the purposes of the framework, it is solely on the basis of payments. I am using the term "£100 million" to represent the determinations by the redress board. You have heard evidence from the judge who is the board's president. I have not included, if you like, the infrastructural costs throughout: the inquiry costs through to the cost of the redress board, the cost of the commissioner, the Civil Service time and the effort that has been put into this. That would run to tens of millions of pounds. That has not been factored into the framework. The only consideration in the framework is the actual determinations that have been or will be made. I am suggesting, when the scheme ends, a probable ballpark figure of £100 million of payments. It does not reflect the infrastructural costs of all of this.

Mr Gaston: Did the Republic of Ireland's scheme look solely at the cost of the payments when considering the 50:50?

Mr Sweeney: I do not know; I genuinely do not. I could speculate that it was based on the payments only, but I could not be categoric about that. I could not be categoric about the Scottish model either, but, again, I will speculate that the Scottish scheme did not factor in the cost of the infrastructure. It was based on payments, and, indeed, it discounted the first £10,000 of each payment. No scheme is completely comparable with ours, but, for the framework purposes, I have not factored in the infrastructural cost of redress, because, rightly or wrongly, I have taken the view that government has been the primary lead and has taken the process forward.

Mr Gaston: Last week, we had the monitoring round, and figures were brought to us on what is envisaged to come in-year. Is it you who provides a timeline of when the money is coming and figures on how much to expect?

Mr Gallagher: As a departmental official, I do that. We work closely with the finance team to factor this into the submissions to the monitoring round and the decisions on the Budget. We have an agreement from DOF that that can be used within TEO. We work on that to make sure that it is factored in. Given that it is a live and sensitive negotiation, the Ministers do not want to release the specific detail at this stage, but they will release it when the process is concluded.

Mr Gaston: I go back to progress on the contribution to specialist support services. Can you tell us a bit more about where we are? We have talked about the 50:50 regarding the payments going out at the other end. A supporting process will be needed for victims as they progress through life. Are payments being made towards specialist services?

Mr Sweeney: That is in the framework, and I will defer to Patrick. As I said to the Chair earlier, we could return to this, because Justice Hart specified that there should be a contribution towards the cost of specialist support services. The scale of money that we are talking about here is much reduced, and Patrick will go into the specifics. I have suggested that the contribution towards the cost of specialist support services should be approached on the basis of a 50:50 contribution as well. For example, for a person who attended an institution in the past and who now seeks support, the cost of that support should be split on a 50-50 basis — 50% from government and 50% from the institution. Perhaps Patrick will give a bit more detail on that.

Mr Gallagher: Yes. We said that Hart's recommendation was a contribution to redress and a contribution to the specialist support services recommended by the inquiry. The Victims and Survivors Service (VSS) provides services to victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse (HIA) and has done so since December 2020. The inquiry recommended that it should be for a fixed period of 10 years with a review after five years. There will be a review at some point in 2025, the five years being up in December 2025. As Paul said, that is factored into the framework. The cost of that will be proportionally much less than the redress, if we take a round figure of £100 million by the end of redress. Approximately £1 million a year is being spent on HIA services. Obviously, VSS's wider budget is much bigger than that. It would lead to a cost of approximately £10 million, and that is a factor in the discussions that we are having with institutions. [Interruption.]

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Sorry about the drilling noise. One of the Committee staff has gone to investigate. Apologies, it is very distracting.

May I come in on that question? The Clerk and I met some groups last week. They said that 10 years will really not be long enough, given the lifelong trauma and mental anguish etc that they live with as a result of their experience. Hart's stipulation of 10 years is just a recommendation. There will be a review after five years. Is there potential, after 10 years, for example, to continue that support? It sounds like quite a blunt ending to say that, in 10 years, everybody will be fixed.

Mr Gallagher: Certainly, that is not what I intended to say. I was saying that that was the initial view. We have a business case to cover 10 years, with a review to come. A decision will be made further down the line on whether, based on needs, there needs to be an extension at that stage.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That is reassuring.

Mr Gaston: I have one final question. When this was being set up, my predecessor tried to table an amendment that would have brought in clerical abuse as well. Throughout your work to date, I have had concerns that people are being missed and are falling through the cracks because the remit is very narrow and includes only institutional abuse. What are your findings to date on victims of clerical abuse and those who were in foster care?

Mr Gallagher: I cannot answer on foster care, but clerical abuse comes under my responsibility as well. I will be back at the Committee on 11 December with the independent chair of the working group specifically on the issue of clerical abuse.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): It is in the forward work programme, so it is coming up.

Ms Sheerin: Thanks to you both for coming before us this afternoon and answering our questions. A lot of what I wanted to ask you about has been covered. Paul, I was struck by your comments that you felt that the institutions were really engaging. From your answers to members' questions, it seems counter-intuitive to say that they are really engaging when three of them have not made any contributions. There is a lot of anxiety there. We have heard from representatives of the survivors that they do not want the burden of the cost of support services to come wholly from the state; they want the institutions to pay their fair amount, as laid out by Hart. There is a bit of incredulity about there being a commitment, because it has been talked about for 14 years, and we have not made any progress.

Aside from that, where is TEO on the memorial? I know that the groups had asked for a working group on that and to have buy-in to that process. The response that we got previously was that Ministers were considering that. Do we have any progress there?

Mr Gallagher: We are continuing to work on the preparations that we can work on without yet having the decision on the way forward, given the multiple options put forward by the victims' groups. We have been working with councils recently to try to have initial conversations around potential sites, but the final decision on our approach is one that the Ministers will want to make after meeting the victims' groups. We have been engaging with the private office to try to get those meetings held as soon as possible.

Mr Sweeney: I have a comment on the contribution towards specialist support services. As I said earlier, I am not advocating for anybody here, but one factor is that the institutions are asking themselves, "Where will we be in 10 years' time? What if the specialist support services were to go topsy-turvy? How can we make an abstract commitment at this stage?". Therefore, I do not think that it is unreasonable for them to factor that in to the way that they are approaching this. That is part of the context in which this is being taken forward.

Ms Sheerin: I totally get that, and I appreciate your coming here in good faith and working with everybody to carry out mediation betwixt and between. I get that, but it is kind of difficult to take that as a valid view from people who have inflicted so much pain on so many. Where they are in 10 years' time will be as a result of their own actions, and you would be hard-pressed to find many in society with much sympathy for them. I take on board what you are saying, but I think that the priority needs to be that they fulfil their obligation and their commitment in supporting those who suffered at their hands.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I want to come back to the memorial, but go ahead, Claire.

Ms Sugden: Thank you for coming to the Committee today. I want to reinforce and pick up on a point that the Chair and Timothy made about those who have not engaged with the Committee and the purpose of that. You are engaging with them, and I hope that there will be success, for want of a better word, with that. However, for the victims of all of this, it is about redress. The money, in itself, will go some way in that respect, but this is about ensuring that people are truly sorry for what happened that should not have happened. I appreciate that time has moved on, but those institutions still exist. Whilst they continue to exist, they need to take responsibility, if you like. Given the length of time that has passed until now, trust is waning while the process is ongoing.

As members of the Committee that scrutinises the Department and, equally, as people's representatives and as representatives of victims, it is really important that we communicate that lack of confidence and mistrust in this going where it needs to go. There would be great value in those organisations coming before the Committee so that they could get a sense of the gravity of what this ongoing process is doing. As leaders in Northern Ireland, it is pertinent that we hold those organisations to account at the most senior level possible. I do not think that that would get in the way of the negotiations. If it did, that would say more about those organisations than about this Committee or any of the institutions that are there to represent victims and hold people to account. I would like to make the point, not necessarily to you but to people who may be listening, that the organisations need to move forward with this process, if they genuinely want to show that they are sorry for what they have done and take responsibility for that. I am happy for you to comment on that, or we can leave it there.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. I want to come back to the issue of the memorial. It was my understanding — I was trying to find it in the Hansard report — that, in response to a question for oral answer or a topical question in the Chamber, the deputy First Minister said that there would be no movement on a memorial until she and the First Minister had had an opportunity to meet the victims and survivors groups. That was probably around April, and she said that that would happen before the summer. Last week, the Committee Clerk and I met representatives of three groups along with Professor Patricia Lundy. Those groups have written to the private office three times to ask for a meeting. Rather than the First Minister and the deputy First Minister being proactive and engaging, those groups have had to ask for a meeting and have done so three times.

The groups want to move the memorial forward. They want to be part of a steering group and to feed in fully to what actually happens. I think that they are being treated appallingly. What is happening?

Mr Gallagher: We understand the groups' frustration that the meetings have not happened.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Oh, come on.

Mr Gallagher: We are continuing to press to get them into the diaries as soon as possible. The Ministers wanted to meet the groups about the memorial and a number of other issues.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): There cannot be very many issues in the Executive Office that are more important than this.

OK. Does anybody else have anything to add? Sorry, Sinéad, go ahead.

Ms McLaughlin: I have a short question. Are any of the institutions that you are engaging with and that are not engaging with us citing an affordability problem? Are any of the six institutions, even the ones that have paid money, citing an affordability problem?

Mr Gallagher: As Hart recommended, that can be taken up in the discussions, but that would be a matter for the specific discussions between the Department and the institutions.

Ms McLaughlin: They must be citing it already, Patrick. I am asking a direct question: are any of the institutions saying that they have difficulties with affordability?

Mr Gallagher: As I said, that is allowed for under the Hart recommendations. That will be part of the specific discussions. It is a live and sensitive area that we do not want to get into at this stage.

Ms McLaughlin: I would say that that is a yes, then. OK, thanks.

Mr Gaston: I am certainly getting frustrated and have growing concerns about the willingness to go after some of those institutions. I am certainly not getting it from you two gentlemen sitting in front of me here today. You have talked about a figure of 50%: so, if an institution says, "We do not have the money", at what point do you make the decision that 50% of the £100 million will fall on to the other institutions, or will you simply say, "That is their portion: we will leave it to the side"? At what point do you make that decision?

Mr Sweeney: If an institution did not make a substantial contribution or made no contribution at all?

Mr Gaston: You mentioned 50%. That is what you were saying.

Mr Sweeney: The framework says that we will split it 50:50. I will go through the sums again. The total sum is £100 million, and £50 million of that is for the six institutions. You split that 50:50, so it is £25 million across the six institutions. If an institution, or more than one institution, fails to make any contribution whatsoever, that would not penalise the other five or four. That would be money that just was not received by the Government. The formula is not set up so that the others will be penalised if one, two or more institutions make no contribution or a wholly inadequate contribution. Does that make sense? No?

Mr Gaston: Do you have a hunger to go after the money?

Mr Sweeney: To be honest with you, I think that I have largely discharged my role, which was to put in place a reasonable framework that is based on senior counsel advice and on the experience of similar schemes in the Republic of Ireland, Scotland and elsewhere. I think that I have come up with a framework that is not an unreasonable basis on which to seek agreement. If agreement cannot be reached with all six institutions or with one or two of them, the option is to go to mediation. As I say, that is where a whole bank of lawyers gets involved. That is hugely expensive. If that fails, you are into binding arbitration. At this stage, I am not seeing any appetite on the part of any of the six institutions to end up in a default position where we have to go to mediation or binding arbitration. I hope that the good faith that I have seen to date will get us into — I will not use the term "honourable position" — at least a position where the spirit of Justice Hart and the spirit of the framework are fulfilled.

Mr Gaston: For many victims who are potentially watching this Committee today, the money is immaterial. This is their only route to justice, and, from watching today, I will be honest and say that I sense a la-di-da approach from this side. I want to see more pressing, more energy and justice being delivered for people here. I am simply not getting that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I will draw the session to a close. Thank you both for coming today. Thank you for your reports in advance etc.