Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Today, we have Martin Carey, the programme director, and Pauline Corscadden, Elaine Allen and Francesca Murray, who all work on the truth recovery programme in the Executive Office. Do you want to go ahead and make your opening remarks? Thank you.

Mr Martin Carey (The Executive Office): Thank you, Chair. We welcome the Committee's continued support and appreciate the opportunity to talk to you this afternoon on a key part of the programme, which is the outcome of the public consultation on proposals to establish a public inquiry and associated financial redress scheme for those who have been affected by mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries, workhouses and their pathways and practices. The truth recovery programme continues to be a priority for the Department to help to address that difficult and shameful part of our past. It is important to acknowledge those who have fought so hard to get to this point and to recommit to continuing with the large number of actions in the programme to help to provide truth, acknowledgement and accountability.

If you are content, Chair, I will provide a brief overview of the consultation report and structure, some of its key themes and the next steps. It will take approximately five minutes. Does that sound OK?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes. Thank you.

Mr Carey: On the consultation itself and the report structure, as you will recall, we briefed the Committee in advance of the launch of the consultation in June 2024. We issued to over 1,000 relevant individuals and organisations, and we advertised in over 90 local, national and international newspapers. We had positive engagement with those who attended one of our 16 public consultation events that were held across the region and online during the 12-week period. The consultation closed on 19 September. Following that, we carried out comprehensive analysis of the 269 responses that were received, with independent oversight from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA). At the end of November, we shared an advance copy with the consultation forum and the Committee. On 16 January 2025, the final consultation report was published on TEO's website.

At the outset, it is important to say that the report and, indeed, today's presentation cover what was said, as opposed to being a departmental response. We were pleased that, in the consultation responses, there was agreement to the majority of policy proposals. There are other areas where positive amendments can be made. However, there remain several outstanding issues where decisions need to be taken on a range of complex and sensitive issues. We note that there is no consensus view on many of those issues and that a wide number of factors including time, legal, equality and funding matters need to be considered by Ministers, the Executive and the Assembly in due course.

Members can see that the report is split into four sections. We undertook to present with a qualitative and quantitative analysis that aimed to reflect as many views as possible, including minority views, in a balanced way, using people's own words as much as possible. I will not have time to go into all of what is said in the report in detail, but I am happy to take questions.

We had nine questions on the inquiry, five of which had a majority in agreement. Those were on the time period for the inquiry, the focus of the inquiry, the power to include other institutions, the consideration of an institution's pathways and practices and connection to the care system, and the treatment of burials and unmarked graves. The first area where there was no majority was on how institutions could be added to the inquiry and whether that power lay with the inquiry chair or the Assembly. Other questions that did not attract a majority were on who within each institutional type should be considered and whether that needs to be specified now.

On the 12 financial redress proposals, five received majority agreement, five did not and two had an equal opinion. The five areas where there was majority agreement were on the basis of the redress scheme, the establishment of an independent redress service, the application process, allowing posthumous claims, and nominating a beneficiary. I will provide some detail on the five areas that did not attract a majority view. The first area relates to the eligibility criteria proposal that a birth mother should have been admitted to an institution for at least 24 hours. Some respondents felt that there should be no qualifying period. The second area was the eligibility of private patients in Thorndale House and Malone Place. Some respondents felt that all private patients in those two institutions should be included, while others said that only those who had suffered discrimination or were separated from their children, who are now adults, should be included. The third area was the proposed £10,000 standardised payment. Some respondents felt that the payment should be higher. The fourth area was the next of kin and who should be eligible for any posthumous payments. Concerns were raised around privacy issues and how the next of kin approach would work in practice. That is particularly true in the unique circumstances facing the programme and who should constitute the next of kin. The fifth area was the date for a posthumous claim and whether that should be anchored to an official/state acknowledgement, apology or announcement.

The two proposals on which there was equal support and dissent were on the scope of the standardised payment and the timings of those payments. Many of those who disagreed felt that the focus should be on discrimination and the separation of mother and child, rather than on a list of institutions. Others argued for the inclusion of other named institutions, including workhouses and private nursing homes, from the start.

I will move on to the key steps in the process. While Ministers have given significant consideration to the policy prior to the consultation and post consultation, they want to meet victims-survivors to hear about specific areas before bringing proposals to the Executive for their agreement, which will, in turn, allow the draft Bill to be finalised. With regard to process, the Department is aware of the importance of bringing forward a Bill that does not have legislative competence issues and of having appropriate checks and balances in order to avoid unnecessary delays. The aim remains to see the introduction of the Bill as soon as possible in the 2024-25 legislative year. Officials will continue to work in parallel on the operational plans to establish the inquiry and redress service.

We look forward to assisting the Committee as we move forward on the important role in this process. We are happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you so much. The Committee has just had a closed session with some women who were involved with the consultation forum, and we will be writing to you on the structural issues that we have about that process. I had a meeting last week with 13 other women and adoptee parents, who had very similar concerns, and, as you know, Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice Northern Ireland has walked away from that consultation forum. I am just putting you on notice that that is something that the Committee is very concerned about on the back of how you presented the issues.

We had the commissioned research from 2018 to 2021. I want to know how much money was spent on that. I want to know how much was spent on the three-person truth recovery design panel. I was looking at the independent panel, and that is where a lot of complaints sit at the minute. Online, it states that there are 10 members, seven of whom are expert; they are paid £500 a day — they have to work a minimum of five days a month — plus travel and subsistence. The three individuals from the victims and survivors constituency have to be there two days a month, again with similar conditions. My estimation is that they have been paid £525,000 to date, and, by the time this ends, it will be £735,000 — three quarters of a million pounds. We have a fair idea of how much that is costing. Alongside that is the truth recovery consultation forum, and then we are going to have an inquiry. We know that the Historical Institutional Abuse (HIA) inquiry cost £17 million to £19 million. Are we honestly going to niggle over whether we include inflationary pressures on the £10,000 standardised payment when we will have probably already spent about £3 million by the end of this process when we get an inquiry, wasting years and continuing to traumatise those women who had their children taken away from them? Is that honestly where we are at — niggling over inflationary pressures on a standardised payment?

Mr Carey: Chair, I am happy to come back to the standardised payment and the rationale as to why the £10,000 was proposed. The first thing to say is that I am more than happy to provide the cost for the research — [Inaudible.]

Mr Carey: — the design panel and the budget for the independent panel. There are no issues in relation to that.

The key part of the design panel was a two-stage investigation: a non-statutory inquiry, which was the independent panel and appointments to that 10-person panel. A key element of that role is to provide basically two main functions: to provide oral testimony and to provide it in a supported and structured way with expertise. That is a meaningful alternative to a public inquiry process.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Sorry, before you go on: who are they supporting? I have now spoken to about 20 mothers and adult adoptees. Who are those experts in trauma-informed practice, gender-based violence and domestic law actually supporting? I am not seeing any evidence that people who are being paid £2,500 a month out of the public purse are providing that service in the truth recovery process.

Mr Carey: The panel has already had over 100 people come forward to provide oral testimony in that structured way.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Are those the same people who provided oral testimonies in the 2018 to 2021 research?

Mr Carey: Some of them, yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Are we able to discount the duplication there, or are we just going round in circles in this process?

Mr Carey: There are a couple of elements to that. Since the previous research, as people have additional access to records, there is additional information that they have and understand, and they want to have that as part of an oral testimony process. It is important that we provide that choice to people. Some people will choose not to go to the independent panel, and that is equally fine. That is part of their choice as well. If they want to provide evidence to an inquiry, that is absolutely fine as well. There is multiple choice for people to provide evidence: to an independent panel process, to a public inquiry or to neither. We have to respect people's choices in relation to that.

The second element to the panel is that a large part of its work is around archival records. That involves working with the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI), which has identified at least 4,500 private records.

Of those, about 3,000 archival records, where agreements are in place and there is a digitisation process, given that the period is from 1922 to 1995, are vital. They provide tangible evidence for the three core questions that any investigation will look at: what happened, why did it happen and who was responsible?

The panel's work is vital, and it is an integrated investigation. The design is that the independent panel will feed in and provide value and support to a public inquiry. It is not nugatory work; it is important, and it is vital for the inquiry. It is a model that is different from others that have been undertaken, but it is an important model. I am disappointed to hear about the experiences that you outlined. I do not think that they are universal. There has been a lot of support, and a lot of people have come forward to the panel. We have to respect the fact that people will choose different routes. Some people will prefer the public inquiry route, and we have to respect that as well.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): The people whom I have heard from have been there from the very start of the process. They fought to get the door of Castle Buildings opened to them all those years ago. I will take my lead from their experience in this space. I will move on.

You said that there is not agreement on some of the consultation questions. I went through them, and I totally agreed. I think that you are misrepresenting it. They do not agree with what you are proposing. It is not that they cannot agree. There is widespread support for the inquiry to be as inclusive as possible, with institutions potentially being added. The presentation of that is possibly wrong. I do not want you to comment on that, because I do not want to hog the time.

There is one last issue about the standardised payment and the individually assessed payment. In 2016, there was a recommendation in the HIA report, and we are still finishing that process. Is a statutory inquiry recommendation needed for the redress scheme to be set up?

Mr Carey: For the individually assessed payment?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes.

Mr Carey: Yes. I suppose —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Was that a, "Yes, it is"?

Mr Carey: Yes. The current model is that it would require a public inquiry. The inquiry provides a systematic review of the list of institutions and findings about systemic failings, which is similar to what the HIA inquiry provided. The inquiry provided the framework and structure that an individually assessed payment would require. An individually assessed payment is trying to replicate, effectively, a civil court process; it is an alternative to a civil court process. To have an individually assessed payment prior to a public inquiry would not be possible, based on what we —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds so far. We commissioned the research and identified them all. Then we had the truth recovery design panel and the independent panel. What have they been doing?

Mr Carey: I suppose —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Have they not identified the issues with the institutions, what went wrong and who was at fault?

Mr Carey: The research has helped to illustrate what happened. An integrated investigation, as proposed by the design panel, will be particularly about the final two questions: why did it happen and who was responsible? That is partly why the integrated investigation was there. It was the two-stage investigation that the design panel recommended. We can look at the independent panel's work in comparison with the process in the Republic of Ireland. There has been a lot of support for the two-stage model in terms of reliance on oral testimony — the panel has spoken previously about the importance of oral testimony in the process — and the value of archival records. In the Republic of Ireland, there were lots of issues with access to private records and the closed records held by institutions. However, the Preservation of Documents (Historical Institutions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 was a good piece of legislation, which has made tangible differences in accessing information and preserving it. The work has led to a good set of records that can be used for the investigation and to help individuals who are accessing information about their circumstances. The most important aspect in a lot of this is about truth recovery for individuals.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK.

Mr Dickson: This is, obviously, a very difficult situation for everyone concerned. The inquiry that is under way is into mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. Why are the actions of the state not included? The state was a colluding factor. The state colluded with many of those institutions to let them do what they were doing, so why are we not effectively investigating what we, the state, did?

Mr Carey: That is absolutely the policy intent. If it has not come across strongly in the consultation, the integrated investigation is about what happened, why it happened, and who was responsible. In no way, shape or form should it be limited to private or voluntary bodies. It is also about the state's role, including statutory bodies, GPs, social workers and the justice system. It is important that the inquiry look at all of those elements and determine who was responsible. It is important to understand what happened in the institutions, but one of the key aspects is around pathways and practices, which is about how people moved into an institution, how they moved out, and the practices that led them to that institution. This is designed to look at experiences of not only institutions but the state. It can also extend to individuals and organisations. There should be no bounds to where an investigation can look to determine responsibility.

Mr Dickson: It is clear that the state gave legitimacy to a lot of that abuse.

Mr Carey: Yes.

Mr Dickson: It seems to always be very difficult for the state to put its hand up and say, "We're part of this". It is a bit like the Post Office scandal: it is the state's fault, and everybody knew about it, but nobody did anything about it. The title of what you are doing explains that it is an investigation into mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. I do not see the word "state" in there anywhere at all, and nor do I see any reference to the state in that title at all. You need to be more open and honest: it is about investigating what our predecessors in the public sector did in delivering all this.

Mr Carey: I completely agree: it should not be restricted to looking at what religious or voluntary bodies did; it is about the state's role as well. A key aspect of that is understanding the state's registration, regulation and inspection role, particularly regarding the institutions, but that is not a limitation; it can look at the role of the health professions and justice, which are probably the two main areas.

Mr Dickson: Effectively, a blind eye was turned because of what was going on.

Mr Carey: Exactly.

Mr Dickson: Who appointed the independent truth panel? How was it was appointed? How was each individual selected for that role?

Mr Carey: The design panel, which sat from early in 2021 and reported in October 2021, recommended a two-stage investigation. The independent panel is a non-statutory element. Members were appointed through a public appointments process. As the Chair mentioned, there were seven expert members from particular disciplines, and three victim and survivor representatives, each of whom went through an application process, an interview process and that public appointments process under the Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions Act because Ministers were not in place at the time. Those panel members were given an appointment letter, which is important. They are post holders, so it is an important role that they have. The process was difficult. There was a lot of discussion through the forum process about how victim and survivor representatives would be selected, and the public appointments process was deemed the most appropriate.

Mr Dickson: Therefore, as a public appointments process, was that guided by the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland at the time?

Mr Carey: It would have been in the spirit of the code. I would have to check.

Mr Dickson: Why in the spirit and not in the reality?

Mr Carey: I just want to double-check. I think that the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland (OCPANI) would apply only to particular appointments. If you are content, I am happy to write back to you to confirm.

Mr Dickson: We need to understand.

Mr Carey: Sure.

Mr Dickson: You described those people as "post holders", which is a specific legal entity.

Mr Carey: That is right.

Mr Dickson: That, presumably, requires them to meet a range of standards, not least the Nolan principles, for that appointment.

Mr Carey: Yes. The appointment letter is specifically on the Northern Ireland Civil Service code of conduct, which is in line with the Nolan principles.

Mr Dickson: In those circumstances, if someone had a complaint against a panel member, how would that be dealt with?

Mr Carey: In general terms, if a complaint is filed, it would depend on who it was about on the panel. If it was about a panel member who was not one of the co-chairs, it would first be considered by the two co-chairs. They would assess the facts, consider whether there were appropriate actions, and then provide a response to the individual. If the individual was unhappy with the response, there is an escalation process whereby it would come to a senior official in TEO. That would be me or Gareth Johnston, as the deputy secretary. If they were unhappy with that response, there is the ombudsman route. That is the panel process. Similarly, if there was an issue with a TEO official, that would go through a TEO complaints process. It depends on who the complaint is about — a member of the panel or one of us, for example — but that is the principle. There is a complaints policy on the panel's website and one on TEO's website, so there is a clear process there.

Mr Dickson: Has that complaints process been there from day one?

Mr Carey: I would have to double-check whether it has been there from day one, but it has been there from early in the process. Thankfully, we have not had to use that process very much, but it is there. The panel has dealt with hundreds of people through its work, and TEO deals with hundreds of people, but it has not been used extensively. I will put it like that. I am happy to come back to you on that.

Mr Dickson: There is a clearly written process with timelines and requirements.

Mr Carey: That is right.

Mr Dickson: Can you provide us with a copy of that?

Mr Carey: Yes; no problem. It is available on the website, but I am happy to provide it.

Mr Dickson: Thank you.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you to the panel. I looked through the consultation and the questions again, and there is absolutely nothing about the state. Even the language used about pathways and that is far too nuanced for me. It would need to spell all of those out.

The point that Paula made has come across, I would say, on at least three or four occasions. While the nine questions were there and 269 responses were received, it is quite clear that they just disagreed with the question and the way that it was put. It adds to the sense that a lot of the birth mothers, particularly, feel of there having been a whole lack of empowerment or recognition as part of this. In fact, the whole experience of all the scandals was based, in a way, on misogyny being at the heart of a lot of their experiences or their birth mothers' experiences. They feel completely disempowered.

In the note that we have, you refer to the draft Bill that is coming forward and, very helpfully, state that you will share the Bill, in confidence, in advance of its Second Stage.

Why is a Bill, which undergoes a public process, to be shared in confidence with the Committee? Why do some people feel that they had no say over which of their experiences should be reflected in the Bill? Will you respond to that accusation?

This is my final point. Can you explain the mechanisms involved? This is probably something that you will want to come back to, Chair. It seems that the Department is acting as a filter between the consultation forum and the independent truth recovery panel or that it has the final say on how people are contacted and how they participate. It is a very patronising and disbarring process. That is how it appears to me. I would like to hear from you about why it was done in that way, because, for so many people, many of whom are women and survivors, it clearly is not working.

Mr Carey: OK. Carál, before I respond, I need something to be clarified. Are you saying that the way in which people engage with the panel is through TEO and that we are a barrier to engagement? Is that it?

Ms Ní Chuilín: First, the panel is not engaging in the way in which it should be, and that seems to be consistent across the board. There are accusations of a misogynistic approach being taken and of engagement not being viewed through a gender lens. When people raise concerns, even about transitional justice and gender injustice, they feel as though they are hitting a brick wall. I have heard that too often from different groups of people, so I will not dismiss it, as that is their lived experience. It is an issue, despite the fact that some of the experts on the panel have a background in human rights, gender justice and gender equality.

I do not understand why the members of the consultation forum cannot get access to panel members. As you know, Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice is completely separate from the process, because its members have had no confidence at all in it. Too many layers of people who are in need of support and services cannot access the panel, and the consultation forum cannot even get access to some of the people whom it may need to reach out to in advance of the imminent closure date — May of this year — for submitting personal testimonies.

Mr Carey: OK. Thanks for clarifying that, Carál. The panel is to appear before the Committee at some stage, is that right?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We have asked it. A meeting is not in the Committee's forward work programme, but we will expedite one following today's meeting.

Mr Carey: There are a couple of elements to what Carál said. The panel has put a lot of work into trying to be accessible, so it is concerning if some people do not feel that they can come forward to the panel or have access to panel members. The panel has recently engaged on a few elements specifically, and a lot of engagement is planned between now and the closure of the oral testimony process on 1 May.

The panel is independent from Ministers and the Department. It has terms of reference that outline what its members have been appointed to do and what they are expected to do. There is a lot of expertise on the panel, and there has been a lot of support for the model, particularly when it is compared with processes in the Republic of Ireland. A lot of people have come forward to the panel. I appreciate, however, that that opinion is not universal. It is concerning that some people do not feel that they can do that.

I will go back to your earlier question about the draft Bill, Carál, which may have been prompted by the way in which the report is worded. The Bill will be introduced in the Assembly and will be publicly available, but we were just offering an in-confidence briefing or public briefing to the Committee in advance of the Bill's Second Stage or Committee Stage. Everything will be publicly available from the time of the Bill's introduction, however.

Hopefully, that clarifies that.

On the point that you made about the state, we tried, particularly in paragraph 3.5 of the original consultation, to outline how it was not about just institutions but about the state, including cross-border elements, so across multiple jurisdictions. On the role of the judiciary, when we look at early life experiences within adoption, there were definitely ad litem decisions being taken. People were separated from their mother and placed in foster care or put up for adoption. There are large numbers of statutory records and also large numbers of records about practices. Those who have come forward to provide oral testimony to date have primarily been victims and survivors. Not as many people from institutions or the state — social workers or people from the judiciary — have come forward. That is a bit disappointing, to be honest. Efforts have been made to get people to come forward, but they have not.

Mr Kingston: Why is the process so far behind processes for other institutions where abuse occurred. Is there an explanation? The redress scheme for other schemes is due to close in a couple of months, yet we are consulting about this one. I know that there are still stages to go through, but can you indicate when a redress scheme for mother-and-baby institutions, the Magdalene laundries and workhouses might open?

Mr Carey: We want to introduce the Bill in the 2024-25 legislative year. As we outlined in the timeline on page 14 of the summary of the consultation responses, things that need to happen before introduction include Executive agreement and the Speaker considering the Bill's competence. There are lots of European Convention on Human Rights aspects, which we have tried to reflect in the consultation documents, that are important and will need to be considered in order to determine their legislative competence. Once the Bill is introduced in the Assembly, the duration of its Committee Stage will be a decision for the Committee. Under Standing Orders, it is 30 working days.

It will be such a complicated Bill. It is really complex legislation, particularly on the redress side. It is a demand-led scheme. Lots of equality issues need to be considered, and there has to be appropriate scrutiny of them. The legislation also has to be balanced against the age profile.

Mr Kingston: I did not expect you to be able to give a specific answer, but that is the question that people will ask us.

Mr Carey: It is very obvious.

Mr Kingston: More specifically, why is it a different process from that for other institutions? Why were processes separated?

Mr Carey: It goes back to September 2011 when an inquiry into HIA was announced. Once Judge Hart was appointed, he considered it too much to cover all the institutions in one inquiry. Instead, he said that he was going to look at people under the age of 18. At that stage, through the interdepartmental working group, clerical abuse and truth recovery were looked at. The mother-and-baby institutions and the Magdalene laundries were to be in a separate process. That is the legacy.

We appreciate that the people who are campaigning have been doing so for a very long time, and it is important that the inquiry and the redress scheme be taken forward as quickly as possible. We are committed to doing that.

Mr Kingston: Will contributions be sought from the institutions? I have listened to colleagues talk about the culpability of the state as well. Is that process at ground zero currently? Is there a whole process to be run, or are contributions being pursued alongside the existing process for children's homes?

Mr Carey: It will be a separate process, the key element of which will be contributions. It goes back to the investigation and its three core questions. I keep on repeating this, but it is helpful to frame the investigation in this way: what happened, why did it happen and who was responsible? The third element — who was responsible? — is particularly important, because a public inquiry has more powers. A public inquiry has more powers, including powers to compel, than a non-statutory inquiry. Asking the question about who was responsible results in findings that there were formal wrongdoings in certain institutions committed by those institutions. That then provides the framework for seeking meaningful contributions.

The Department's policy intent from the Department is very clear: those who are responsible should be making contributions. We want those contributions to be made voluntarily, similar to in the HIA process, after negotiation, mediation and, if required, arbitration. That could be the framework that is used. If there are other methods or models that we can use to receive contributions quicker or in a different way, we are happy to consider them.

Mr Kingston: OK. The final matter that I want to raise may be more of a comment. I was surprised at the question that was asked about whether women and girls who entered mother-and-baby institutions as private patients should be eligible. I welcome the fact that 70% disagreed with the suggestion that private patients be excluded, and I hope that will be reflected in the final outcome. I notice the comment on page 54 of the summary report:

Mr Carey: That is right. Those are some of the most extreme aspects, Brian. I would say that the policy was not to look at private patients in general. That was specific to Thorndale House and Malone Place. A very specific element is involved for Thorndale, and I will give a very crude example. A single, unmarried mother could have gone into Thorndale to give birth, which was a practice that Thorndale accommodated. Another individual could have been using Thorndale in its capacity as a private maternity business. That individual might have lived up the street and then gone to give birth in Thorndale. We were trying to get views on the eligibility of those two cohorts of people. The consultation has explained why that question does not apply to institutions other than Thorndale House and Malone Place, primarily because they were multiple purpose institutions. That is for Ministers to consider, but it is definitely an important issue.

Mr Kingston: The problem arises in trying to recognise whether coercion was still taking place.

Mr Carey: Exactly. There are some very extreme cases, particularly involving marriage. We made a very clear decision in the policy not to distinguish based on marital status, partly because some of the most extreme cases are cases of rape in marriage, or even cases of incest involving a married mother. Making a distinction is something that we have tried to avoid. We do not want to separate or segregate individuals.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you for coming in and giving us a summary of the consultation responses. Under general themes, the first is on the need:

Do you believe that, to date, you have taken a trauma-informed and victim-centred approach to everything that you have done? In addition, have you taken a gender-informed approach? Have you clearly understood the need to view all the processes through a gender lens?

I ask that because, from some of the responses that you have given today, I feel that those who responded to the consultation feel that key themes have not been clearly explored in the process.

Talk us through the trauma-informed approach that was taken to the victims in the consultation.

Mr Carey: I may bring in Pauline and Francesca to talk a little about the consultation events. We purposely put on a lot of events for small groups to try to provide a supportive environment for people. We gave people plenty of time and support, pre- and post-event. Support included the provision of counselling on the premises through the WAVE Trauma Centre, which had dedicated counsellors at every event. We also tried to break up the consultation process into discussing both the inquiry and redress, and, again, we gave people plenty of time, pre- and post-event.

Sinéad, we have always tried to be trauma-informed when supporting people through the process. That is not to say that there have not been times when we have not met the standard that we would like to meet. There were some very difficult and challenging meetings. We acknowledge that we got some things wrong in the past, but that was not through any lack of effort on our part to have a sensitive process. We understand the importance of being trauma-informed. I will let Pauline talk a little bit about the work that the group has done on trying to build in that safety. A key aspect is trying to provide as much choice as possible for people to engage in the process. Some people will want an online meeting, once a month, in which they can go through all the detail, while others will want to meet to chat but not talk about the policy at all.

Ms McLaughlin: Have you any data on those who have sought to meet face to face as opposed to those who have opted to meet online? We have spoken to people who have done both, and some of the experiences have been difficult.

Mr Carey: They have.

Ms McLaughlin: I know that the Department has had to bring in support.

Mr Carey: That is right.

Ms McLaughlin: Supporting people to engage in a process questions the structures of the process itself. I want to understand that, because you do not want to develop a structure that is traumatising for individuals. Viewing it through a gender lens is also very important. The Department has a big role to play in that, but so has the panel.

Ms Pauline Corscadden (The Executive Office): I can talk a wee bit about the consultation forum. An independent review of the forum was carried out because it was clear that some of the meetings had been very difficult. They had been very emotional for people, including officials. It was recognised by everyone attending that the forum was not always a safe space and that the principle of "Do no harm", which was an underlying principle in setting up the forum initially, was not being adhered to across the board. That is when we engaged Dr Danny Taggart. He is a clinical psychologist who has worked alongside our outgoing chair, Avila Kilmurray. An invite was extended to the entire consultation forum — over 90 people — to engage in the process, online or otherwise. Danny and Avila held over 20 sessions from probably last April until December. Those sessions were with the people who had volunteered and who wanted to talk. Their purpose was to review the consultation forum: what did victims and survivors need and want out of it? It was about increasing the safety of the engagement and how, collectively, we would do that. It was about advocating and coming up with proposals for an improved structure. That was done, along with the independent review that our colleagues in the business consultancy service in the Department of Finance carried out. We now have a different type of model.

Face-to-face contact is not always possible, although it is the nicest thing to do, given the subject matter. We have people across the world who are part of the forum, however, so doing so is not always easy. People are working and are in different time zones, for example. Forum members were given space, and they opted in, but if it was not for them, they opted out of attending the sessions to help shape a revised forum.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I am sorry. Before you go on, I want to ask about the recommendations for improvement. Have you gone back to see whether the recommendations have improved things?

Ms Corscadden: Danny and Avila finished their work only on 7 December 2024. We have received a draft invitation from them. We also need an interim chair, and that is something in which the victims and survivors were heavily involved. They drew up a long list of potential candidates to take over from Avila. They fed that through to Avila and Martin, who have compiled a shortlist. We are in the process of arranging a meeting in, we hope, February to hear from those who are interested in becoming the interim chair. We are making a proposal for engagement.

The engagement will be different. We are in a different space, insofar as we now have the public consultation. As well as the 16 public consultation events between July and September 2024, Martin and I held smaller face-to-face and online engagement sessions with Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice, Truth Recovery NI (TRNI) and others. That was an opportunity not only to meet face to face — to put the human face to all of this in place — and to build those relationships but to ask them what it was that they needed clarity on out of the public consultation? To be fair, they were also involved before the consultation was launched through helping us refine the language and terminology. That was a very powerful and positive thing for them to do before the consultation was launched. Those smaller engagement sessions absolutely worked. They needed clarity on not just the questions in the public consultation but the programme in general.

It is true to say, however, that the public consultation has taken precedence, and rightly so. We need it to move forward, but we expect engagement. It will be different. The type of engagement is based on proposals that Danny, as a clinical psychologist, has felt will be beneficial for all involved, especially the victims and survivors. Our mailbox has received over 3,000 emails, which we have managed. We have helped victims and survivors where they have struggled to access records, for example. We are the conduit for them to get that support.

There probably is frustration. We have a group of people who are not always in agreement. That, in itself, creates issues, and it is fair to ask whether we can do things better. Absolutely, but everyone needs to have the will so that everyone can get the best out of the process.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you. I appreciate that this is very difficult and that truth recovery is not an easy pathway at all. Are you telling me that victims and survivors, the Department and the panel very much co-designed the whole public consultation process? We are being told by some that they felt outside of the process and that it was designed for them but not with them. That is difficult as well, because, in order to get truth recovery, you need the victims and survivors to walk with you hand in hand.

If anybody feels that questions are being manipulated in any shape, form or fashion or that a predetermined answer is required, they are not being engaged in the way that they should be. They are being traumatised. I am sure that the clinical psychologist has informed you that the whole process is very traumatic.

Ms Corscadden: That is why Danny and Avila have taken time to work with forum members at their speed and according to their need rather than continue to have a monthly forum meeting that was clearly doing harm. It had been recorded that those monthly meetings were doing harm, and it would have been remiss of us to continue with that process.

Ms McLaughlin: I have another question. I know that other members want to come in. We might have to come back to you with other questions. Victims and survivors feel that they do not have an authoritative voice to advocate on their behalf. As you said, it is a big forum, with some 90 members who do not all get together often and who have different priorities. There may also be conflict between mothers and adoptees. It is about who speaks the loudest, but that should not be the way; it cannot be. There could be a request for a commissioner to advocate on their behalf and be their fighter in the process so that they get clarity. This question is for you, Martin: how do you feel about that advocacy role? Victims and survivors feel that their voice, the voice of the collective, is not appropriately represented and that, sometimes, the panel is almost an obstacle to them.

Mr Carey: We have spent a lot of time thinking about advocacy and voice and how the model should work. It is unusual to have lots of different types of victims and survivors in one forum; that is the first thing. If there is a different model of advocacy, including an advocate role, that would help and improve things, we are absolutely open to that. If there is a difference in views, however, we do not want to reinforce one view by consolidating that in one individual, so it would need careful consideration.

Patricia Carey, the special advocate in the Republic of Ireland, provided Avila and Danny with a facilitated session on that model with victims and survivors prior to Christmas. There is lots of positive feedback on the model. The advocate role is difficult and challenging; we have some of those roles here. We are definitely open to that. It is about how it works in practice. Avila has done an excellent job in supporting us through the process with lots of expertise. She has other commitments and is stepping down, so we are thinking about appointing someone to an interim role to provide support.

Ms McLaughlin: That is key. I have the greatest respect for Avila and the work that she does in many forums. I am not questioning that in any way, but it is possible that enhancement of the collective will require a commissioner. We have worked through that on the Committee, and we know the value of it.

Mr Gaston: It has taken a lot of time and an extortionate amount of money to get to where we are, which is causing much frustration. You mentioned voluntary contributions. I am interested in what direction you think that is going. With the HIA redress scheme, some institutions have paid. However, some of the others are having to be chased. Will that money ever come? I have no idea, but it has always been the Government paying the money up front. Is it correct to regard voluntary contributions are optional — you can pay or you cannot. It is about time that TEO, the Government, the Executive or whoever hit the table a thump to say, "People deserve compensation. They deserve compensation to deliver justice and to get some accountability for what happened to them". What stage are we at? The HIA scheme was going down the route of, "How will we fund specialist services?". Is that something that you are already considering? When you are going for voluntary contributions, they should, in my eyes, be contributions in the sense of, "This is how much you will have to pay". It is not just about a one-off payment; there needs to be a support package to meet the needs of the victims, recognise the damage that has been done to them and support them for the rest of their lives.

Mr Carey: Timothy, I agree with you. From a departmental perspective, but also, importantly, a victims and survivors perspective, there should be that accountability and responsibility so that contributions are made. It should not be just a state redress scheme; there should be contributions. On the voluntary aspect, we have tried to look for precedents. In other jurisdictions, the contributions are normally made on a voluntary basis. Using the HIA process as an example, we have had institutions make voluntary contributions. That process is there and has —.

Mr Gaston: That is certainly not the best practice to follow.

Mr Carey: Yes. We have looked at other jurisdictions for comparison, and most of them operate on a voluntary basis. Taking a step back, as a restorative justice process, it feels more appropriate as well. It should be that institutions or bodies, including the state, which has a responsibility or will have a responsibility in terms of —.

Mr Gaston: The state has paid for everything that has happened to date.

Mr Carey: That is right.

Mr Gaston: That cannot be discounted. The state is paying a massive amount of money to get us to where we are. It is now time that we start to ensure that those responsible pay their fair share.

Mr Carey: I completely agree with that. It is important. There is a question of timing. At what point does that responsibility take effect? As you will probably be aware, there are lots and lots of institutions on the list. It is about trying to understand whether all those institutions operated in the same way using the same practice. That will provide a basis for determining who is responsible and whether it was systemic. That will provide the basis on which to seek contributions from the bodies that ran those institutions.

Mr Gaston: It seems that the consultation responses have come back and there is now almost a period of reflection. That is what is coming across to me. You talked about difficult meetings. You said, "There are some things that we have got wrong". You mentioned that there "probably is frustration". We dealt a bit earlier with the issue of complaints, and you said that, thankfully, there have not been that many complaints. It seems that the victims, who should be at the centre of all of this, feel very disconnected and unhappy about how things have got to where they are today. Maybe "period of reflection" is not the right term, but that is certainly what is coming across from the panel. There needs to be a step back to look at that. Sinéad mentioned the advocate. A victims' advocate should be at the heart of this, and everything that you are doing should be around that. I am interested to know more. We talked about the complaints process, but what feedback are you getting on how well things have run to date? What complaints and concerns have been raised with you? What could you do better?

Mr Carey: There are quite a lot of questions there. I will try to answer them. Again, taking a step back, this is such a difficult policy area. We have engaged on lots of different areas to look for precedents, and, unfortunately, in other jurisdictions, it is also very difficult, in this policy area, to strike the balance between the time, inclusion and affordability considerations. Those are key aspects that we have had to try to consider, and I hope that that has come across in the consultation document and in the responses.

Timothy, in the consultation document we have tried to reflect as many of the views of victims and survivors as possible and to use people's own words. You are right: it is a period of reflection, and we have to acknowledge that people did not like or agree with everything in the consultation, but —.

Mr Gaston: How did it get to that point?

Mr Carey: I was going to say that we have to take a step back. We have looked at other processes. We have designed a scheme that is much more inclusive than the Government of Ireland's scheme, particularly on financial redress,. In our scheme, we have a £10,000 standardised payment for birth mothers and any child who was born to that birth mother in the institution. In the Republic of Ireland scheme, the payment is about €5,500 for a birth mother who was in for fewer than three months, and a child has to have been in the institution for six months in order to get a redress payment. We tried to be much more inclusive in the design of the policy. Appointing an independent panel with victims and survivors on it is about trying to bring a victim and survivor lens to the investigation and its terms of reference. We also have large archival records. Last time we were here, there were issues with access to records. There still are such issues, but there have been big improvements on the practice guidance and how it operates in practice. People are getting information that they had previously not been able to access.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): There are still issues.

Mr Carey: There are, and some are quite serious. I am not diminishing that. We also have a support model with the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS) and Adopt NI, which over 300 people have accessed. The feedback on that has been very good. It is supportive and provides a wide range of support services. You are probably right about the period of reflection. As Pauline said, we can always try to do better. Our intent is to move the process forward; we have to do so in terms of redress and the inquiry.

Mr Gaston: I have a couple of questions. You mentioned the members on the consultee forum and the supporting forum members. They used to have monthly meetings. Does anyone from TEO attend those meetings? Can you give us feedback on them? Why are those meetings difficult? Is it the way in which they are chaired? Is it the way in which they are run? Is it about conflicting ideas or priorities? I want to understand why, when you bring a group of people with a common cause together to get an outcome, we are experiencing all these problems.

Mr Carey: I will bring Pauline in on that. There is not necessarily a common view on issues. That is the first thing to say. I hope that it is reflected in the reports that there is not a consensus view from victim and survivor groups on some of the issues that we have outlined. That is due, in part, to interpersonal elements among victims and survivors, but, collectively, there is also frustration with TEO, or there has been, and some of the policy positions.

Mr Gaston: When groups walk away from the process, is that because of failings by TEO?

Mr Carey: There is a mix of reasons. For one group in particular it is about the time that the process is taking and the priority that is being given to bringing forward legislation in relation to the inquiry and redress. My sense is that it is about action at this point. There have been periods for consultation, and there have been periods for action. I can think of one group for which, at this stage, it is about —.

Mr Gaston: They think that there is inaction.

Mr Carey: They think that there is inaction.

Mr Gaston: And that the process is, essentially, wasting their time, because it is taking too long.

Mr Carey: I am paraphrasing — I do not want to put words in their mouths — but my instinct is that they think that the policy that the design panel recommended is clear, and that it is about moving to the next stage, which is establishing the inquiry and the redress scheme.

Ms Corscadden: That is not a consensus view that is held by all those who attend the forum, which creates difficulties and, perhaps, friction between victims and survivors; the friction is not between victims and survivors and officials. That is what led to the review of the forum: people were saying, "This is not a safe space. This is doing harm. It is not being managed in line with the principle of do no harm". That is simply because there was no consensus view amongst victims and survivors on, to put it crudely, who is in scope and who is out of scope. That leads to friction, which is why Dr Danny Taggart and Avila have taken that time with forum members. As I said, however, it is opt-in. Those who come to the sessions have helped to shape proposals.

I am in contact with those who may not have been at any of those sessions. I still have a relationship with that particular group of people, and I understand their frustration. It is clear-cut for them, and the report is very clear that it includes them. We understand the frustration, but not everybody is of that opinion, and the public consultation endeavoured to get a broad spectrum of views to help to shape the legislation.

Mr Gaston: I find it hard to comprehend how we have got to a position where there is animosity towards a Government-led scheme with terms of reference. I know that you cannot keep everybody happy — it is hard to do that — but there must be a far better way of managing this. It seems to me that the wheels are coming off the wagon.

Mr Carey: I would not characterise it like that. There have been a lot of achievements over the past two years. I am happy to outline those; I do not want them to be diminished.

The consultation was a big step forward. I thought that the 16 public consultation events were excellent when it came to engagement. There were people at those who had never been part of the process. One of the biggest problems in this policy area is that the shame and stigma is still there. It was a big thing for people to come to those public consultation events. We supported people through that, and the feedback from the events was very positive. We got 269 responses. It was not just about the quantity of responses, although we were pleased with that, but about their quality and the time that people took to provide them. I hope that we have reflected that in a good way in the report. We tried to reflect as many views as possible.

There has been a lot of progress over the past two years, but there have been many bumps in the process. We are committed to trying to smooth out those bumps. There have, nevertheless, been a lot of achievements over the past two years, which we acknowledge.

Mr Gaston: Do you have a timeline for when we will see progress?

Mr Carey: The next big step will be to bring forward the legislation in the 2024-25 legislative year, which will be subject to Executive agreement. That is the next big step.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Realistically, will it be here before the summer?

Mr Carey: Yes. That is our aim. We want it to be. The question is about how long before the summer it is introduced.

Mr Gaston: Will that be 2025-26?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes.

Mr Carey: We are aiming for before the summer. Some things are outside the Department's control, but that is what we are hoping for.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Have you got a timeline for the standardised payments?

Mr Carey: No. That is tied to the Bill. Once the Bill has been introduced in the Assembly, we will have a timeline. There will be a discussion with the Committee on the timeline. Thirty working days seems tight for this policy area, but I suppose that is something that —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We will have extra sessions if we have to in order to get the Bill through its Committee Stage. You can be assured of that. I am conscious that you have said at the back of the report that you will then need separate secondary legislation. I know that you cannot get the Bill drafted until certain things have happened, but are you doing a lot of the groundwork, such as get the panel members there, so that, when things happen, you are ready to move on and do not have to start a new process?

Mr Carey: Yes, we have already started operational plans, particularly on the redress side, to look at policies and procedures and even IT and all of those practical steps. We have a fairly good idea of what will be in the secondary legislation. As the primary legislation is progressing, it is about making sure that that is reflected in the secondary legislation so that we are not sitting for a long period working on it. All of that work is on course.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That was quite a lot to get through today. I have one last point. The consultation forum or people who were on your database received that report of 80-odd pages last week.

Mr Carey: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): It might not have been best practice to send that out. Will there be some sessions when you can speak to it and explain what it means?

Mr Carey: Yes, we are happy to do that. The original was sent out at the end of November, and there was an opportunity to comment on it at that stage.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Was there not something sent last Wednesday?

Mr Carey: There was.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That is what I was talking about.

Mr Carey: There were two. A draft was sent at the end of November and then the final one was sent last Wednesday. There were minor changes made to the draft. We asked victims and survivors if there were any issues with the terminology or anything else. There were two or three issues raised that we reflected in the final version. We are happy to do extra sessions on it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Some people understand things that they have read differently if there they receive a presentation on it. Thank you so much for your time today.