Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We welcome to the meeting Ms Andrée Murphy, deputy director of Relatives for Justice; and Mr Ruairí Howarth, a caseworker for Relatives for Justice. We welcome virtually Mr Kenny Donaldson, director of the South East Fermanagh Foundation; and Mr David Taylor, welfare and advice officer at the Ely Centre. I think that we are waiting for one more panel member, but we will go ahead. Would you like to make some opening remarks? We have three panels today, so can you keep them as brief as possible, especially since you were able to send us some written notes?

Ms Andrée Murphy (Relatives for Justice): Thank you so much, Chair. I thank the Committee for inviting Relatives for Justice here today. It is a really important subject. As you can see from our evidence, it is quite a complex matter. We welcome the opportunity to give evidence on it. Before we begin, I acknowledge that there are people in the room who are affected by the issues that we are talking about, or who love someone who has been.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you.

Ms Andrée Murphy: As the Committee knows, the scheme has been up and running for quite a while now. There are a lot of very committed people working on the scheme in the Victims' Payments Board (VPB), in the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS) and across the organisations that support applicants. That work is done by dedicated and wonderful people. The issues that we are raising today are around strategy and structure. Absolutely nothing that we say is about the commitment of those who work in this field.

It is important to notice the gaps, because what we are noticing are harms. We are noticing people impacted on by those gaps and those harms. We have provided the Committee with a snapshot of some of the concerns that we have. We have concern around victims of conflict-related sexual violence, those affected by punishment-style attacks, and those affected by the use of rubber and plastic bullets. We are particularly concerned about the experience of the bereaved of the conflict who are applicants to the scheme. It is important to acknowledge that all those whom we support meet the requirements of the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. We all work with those individuals in a range of other services as well, but they have a particular experience of this scheme.

My colleague Ruairí, who manages our team of dedicated caseworkers, is going to run through some of those case studies now, just to give you a flavour of the issues.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. We got them in the pack, so I think that you can assume that we have read them. Please be as brief as possible.

Mr Ruairí Howarth (Relatives for Justice): Yes. As you said, they are in the pack. The first case study is about a victim of a plastic bullet who was shot from behind, deliberately arrested and later charged with throwing a petrol bomb. Those charges arose only after the victim sought compensation at the time, which led to the panel's deeming them ineligible under regulation 6(1). As I said, although the appeal panel saw evidence suggesting that the conviction was unsound and acknowledged the victim's circumstances, it said that it was bound to accept the state's version of events. As a result, the victim has been left feeling disbelieved and further isolated. Ultimately, they have been denied recognition of their life-changing injuries.

The second one, which Andrée mentioned, highlighted the flaws in the Victims' Payments Board's handling of paramilitary-style attacks. What we are finding is that the VPB is taking a narrow and default blanket approach to exclude these attacks as not Troubles-related. In this case study, the victim was caught in the wrong place at the wrong time when they were shot by a dissident group that was opposed to the peace process. They were assessed as having a combined permanent disablement of over 100% and they have been left with daily chronic pain and psychological harm, yet they have been denied recognition by and support from the scheme. That is a reflection of the wider picture that we are seeing: a significant group of victims — mostly young men from working-class communities — who were subject to brutal violence have been excluded from recognition and reparation under eligibility.

On the bereaved —. Yes, I will keep it brief. Do not worry. In a case that involved a bereaved family, despite four panels reviewing the same information and circumstances, two applicants were accepted while two were rejected, with the unsuccessful decisions stating that, because a sheet was placed over their loved one's body as they were carried out, they were not eligible under "immediate aftermath". There are inconsistencies in how the regulations are interpreted by panels. It is not victim-centered and causes significant harm and re-traumatisation. That case involved over three years of forms, assessments and appeal processes that led the bereaved family to relive the incident repeatedly.

I will finish with a case that involved two bereaved applicants who witnessed, in the immediate aftermath, the death of their loved ones in hospital after they had been shot. One applicant was deemed ineligible, because they stated in an assessment that their loved one was "wired up like a robot". They had therefore received medical treatment and were not in the original condition as at the scene, whereas the other applicant was ruled as being eligible, even though information was provided to show that their loved one was on life support.

That again highlights inconsistency in decision-making and broader issues of failing to adopt a victim-centred approach and further harm being caused to bereaved applicants in the process. The process is re-traumatising victims by requiring details and distressing recollections of incidents, with questions asked about how long they took to arrive, what they saw and whether medical care was given. For many, it has become a re-traumatising, cruel and dehumanising process.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. I am going to move on, because the other two need to come in, and Sandra will be here shortly. Kenny, would you like to make some opening remarks, please?

Mr Kenny Donaldson (South East Fermanagh Foundation): I thank the Committee for the invitation today. It is a good conversation to be part of. I will not labour the point about who we as a group are, but I will say that we have submitted over 2,100 applications, which is approximately 17% to 18% of what has gone into the overall scheme. There has been the good, the bad and the ugly of the scheme to date. We all recognise that. There have been some extremely positive pathways for people, and, ultimately, outcomes have been reached that will have a transformative effect on their lives — less so for others.

The bereaved are obviously an outstanding issue. It is a sectoral issue in the sense that this scheme was never developed with the bereaved in mind. We are attempting, in many cases, to shoehorn people into a scheme that does not have the flexibilities that are required. I suggest to the Committee that a separate piece of work is needed to redouble efforts around the issue of a scheme that is about restitution and acknowledgement of the bereaved whilst they are still in this life, because many first-generation victims are coming to the latter stages of things. They are in their 90s and late 80s.

I put on the record that I have a concern about the scheme from the point of view of its national status, and I question whether that is wholly accurate. Westminster was required to pass the scheme at a national level. It would never have been passed locally, and, around the table, we know that. The issues of eligibility would never have been resolved. It was passed nationally, but there have been fewer than 1,000 applications submitted to the scheme from those living outside Northern Ireland. In my mind, that illustrates a lack of understanding and awareness beyond this place among all those others who have been impacted by the Troubles. In the GB context, people have been impacted by atrocities over there. Many people from right across our community who were victimised here left Northern Ireland to live there. There is then a constituency of people in the security forces and armed services who have been here — some 300,000 — as boots on the ground in the regulars. That is a huge cohort.

The Republic of Ireland also concerns us. There is the farcical situation of two brothers in the same household, of whom one is eligible because he happened to be born in Manchester and lived the first 10 days of his life there, and the other is not eligible because he was born in the Republic.

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

Mr Donaldson: Sorry, Chair, I want to say one final thing about the staff who operate across the scheme. Those with whom we have dealt, we find, are trying their best against a difficult backdrop and circumstance that was not of their making.

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

David, I see that you are joined in the room by somebody else. Do you want to introduce him?

Mr David Taylor (Ely Centre): Yes, this is my colleague Ivan Bingham, who is here in an observing capacity, if that is OK.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. You are very welcome. Please make some opening remarks.

Mr Taylor: First, thanks to the Committee for the opportunity to take part in the session. We appreciate the invitation and hope that it will be a productive engagement for everybody involved. I am employed as the Ely Centre's head of welfare services. My remit involves overseeing the work of our welfare team and coordinating the day-to-day activity of welfare staff members. The service that we offer is free and confidential, and our particular unit of the organisation provides advice and assistance on all welfare issues relevant to victims.

I will give a brief outline of our organisation. It was formed by relatives of the injured and bereaved from the 1987 Enniskillen Remembrance Day bombing. The founding member was Jim Dixon, who was a seriously injured survivor of the Enniskillen bombing. The focus of our organisation is to support those who were impacted on by the Troubles. Over the past 30-odd years, the Ely Centre has developed into a proven charity providing care and support for victims and survivors, their families, veterans of His Majesty's forces, and security force members across Northern Ireland and the wider United Kingdom. We have over 2,600 clients who access and are provided with support annually by our organisation. We are a registered charity that provides various forms of support, including health and well-being support, family and community services, welfare support services, and facilitation and advocacy support for individuals and families who suffered as a result of the Troubles.

Our welfare service is extremely busy, and a considerable focus for our staff since its inception has been the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme. That stands alongside the other forms of welfare support that we offer. The scheme support includes assisting directly with the completion of application forms; responding to queries on behalf of applicants; attending assessments with them; assisting with appeals, if required; and holding outreach events in local communities to promote the work of the scheme and provide information on the process.

As you will understand, the nature of the work involved in the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme is very sensitive. It is a very difficult process for any applicant, as they have to recount in extensive detail information about the incident or, in some cases, multiple incidents that they have been directly affected by as a result of the Troubles. Those incidents have resulted in significant and permanent impacts on their lives, physically, psychologically and, indeed, in many cases, both. With that in mind, we take a professional and compassionate approach to the support that we offer to our clients, which is vital in building the confidence to allow them to go through the process.

Whilst we will go into more detail on the issues that are involved in the scheme today, as an organisation, we recognise that there are challenges. Probably one of the most prominent for us is that of the time delays involved in processing applications, which cause deep frustration for clients, particularly given the age of many of them and the passage of time. We accept, however, that the Victims' Payments Board staff have a challenging job in gathering and processing the data. We also feel that further work is required in terms of more extensive communication to raise awareness of the scheme, especially outside Northern Ireland.

As a brief note before I finish, I acknowledge the support that organisations such as the VSS offer through the funding that they provide for organisations such as us and by providing assistance through this scheme. At this point, we are due to finish with applications in August 2026, but it is clear to us that further support is required. As time goes on, support will still be required for applicants after 2026, so I ask the Committee to be conscious of that in the time ahead. As I said, there will be more opportunities to go into more intensive detail on some of the issues that I outlined, but I thank the Committee for the engagement that they have committed to today.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. We will get into the Q&A session now. Thank you all for your opening remarks.

One of the purposes of the scheme is to:

I ask all of you, to what degree do you feel that the scheme is actually delivering on the reconciliation piece?

Ms Andrée Murphy: Often, reconciliation is about acknowledgement: having your experience of harm acknowledged and being able to engage with processes after that. Reconciliation will hopefully be a by-product of some of those processes.

If there are active exclusions of many members of society, or if we feel that the harm is not over but is being re-perpetrated as a result of a scheme, then the possibility for reconciliation will be impacted. The bereaved are engaged in multiple processes of denial of their experience. Whether we are talking about access to truth and justice or accountability, no matter who the harm was perpetrated by, if they are also engaged with this scheme in parallel, Kenny is right to say that it is not designed for the bereaved. We cannot, however, be Pontius Pilate and say, "It's nothing to do with us, guv"; we have to accept that thousands of bereaved relatives are engaging in the scheme. Of our applications, 31% are from the bereaved, because they want to be acknowledged in that. If the scheme says to them, "We don't believe you. We are going to exclude you because of your perceived proximity to the death of your loved one", and if they are consistently undervalued when it comes to the impact that that trauma has had on them, that is going to reduce any capacity for reconciliation.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. Kenny, did you hear the question OK?

Mr Donaldson: Yes, I did indeed. Reconciliation is attached to much of what we do with victims and survivors, and sometimes I question why. We have a legacy and reconciliation Act. That is also an important term to include within that language. The question is: reconciliation with whom? I can perfectly understand someone feeling that they have been wronged by a state agency. Receiving a form of reparation through this scheme could aid that relationship, because then a form of acknowledgement has taken place between them and the person who they believe is the source of their difficulty. We also have to acknowledge that the proscribed groups are not dipping their hands into their pockets, so there is no basis for reconciliation between many of those who have been impacted by terrorism and anyone else, because, in a sense, that relationship is different. We have to look at what reconciliation means here, and there is still no working definition in the context of victims and survivors. It means different things to different people. Ultimately, our group says that this is about trying to give victims and survivors empowerment so that they can reclaim control, because, when violence strikes, wherever it comes from, control is often lost. It is about empowerment of the individual so that they can live a better, more fulfilling life.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you, Kenny. David, same question.

Mr Taylor: Thank you, Chair. We are at a very early stage in the process to be trying to form any sort of judgement on whether it helps to deliver reconciliation. To be honest, I am not sure that it will ever achieve that. As has been outlined, the scheme itself is a form of acknowledgement, but it does not necessarily remove the clear hurt that exists as a result of what was inflicted on many in our society during the Troubles. You can even see today attempts to justify what happened during the Troubles. That in itself serves as a barrier to reconciliation in our community. So long as that challenge exists, it will continue to cause the raw trauma that we see day and daily in the clients and victims who come through our door looking for support. "Reconciliation" is not a word that I would use at this moment in time. In my experience, I have not had any client who has received some form of payment or recognition tell me that they fee reconciled by it. It is an acknowledgement more than anything else, and we need to be conscious of that. I do not think that it was the principal aim of it, and whilst it is an aspiration, I certainly feel that it is a small acknowledgement, in many ways, of what people have experienced as a result of a terrible, heinous act that was committed on them or a family member during the Troubles.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you.

Kenny, I want to ask your opinion on the fact that the ability to submit an application will close on 31 August next year. I know that that was an extension, but is it your opinion that there still needs to be more time — past 2026 — for people who have been impacted and injured? Do you think that we should extend it again, or will you, as an organisation, be able to capture a good lot by then?

Mr Donaldson: It is a good question, Chair. Maybe this is the wrong way of putting it, but, as organisations, we have almost fished in shallow waters until this stage. Those who have been attached to our organisations or to victims and survivors' services over the years have largely come through by this point. Some have not, but largely they have. The leaflet drop brought forward an additional cohort, but — I feel that the Committee could bring this pressure to bear — there is perhaps a need to do a mapping exercise on where applications are coming from. That could be broken down by geography, but also across particular constituency groups, and that could establish whether there are any weak points in the system and what additional resources should be put into trying to increase awareness and information around that. We feel, and have always felt, that the crime is not someone opting out of applying for something; the crime is that they never knew that it existed. People should have the right to opt in or opt out of something, but they can only do so if they have the information to begin with.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Thank you. Same question for you, Andrée, but you might want to pick up on the piece about communication as well.

Ms Andrée Murphy: Communication is important. You also need to see that there are multiple processes happening for families and the injured at the moment in the broader context of legacy. Many people who are overwhelmed and injured will have to prioritise which process they engage in. When we are not getting dealing with the past right, this process sits in the middle of that, and, for them, we need to be far more available to say, "We need to extend this. We need to ensure that we maximise the potential". Kenny and David have both talked about people who will be excluded, but there has been an approach that has said that there are certain swathes of society that are dismissed, alienated and rendered invisible. I include punishment shootings and those type of attacks in that. From the day and hour that that happened to them — when they were 14, 15 or 16 — that cohort in working-class areas was deemed by everybody as all kinds of names, and they have grown up with that. They are now in their 50s, 60s and 70s. The dealing with the past debate may not seem like it is relevant to them, but it absolutely is, and we need to ensure that we start reaching into those places and creating a healing process for them. That is without what we are saying about the bereaved. If we are coming up with a process that deals with reparations for the bereaved as part of our approach to dealing with the past and the broader discussions that are happening at the moment on the Legacy Act, this scheme and the discussions around it will feature in that. We need to see how all that happens in parallel.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. David, please.

Mr Taylor: As an organisation, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we felt that there were issues around communication. We have seen, through meetings that we have had with the agencies involved, that there are particular areas where there are a limited number of applications, and that includes GB. Quite a number from GB served here, and there have not been the numbers that we would expect in that regard. There is also still a lack of knowledge about what the scheme actually entails. There are a number of reasons for people not applying. One is the lack of knowledge of it, and, despite the fact that there was a leaflet drop, in many instances, people maybe got a leaflet and put it to the side without actually going into the substantive detail of what was included in that.

We also have a situation where there are people in society who have been nervous about going forward with the scheme. One of the reasons may be that they are already — I have relayed this — suffering considerable hurt and trauma as a result of what happened in the particular incident or incidents that they endured as a result of the Troubles. We also find a situation where they do not want to receive any further disappointment, because that in itself places a considerable strain on their welfare, and, as a result of that, there is a reluctance to go forward for fear that they may not receive a positive outcome. That is something that we should all be conscious of as one of the barriers to people applying for the scheme: the fear of further disappointment. They may have felt that they had been left behind as a result of what happened to them during the Troubles and that they did not get the support throughout that period, whether it was grief-related or injury-related. They find themselves in a situation where they cannot really take any more, and, as a result, are reluctant to go forward with the scheme. We feel, as an organisation, that it is something that should be looked at. In doing that, there also needs to be a strategy going forward on how that engagement and communication happens to try and deliver a more positive outcome for the people coming forward to apply for the scheme.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Thank you, David.

Mr Dickson: Thank you to each of you for your contribution today and for the work that you are doing in your respective organisations. I have two questions. First, to what extent do you meet and cooperate with each other to determine the commonality of issues with the scheme, and have you identified those issues where each of you has common ground? Secondly, I think Kenny raised the issue about the end date of the scheme. What are the main structural changes that each of you would like to see between now and the end of the scheme, whether that is in 2026 or a future date?

Ms Andrée Murphy: They are great questions. I would love to take them back to the team to have a chat and respond with what they are all saying. We have met, even within the structure around the operationalising of the scheme, and all of our organisations have developed friendships and good working relationships as a result of that. It is very much on the operational side that we have developed those and can have a meaningful input. With regard to the strategic decision-making that has happened for things like eligibility, we all bring similar stories anecdotally, but it can have very little impact with the structures that are there, and that is where the gap lies. For instance, we all see the emergence of the unwritten guidance around plastic bullets, but our common experience around the use of plastic bullets is the lack of eligibility of those who experienced that harm. Similarly, with conflict-related sexual violence and the bereaved, which is constantly on the agenda. We will raise, anecdotally, really disturbing and distressing treatments of people through the process because of the way that it is set up for gathering evidence, establishing eligibility and establishing the percentage of disablement or whatever. That can be very humiliating and very denying of the experience. We will all join that together, and that picture is there, but there is very little impact that we can have on that, which can be frustrating.

As for the structural changes, I think we need to get those things right as well. The British Government are not in this room or any room when the scheme is being discussed, even though they wrote the legislation. Even when it comes down to funding, they are not in the room for it. If we were having the discussion now, asking how we could write this legislation to ensure that it actually is victim-centred and ensure that we do not see these ritual humiliations, degrading experiences or denial of experiences of harm and injury — if we were going to rewrite that, how would we do it? I would like to see that conversation about the deadline happen so that we can have an honest conversation about it. If we are talking about dealing with the past, why not put this in there and ensure that we can, at least, make amends and do better in the future?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Do Kenny or David want to comment on that?

Mr Donaldson: Yes, Chair. Just to feed onto that particular point, what we have suffered, from the point of the agreement, if truth be told, at different junctures, is that we have had a very piecemeal approach to all of those issues. There are temporary winners for a period of time, and there are a lot of losers in situations.

It is quite understandable, if you are a victim and survivor, that you will deduce your experience from where you have made any progress. Sometimes, when you see someone else making a degree of progress, even though it may not be very much but superficially looks like progress, that can become very difficult for people. Some years ago, it was known that the bereaved issue was always going to be a problem, and we have still not quite resolved that matter. It will be a crying shame and an indictment on us all, if we do not resolve the bereaved issue. Let us remind ourselves that, in the 1970s and 1980s, the level of criminal injury compensation was paltry, if any was awarded at all. Those aged over 18 were discounted because they were not minors. Sometimes, you hear the argument that there are so many different pathways for compensation reparation for victims and survivors. A lot of people fall through the cracks.

I will speak about one individual, and many of the cases would break your heart. The lady's husband was murdered. She then remarried, and her war widow's pension was taken from her. She was in the cohort whose war widow's pension was not returned. After her second husband died, the state offered her the war widow's pension by default. There was no acknowledgement of the 30-plus years when she received nothing. The scheme meant that she had to provide an oath that she was present in the hospital with her husband, and that oath has not been accepted. She has now been told that she is not only ineligible but also a liar, and that is challenging. There are very difficult cases, but, as I have said, there are others who have had a positive experience, which has been transformative. We need to look at it all in the round.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): David, do you have anything to add?

Mr Taylor: Some of the things that I would have referenced have already been mentioned. While it is not weekly, there is regular, quarterly engagement through the sectoral implementation group and workshops. I have found that to be beneficial, particularly given the examples and stories about what has affected other organisations. It is useful to learn from the experiences and know that we are not the only ones experiencing those issues. The organisations do have engagement with the statutory agencies involved in the scheme.

There are a number of issues with the structural changes. The legislation has raised a number of issues, such as how the regulations are applied about attendance at or in the immediate aftermath of a Troubles-related incident. The term "loved one" has caused issues, and some of our clients have not received a positive outcome as a result of the regulations. However, that is not the fault of the victims' payment scheme; it is purely based on how the legislation was applied. We felt that the Secretary of State's review could have looked at the regulations, but that was not the case.

For example, there are next-of-kin relatives, who were not at the scene of a Troubles-related incident (TRI) but have suffered serious psychological trauma as a result of that. There are the work colleagues of victims, who may not have a family connection and were not considered to be loved ones, but they were there and saw the very real impact of what happened that day. They have been denied eligibility because of the term even though they are suffering from extreme trauma. The bereaved are not necessarily recognised in the scheme in the way

looked towards, and maybe some of the safeguards in this scheme could be applied to the bereavement scheme. I will not go into specific details, but it should be looked at, going forward.

Another point about the structure is the time frame that I outlined and the length of time that it takes to process an application. Is there a way to review how that the information is accessed? Can that be done more swiftly to ease the process for applicants? The biggest frustration that I see from day to day is the length of time it takes, and the lengthy periods of silence because of the process that has been followed. Is there any way that the requirement for information from the various agencies that supply evidence, confirmation of existence at the scene, mental records and such things that are used as supporting evidence, can be looked at to improve that for the remainder of the scheme?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you, David.

Mr Harvey: Thanks to each of the witnesses. Kenny, you said that you submitted over 2,100 applications, and spoke of "the good, the bad and the ugly of the scheme to date". Will you give us a bit more of a breakdown on that, please?

Mr Donaldson: Thank you for the question, Harry. It is more about the experience that people have had. Some have had a relatively smooth process, inasmuch as the word "smooth" can be used in the circumstances. Everything happened in the way that it should have happened, they came to the end of it, and a satisfactory outcome was at least some form of acknowledgement. In other cases, such as the one that I just referenced, and that is not the only case, you just feel it in your gut that there is an unfairness to it. If that is the best that we, as a society, can do for an individual who is now in her 80s, then I really question what we are doing.

One difficulty with the scheme, and perhaps it is something for VPB to consider, we will hear what we are relaying today, and of course there are a lot of challenges and difficulties, is that the positives of what it has done for people is not heard enough. For those who had a good experience, transformative amounts of finance are really going to change the quality of life in that family in recognition, critically, for people who, in many situations, confronted death and who will have 10 years of a commitment thereafter. We need to be fair and talk about the scheme in its fullest terms and not focus merely on the negatives. It is a mixed bag across the piece.

Mr Harvey: Percentage-wise, is it equal, or is there more good than bad, to use your terms?

Mr Donaldson: Success levels are running at 66% to 70%. When you are submitting some applications, you know that the scheme criteria in a particular area are so tight and rigid that the likelihood of somebody being deemed eligible is going to be very challenging. Nevertheless, as an organisation and a service, you must put your very best case forward for that individual. It is their right to have their experience reflected in that manner and put on the record.

If I can put it like this, Harry: if, say, out of 2,100 applications, 1,300 are successful, and the average amount is in the region of £30,000 to £40,000, if you add that up, that is circa £40 million going into the pockets of victims and survivors that would not otherwise have been the case. That is for an investment by Government of about £1·5 million over a five-year period for the staffing to enable that. It is a good return, if you like, on that investment, but there absolutely are people who are not [Inaudible.]

That is where we are focussed on in particular today.

Mr Harvey: I appreciate that. Thank you, Kenny.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Do you want to add to that?

Ms Andrée Murphy: Yes. Someone could engage in the process, come to the end and be successful in their application, but the process was horrendous for them. I have included in our submission the example of a young woman who was three years old when her mother was killed, and she was carried over the body of her mother. One press report stated that her father carried her when she was asleep. That was used against her, and she was turned down. That woman was heavily pregnant at the time. I cannot tell you what that did to her. She was successful at appeal, so on the face of it, it looks as if she was successful. However, it was such an horrific process for her that she would never encourage the next person to participate in it.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you, everybody. My question is on that theme. The question that I would ask of each of you is this: what would a stand-alone scheme look like, because it is easier at times to say what you do not want? We all accept that most people, if not all, have found the process traumatic. Many have found it humiliating, and others are probably reluctant to recommend it to other people. What would you like to see improved in a stand-alone scheme? I have a follow-on question. Disparities arise, depending on the circumstances, how the reports are internalised and then processed and on which panel is dealing with a particular case and there seems to be the gaps that you spoke about at the start. How could that be corrected in a stand-alone scheme?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Do you want to go ahead, Andrée, and then we will go to David? Hi, Sandra. You are very welcome.

Ms Sandra Peake (WAVE Trauma Centre): Apologies.

Ms Andrée Murphy: It is a great question that would require us all to come back to it. It would be nice for us to come back to that question. There is a fundamental, in acknowledging that we have a really good definition of victims with the 2006 Order, one that acknowledges all experience of injury, irrespective of your background or who the actors were who caused the harm. This scheme has a default position of what I will say is a pro-state narrative. A contemporaneous RUC report from the time is believed above the person who experienced the harm.

We need a stand-alone scheme that is victim-centred and understands how the conflict was experienced in a really contested way, that we will all, depending on our experiences, come at it from very different perspectives, and understandings of how documents were recorded, what evidence was recorded and so on. A scheme that engages with the complexity of how the conflict was experienced and respects the 2006 Order would be useful.

No bereaved relative should have to say, "I was injured". There needs to be dignity afforded to them so that we say, "As a result of losing a close loved one, you do not have to prove the extent of your trauma or the injury that it has caused or what you are living with right now". We need to do that in a human-rights-compliant way and in one that affords dignity to all those families. It should not be done in the sort of judge-led way that we currently use. I do not think that that is particularly useful for these types of schemes. We see that across other schemes, not just this one.

I cannot remember the second part of your question.

Ms Ní Chuilín: It was about the disparity that arises, depending on particular cases. That is something that we get as MLAs when representing constituents who are trying to access this, even siblings within the same family.

Ms Andrée Murphy: Ruairí was speaking about the case of a man who was killed around the corner from the family home. Four siblings applied, two were successful and the other two were not. They all arrived at the scene at exactly the same time and saw exactly the same horror of their father murdered, and two of them were turned down at the first stage because, they were told, they only saw him being carried out on a stretcher, his boots and covered in a blood-soaked sheet. Those two were turned down, and two were successful with a different panel. The appeal was heard yesterday, and the second two were successful when they were heard by other people within the same scheme. That should never have happened to that family. What that has done to them and their dynamics just puts people back. It adds to the trauma and perceived injury, and none of us could consider that fair.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): David, do you want to respond to that please?

Mr Taylor: At the moment, my director of services is not here, and I do not want to go into the specifics of a stand-alone scheme. I would prefer, if I can, to respond to that in more detail later.

One thing that I would say about it is that there are some in society who are still not recognised. We have talked about the bereaved, but there are also those have supported in a caring capacity those victims who have suffered serious significant injury as a result of the Troubles, and there are those who have found themselves in hardship as a result of what happened to them. There are a number of cases for which something like that could be looked at.

The disparities are a concern. It has already been referred to that you can have siblings who went through the exact same situation but one is successful and the other is not. It may have been that different panels looked at those particular cases. That, in itself, causes me and our organisation significant concern. It shows a clear disparity in the sense of the approach that panels take. Potentially, two people could have been through the exact same thing and have felt the same level of trauma as result of what happened, but they could find themselves in a situation where one is successful and the other is not. I obviously do not want to go into specifics in that regard, but, in more recent times, we have discussed cases like that. When one person's hurt is recognised by a panel, so to speak, but another's hurt is not, that can create difficulties in families. That is not what the scheme was designed to do. It was to provide acknowledgement and some sort of recognition of what people have been through. Decisions like that show the clear disparity and a flaw in the process. That certainly needs to be looked at.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. Sandra, did you hear the question?

Ms Sandra Peake: No, I did not.

Ms Ní Chuilín: What would you like to see being improved, were we to have a stand-alone scheme? How can we improve the disparity that can arise, depending on which panel deals with a particular case? The example was given of siblings in the same family who have been treated differently.

Ms Peake: We have had a longstanding relationship with the injury group that campaigned for the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme (TPDPS). When it comes to the benefits that the scheme has brought, it is groundbreaking and new. There have been difficulties along the way, some of which could have been envisaged, and some of which could not. A big question is about how those issues can be changed quite quickly to make the scheme much more visible when it comes to whatever changes are required. There was an evaluation, which took a year, and it took a year for its findings to come out. I appreciate that there are many complexities around that.

I share Andrée's view that the bereaved are the biggest group that falls outside the scheme, and that is grossly unfair. There is an inequity: people who witnessed a murder might receive payment, but the victim's family might not. Of course, you have differences between siblings.

The appeal process is very traumatic for people. There is a real sense of being believed or not being believed. There is also a very direct link to service provision because we have found that people have been taken right back to that time. That has been very damaging to them, and there is a ripple effect on their family.

The other thing about appeals that needs to be seen is the fact that there is no higher body. In social services, there is higher body beyond the appeal stage, but the appeal is to the TPDPS Victims' Payments Board, but we should look at having a higher body for those cases, in the same way as there is in the social services appeal system. I want to see the introduction of a bespoke scheme for the bereaved that recognises them. That should happen, because it is very difficult for families, and such a scheme would be tied to recognition and acknowledgement. It is grossly unfair.

Mr Kingston: Thank you all for your attendance and for the work that you are involved in to support victims. You have certainly helped us with the questions that we will ask the officials in the following session. It has been a very helpful briefing. I have supported various people who have applied to the scheme, some of whom were successful and some of whom are waiting. I am told that the average time is measured in years. It typically takes several years for an application to go through, and I appreciate that that is very frustrating.

If we were to be generous, we could say that the scheme is well meaning but has many gaps. People who have genuinely been impacted by the Troubles come forward and find that they fall at the edge of the criteria, so they have to make their case. You have fought for those people. My party and I absolutely support the application of the scheme only to people who were injured through no fault of their own. It must be for genuine and innocent victims.

I want to pick up on a couple of things. You mentioned a case study of sexual violence that was related to the Troubles, in that instance, the case of a serving RUC officer. That is a massive untold story of the Troubles. Any situation in which people have an interest in the breakdown of law and order provides the opportunity for sexual violence and abuse. I have heard Máiría Cahill tell her story, which is striking because of her struggle to be heard and for people to acknowledge what had been done to her and the consequences of that. I am glad that you have picked that up. Part of our role is overseeing the addressing of historical institutional abuse of children and adults. There is a massive untold story there. Clerical abuse, religious institutions and borstals have been highlighted, but the power that paramilitary groups had in communities and to silence people has not had enough recognition.

Kenny, you made the point about proscribed organisations not dipping into their pockets for compensation. They are proscribed, illegal organisations, but they are part of wider movements, and the question should still be asked: why are those organisations not being pursued in some way to contribute to the costs of the consequences of their actions?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Do you have a question?

Mr Kingston: Kenny, we have a year and a bit left of the scheme. You talked about the need for a mapping exercise and highlighted the low number of applicants who come from outside Northern Ireland. When we think about Operation Banner, we recall that 300,000 people served in the regular army in Northern Ireland. Are there areas that you feel are under-represented in the applications, and have you any suggestions as to what should be done to address those?

Mr Donaldson: Thank you, Brian, for the question. What I will share is anecdotal, so, until a mapping exercise is done, it is difficult to stand over any of this. Certainly, there is some sense that the number of applications from the north-west of Northern Ireland is lower than it should be, given the gravity of what occurred there, particularly in the capital city of that region. There is also a sense that applications from the Prison Service fraternity are limited. Fewer than 1,000 applications come from outside Northern Ireland, and that needs close examination, and I take the point that, across our community, there is also a need to examine and drill down into what is going on in working-class communities. Without question, there is a wider knowledge base about all this in some areas than in others, and it may be easier for people in those areas to access support.

A redoubling of efforts is also needed, however. I say with respect that some MLAs are well across the issues and refer people from their office into our support services but that, for other MLAs, there is, perhaps, an education process on the scheme to deal with the misnomers around it. There can often be circumstances in which, while meeting the terms of eligibility for the scheme, people are ineligible for a financial payment. The making of payments for 10 years to a person's next of kin/carer is unique to that scheme. A lot of people want to know that, when they leave this life, they have provided for their family, and that is a real positive of the scheme in my view.

I am not talking about spending three or six months on the mapping exercise. It has to be a focused piece of work that is done relatively quickly, or we will risk seeing judicial review (JR) applications from people who make a justifiable argument that they had no means of knowing that the scheme existed in order to make a choice about whether to opt in.

Mr Kingston: OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. Does anybody want to respond on the issue of the sexual abuse of women?

Ms Andrée Murphy: Thank you for that. I appreciate your drawing attention to that part of it. What you said highlights a number of things, such as the lack of a definition of our experience of conflict-related sexual violence. At the beginning of the scheme, we explored that a bit in information sessions with the academic Dr Aisling Swaine, who has done an enormous amount of work on it. What you said also shows how problematic the legislation can be.

Sexual violence is experienced in public spheres and private spheres, including in interrogation centres and prisons, often by non-state actors. If we do not have a definition or an understanding of that, the resulting silence, invisibility and hiding of those experiences become compounded and speak to our wider discussion about how long the scheme should last. If we reach a stage at which we join up this discussion with the discussions about Security Council resolution 1325 and its implementation or the violence against women and girls strategy, our understanding of how it has been experienced and how we can provide remedy will be expanded, and the women and men who experienced conflict-related sexual violence in that range of settings will become visible and, potentially, applicants. It also speaks a little to the idea that somebody who experienced conflict-related sexual violence while in prison was not injured at their own hand, which means that things become a little more engaged. We need to deal with the complexity of how the conflict was experienced.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. That was very comprehensive.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much for coming along today. It has been very helpful. I will start with a positive: the feedback that I get from victims is that staff, whether in the referring organisation or the VSS, are always very helpful, very kind and courteous when taking people through the process. The problem is the process: the delays and the constraints under which they work. That, it seems, is where re-traumatisation continuously happens.

Your first question, Chair, was about reconciliation. The elephant in the room that we need to consider is that the scheme is to help with reconciliation, but our First Minister lauds victim-makers and says that there was "no alternative". That is a massive part of re-traumatising victims. I think of what happened in my constituency: in 1976, Thomas McElwee was responsible for a firebomb attack in Ballymena in which Yvonne Dunlop lost her life. A tribute from Sinn Féin stated that he was "kind and good-natured", "full of life" and "brave". I certainly do not agree with that description. While we have that re-traumatising going on from the head of our Government and Executive, reconciliation will never happen in Northern Ireland.

Innocent victims' day was hosted in this Building back in March. One of the things that continuously came out of the stories was the issue of the bereaved. Although someone might not have seen their family member being killed, that did not prevent their world being turned upside down. I think of one story in particular: a father who was murdered while out doing a day's work. The mother, who had been a stay-at-home mum looking after the kids, had to become the breadwinner, working not one, not two but, potentially, three jobs. The daughter lost her father in the terrorist atrocity and also lost time with her mother, who had to fulfil that role. Something definitely needs to be done for the bereaved. I agree that we need to look at a separate scheme, but that scheme needs to be focused on innocent victims. It cannot involve perpetrators. You cannot lump perpetrators and innocent victims together. That is part of the reconciliation piece, but that will never work in Northern Ireland.

Kenny, you talked about either 60% or 66% to 70% of cases having been successful. That leaves 30% of cases that you have dealt with that have not met the criteria. Is that because of poor records, or what is the overwhelming theme coming out of that? I have a story in my office of a lady who worked in a solicitor's office at the time. She was blown up by a bomb, buried alive, left with scars and had PTSD all her life. She knew the importance of record-keeping, but it still took her two years and nine months to get through the process. That was somebody who had all the records and all the evidence. It still took two years and nine months. Are the 30% of cases ineligible because people have not kept the information or have not been able to get historical records from doctors and medical professionals? What are the overriding problems that you see with people who are being turned down? That question is for each organisation. Give us a flavour of the percentage of applications that have been accepted. For the ones that have not, I want to know why. What are the themes?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Go ahead, Kenny. You go first, please.

Mr Donaldson: Thanks, Chair. I do not have the precise figure in front of me for how that breaks down. My sense is that it would not be far away from 50:50 between two cohorts. The first is people who do not meet the eligibility requirement for the scheme, according to the regulations, and will not be eligible on that basis, however unfair any of us feel that to be. For the other cohort, there are issues with records, particularly the non-digitising of records back in the 1970s and even the early 1980s, when there was not a history of people going to see their GP. In some respects, there were cultural reasons for that, depending on where people lived, how comfortable they were with going to particular primary care providers and all that. There is a mixed bag. Over the years, some people did not have a history of presenting for counselling. In the 1970s and 1980s, counselling was not available as it is today. Many people simply bit their bottom lip very hard and tried to get through life as best they could. They often turned to a member of the clergy, if they were of a faith background, or to their colleagues and friends. Sometimes, they took to the bottle or other means to get through. There are mixed reasons why the percentage of successful applications is not higher than 70%. Certainly, for those for whom we can put the best case forward, I have confidence in our team to deliver good outcomes, even though the process could absolutely be better.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. David, do you want to answer that one as well, please?

Mr Taylor: Yes, of course. Our percentage of positive outcomes is similar to Kenny's. I do not have a specific percentage in front of me, but we have a high success rate of positive outcomes from applications. There are people who have not been successful at this point. There are issues, including the eligibility issue and, in some instances, a percentage relates to the disablement measurement that is taken into consideration. There are reasons for that, and Kenny has outlined some of them. For instance, during the earlier part of the Troubles in particular, people just felt that they had to get on with things. They did not go and seek support at the time. Even to this day, we are aware of numerous examples of people who show a clear impact and real trauma as a result of what they went through in the Troubles but have never felt confident enough to seek support, particularly counselling. When somebody goes through that process, it is very difficult for them. They relive what happened and talk about the experience, and, sometimes, people feel that that will set them back rather than take them forward.

There are numerous reasons why an application can be turned down. I am certainly confident in the work that we do, as Kenny is in his organisation's. As time has gone on, we have become more experienced with the scheme. We feel that we can put a good application together for anybody to whom we provide support. There are issues, however: if information is difficult to retrieve, that does not help an applicant to support the evidence that we provide. It may be that they did not seek support at the time or over the years that have passed, or that, on occasion, there are just no records. Sometimes, it is clear that people were at the scene of an incident, but, because there is no record of that, they have to go the extra mile to prove it. As Kenny, I think, said earlier, if somebody has been told that they were not there, they are almost made to feel that they are not telling the truth. How does that make anybody feel?

Various issues lead to people not being successful. There is the issue of eligibility and the 14% disability threshold that must be met before anybody can receive any sort of payment. We see those issues regularly with those who get a negative outcome.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you, David. Sandra, please.

Ms Peake: I want to pick up on a few points, Mr Gaston. Reconciliation was never in the scheme's terms of reference. The scheme is very much about the impact on how people live: for example, people who were very severely injured have outlived their period of compensation, thankfully. They may have been compensated for only 20 years. Now, at the age of 60-plus or 70-plus, they are living with that dearth of resource related to the permanent disablement that they suffered. It is important to make that distinction, because that is what the scheme is about: permanent disablement.

Where do people have difficulties? There are lots of difficulties, such as recognition of age: ages one to three are not recognised, yet Siobhán O’Neill, our mental health champion, would say that those are the most formative years when it comes to trauma and its impact. The same applies to historical institutional abuse (HIA) redress, which does not recognise ages nought to three. That lack of recognition is a big issue with the scheme. Another issue is proving why you were injured. The terms of reference are very —. If you were shot, people automatically think, "Well, of course, paramilitaries were in the community". It is a case of saying, "I was shot", and then having to demonstrate the reason for that. In the case of mistaken identity, the reason why the person for whom you were mistaken was going to be shot is an issue in how your case is looked at.

The other thing is continuous trauma. There are very clear issues relating to the recognition of continuous trauma that rest in the scheme. Trauma relating to the disappeared — something that is very close to our work — is not recognised, yet that, I would argue, is one of the most psychologically devastating and distressing events that any family can come through. Despite that, if the family did not witness the abduction, they are not recognised. In fact, the continuous trauma is not recognised even if they did see the abduction, because it is the reality of what those families have gone through throughout the years. There is a continuous impact. People living in communities where violence is ongoing never really escape what happened to them. It is ongoing, and other things can happen to their family in that time.

Proving proximity is another issue that causes difficulties for individuals. It is to do with presentation. I see a very detrimental impact on women, particularly those who kept their families together through very difficult times and worked the whole time, although, by God, they struggled with that work and to hold their families together. That can have an impact on their adjudged degree of disablement.

There are very clear reasons. The non-recognition of ages nought to three is consistent across other areas of work that you are looking at, and I think that cognisance needs to be taken of what Siobhán O'Neill, as mental health champion, has said about what happens to people in that time being formative in how they are today.

Mr Howarth: I will pick up on your first point about there being no medical evidence. We find that to be the case a lot. That is not necessarily why people are turned down, but they will have been referred for psychological assessments and then referred back to Capita, which basically goes through an audit process. That takes several years of the application process, and having to relive the incident and being asked intrusive questions on several occasions is re-traumatising for applicants.

We do not have the exact figures for people being turned down, but, similarly, we find that the reasons tend to be to do with eligibility: the panel saying that it is not Troubles-related, the bereaved not being present at the scene or in the immediate aftermath, or, where they were in the immediate aftermath, being disbelieved. Very often, the state's or the RUC's accounts are used against them, and they are asked, "Can you explain the discrepancies between this account and how you remember your loved one passing away?" That is used to make someone ineligible. We find that it is all to do with the criteria around the TRI and the immediate aftermath.

Miss Áine Murphy: Thank you, everyone, for coming in to brief us. My first question is for Ruairí and relates to remarks that he made on victims of plastic and rubber bullets during his opening statement. Ruairí, how do you suggest that the conflict between the versions of events of victims and those of state actors should be addressed?

Mr Howarth: It is important to remember that it is a victim-centred approach and to believe victims. Obviously, there are sensitivities around regulation 6(1), but, in the case that I referred to, there are strong arguments to suggest that the conviction was unsafe. Other accounts were given to the panel to demonstrate that, but the panel turned to the victim and said, "We understand, but we are bound by this regulation".

I guess that it is about not taking a rigid approach and remembering that it is a victim-centred process. Victims should be at the centre of the process.

Miss Áine Murphy: Holistically as well. Thank you, Ruairí.

My second question is for everyone. Ruairí touched on Capita in his response to Timothy. What is your experience of victims going through assessments with Capita? Is Capita trauma-informed? Does it take a holistic approach with victims? Is there room for improvement?

Ms Andrée Murphy: It often depends on who you get. We have had really positive experiences with some assessors, but we have also had negative ones. It is mainly the structure that creates the issue. Assessors routinely ask to see people's head injuries. They tell women who suffered a head injury many years ago that they have to see the scars and ask them to remove their wigs. Others are asked to show other forms of scarring. Clear medical evidence is there in black and white. There is no need to bring people in and ask them to get down to their boxers to show off scars — no need at all.

That problem goes right the way through to psychological assessments. This is really gendered, but, for lots of good reasons, during the conflict, women were terrified that seeking medical assistance when suffering from psychological injury would risk their children being taken off them. They did not seek assistance during those years and now have to go through a psychological assessment for the scheme. That can be a really upsetting, re-traumatising experience, particularly because they are asked not just about function but to relive the harm that they endured, and that is really difficult.

I will speak to some of what Ruairí just spoke about. One of the strong elements around being disbelieved is that, if you were affected by a plastic bullet injury, very often, you did not go to hospital, because the RUC was there arresting people in order to justify the use of plastic bullets at the time. Similarly, if a person then went for civil proceedings, they were arrested and charged with riotous behaviour.

How the conflict was experienced in different areas is something that we all know and recognise, but the scheme does not. There is a default position of believing the first comprehensive report, which, inevitably, was written by the state. If you were affected by state harms or affected later, that could really impact on your progress.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): David, do you want to take that one now please?

Mr Taylor: Yes, certainly. At the beginning of the process, there was a fear of going through these processes, particularly because of the bad press about Capita and the perception of the PIP process.

Clearly, I wish that applicants did not have to go through these processes to try to prove their disability, but I can genuinely say that, so far, I have found the approach to be a fairly positive experience.

It is a difficult process for the applicant to go through. They are talking about their condition, talking about the trauma that they have experienced and relaying the detail of the incident that they were involved in. However, we have found the approach of those who have been carrying out the assessments — again, I speak from our experience as an organisation, and I know that colleagues will comment on this as well — to be professional and, in many instances, compassionate. I welcome that.

Capita engages regularly with us, and we have contacts in Capita. If we have any concerns about a particular assessment or anything that we feel is not appropriate, we have those channels through which we can raise those concerns. Genuinely, however, I cannot sit here today and say that everybody has a bad experience; they do not, but it is not easy. We have to be there to support our clients and the applicants after the process to make sure that their welfare is being looked after. Certainly, in the approach that has been taken so far, we have found it to be a more positive experience.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. Kenny, please.

Mr Donaldson: Not to reiterate what others have said, but, with Capita, and to be fair to VPB and, indeed, VSS, TEO and DOJ, all of which are involved in this, all that I will say is that some really good, focused sessions have been offered during the time of the scheme, when we all came together to discuss a range of issues. At many of those sessions, workarounds were found for particular issues that were raised, so there has been a willingness to try to do what they could. Sometimes, people will say, "Well, that is on the margins, and there has not been the ability to move on the systemic issues". However, there has certainly been an effort on the part of people to do what they could.

With Capita, in many ways, you are hearing today from groups that are supporting victims and survivors through the process, and we account for 60% to 70% of applications that have come in — maybe 70% at this stage. However, the 30% who applied themselves do not have the support of a group. They do not the option of having someone sit with them through the range of assessments. It is that constituency that could have an even more difficult experience than the one that has been relayed to you today by our groups. We have to try to do as much as we can to be with people throughout the process. It is not about submitting an application, waiting for an outcome and then, if required, appealing that outcome. It is about being with people at all phases throughout the process.

As a result of the scheme, there have been pressures across our organisations on our health and well-being services, counselling and a plethora of other services. That also needs to be acknowledged. People who were previously unknown to the victims and survivors sector are now coming in, being supported and then wanting and requiring the other support services.

Mr Taylor: Chair, I would just like to support Kenny's final comment. None of our organisations really envisaged the impact that the scheme would have on all our services. We are seeing that practical support is needed as well. Obviously, we support clients right through the application journey, but that has placed significant pressure on the other resources that our organisations have. That is just to confirm what Kenny said.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Thank you, David. Go ahead, Sandra, please.

Ms Peake: Mr Justice McAlinden led the way by getting trauma training and education into the Victims’ Payments Board. The ripple effect of that was that it was provided for every cohort that comes through. I have a disclaimer: we are engaged with Capita in trauma education for each cohort. At one of the sessions that Kenny or David highlighted, there was a big question around the sensitivity of known language. It was about sensitivity to the nuances of the acronyms of the Troubles. Capita responded and has now engaged in a sensitivity session on having better awareness of the acronyms used here in the context of the Troubles.

The wrap-around service is really important. It is important to have a victim-informed approach, and we hope that that is what it demonstrates. Regardless of how victim and survivor-informed that is, however, it is still traumatic when people are taken back to what happened, and there is no point in saying anything different. TEO providing additional money for the wrap-around service to ensure that individuals are supporting families is important, but there is no doubt that there has been an adverse impact on services beyond that. What may not have been foreseen at the start was the sheer level of referrals that would come through. Often, it is not just one person from within a family. You may get three, four or more outside the family, so that victim-centred approach is essential.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, everybody, for your evidence and for the work that you do every day in supporting victims and survivors. We talked about the need to ensure that applications are processed quickly, and you referred to that in your answers. What is needed to make sure that there is speed in the process? Is it a significant uplift in resources, or is it more than that?

Ms Andrée Murphy: That is more a question for the VPB than for us, to be honest. Someone who calls us today for support will have to wait a considerable time to get a caseworker who is able to work with them on making their application. That period can involve evidence gathering by the applicant — it can be simple paperwork — in order to make it a little more expeditious. If you phone today because you have just found out about the scheme, you will not get a result for at least three years. It will take a long, long time. It is a long journey. People probably do not understand that and do not experience it elsewhere in their life. Some of it is to do with resources; some of it is to do with the process. It is not easy, Sinéad.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We may hold that question for the next panel. What is your second question, please, Sinéad?

Ms McLaughlin: From the organisations' perspective, how responsive has TEO been to your concerns in this mandate since the Assembly was restored?

Ms Peake: TEO has been responsive, in that it has provided resources and ensured that those were put into groups that provide assistance to individuals. Attention has been given to the need for a wrap-around service. As Kenny said, for people going through the process on their own, it is a very daunting experience. We get a lot of people who did their own form and subsequently found that to be problematic, and we picked them up at appeal. By that stage, they have already had a very long wait and will have a further wait. TEO has responded.

The difficulty — the Committee could maybe look at this — is forecasting. To be quite truthful, the scheme may finish within the next year. The question is whether it should. Like Kenny, I argue that not enough due diligence has been done outside Northern Ireland. There are people who do not know that the scheme exists and that they are eligible for it. There needs to be a clear communication strategy and a very big push. It should not go right to the wire; it needs to be done as early as possible. Whatever needs to be done to get people through the scheme should be done. TEO needs to take a clear look at mapping out what that means for service provision, because most of the groups — in fact, all the groups — are on budgets from 2016. The reality is that that has an impact on their ability to deal with the sheer volume of work coming through.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you very much. That was very helpful.

Mr Dickson: I will be very brief. I think that the right person to ask this question of is Sandra. You made an interesting comment about the impact on people in their early years. Is there evidence of late-onset trauma for older adults who may, only today, be starting to realise the impact of something that happened 30 or 40 years ago?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I will not ask you to answer, but please share with the Committee any links or information that you have on that. I am conscious that we have two more panels to hear from and are about 40 minutes over schedule. If any of the panel members have any information on that, we would really appreciate it. Thank you, all. We got through quite a lot. I really appreciate that.