Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We have a panel that consists of the honourable Mr Justice McAlinden, president of the Victims' Payments Board; Mr Paul Bullick, secretary of the Victims' Payments Board; Mr Patrick Gallagher, director of victims and survivors at the Executive Office; and Andrew Walker, chief executive officer of the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS). Thank you, gentlemen. Apologies that we are starting late; you will have seen how much ground we covered in the previous session. We will start with introductory remarks from the Victims' Payment Board.

Mr Justice Gerry McAlinden (Victims’ Payment Board): Members of the Committee, I was glad to be here with my team to listen to the views that were expressed by the victims' support groups, which, as always, I found helpful and informative. The board and the victims' support groups have a good working relationship, and we value their input highly; in fact, the board could not function without the support groups. It is good to meet them regularly , which we do, and it is good to hear from them in the context of giving evidence to the Committee, because, in face-to-face meetings with us, they may be slightly reluctant to express their views as forcefully as they did today.

It is important that I pick up on a few things. Terms and phrases such as "dehumanising", "cruel", "re-traumatising", "not victim-centred", victims being "undervalued" and "ritual humiliation" do not describe the scheme that I administer. I do not accept that they are features of the scheme or consider them to be appropriate comments in the context of the scheme. The scheme is victim-centred. The scheme, with me as president of the board, was set up to ensure that harm is recognised and, through the recognition of harm and the making of payments to victims, to strive to achieve some form, though perhaps limited, of reconciliation and healing. Those are the fundamental tenets of the scheme, and the ethos of the scheme is geared towards their achievement. The message that I have driven home to board members, board staff and Capita is that we must never lose sight of the fact that it is a victim-centred scheme. Its purpose is to recognise the harm and hurt caused by the Troubles; to provide financial support for those who suffer from permanent disablement as a result of the hurt or harm that they suffered during the Troubles; and, through those limited mechanisms, to provide some form of reconciliation.

There are shortcomings in the scheme that were readily apparent to me when I took on the role of president of the board. I have always felt that the major shortcoming and a troubling feature of the scheme is the lack of recognition of the bereaved. They are a section of people who were directly affected by the Troubles but are still left outside the scope of a bespoke scheme.

You have to look at what is included in the scheme in order to understand the issues concerning the bereaved. A person is entitled to payments under the scheme if they suffered an injury caused by a Troubles-related incident when they were present at that Troubles-related incident or in the immediate aftermath. It is not about appreciation of a deceased loved one but about being present at a Troubles-related incident or in the immediate aftermath. That is limited. In essence, they have to show that they suffered an injury as a result of being the victim of a Troubles-related incident or of coming upon the scene of a Troubles-related incident in the immediate aftermath, where one of their loved ones was injured or killed. That is a very restrictive definition of entitlement. Through the guidance that has been given, we have, in the scheme, tried to extend that back as far as possible. In other words, for "the immediate aftermath", we have said that, if the deceased was in the same condition — they have not been, say, tidied up, cleaned up, manipulated by way of medical treatment etc — as would have been the case when injured or killed, we will try to squeeze that applicant into the scheme.

In what Relatives for Justice calls our "dehumanising" approach to the bereaved, we are, in essence, trying to manipulate the limited structural boundaries of the scheme in order to deal with as many people as we legitimately can without doing utter violence to the language of the scheme. Therefore, I utterly reject that we are in some way dehumanising applicants who come before us. We are trying to stretch the boundaries of this limited scheme to ensure that the clear deficiency and deficit — the absence of a bespoke scheme for the bereaved — does not have as hard-edged and damaging an impact as it otherwise would. We are doing our very best to expand the scheme rather than narrow it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK.

Mr Justice McAlinden: Another comment that was made was about the default position on whom to believe. That is absolute and arrant nonsense. Under the terms of the scheme, we have to determine that a person has been the subject of a Troubles-related incident that has caused injury and resulted in permanent disability. That is an evidential, fact-finding process; it is not about adopting a default position. The reason that we welcome applicants to come before panels to give evidence is to allow them to put their best foot forward, so that, if there is an argument to be had between a historical record on one side and a panel that is listening to a credible applicant who is giving evidence on the other side, the panel will accept the credible, reliable evidence of the applicant that has been given face to face. There is no default position on who is believed and who is not.

Thirdly, the statement that was made that there is absolutely no need to assess people in respect of scarring is arrant nonsense. As a personal injuries lawyer who has, all his working life, dealt with people who are severely injured, as a judge who has assessed severely physically injured individuals with scarring and as president of this panel, I can tell you that the best way to fully appreciate the impact of scarring is to see it — to look at that person and to see the importance of that scarring, how they view it and how they have been affected by it. You cannot pick that up from a diagram or a photograph; you have to see it. On the protection of individuals who go through the scheme, if they do not wish the panel or the disability assessor to see their scar, they do not have to show it. However, they are invited to do so on the basis that that gives them the best opportunity to demonstrate the level of injury that they have suffered. It is not about "dehumanising", being "cruel", "re-traumatising" or being "not victim-centred"; it is the exact opposite — it is about trying to give individual victims the best opportunity to demonstrate to the board, first, that they are entitled and, secondly, the nature, extent and duration of their disability.

The scheme may take time, because there are various applications to be dealt with. The time that is taken on applications is a factor and a function of the care that is taken, not to exclude people but to ensure that everybody who is entitled gets a payment.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. We just wanted opening remarks. Yes, I appreciate —

Mr Justice McAlinden: Those are the opening remarks that I wish to make, because they are important.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): You have put them on the record.

Mr Justice McAlinden: One further thing —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Justice McAlinden, we —

Mr Justice McAlinden: — the bit about extension of the scheme —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We will get back to that.

Mr Justice McAlinden: OK.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Go ahead, please, Patrick, if you want to make some opening remarks.

Mr Patrick Gallagher (The Executive Office): My comments will set out, as is in the paper, the roles of TEO and the Victims' Payments Board. As you have heard from Justice McAlinden, the board has operational responsibility. TEO's responsibility is around the policy, the funding and the support services, which is a key element. You heard previously from groups that we fund. To date, we have spent over £7 million on support services to ensure that there are welfare officers and admin support to help people with their applications and to keep their needs under constant review. We have added health and well-being, because we recognise the wider impact that was spoken about in the earlier session. In recent years, more funding has been provided to increase the health and well-being support that is linked to the scheme. Another key element that TEO has responsibility for is the evidence partners. Linked to the evidence that the board needs to be able to assess an application, we have arrangements in place to fund the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) and the PSNI, and we work with the Ministry of Defence (MOD), the health service and anyone else to make sure that people and their teams are resourced to get the evidence that is needed to support the applications.

The figures are in the paper that was provided. It keeps improving, and the amount keeps going up: over £90 million has now been paid out since the start of the scheme. We appreciate that there have been concerns about the delays, but, if you look at the ongoing year-on-year number, you will see that, three years ago, it was £14 million; two years ago, £24 million was paid out; and, last year, it was £46 million. There has been a continued rise that, we hope and expect, will keep going to make sure that people get what they deserve.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. You touched on some statistics. We will maybe come back to them during questions.

Would you like to make some opening remarks, Andrew, please?

Mr Andrew Walker (Victims and Survivors Service): The merging of the two panels has slightly changed the dynamic. I had some opening remarks to make, but I am happy to feed into the questions, if that is preferable from a time point of view. You have heard a little about the role of VSS, including in supporting the organisations that you heard from earlier, so maybe I will feed in if that comes up during the questions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I appreciate your indulgence in that regard.

I will go back to you, Justice McAlinden. To what degree is not having an external or different appeals layer an impediment to the process?

Mr Justice McAlinden: There are 70 board members who make up the panels. We have regular training sessions to ensure consistency of decision-making, but I have to accept that there are examples of inconsistent decision-making. Those are then referred to me. There is an appeal process and an internal review process whereby I can direct, on the basis that I am concerned about the outcome, that a decision be looked at again by a different panel. There is that internal review and appeal.

The next level is the judicial review option, which is available to applicants who feel that the panel has not decided the case in accordance with the regulations or has otherwise failed to comply with fair process or whatever. We have experienced a number of judicial review applications. One judicial review application is ongoing about the definition of "a Troubles-related incident" and an injury flowing from that; it relates to punishment shootings. That issue, which, we understand, Relatives for Justice and others have raised, has already gone to the High Court. Mr Justice Scoffield has heard the case and reserved his decision on that.

The idea of another, external layer of appeal is not warranted, cost-effective or necessary. There is the internal appeal process, the internal review process and the option of judicial review. All those have been exercised. The appeal process has, in general, ensured that inconsistent decision-making is remedied. We wish that there were no inconsistent decision-making, but there is, simply because, when you are dealing with panels made up from 70 different individuals, you are bound to get some inconsistency. In order to ensure consistency, a database of decisions is available to all board members so that they can consider how other panels have decided similar cases. We do all that we can in that respect, but an external appeal mechanism, short of judicial review, is not needed.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. The other question that I want to pick up on is about the time that it takes to process applications. You indicated that, in many ways, it takes so long because you try to get to the right decision. Will you speak to that and to whether any support from TEO, the Department of Justice or others could help?

Mr Justice McAlinden: There are a number of issues. First, a lot of the applications relate to very old events on which documentation is limited. You have to do a bit of digging, if there is a paucity of evidence in the application that is brought. There is a big difference in quality between applications brought by individuals and those brought with the help of the support groups. You find that, with the applications that are brought without the support groups, the board has to do a lot more digging to get the evidence.

The way that the scheme was set up means that the applicant has to persuade the board that, on the balance of probabilities, they are entitled. We could turn around and say, "Look, your form is defective. You have not shown the evidence. Your case is out". We have not done that. We have set up all those mechanisms inside the scheme to build the case for applicants. In other words, we go to all the agencies that were in place at the time — the police, the fire service, the MOD etc — and ask, "What is your documentation in relation to that incident?". We then ask the healthcare providers — GPs etc — "What is your documentation in relation to that individual?". We have various memoranda of understanding (MOU) with those bodies that say, "Please give us your information". We cannot compel them to give information; we ask them to do so. The Government have helped by providing funding to the various bodies to enable them to staff up and provide the information to us. That means that the Regional Health and Social Care Board etc have funding to feed down into the various healthcare bodies so that they can give us the information. We have to maintain working relationships with the various entities. We cannot go in with both feet, let us say, and pressurise them to do more; it is all about maintaining good working relationships with the various statutory agencies in order to get the information.

Information retrieval takes a long time. A lot of the cases are about psychological harm. A lot of them go back to a time when psychological diagnoses were not common. Given that we have to show that there was a Troubles-related injury that led to disability, in the absence of such diagnoses, we had to set up a bespoke mechanism to provide us with definitive diagnoses of applicants' injuries. That meant that we had to request help from a body of psychiatrists, psychologists and other healthcare professionals to examine those people and their records and give us a diagnosis so that we could categorise it as an injury that gave rise to a disability. That takes time. The funding of that whole process took time to set up. Through the great work of the Regional Trauma Network (RTN) under Professor Ciaran Mulholland we have it set up now. That is a factor that causes delay.

Another thing that causes delay is the fact that the applications relate to many Troubles-related incidents. Each incident has to be looked at. We have to verify each incident. We have to verify the applicant's presence at each incident. We have to verify that each incident contributed to the injury that was suffered. Then, we have to get the final aspect of the case: Capita's disability assessment of the applicant, which is done on paper, through a phone interview or face to face. All that takes time. Rather than pushing through applications speedily and seeing much higher refusal rates because the evidence is insufficient, we take our time, do all the digging and try to make sure that everyone who is entitled under the scheme gets due recognition.

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

Mr Walker: I will make a comment, which is tangential to that, about the timelines and appeals. One thing that is clear from the earlier session and from what we have just heard is that, whilst the scheme might come to an end for applications in August 2026, there will be a tail — a need for continued support. The benefit of having that support in the community and voluntary sector is that it helps people all the way through the journey. There have been ongoing conversations with the Executive Office to ensure that funding for that support does not end in 2026, that it continues and that it will be there in the community for people. It is important to say that when we talk about the timelines.

Mr Paul Bullick (Victims’ Payment Board): Chair, I will come in on the back of what Justice McAlinden said. On the operational side in the administration team, we invited innovation and consultancy services in last year to look at our end-to-end processes. They identified areas in which we could introduce streamlined activities and make improvements. In the past month, we have appointed a project manager for that. We will look at any areas in which there is duplication. We will focus on communication with the applicants, looking, for example, at whether we can improve our communication touchpoints. We will focus on bringing in more upfront analysis of gaps in a case so that we can stop the toing and froing of cases. Notwithstanding what Justice McAlinden explained about the complexities, we hope that we can make some improvements to the timeline. It will not be a massively quick fix: we will be processing the applications for years to come, even after the closing date. However, as a result of that work, we hope to be able to report in the coming months and years that we can see improvements in the timeline for applicants.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Will you engage with previous applicants to get feedback from them?

Mr Bullick: Yes. We will engage with the groups as well. We have a project plan that has different strands. At the moment, we do not have a case management system; we are acting with a portal, which has its restrictions. Having a case management system should reduce the time taken in different parts of the process, which will be a big benefit. Certainly, we will engage with all the relevant stakeholders as and when we can and need to.

Mr Dickson: I have two questions, but I want, first, to come back to your last statement that you do not have a case management system.

Mr Bullick: No, we have a case management portal. When we were designing the scheme, we were designing it from scratch. It is a unique scheme; there is no other scheme like it, so there was nothing to compare it with. We had to start from scratch. We had to establish the board and the administration team, and part of that was about putting in IT support. We have a portal into which people can put their applications, but there are gaps in that portal, so we need a better case management system for medical incident reports (MIRs) and processing. Some of our work is carried out on spreadsheets, and some is manual, but there was such a demand to open the scheme by a particular date that we had to have something in place. Since then, we have made many enhancements. It is a good system, but there is room for improvement.

Mr Dickson: I have to express concern about that, Chair, particularly given the length of time that the scheme has been open. The Committee might want to return to that issue and, perhaps, invite the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) to examine the shortcoming.

Mr Bullick: Deputy Chair, a number of our processes were audited recently, and nothing of major concern came out of that.

We have good, robust systems in place. We have three subcommittees under the structure of the board. We have a business assurance committee looking at governance, risk and business planning, and we then have an operational committee, so our governance and the accountability between the board and the Executive Office are robust.

Mr Gallagher: From the Executive Office point of view, we have those arrangements to scrutinise the board's work. The Northern Ireland Executive case management system was there at the start, but we have to remember that the legislation was handed to us without any engagement with Departments or the Government here, so there was not the time that would be available had you developed your own legislation to plan. It was written and delivered at Westminster without engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive.

Paul talked about the speed of turning the scheme around. We know from the age profile and victims' needs that speed and a campaign are necessary to turn it around as quickly as possible. Equally, there has been a huge focus on increasing the rate of applications, which, as I said, has gone from £14 million to £24 million to £46 million. That has been an understandable and reasonable priority while ensuring that the governance is there. As Paul said, the Audit Office was in and found no major concerns, and we are happy with the scrutiny of the accountability meetings.

Mr Dickson: I hear what is said, but I have alarm bells seriously ringing about the fact that an organisation that is handling that amount of public money and, more important, dealing with vulnerable victims does not seem to have a case management system.

Mr Justice McAlinden, you heard today and made reference to some of the frustrations, and I appreciate the remarks that you made about some of the comments. Broadly speaking, however, frustrations with the scheme were expressed. I think that you indicated that you have perhaps pushed out as best you can to the edges of what is in front of you. However, what further support can you give within the limitations of the legislation as it stands? As a supplementary to that, if you were writing the legislation, how would you do it?

Mr Justice McAlinden: As a serving judge, I am not supposed to comment on legislative matters, but, as president of the Victims' Payments Board, I feel happy about doing do so. We have a fundamental issue here: victimhood is a divisive issue in our society. It is so divisive that the local elected representatives — the Executive — were unable to agree a scheme that facilitated all views on victimhood. Therefore, we had Westminster take up the baton and, in essence, impose a scheme that, I think, no one is very happy with.

First of all, the issue of the bereaved is massively painful for many. The definition of a Troubles-related incident is:

There are difficulties fitting sexual violence into that. You have to differentiate between the thuggish activities of paramilitaries and an act of violence for political ends. The two are not equated. Just because a paramilitary did something does not mean that it was a Troubles-related incident. I know that that is a matter of dispute and that it will be part of the argument in the judicial review on punishment beating etc. However, we have a limited and narrow definition of a Troubles-related incident and of victimhood, and we have the exclusion of the bereaved. Locally, the Executive and Assembly could deal with those issues, if they could agree. If they could bring their heads together, they could reconstruct the scheme to make sure that everyone who was injured was included.

I fully appreciate the issue with "no fault". I know that paying money to someone injured as a result of their involvement in an act of violence re-traumatises the innocent victims. That is a really thorny issue. You are all, with your life experiences, products of this society. We have to focus on the past to try to deal with legacy and with victimhood, but we also have to move forward. Our society is trapped because of our inability to move forward together. The absence of an ability to move forward together leaves vacuums in which there is still paramilitary involvement and paramilitary control of sections of society. That is because those disaffected individuals do not see the progress and working together in our Executive and Assembly that there should be.

The scheme is a microcosm of a societal problem. It is a microcosm of people's inability to recognise what went on in the past, recognise that there was fault on both sides and apologise for and open up about the hurt and harm that they caused. I am strongly of the view that the whole legacy process is so one-sided. We have the state, which has to open up, and we have the paramilitaries, which are, basically, keeping shtum: that is unacceptable. If you want to move forward, everyone has to open up, open the book and apologise sincerely for the harm and hurt that they caused. That is where the scheme attempts to give definition to reconciliation. The scheme, even by its shortcomings, highlights the societal issues that we have to address, with a view to trying to move forward. We have to move forward. Our youth need hope. They need employment, decent healthcare and decent infrastructure. We cannot afford to focus so much on the past that we do not invest in the future. In order to have the ability to invest in the future, we have to, finally, deal with the past.

We have been skirting around the issues for so long. We are not getting anywhere with them. It is time that we did, for the benefit of our children and their children, so that this place is actually worth living in and is seen as a thriving, vibrant and economically self-sustaining entity. That is what we need to focus on. That is where we are not achieving. The scheme is just a microcosm of the difficulties that we have in society.

Mr Dickson: Thank you. The clear message from that is that we cannot ignore the past, if we are to be taken to a better future.

Mr Justice McAlinden: Absolutely. It is all about doing our bit to give recognition, which will lead to some form of reconciliation so that there is movement forward.

As I said, there are clear deficiencies in the scheme. It was imposed quickly by Westminster. I invite the Assembly and Executive to take possession of it again and to create a scheme that is more rounded and more targeted towards dealing with the needs of our society.

As a group, those in the Assembly know about our society's needs. We have Members from different backgrounds, classes and creeds etc. They can all usefully bring their experience and understanding to bear in filling out not only this scheme but the big project of dealing with the past so that we can move forward. That is a massive task. It is not an easy task — I do not envy your role — but I implore and urge you to use your best endeavours to do that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. I will move on. I might bring you in at the end, Stewart, if we have time.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Patrick, has there been any attempt to amend the scheme through local legislation?

Mr Gallagher: No. There has been Westminster legislation to correct errors, but there has been no local amendment.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Is there any intention to do so, particularly in relation to the bereaved?

Mr Gallagher: No, not for this scheme. Nothing has come forward to amend the scheme. The most recent Commissioner for Victims and Survivors (CVS) produced a paper on the bereaved that the Executive Office will consider as part of the new strategy. That paper makes recommendations on —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Will that be a different strategy?

Mr Gallagher: It is the strategy that I was here to talk about previously. It makes reference to the paper that Ian Jeffers delivered in his last weeks as commissioner. It talks about his proposal for a new statutory scheme for the bereaved. There needs to be a lot of consideration before that comes forward, as well as political agreement and the funding that is needed for something of that scale.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Would that close some of the gaps that the groups have identified?

Mr Gallagher: The likes of WAVE have been engaging with us on the strategy. As Justice McAlinden mentioned, they have identified the fact that some bereaved people can access the scheme but only in the immediate aftermath of an event. That leaves out those who came a bit later, meaning those who did not see the loved one at all or who were bereaved of a spouse when they were in a different country. They are left out of the scheme, because, as it was initially agreed at Stormont House, it was for those who were severely physically disabled and have been moved further on. The CVS's proposal would cover the majority of those people, but I cannot say whether it would cover everybody.

Ms Ní Chuilín: My next question is for Justice McAlinden and maybe you, Paul. It is about the information that is given to help you make a decision. You do not have any powers to compel. Do you need them?

Mr Justice McAlinden: Again, it would be helpful to be able to demand medical records within 14 days. We know that that puts an intolerable burden on general practitioners. When you try to get an appointment with your general practitioner —

Ms Ní Chuilín: We all know about that, yes.

Mr Justice McAlinden: — you ring up and are lucky if you get a receptionist. In essence, a lot of systems here are teetering on the brink of crisis. Introducing compulsion would not really address the issue. All that you would be doing is compelling them to do something, which would mean that they had to redirect funding from something else in order to meet your request.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I understand that.

Mr Justice McAlinden: In essence, it is about funding. It is the same thing with the bereaved. Yes, the Executive — the First Minister and the deputy First Minister — would probably introduce a scheme, but where would the money come from? Westminster will probably say to them, "Well, actually, we are not giving you any more money, so knock yourselves out. You can design the best scheme ever, but you are not getting any more dough for it". Who pays? That is a thorny issue when it comes to remedying the scheme's defects.

Ms Ní Chuilín: May I offer an opinion?

Mr Justice McAlinden: Yes. I will be glad to hear any opinion.

Ms Ní Chuilín: The British Government were not in the middle: they were here. There was a conflict; they were participants in that conflict; and they need to pay for that. I was asking you about the power to compel. Were you ever in a situation where you asked for information from either the MOD or the then RUC but it was so heavily redacted that you could not make head nor tail of it? I ask you that in your capacity as a judge.

Mr Justice McAlinden: Yes.

Mr Bullick: We agreed a medical — not a medical —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: A memorandum of understanding?

Mr Bullick: No — well, we have MOUs with all the organisations. We ask for information. We have a template. We do not ask for full records, and that applies to medical records as well.

Ms Ní Chuilín: It is data-protected.

Mr Bullick: We ask targeted questions about whether the person was present at the incident and whether the incident happened. That confirms the information that we require under the eligibility criteria in the regulations. We do not want a plethora of information. That stuff is not usually redacted.

Mr Justice McAlinden: The issue is this: let us say that the security services have information on an applicant that would be damaging to that applicant. I am security vetted, but many members of the board are not etc, so, at the very start we said, "Look, you may have that information, but there is no point giving it to us because we cannot look at it". Therefore, in essence, the absence of that type of information is beneficial to applicants. It means that less, let us say, ammunition is provided to the board by which to disqualify applicants. Security-sensitive information is not provided to the board. That means that you could argue that some applicants who might otherwise have been excluded are not. Redaction does not apply, and the issue of the provision of security-sensitive information does not come to the board from any state agency.

Mr Kingston: Thank you for your answers so far and, indeed, your candid comments.

Mr Justice McAlinden: Maybe too candid, now.

Mr Kingston: No, no.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We like candid.

Mr Kingston: It is appreciated.

Mr Justice McAlinden: I am noted for that.

Mr Kingston: I acknowledge that you are operating within limited criteria and that you need to uphold the integrity and consistency of the scheme. I hear what you say about trying to include people while appreciating the frustration of people who have genuinely suffered and cannot get admissibility. We will always push for people's inclusion.

The paper that you provided says that around 30% of applicants have got as far as a determination from the board. It also states that there are:

How is the pace being increased?

Mr Bullick: That comes back to my earlier comments. We invited the innovation and consultancy services in. We asked them to do an end-to-end review. They looked at every team and process that we have. They looked at places where there may have been failure demand or potential duplication and reported to us. We accepted fully all their recommendations and have now started a project team to take that work forward. Part of that is a new staff operating model with a new staff operating structure. We may look at combining teams. We will look at the level of checks that are done on applications that come in. The enhanced IT that will come out of that project will also offer efficiencies. That is not to say, however, that, even before that review, we had not been introducing efficiencies as we were going along.

As, I think, the groups mentioned, we have held workshop sessions with the groups, officials and panel members. Captia has been involved in those. At those sessions, we have heard some of the issues directly from the groups. One thing that came out of that was a complete review of all our communication templates, taking on board feedback from victims and the support groups and on where and when we communicate. Another outcome of that was taking forward the introduction of video content that will be uploaded to our website and using different forms of communication. We have our leaflets, posters, website and FAQs, but we will explore other ways to communicate with victims who may not be so IT-literate or do not have a social media presence.

We are looking into all that. We have the support of our board committees. The operational committee will take on certain tasks and look for where there is maybe room for improvement. A number of pieces of work are going on, but the big one is the business transformation project.

Mr Kingston: Are you confident that the graph of application completions will rise as a result?

Mr Bullick: Yes, I expect it to. That is one of the key deliverables for that project. We are working very closely with Capita. I know that it is putting a number of processes in place. For example, it is bringing in extra clinicians and medical staff to reduce its audit queue. One of the important things is the audit of the quality of the reports. That will see a bigger throughput of cases from Capita back to the board, which will then allow us to list more panels and get more cases through to determination.

Mr Kingston: OK. You talked about communication and where and when it should happen. You will have heard the comments about the fact that certain groups are under-represented among the applications. I do not know whether it is you or the VSS that takes the lead on publicising the scheme. Is mapping taking place? Are publicity campaigns being customised?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We will ask Andrew that afterwards. Go ahead.

Mr Bullick: As we approach the four-year anniversary, which is in a number of months, part of our communications strategy and engagement plan will involve work with our media partners, stakeholders in the groups, VSS, TEO etc in order to put a massive focus on raising awareness in NI, the Republic of Ireland, the wider UK and further afield. We will do that through a number of forums. We will do news stories. We will probably do some media interviews. We will also reach out through various Governments, health agencies and Churches — we will use as many networks as we can — because we need to get the message out that we are approaching the final year of the scheme.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Go ahead, Andrew.

Mr Walker: Primary responsibility for communication of the scheme rests with the VPB, but we in the VSS have been trying our best to assist with that. The groups have provided the details of lots of contacts outside the jurisdiction to whom leaflets and posters can be sent. Information can be handed out that way. You heard from four or five groups in the first session that provide direct support, but another 42 community and voluntary organisations are funded by the VSS. There is a good cascade down through all those organisations to make their members well aware of the scheme and of how they can access the support from it. We have information on our website. We have leaflets that we pass out when we can. We attend other events such as veterans roadshows to point to not just the scheme but the wider health and well-being support that is there around the scheme. There is a lot going on. There is a lot more that can and will be done as we reach the last year of the scheme.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Thank you. Brian, do you have another question, or is that you?

Mr Kingston: I have one more, if that is OK.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes. Go ahead.

Mr Kingston: The current end date is August next year: is that set in Westminster legislation?

Mr Justice McAlinden: It is.

Mr Kingston: So it is not something that the Assembly can change.

Mr Justice McAlinden: The Assembly can change the legislation if it wants to.

Mr Kingston: The funding is from Westminster, however.

Mr Justice McAlinden: Yes. There seems to be some misapprehension that the scheme has already been extended. What happened was that the scheme opened in 2021. Those who wanted backdated payments had to apply by 2024. We then realised that that was going to leave a lot of applicants in the second part of the scheme who would probably otherwise be entitled to backdated payments not being entitled because they did not get their application in within the first three years. We went along to the Secretary of State; I remember the meeting with him. I said, "Look, the deadline is coming up. We are going to spend thousands upon thousands of pounds advertising the fact that this 2024 deadline is coming up. Can you at least tell us this: are you going to extend the backdating date to the end of the scheme or are you not?". We did not get an answer, so we then had to spend all that money advertising the need for people to get their application in, and, of course, the backdating date was extended and the money was wasted.

Mr Kingston: Hopefully, it brought people in.

Mr Justice McAlinden: It brought some people in. It takes a bit of joined-up thinking here, and we have spent quite a lot of money on advertising. Yes, there is the four-year anniversary. We will be doing more, but there is also a budget to be considered.

The long and the short of it is that the backdating date was extended to the end of the scheme, which is 2026. The end date of the scheme, which is August 2026, has never been tampered with. Whether that should extend is a matter for the authors of the scheme and the legislators. The board's work on the scheme will continue long after that date to process applications and to ensure payments and transfers to the next of kin etc. Should the scheme be extended? As president of the scheme, I should not comment on that. I can see the arguments one way and the other, but I am clearly of the view that a significant amount of money should be spent on advertising to ensure that people put their applications in before the deadline. However, I do not want to see a lot of money spent on that advertising campaign only to find out two weeks later that the scheme has been extended, because that is a lot of money that could be used elsewhere wasted on advertising. Give us the decision early on, OK? That is the key issue.

Mr Gallagher: I can add to that. On the extension of the backdating, the Secretary of State took a decision after the review of the scheme. The First Minister and deputy First Minister wrote to him to support that extension. They saw the impact that it would have on applicants and on the board if a huge raft of incomplete applications came in. That would then bog everything down with the board trying to get the information. If it is a decision from the Secretary of State again, we will look at that evidence. The Ministers were happy to support the backdating. As we approach the last year of the scheme, we will consider the Ministers' advice on that and, closer to the time, consider whether we want to support the full extension. That will depend on the evidence, the number of cases that are still on waiting lists with the group and the number of people who have not yet managed to access the support to put in an application. We heard from Justice McAlinden that applications that are supported by groups are of a far better quality. That leads to a better outcome for the victims, but it is also an easier process for the board because there are fewer gaps in the information. We will look at that over the next while and provide advice to the Ministers, if they want to support it.

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

Mr Walker: The experience with the previous deadline that was ultimately extended gave us an understanding of what it feels like to approach a deadline in this kind of scheme. We got lots of applications that were incomplete and not provided with the full support of the groups. As we move towards the end date of the scheme, be that August 2026 or another date, it is about planning and taking mitigating action before that so that the waiting lists can come down as we approach the deadline in order that we and the groups are not under huge pressure and the groups can do their best by individuals and get good-quality applications in.

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

Mr Gaston: Justice McAlinden, I appreciate your robust opening remarks. It is good that you were here for the earlier session so that you could follow up and give your thoughts on it.

In that earlier session, I made a comment about a victim whom we have helped in the past. When we asked her to sum up in one sentence how she felt about the process, she said that it was completely re-traumatising victims. Let us step through that process again. That lady worked in a solicitor's office and knew the importance of documentation and of keeping it. She got caught up in a bomb. She was blown up, buried alive and left with scars and PTSD. She then went to a victims organisation for help with the scheme. She went through the process, told her story and relived the event, which is understandable. She got help to make the application and was then sent to the physical disability team, where she had to go through everything again. That was a two-hour process, and she was then sent to the psychologist to go through it again.

If we are talking about making things more efficient, is there any need for people to go through the reliving of events twice? It could be done once. Yes, that lady was able to get her payment, but, unfortunately, her husband then developed a health issue and sadly passed away. For the lady to get help through the bereavement payment, she has had to relive her traumatic experience again. Yes, I understand that you can debunk what I say, and I sense the passion and care that you have for the scheme's integrity as the president of the board, but I want a direct response. Someone who was asked to sum up their experience in a sentence this morning said that it is completely re-traumatising victims. That has been the experience of someone who has come through the scheme.

Mr Justice McAlinden: It is so important for me to hear that. We have to comply with the legislation, which means that the applicant has to establish his or her case. We cannot assume harm, whereas other schemes can. For example, with the Historical Institutional Abuse Redress Board, if you were in an institution, you get money from it. We have to be satisfied, on the balance of probability, that an incident occurred, that a person was injured and that disability has flowed from the incident. That is our statutory duty. As a serving judge, I have to apply the rule of law. Although I try to balloon the entitlement, I have to, as part of my oath, apply the rule of law.

When Westminster gave us the scheme, the whole issue of psychological injury was, in essence, tacked on to the scheme very late. At first, the scheme was supposed to be for only physical injury, and then someone in Westminster decided that psychological injury needed to be included. That was fine. The scheme's disability assessment process, however, does not and cannot give us a diagnosis. Unless there is a diagnosis in the records that can be latched on to, disability experts are not entitled to make a diagnosis.

That case will have been sent for an assessment of disability, and the disability assessor will get all the notes and records. The disability assessor may say, "Hold on a second, there is no diagnosis here. Unfortunately, we cannot make a diagnosis. The board has to get a diagnosis". Either the applicant brings in a medical report to say that they have PTSD, severe anxiety or an adjustment disorder or else we have to get our bespoke clinician to make a diagnosis. That is not the way in which it should be, but that is how we have to operate the scheme to remain within the law. Capita will never give a diagnosis. The case is sent back to the board, and we then have to beg a psychiatrist or psychologist to trawl through the notes and records and give a diagnosis. If the diagnosis can be given without interviewing the person, the board will want that to happen, because we do not want a person to be re-traumatised. The notes and records are often paltry. There is nothing in them. For example, there may be notes about some first-generation antidepressant that was prescribed in 1972. What does that give us? It does not give us a damn.

The person then has to be interviewed in order for a diagnosis to be made, and that is re-traumatising. I do not want to do that. To comply with the scheme, however, I need a diagnosis and a disability assessment, and that means that individuals have to go through that process. I do not want that to be the case, but that is the way in which we have to operate in order to maintain the rule of law and apply the legislative scheme. The process is flawed, as it has the potential for re-traumatisation. If we can make the diagnosis from the records, we will. If we do not have records, we then have to ask questions. That is the difficulty.

Mr Gaston: I understand that, but I gave an example of somebody coming with the records, but it then took two years and nine months. I imagine that not many people will have kept any records. In that case, however, the records had been kept, because the person understood the necessity of keeping them. We have heard part of the reason for that today. How quickly the scheme was set up potentially led to some of that happening.

I trust that the situation will improve as we move forward. I am looking through the stats that have been provided. You have considered 28% of cases. Of those, 66% were approved and 34% were refused. Hopefully, in the years ahead —.

Mr Justice McAlinden: Absolutely. We have to improve.

Mr Gaston: I trust that you will take away that example case.

Mr Justice McAlinden: I will. Absolutely.

Again, I cannot go into the personal details in each case too much, but you have to remember that, under the regulations, we have to give priority to people who are terminally ill or who are over a certain age. In essence, we have to put every application that comes in that is for a priority category case — as I said, somebody who is terminally ill or over a certain age — on the accelerated pathway to make sure that we comply with the scheme. Owing to the resources available — manpower and so on — people who are not in the priority categories but whose cases are complex are not dealt with as quickly. Some cases are relatively straightforward and can therefore move through the scheme relatively quickly, but a lot of them are not.

I fully appreciate that we can do better, yes, and I genuinely intend to ensure that everything that can be done to improve our processing times is done. That is why there is a structural review, and that is why, at every board meeting, we go through the stats and find out what issues board members think are slowing us down and how they think we can speed up the process. We try to improve on the hoof. That is what we have been doing since the scheme was set up. The structural review will codify a lot of improvements. We are acutely aware, however, that people have been waiting for years, and the last thing that we should be doing is making them wait for years longer, because all that that does is prolong their misery, which is not what the scheme is about. The scheme is about amelioration of harm, not prolongation of harm.

Mr Gaston: I will pick up on a couple of comments that you made. One was about the Executive taking possession of the scheme. As I said earlier, I have serious concerns about that. When an Executive are led by a First Minister who believes there was "no alternative" and who has lauded terrorists, I do not think that they should have anything to do with it.

Mr Justice McAlinden: There are fundamental issues in this society that have not been addressed but that have to be addressed. I appreciate where you are coming from and the strength of your views, and I know that those views are opposed by other people, but we have to try to move forward. We really do. Everybody has to try to move forward. OK?

Mr Gaston: In response to another question, you said that, when you have requested information, an intelligence briefing has not been included and that, if you had received an intelligence briefing, it might have helped victims in a way and made their eligibility for the scheme —.

Mr Justice McAlinden: We do not know, because we have not got an intelligence briefing. We can assume. We can say, "Perhaps there is information about this individual", but the security services have not provided us with that information, so we have to take the information that we do have at face value.

Mr Gaston: There is a possibility that, because intelligence was not provided, perpetrators may have ended up getting money out of the scheme.

Mr Justice McAlinden: Usually, the security services do not provide information, but the PSNI will make some reference to involvement or whatever in the report. That can be utilised, but the security services will not provide classified information or anything of that nature.

Mr Gaston: This is my final comment. It is easy for people to point the finger at the state, because it has all the records and the details of what happened. The perpetrators — the terrorists — who inflicted years and years of terrorism on this country did not keep records.

While our First Minister continues to laud terrorists, this country will not move forward, and we will not get truth and justice.

Mr Justice McAlinden: Irrespective of any view that you have about the First Minister or about anything that the First Minister or any politician says, the whole legacy process is flawed, in the sense that there is an absence of openness in relation to the victims of paramilitarism. That is a continuing sore and a continuing cause of hurt in our society. Legacy must embrace everybody. The openness and transparency that is required of the state should also be required of those who perpetrated horrific acts of violence in the name of a political cause. There is hypocrisy from those who berate the state for not providing information and not opening up but, at the same time, do not require the same standards to be applied to the non-state entities that engaged in violence. That is part of the problem in our society, and that problem has to be addressed.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Before I bring in Harry, I have a question. You talked about improving the scheme on the hoof. We have had the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) in front of us a couple of times. It has been gracious, because it is not accountable to the Executive Office. To what degree has there been engagement with the Northern Ireland Office and the ICRIR about how they can learn from the process that you have been through?

Mr Justice McAlinden: Declan Morgan appointed me to this role. We have agreed that he will get any information that he requests from us. It is about giving his organisation the best opportunity to meet the needs of those who seek answers about how their loved ones met a horrible end. I have reassured him during our meetings that any support that the Victims' Payments Board can give his body will be unflinchingly provided. We have a good working relationship. He appointed me as a judge and as president of this scheme, so, obviously, he does not really like me all that much. [Laughter.]

We have a good working relationship. I admire and respect the man entirely and will do everything that I can, as president of the Victims' Payments Board, to ensure that his body is a success. The ICRIR is an element of trying to address the past to allow us to move forward.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you for that. To what degree has the NIO approached you for learning to help inform the changes that it is looking to make to the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Has it leant on you for help with the Legacy Act?

Mr Justice McAlinden: No, it has not approached us about legacy at all. I have not met the present Secretary of State as yet, but, with previous Secretaries of State, it was all about trying to persuade them to make a decision on backdating and on addressing the easy fixes when it comes to errors or omissions in the scheme. We have had those engagements, but we have had no meaningful strategic dialogue overall about how the scheme could be positively improved to address what we consider to be fundamental issues.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That is a really important point.

Go ahead, Andrew. I will then bring in Harry.

Mr Walker: I have a tangential point about the concept of learning from the scheme. We are working towards having a redress scheme for mother-and-baby homes, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. Although that is to be a very different scheme, there will be opportunities to learn from some of our approaches that have taken place here. The same is true of the historical institutional abuse (HIA) redress scheme.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. That, Patrick, is something that you will be taking on board as well.

Harry, thanks for your indulgence.

Mr Harvey: It is OK, Chair. Thank you, gentlemen. You probably heard my chat with a witness earlier about 2,100 applications. He described 1,300 of the applications as the "good" of the scheme. That still left 800 applicants who were put through trauma that, I am sure, they could well have done without.

Mr Justice McAlinden: Would they say that their experience had been traumatic if they had been successful? Some who are successful say that the process is traumatic, but a significant number say that the disappointment and the potential for re-traumatisation relate not to progress through the scheme but to the outcome, which can happen if their hopes are built up by a support group saying to them, "Right, we will put in an application", even though their application, like a lot applications from the bereaved, probably does not fall within the scope of the scheme. Support groups are trying to push the boundaries. They push people into the scheme when they probably know that it will not go well for them, and they then say, "This is totally re-traumatising". Why is that? It is because support groups have pushed people into the scheme because they want to push its boundaries, which is an understandable situation.

When people talk about re-traumatisation, they have to consider whether that is a result of the process or a result of the disappointment of failure and whether the disappointment of failure is a result of their being pushed into a scheme that is not designed for them by people who are trying to expand the scheme's scope. As I said, I understand why support groups do that. The concept of re-traumatisation is multifactorial, and we can and should ensure that the process is not re-traumatising or is, as far as possible, absent of the risk of re-traumatisation and that its duration is as short as possible. With those two features, we can try to minimise the risk of re-traumatisation, but other factors are outside our control.

Mr Bullick: I will add to that. Support groups have to deal with another issue. People come along who genuinely believe that they are a victim who is eligible under the scheme. On occasion, the groups, which are knowledgeable about the regulations, do their best to explain to them, "Listen, your case is potentially outside the criteria", but they insist on their application being submitted. I have spoken to a number of groups that say that that adds to the disappointment. Groups do their best in cases that clearly fall outside the scope of the scheme, saying to people, "This is not going to run, as it will not meet the criteria", but the individual is insistent. Perhaps it is about their wanting to tell their story or their just believing that their application should be submitted, with a view to then appealing the decision and trying to get the regulations changed.

Mr Gallagher: I will also add to that. Some of the groups do well, and it is important to keep emphasising the fact that people's not being successful under the scheme is not the end of the support that they can get from government. I know that Andrew will say the same. The scheme's regulations and the eligibility criteria are different from the terms of the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. There are less stringent terms for our support for the bereaved scheme for annual self-directed assistance payments through the VSS. That scheme pays out a couple of million pounds to people every year. It is not as big a scheme. It is not on a statutory footing, so it is not as secure as the victims' payments scheme, but it is something of an acknowledgement. Moreover, support and other services are available to applicants who meet the terms of the 2006 Order, which are wider than those of the victims' payments scheme. It is important to note that, even if people have not been successful with their application to that scheme, there is a lot of support for them through the RTN, the VSS and funded organisations.

Mr Harvey: Was the bar set too high? I would like Justice McAlinden, as president of the board, to comment on that. I really feel that, although you could not lower the bar, you have done your best to help people get over it.

Mr Justice McAlinden: I am grateful for that recognition, but I do not rest easy after hearing stories about those who have had a negative experience of going through the scheme.

The concept of limiting the recognition of the scheme to those who were injured, in the knowledge that there is a pool of victims in our society who suffered bereavement and who fall outside the scope of a bespoke scheme, certainly does not rest easy with me. It is unconscionable that that remains the case, and I do not rest easy dealing with a victims' payments scheme into which I try to shoehorn as many people as possible, knowing that, by doing so, many others feel, for arbitrary reasons, that they are being excluded. In trying to help some, I know that I am potentially causing re-traumatisation to others, and that is a terrible thing with which to live.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Do you want back in, Timothy?

Mr Gaston: Yes, I have a quick question. Will you set out for me how the applications are considered? Justice McAlinden mentioned the word "categories": are applications considered based on the date on which they come in, or are they placed in a category?

Mr Bullick: Consideration is based on the date on which they come in. They are in date order, and, as Justice McAlinden said, some of the applications will naturally progress through the system faster than others as we receive evidence, depending on how complete that evidence is. There are, however, two categories in which applications are prioritised: applications from those who are over 80 and from those who are terminally ill. If applicants are over 80 or terminally ill at the time of their application, they are prioritised straight away and flagged throughout the system. They are flagged to our information provider partners and to Capita. They are treated as priority cases throughout. Moreover, if applicants turn 80 during the process, our system will flag that straight away, and they will automatically be moved into the priority category. Similarly, if we receive medical information that they have been diagnosed with a terminal illness, they will also be moved into the priority category. There are no categories other than that for priority applicants and that for ordinary applicants. Applications do proceed at a different pace, however, simply because the information may become available sooner for one case than it does for another.

Mr Kingston: Patrick, will you tell us more about the scheme that does exist for the bereaved?

Mr Gallagher: Andrew, do you want to answer that?

Mr Walker: Yes. It is the bereaved self-directed assistance scheme. It is an annual payment that the VSS makes to over 6,000 victims and survivors who have been injured, have been bereaved or are carers. It is a much more modest scheme, with £500 or £1000 a year paid to those people. It came about as a legacy scheme out of the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund many years ago. The only part of the scheme that remains open is that for the bereaved, in recognition of the fact that they may find themselves unable to apply to the victims' payments scheme. The parts of the self-directed assistance scheme to do with injury are now closed to new applicants. We therefore now signpost individuals to the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme (TPDPS).

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Justice McAlinden, throughout the evidence session, a question has been burning in my mind about Troubles-related sexual assault. We know that, in Northern Ireland, the prosecution rate for that offence is so low, even when there is a degree of evidence. How could the scheme be improved, or a new, similar scheme set up, to allow women who have been subjected to rape or sexual assault to apply and be successful when they are not able to be successful in the courts? Is there a way in which that could be possible, especially given the history of prosecutions?

Mr Justice McAlinden: First, there is the criminal injuries compensation scheme at present. That scheme does not require victims of sexual violence to have seen a conviction be successfully achieved in court. Paul was intimately involved with the criminal injuries compensation scheme before transferring over to the Victims' Payments Board, so he can correct me if I speak out of turn. As long as there is cooperation with the police, there is an entitlement to make a claim under the criminal injuries compensation scheme. There is already a bespoke statutory scheme for victims of sexual violence, which does not depend on a successful criminal conviction having been secured.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. Do you want to add to that, Paul?

Mr Bullick: No, I was just double-checking something with Andrew, because he also worked on the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I appreciate that. It is about the wider societal issue of women coming forward.

OK, that was some session today. Thank you so much. I have one final question that I forgot to ask. When are we getting our new Commissioner for Victims and Survivors?

Mr Gallagher: The Ministers have interviewed the candidates. We got white smoke last week, so perhaps we will get white smoke soon.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We can live in hope. OK. Thank you, guys.

Mr Gallagher: The interviews have been completed, so we are awaiting the decision.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK, gentlemen. Thank you so much for your time today. We really appreciate it.