Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): From the Executive Office, we have Elaine Allen, redress team; Martin Carey, programme director; Michaela Jordan, programme team; and Francesca Murray, inquiry team. You are all very welcome. Please go ahead and make some opening remarks. Thank you.

Mr Martin Carey (The Executive Office): Thanks, Chair, and thanks for the opportunity to come before the Committee so soon after the Bill's introduction on Monday to talk through the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM). It has taken us a long time to get to this stage, but we are pleased that we have got to the introduction of the Bill. We want to acknowledge all those who responded to the public consultation, especially victims and survivors. It is part of a much wider process of work outlining the design panel report, which included a two-stage investigation and a two-stage redress process. The Bill fulfils the second stage of the investigation and the first stage of the redress process. That, in itself, is quite novel and innovative, and a key element is to try to get a simple and inclusive standardised payment out to people as early as possible. That said, it is a very complex and sensitive piece of legislation; much more complex than, probably, we first realised. There are many moral, legal and financial implications to work through.

The draft Bill is just that: a draft. It is important that we listen to the views of people throughout the process, and we appreciate that some victims and survivors were disappointed by some of the decisions that were outlined on Monday. We want to reassure them that there was careful consideration by the Executive, and I am sure there will be the same careful consideration by the Committee. We look forward to supporting the Committee with that work.

Chair, with your permission, I was just going to cover a little bit about the starting position of the EFM and then the inquiry. Do you want me to stop there and then cover the financial elements and the redress process?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I have my questions broken down into different sections, but I am not sure what other Committee members want to do. Do you want to hear everything at once, or do you want to do the inquiry and then the redress process?

Mr Carey: It might be easier —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Paula, can we break it down into sections? It is quite big.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes, OK.

Mr Carey: OK, thanks.

I have a couple of key things to highlight in the EFM. Paragraph 9 outlines what the legislation is trying to do, which is to establish a statutory public inquiry, and then, secondly, a statutory financial redress scheme that focuses on the standardised payments. Clauses 1 to 29 of the Bill provide for the inquiry. They make provision for an independent investigation with statutory powers, including the power to compel evidence, which is in clause 16. There will be an initial redress payment, which is our scheme. That is estimated to cost £58 million and will support over 6,000 claims. It will support three main cohorts: people who were admitted into institutions, including birth mothers and people admitted to Magdalene laundries; children — now adults — of the birth mothers who were in those institutions; and posthumous claims. We expect about 4,500 claims relating to the first two cohorts and about 2,000 posthumous claims. The final thing that the Bill provides for is a redress service: an independent body to administer payments.

We have said on page 4 of the EFM that there were 269 responses to the consultation, and, in paragraph 22, we have outlined some of the key changes arising from the consultation. One of the key themes, which is outlined in paragraph 22(a), is simplifying the eligibility criteria. Previously, we included a 24-hour admission, and we had quite a lot of evidence to say that that would be difficult to verify, so we have simplified that to purely admission. We have amended how posthumous claims are made, and that will allow for separate and independent claims. That will be a £2,000 payment. There had been real concerns around privacy. Another change is to extend the redress service. Originally, we had consulted on the basis of its being open for up to three years, but we have extended that to up to five years. Then there is the addition of a victims and survivors advisory panel. The Committee had previously raised the role of state actors and the role of individual experiences and wanted them to be encompassed within the Bill.

I will hand over to Francesca, who will walk through the inquiry. I am conscious that there are some outstanding queries from previous evidence sessions, which we are happy to cover as we go through the process.

Ms Francesca Murray (The Executive Office): Thank you, Martin. I will cover the inquiry side. The EFM covers 29 clauses that relate directly to the inquiry. To summarise, the proposed inquiry will have powers similar to those in the Inquiries Act 2005, including the power to compel, which is in clause 16. I should start by saying that the vast majority of the clauses closely mirror the Inquiries Act, as recommended by the truth recovery design panel's report. There are standard clauses for an inquiry. The main purpose is to set up an inquiry that is independent, impartial and fair to all concerned and that allows for an examination of the facts. Four clauses at the start of the Bill, clauses 1 to 4, deal with the focus of the inquiry, and that material is additional to the Inquiries Act. The inquiry will cover the period from 1922 to 1995, and we can look at the effects after 1995. That is contained in clause 1. It also allows the chair some flexibility over the terms of reference. The Bill has scope to allow the chair to look at ongoing effects in the period. That was requested by some victims and survivors, who were concerned that the inquiry might otherwise miss the impact of their experiences throughout their life. The chair will have the flexibility to make any recommendations that they deem relevant, even if they are not required by the terms of reference. There is reference to that in clause 18.

The inquiry's focus will be on systemic failings by the institutions, including public bodies and other persons and bodies, and their pathways and practices. That includes the role of the state. Examination of pathways and practices may include the routes into an institution, meaning the admission pathways, and the various routes out and departure destinations. It includes the full web of connections to the institutions, including GPs, social workers, links to the state and links to how those people may have entered or left the institution. It also looks at the placement of children for adoption, fostering and other care arrangements on their departure but not to the parent of the child. The inquiry can hold persons accountable, but, within the limits of the Inquiries Act, it cannot determine a person's civil or criminal liability. That is a matter for the courts.

Human rights are central to the implementation of the recommendations of the report. In practice, that means procedural firmness, promptness, accountability, openness to public scrutiny and the involvement and support of victims and survivors. It is important for an independent investigation that there are clear principles for the inquiry to follow to make sure that it is fair, meaningful and centred around the panel principles.

The inquiry will have a framework, which will be clauses 2, 3 and 4. It will propose things that must be in the terms of reference. That relates back to clause 2. There will be a separate process to finalise the terms of reference, which will be informed by the chair and by anything that comes forward from the recommendations and findings of the independent panel. The full terms of reference are not in the Bill because we need to consult those people, but we thought that it was important to have the key terms within to give it a focus and to allow Assembly scrutiny.

Another addition from our consultation has been included at clause 10: the introduction of an advisory panel. The chair will have the power to create a victim and survivor advisory panel for the inquiry. The inquiry will be inquisitorial and not adversarial, so there will be no cross-examination.

Mr Carey: That is us, Chair.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. I have just spotted something — you need to read these things over and over again. Clause 1(2) states:

etc. Why do we need to add "Truth Recovery"? Is that not superfluous? When we heard from victims of historical institutional abuse (HIA), they said that it did not mean anything to them. Maybe that is something that does not need to be included. I do not think that you need to respond to that; I am just putting it on the record.

Clause 5(1) states:

The EFM states that the aim of the clause:

Why has that decision not been taken yet? Have you engaged with the Lady Chief Justice and members of the judiciary on that?

Mr Carey: Yes, we have. The design panel report outlined a process for a designate chair. That person cannot be formally appointed until the legislation is passed, but there is precedent with the HIA. Judge Hart was appointed prior, in a designate form, and then formally appointed once the legislation was passed. Some inquiries have a single chairperson. Baroness Hallett in the COVID inquiry is an example. I understand that she does not have an inquiry panel beside her; she relies on assessors and other advice. Other inquiries will have a panel. In Northern Ireland, we generally have panels; we normally have a three-person panel. Work is ongoing on that. We have received nominations from victims and survivors, and there are nominations from other sources. We are going through a shortlisting process at the minute.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): My point is this: does it need to be in the Bill?

Mr Carey: All that this provides is a power to do that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK.

Mr Carey: It is up to the inquiry chair to decide whether they want a panel.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Clause 4 is entitled "Definition of 'relevant persons'". Clause 4(1)(b) mentions prescribed workhouses. I think that there is a missing subsection there, and it is important that we see it in the Bill. It is about women and girls who were impregnated by the staff of the workhouses — women and girls who were, supposedly, under the care of the workhouse. That is another subsection relating to an additional layer of abuse that women and girls endured. I do not know how you are going to word it, but there is a section of women and girls who were impregnated, and that is why they went from the workhouses to the mother-and-baby institutions. Another section is missing, and I want to know whether you have grappled with it, because I do not know how it would go in there. It is about the babies who did not make it.

Mr Carey: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): There were high levels of infant mortality. How can their story be told in the inquiry? They are still relevant persons, though they might have been alive only for a day. I am raising that, because they are relevant persons.

Mr Carey: That is fair.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I turn to the submission of reports. I quickly scribbled that down. Clause 18(1)(b) on page 11 says:

Is it not the case that an inquiry would do that as a matter of course?

Mr Carey: It would. Some of that comes from the Inquiries Act. There is a provision underneath that one, which is subsection 2. It basically requires the inquiry chair to make recommendations where they are required to do so, but it also does not restrict them. This is a really important aspect: an inquiry chair can report on whatever they like, if they deem it to be:

If we look at the HIA inquiry example, we see that that was definitely the case. Judge Hart had the terms of reference, but if he deemed something to be relevant to the terms of reference, he could provide recommendations in relation to that. It is both/and.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I scribbled the last one down as you were speaking, Martin. It is about the time limit for applications. Clause 32(2) on page 18 says that it is "three years", but it then says:

You indicated that it was five years. Why would you put a limit on it, if the regs can extend it to five years? In other words, you do not even need to stipulate the number of years. You could say, "by regulations could be extended". We might have another pandemic, a collapse of the Assembly or something. It might bind us too much to include a specification of the extension time.

Mr Carey: You are right, Chair, in that what it says in the Bill is basically that the time limit is three years plus two years, which means it is up to five years. In the original consultation, we had it as two years plus one. We got feedback from the consultation that it was not long enough to make sure that people knew about it and accessed it. Your point was that you may not even need —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes, you could just extend.

Mr Carey: There is that power in subsection 2. There is a delegated powers memorandum, which will be received, if it has not been received already. It is by negative resolution at the moment. There might be something about that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We talked about that earlier.

Mr Carey: We are sort of walking through this. There is an element of Assembly resources and time as well. The Committee might consider whether that is appropriate and whether it should be a draft affirmative or negative resolution.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I was leaving that technical question off today. I thought that I had enough questions.

Mr Carey: Sorry.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you, that is all from me. Does anybody else want to add to any of that before we move on? No? I will go to the Deputy Chair first.

Mr Dickson: Thank you very much, Martin and team, not only for the work that you have done in preparation for the Bill but for meeting the Chair and me to take us through some of the highlights and important sections of the Bill prior to its First Reading. In addition to meeting us, you met some of the victims' groups. Will you tell us what their reaction was to their first sight of the Bill?

Mr Carey: We met victims and survivors last Thursday to outline the process that would happen from Monday onwards, the events that there would be and the support that would be available on the other side. Ministers met victims on Monday morning and outlined some of the policy decisions that were in the Bill. To be honest, the initial reaction was that there was a lot of disappointment. It centred on two or three key issues, which Elaine might cover —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): In the second part?

Mr Carey: — in the second part. It was not exclusively about redress, but a lot of it related to that. We are happy to outline some of the challenges faced by us and by Ministers around that. Disappointment was the overarching reaction. I do not know how universal it was, but that was the instinct on Monday. Michaela, is there anything that you want to add?

Ms Michaela Jordan (The Executive Office): It is worthwhile saying that we have received correspondence from some victims and survivors who acknowledged the disappointment that had been expressed at the meeting by a number of other victims and survivors but who welcomed the Bill and the fact that we had reached this important milestone. They are looking forward to seeing how they can work with the Committee as the Bill progresses through the Assembly. So we have had some positive feedback as well.

Mr Dickson: I appreciate that, but to what extent are you prepared to work with those? The ultimate fear is that people would refuse to engage with any of the process, and they would simply go down an alternative judicial route to redress. How willing is your team to ensure that we explore all the avenues to make the process as inclusive as it can be and to meet those fears and concerns?

Mr Carey: Absolutely. We are very happy. We have said throughout that this is a draft Bill. It is really important that there is a political Assembly process around that. It is about balance. It is a two-stage redress process; there is a second redress scheme to come. One of the limitations with a standardised payment is about trying to provide a common basis and trying to provide something on an admission basis versus those individual experiences. A standard payment is not going to reflect the experiences that people have had in institutions. That is a key difference. There are also lots of different issues around posthumous claims, for example. While the separation and independence cross off some of the privacy issues, there are still concerns around some of the decisions that were outlined.

Ms Jordan: As with the process that we undertook during and following the consultation, we have offered to meet victims and survivors on an individual or group basis. We are also planning to have clinics to ensure that everyone has a good understanding of what the Bill does, because we are a bit unsure at the minute whether everyone does have a complete understanding. At the meeting on Monday, there was no opportunity to go through the Bill in detail, so we want to give people as much opportunity as possible. As a group, victims and survivors are keen to work together to coalesce and come up with ways, either individually or as a group, to make representations to the Committee. We have plans to work together throughout the summer, with support for victims and survivors to aid understanding.

Mr Dickson: In reality, no two stories are the same, and they are very personal stories.

I have two very brief questions. The Chair raised the issue of the admission pathways and girls who were impregnated by workhouse staff. Those are important issues. To what extent are you satisfied that the inquiry will be able to reach out to the very edges of those types of concerns or, indeed, concerns that have not been identified yet but may be identified as a result of the inquiry? Is there sufficient scope to allow for something new or for those very difficult issues to be addressed seriously?

Mr Carey: Clause 18(2) is very helpful. It enables the chair to have some type of flexibility outside the terms of reference if they feel that it is relevant to their terms of reference. It is giving that discretion to the chair.

Francesca talked about a temporal period. Basically, if stuff happened outside the 1922 to 1995 period that they feel is relevant, that flexibility is there. Just to assure people, I think that was one of the concerns around the consultation. There are lots of article 8 issues around a person's right to family life and records. That is something that is happening today. That is a human rights issue today, and that could be covered in the inquiry. That is to assure you that there is sufficient flexibility for the inquiry to examine, particularly around spotlight cases. This came out in the consultation, and it was an excellent point. People said that they were not sure whether it was systemic or these things happened to loads of people, but if an individual documents and provides their testimony of what happened to them, that may enable others to say, "That also happened to me". It is the importance of individual experiences being reflected in a systemic way. This is flexible. It is a framework for an investigation, and there are lots of powers that can be used. Hopefully, that answers your question.

Mr Dickson: It does. You will be aware that there is serious concern about the issue of contribution to the ultimate compensation. In a sense, that takes me back to the admission pathway. Some admissions may have seemed to the individual either informal or personal to them, but, in reality, the admission pathway may have been part of a network of people who could talk to each other. The victims may not have known that there was a network in the background. It may draw in Church institutions in particular that have not yet been identified but that were implicit in recommending that so-and-so went into an institution. Can we be sure that they will be drawn into that element of potential compensation?

That really leads me to the final question that I have. It goes back to the fundamental question of the failure to date, across the UK and Ireland, to effectively draw in institutional responsibility for payments. We are not going to let go of that. We will seek our own independent legal advice on that. I set this out as a very clear warning: if it is humanly possible and human-rights compliant, this member of the Committee is determined to see that we find a route through that to make those who are responsible pay for their responsibilities.

Mr Carey: I agree with all that. The commitment to getting contributions from institutions or other responsible bodies is very clear, and that includes the state's role. In the EFM, we reference the engagement in the period post 1973 and during direct rule by the NIO and the Treasury. There has been no agreement about that, but it is being pursued.

Mr Dickson: Thank you.

Mr Gaston: Afternoon, all. I will start with the terms of reference at clause 2(2), which states:

Obviously, the inquiry cannot determine civil or criminal liability, which is understandable. I am very conscious that, for the duration of the inquiry, there may be evidence that comes forward. I hope that this has already been picked up and that there is a process in place. I am looking for a sound commitment that there is a process in place to ensure that evidence that may be presented to the inquiry will be referred to the PSNI to ensure that there is no breakdown of communication. We have heard previously that the PSNI has a dedicated officer working with the team on that, but I want an assurance once again, at this stage, that when evidence comes forward and criminal activity is identified, it will be robustly investigated.

Mr Carey: I will hand over to Francesca, but the short answer is yes.

Ms Murray: Generally, the inquiry chair will bring about protocols and things that will be published on the website and made available to the public. One of the protocols is usually a memorandum of understanding with the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) and the PSNI. There is a mechanism that, should any criminal activity emerge, it is reported and forwarded to the PSNI and the PPS to investigate whether criminal charges should be brought. That is something that an inquiry would generally do, and we imagine that that will happen and be brought forward.

Those protocols will come with the inquiry chair. We will discuss that with the inquiry chair. It is something that is commonplace, so we do not envisage that that will not be the case, Timothy. We cannot pre-empt what the inquiry chair will say. There are similarities with other inquiries. The Muckamore Abbey Hospital inquiry's key documents include a memorandum of understanding; it has the same obligation.

Mr Carey: People are coming forward to provide evidence to the independent panel. At this point, those disclosure protocols are in place for the non-statutory independent panel and will be in place for the statutory inquiry. That means that if someone discloses a crime in the course of evidence, there are clear protocols that such disclosures are passed the PSNI or the PPS.

Mr Gaston: As part of the inquiry, you may find people who have not engaged previously. We have already touched on the fact that the evidence that is brought forward may identify other failings. On the back of that, I am very conscious that there could be a lot of civil cases for damages that sit outside the inquiry. What thought have you given to that?

Mr Carey: An inquiry normally examines the facts based on written or oral evidence that comes forward. It is a separate process from civil processes. In reality, Timothy, some people will, perhaps, look to a public inquiry that has established an evidence base in order to support a civil claim. That is not uncommon, but they are separate processes.

Mr Gaston: We heard the term "power to compel". That is something that we have talked about at length in this Committee. Essentially, that makes me very uncomfortable, because when we have looked at our powers to compel the institutions to come in front of this Committee, we have never followed through with it. I think it is section 44 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. When I looked through previous records of the Committee where invitations had been sent to a number of witnesses, one invitee requested to come at a later date, three ignored our request and two were uncommitted. Where I am going with this touches very much on what Mr Dickson said. I want to ensure that those institutions are held responsible. When we have not progressed with our section 44 power to bring them in front of this Committee, what confidence can you give me that they will be made to come in front of the inquiry?

Mr Carey: Clause 16 outlines some of the powers and duties that require individuals to provide either written or oral evidence or other documents to the inquiry. There is also an offences element in the Bill. Clause 23 makes it an offence not to comply with clause 16, and there is a legal process that can begin at that stage.

Mr Gaston: In the past, when there have been conversations and communication regarding contributions, I have been very critical about the independent facilitator and his role in that. I was looking through previous minutes, which mention discussions being at a "delicate stage" and which really put us off pressing for those organisations to come. That does not wash with me. We need to do all that we can to ensure that. The state should not be paying for this. Yes, the state is responsible for a large element, but those homes have shunned this Committee in the past. They need to be brought forward to give evidence and to be held to account. I am putting the onus on you to make sure that when this comes out at the other end, it is front-loaded, and we are getting the money that they should have been paying. This is not a case of asking, "Will you give us some money to pay towards it?". There needs to be something in the Bill. From the Committee's previous discussions, we are very keen that there is an amount put in, or some sort of framework put in through which the institutions must pay. They cannot shirk their responsibilities on that.

With regard to "Advisory panel", at clause 10, there have been concerns in the past from those who came forward to give information. Can you expand on that, and give us some comfort about how that will be put together and will take in a wide range of views and opinions?

Mr Carey: It is for the inquiry chair to exercise that power. My view is that detailed consultation is needed on how that process would work to make sure that the panel is representative, is clear about what it is there to support and advise on and what is outside its advisory role.

We have looked at other advisory panels. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) in England had an advisory panel. I think that it was a seven-person panel, with larger panels in other processes, of maybe 10 or 15 people. There are precedents.

This will be quite a difficult advisory panel. There are lots of difference experiences in this process, and having something that can reflect all those experiences is going to be a challenge. Equally, it should help to inform the inquiry's work and support the inquiry to deliver, particularly for victims and survivors.

Mr Gaston: What input will TEO have into that? Will it be down to the chairperson to formulate that and share? You mentioned panels of five, seven or 10 members. Reading through the Bill, I do not think that there are any numbers.

Mr Carey: No number is specified. That will be for the chair of the inquiry to determine. Looking at other models, my instinct is that it would be between five and 10 members, but I do not know.

Mr Gaston: If it is with the chair to decide, it will be independent, and there will not be much of an input from the Department.

Mr Carey: No, there will not. This may be a slightly separate point — we may come to some of the financial effects of the Bill — but the inquiry will have staff to support it in a secretariat role. The inquiry is a separate entity and body, and the staff will take direction from the inquiry chair, not Ministers, but some of the staff within the inquiry could be civil servants, so that is the model.

Mr Gaston: Thanks very much.

Mr Kingston: I think that we will come on to the redress scheme; is that right, Chair?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes. It is just the inquiry now.

Mr Kingston: Yes, but I will ask this question now. Are the scope of the inquiry and the redress scheme the same? Schedule 2 contains the list of institutions.

Mr Carey: That is right. They are different at the minute. The investigation provides for a framework for investigations, with four institutional types. There is, then, a subset of those institutions, where we have evidence from the Queen's University/Ulster University (UU) report detailing them institution by institution within specific time periods. That has been the basis for the standardised payments, and there is a power to add to that list. What that means in practice is that those 6,500 claims that I talked about at the start of the session are tied to named institutions and named periods. That is outlined in schedule 2, so they are slightly different.

Mr Kingston: OK, so the inquiry will be broader.

Mr Carey: The inquiry at the minute is broader.

Mr Kingston: Right. There are mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries, workhouses, and I think that it then refers to other institutions.

Mr Carey: That is right.

Mr Kingston: Do we know how many other institutions will be included in the inquiry?

Mr Carey: That will be driven by two main factors: the consultation with the chair and the findings and recommendations from the independent panel. The panel has examined a large number of institutions, so there is a wider list than those examined previously in the Queen's University/Ulster University report. Off the top of my head, I think that, potentially,10 more organisations could be part of the investigation.

Mr Kingston: I think that there are 11 on that list. You think that there may be another 10, potentially, in the inquiry.

Mr Carey: There is another 10. The workhouses, obviously, were location-based. In the period from 1922 to 1948, 20 workhouses were in operation, so you could have 20 workhouses alone.

Mr Kingston: I will ask this question now because it will be duplicated in the second topic. I take it that there is a rationale for the relevant years. In some cases, it might be because those are the years in which the institution operated, but, in some cases, is there a cut-off year based on how the institution operated?

Mr Carey: Yes, that is right. Some of the institutions still exist in some form today but with a different function. For example, one of the institutions is now either a health centre or a homeless centre. There are different functions throughout the time periods, so we have tried to tie all the dates back to the original QUB/Ulster University research, which examined the experiences in those periods.

Mr Kingston: We have mentioned the universities' report before, and it is disturbing when you read about the wide range of circumstances in which people were sent to institutions. Sometimes it was unmarried mothers or unmarried pregnancy or pregnancies that somebody wanted to conceal. In some cases, people were sent for their own protection, some were sent as some sort of punishment or sentence and some were sent because of mental health issues. It seems like such a huge range and inappropriate for all those different circumstances. Quite frankly, virtually none of the reasons had to do with the welfare of the women themselves or their babies. Of course, there were coerced adoptions. Will the inquiry investigate the full range of circumstances, not just focus on the circumstances of mothers and children?

Ms Murray: When we talk about pathways and practices, it is about how, as you say, there was a range of people who, maybe, were entwined or involved in the admission of that person or why they were admitted into an institution. It is also about how they left, where they went, what happened and, maybe, where their child has gone. That is all part of the pathways and practices aspect of the admission and departure, and that gives the inquiry the opportunity to look at how that happened and at those things that were common or not common, as it may be, and the ability to report on that. That is how that encompasses those pathways and practices.

Mr Kingston: I have a final question. Obviously, there is good groundwork in the universities' report, but will the inquiry seek to delve further and take more evidence? Is the report seen as a good foundation?

Mr Carey: It is. It is an institution-by-institution analysis, but there is contextual and thematic analysis, and that will be built on by the independent panel, which has a broader range of experiences of people who have come forward. That will also examine different institutions. Some of the gaps that the original research highlighted were around baby homes, workhouses and private nursing homes. Those are three areas that, hopefully, the panel will be able to provide —.

Mr Kingston: Give me that again.

Mr Carey: Baby homes, private nursing homes and workhouses.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thanks very much for all that. I am not going to cover the points that other members have made or the questions that they have asked. We all want to make sure that the survivors and victims get what they are entitled to.

Martin, clause 16 refers to the powers to require production of evidence. You may recall that we raised the issue of public records and the withholding of records. You have mentioned article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights a few times. I am not disrespecting that. Article 13 is the right to an effective remedy. How will we ensure that that right is protected if the public records are not available to the inquiry or the people?

Mr Carey: As you said, Carál, clause 16 is about the inquiry's being able to access records. An individual's being able to access them is a slightly different conversation. The Preservation of Documents (Historical Institutions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 placed a duty on institutions and bodies, including statutory bodies, to preserve records. An inquiry can then request them. The final step is about access. There has been some good progress on adoption practice guidance, but there may be another legislative need around what the panel examines and takes evidence of when it comes to archival records, in order to improve access.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I suspected that, Martin. Is the Executive Office minded to bring forward even an amendment? It seems really unfair that, for decades, and probably then some, victims and survivors and their living relatives have been trying to get access to their family history, but they cannot. Then, an inquiry is set up that will have immediate access to that information, but the relatives still will not, unless there is some sort of legislative base for that to happen. You have been very methodical and sensitive in your approach. I urge you not to make people wait. Even if you need to amend your own legislation, there is no shame in that. We all want to see full disclosure to those people.

Mr Carey: I am happy to take that away, Carál. We have been trying to establish whether separate legislation is needed or whether there is something that could be fitted into the Bill. Some of those records are private records at the minute. We have some thoughts on how we would make those public records. The key issue is around access, which is the point that you made.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Clause 17 is about privileged information. It states that witnesses before the inquiry have the same privileges, which is grand. However, it provides an exemption from producing evidence if it is "incompatible with an assimilated obligation." It also refers to allowing evidence:

which could apply in civil court proceedings here. I really do not understand that. I am worried, to be honest. Public interest immunity certificates have been applied to ensure, particularly in the context of legacy cases, that families do not get information. None of us wants that to happen in any scenario throughout the passage of this legislation.

Mr Carey: I will talk about the root of that before going into the implications of it. That is a section from the Inquiries Act. It is very similar. I think that the provisions are used mainly in national security processes, but I take your point: is that really appropriate here, and is it really needed?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I do not think that it is. I understand your wanting to have belt and braces, but, for me, it is about giving someone cover who wants it. I do not think that it is really appropriate for that to happen here at all. I am not being pedantic, I just feel that it will cause suspicion. There is no need for it.

Mr Carey: Sure. I am happy to take that away, Carál.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Chair, I will leave the rest of my questions until we get on to redress, if you are OK with that.

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

Do you want to come in on the inquiry, Stewart?

Mr Dickson: I have one brief question, which has less to do with the powers that are in the Bill than with a question that might have arisen in the initial consultation. Were any semi-judicial or judicial powers used to compel people to go to a mother-and-baby home or institution during the period from 1921 to whenever the last date was? In other words, are there court records of people having been forced to go to an institution? There is a second part to that question: have we any information on or evidence about what happened to women who were pregnant or who had a baby and ended up in prison?

Mr Carey: Those are all relevant, Stewart. In Magdalene laundries in particular, some people will have been admitted under a court order. That is a potential admission route into a laundry. We do not know how common that was, but we know that it was a pattern.

On the subject of court orders more generally, particularly in relation to the adoption system, the adoption legislation came in, I think, in 1929. That went through a care order or court order and then an adoption order. There was a series of steps, so there will be court records relevant to the investigation. Some work has been done with the Courts and Tribunals Service to identify what records are held, and I think that, primarily for the inquiry, that is something for which the powers in clause 16 would need to be used.

Mr Dickson: Will that compel the Department of Justice and those who hold the records to

all those records?

Mr Carey: Yes, it will compel the court records.

Mr Dickson: Are we aware of any women who had their babies in prison and subsequently had their babies removed?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I do not know whether that is right for now. It is an interesting question —

Mr Dickson: Sorry, it is not for now, but it is a point.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): — but I am conscious of time, and we have not yet got to redress.

Mr Dickson: Apologies.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Sinéad, did you want to ask a question on the inquiry or to wait until we get on to redress?

Ms McLaughlin: I have a couple of questions on the inquiry, but first I want to align my concerns with those of other members about the compensation and the contribution to be made, in particular by religious institutions. It is important for victims and survivors to know that those institutions will be held to account financially. I just wanted to put my thoughts on that on record.

Thank you to everybody who has contributed to getting us to where we are. It is welcome that the Bill was introduced in the Assembly on Monday and that we will be moving forward on it next week.

I have a question about clause 4 "relevant persons". What kind of safeguards will be in place to ensure that the exclusion power in that clause will not be used as a way of excluding survivors or denying recognition for those with lived experience of institutional harm?

Mr Carey: I can reassure you, Sinéad, that we had quite a lot of debate about whether to put that clause in. We could have been silent on that, but we thought that it was important, particularly in relation to workhouses, because there were so many experiences in the workhouses. People could have been in workhouses for destitution, to work, or for care or medical services. We wanted, therefore, to identify the particular experiences in the workhouses.

To reassure you, the clause is more to define and help to shape the inquiry than to exclude. It is there to try to say, "These are the experiences that we want to look at". At clause 4(1), we are basically saying that we are interested in anyone who was admitted and any children — now adults — who were under the care of the institution and/or who were left immediately before birth. We have lots of examples of individuals who were in Marianvale going down the road to Daisy Hill to give birth. Their child — now adult — would never have been in an institution, but we still want to understand those cases and for them to be part of the investigation.

Ms McLaughlin: Martin, will any future exclusions or definition changes be subject to a meaningful consultation with the survivor groups?

Mr Carey: Yes. Relevant persons —.

Ms McLaughlin: I ask because I am really concerned about the transparency of all this.

Mr Carey: Yes. Sinéad, there are two things there. There is a separate discussion on redress, but I reassure you that clause 4 "relevant persons" is through regulation, so that goes through Assembly processes as well, and there is that transparency on the inquiry side. We can talk about the redress, because there is concern on that side as well.

Ms McLaughlin: I also seek clarification regarding the appointment of the inquiry panel members. I am going back and forth to find out what clause it is. Let me see: I think that it is clause 5. Anyway, how will we ensure that those appointments are fair and transparent? What mechanisms are you using?

Mr Carey: There are two different processes. In clause 5, the inquiry panel duties would be classified as conversations with a purpose. They are ministerial appointments, but we have asked for nominations from victims and survivors in addition to that and additional nominations from other sources. That will go through a shortlisting process, and then there will be a shortlist of two or three individuals. It will be for Ministers to determine the preferred candidate.

To give you an example of what we did for the independent panel — on clause 10, the "advisory panel" — we went through a public appointments process. That option is available, whether or not another method or model can be used. A key element of the advisory panel is about representation, where you have a mix of experiences in an advisory panel. Ultimately, that would be for the chair to decide, but that would be my instinct.

Ms McLaughlin: Am I reading this right? In clause 7, the First Minister and deputy First Minister have the ability to override potential conflicts of interest. Can you talk me through that one?

Mr Carey: Again, as is similar to the Inquiries Act 2005, the general principle is — we have tried to outline what a "direct interest" or "close association" is — that, in the event that you have a very suitable candidate who has lots of qualities and lots of experience and is the right person but is conflicted for a reason or there is a potential conflict, that will be declared, managed and assessed, and there will be a decision about whether the appointment was appropriate or not. For that conflict of interest, whether perceived or actual, there is a process so that it can at least be considered and documented. It would then be for Ministers to decide whether the public interest effectively outweighed the conflict.

Ms McLaughlin: OK. That is fine. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I have a broad question before we move on to the next section. If we think that our Committee Stage will end in December or possibly January and that the Bill will go through Royal Assent, when do you think that the inquiry will be established?

Mr Carey: We are in the process of trying to shortlist, and we would like to be in a position to appoint an inquiry chair over the summer or in the autumn, subject to our —. To be honest, one of the greatest challenges that we will face is about securing the right person. If we get the right person, there are obviously logistical elements around that. However, our strong preference is to have someone in designate form in advance. Lots of practical and operational things would need to be decided.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): You would not have to wait, basically.

Mr Carey: Exactly.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK.

We will move on to the redress.

Mr Carey: OK, that is great. I will hand over to Elaine for about five to 10 minutes. I am happy to cover the financial effects of the Bill after Elaine speaks.

Ms Elaine Allen (The Executive Office): The EFM covers 13 redress clauses. I will talk through some of the key ones.

Clause 30 establishes a redress service. Schedule 1 has more detail on the structure and the functions that the redress service will carry out. Generally, it is similar to the arrangements for the Historical Institutional Abuse Redress Board and the Victims' Payments Board in that an independent body will be established to administer it.

Clause 31 sets out the entitlement to a payment and includes the payment amount. The standardised payment, as Martin mentioned earlier, is based only on admittance, so there is no requirement for an individual to provide any information on their experience in the institution. As Martin said earlier too, that will come later in the second scheme, which will be called the individually assessed payment scheme. This legislation deals only with the standardised payment. The later payment scheme will look at the experience of the individuals whilst in the relevant institutions. For now, it is based purely on admittance.

The basis of the standardised payment scheme is acknowledgement to the people affected by a system of institutions established for women and girls where there was a gender-specific and undeserved shame and stigma attached to that admittance. For that reason, each individual will get only one £10,000 payment, even if they have been in more than one institution, because, as I said, their experience will be covered in the second payment scheme. This scheme provides redress on a common basis to all individuals admitted to the named institutions and their children. We have covered some of the different experiences that could have resulted in people being admitted to the institutions; a wide range of experiences is included.

Schedule 2 enables the Executive Office to amend the list or change the relevant time periods. We talked about that earlier. If the time period is not quite right and needs to be extended a bit, there is the power to do that.

This scheme is more inclusive than other comparable schemes and will inevitably incorporate a wide range of experiences, and the mother and their child both get £10,000. The child's — now adult's — application is predicated on their mother's admission. The child may never have actually been in the institution. For example, the mother may have gone to the hospital, and the child — now adult — may never have come back to the institution, but they are included. That was a slight concern that some victims and survivors had, but I want to be clear that, even if you were born elsewhere, you are still covered by virtue of your mother's admission.

A payment does not impact on benefits or take into account any other payments that you might have received in relation to this, for example, a previous civil claim. It does not require a person to sign a waiver against taking any future civil claims.

On posthumous claims, clause 31 sets out that an eligible family member making a posthumous claim on behalf of a deceased relative would receive £2,000. There is further detail regarding how that amount was arrived at in the financial effects element of the EFM. That approach, as Martin mentioned earlier, reduces the privacy concerns around the options that were previously put forward in the consultation as each eligible person now has to make their own posthumous claim rather than one application being made on behalf of everybody who might be entitled. The posthumous payment is based on what the deceased would have received had they been alive, so it is not a bereavement payment and is not a payment to the relatives of the deceased based on the experience of the family member. It is purely what the deceased person would have received had they been alive.

Eligible family members who can apply are the surviving spouse and partner and all surviving children, including any who were adopted into another family. For a posthumous claim to be made, the deceased must have been alive on 29 September 2011, which is the date that the Historical Institutional Abuse (HIA) inquiry was announced. Redress schemes usually use a date of state acknowledgement or announcement as their posthumous date, and that is particularly pertinent in this case because we are going back over 100 years. It is a sensitive and difficult area, and we appreciate that there is not a general consensus on what the date should be.

The Bill also allows for regulations to be laid so that an eligible person may be treated as not eligible. Really, that is an important safeguard should other institutions be added, so that we are able to specify particular cohorts in an institution in order that maybe not everyone is included because that would take in people who are not within the spirit of the scheme. We may never have to use that, but it is there as a safeguard if needed.

Another key clause is the power to require further information or oral evidence. That gives the judicial members of the service the power to compel evidence from anyone who has information. It is purely for the purpose of verifying an applicant's stay in a relevant institution. I can talk a bit more about that, if the Committee feels that it is necessary. There may be cases where the institution may not have the information for one reason or another, and the redress service will take all reasonable steps to find out the information from elsewhere.

The final key clause to mention is clause 42, which relates to the regulations that will follow the primary legislation. As you will be aware, secondary legislation is required to set out the procedural aspects of the scheme, such as the information that is required when an application is made. The regulations will follow later.

I am happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you very much.

First, Martin, I have asked you twice, and I am going to ask you a third time today — I hope that Hansard takes a good note of this — I want from you the cost of the research that was commissioned from Queen's and Ulster University and was published. I want the cost of the truth recovery design panel. I want the cost of the truth recovery independent panel, and I appreciate that it has not finished reporting. I am not so much interested in the consultative forum. I want to know how much we have spent getting to this point, because it is relevant to the following questions. If you have that now, that is great.

Mr Carey: I am happy to do that. The original research by Queen's and UU was £206,000. The truth recovery design panel was £266,000. The independent panel has not finished but has a budget of £2 million, and it has spent approximately £1 million of that to date. Those are the three figures, and they will come to you in written form as well. I apologise because it has taken a bit of time to get that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. I really appreciate that. In that space, we are up to £1·5 million.

The entitlement to a payment is covered in clause 31. Clause 31(5)(b) states:

Elaine indicated that you chose the date of HIA, which is a separate issue. HIA used the date of 29 April 1953. I contacted the commissioner's office today, but she was on annual leave. Why is there such a difference in the redress?

Clause 31(9)(b) states:

As I indicated, that means deceased. The Executive Office's victims and survivors of the Troubles strategy talked about intergenerational trauma; that has been acknowledged for victims of the Troubles. However, the £2,000 payment does not seem to acknowledge that the children, whether the adoptee or not, will have lived with intergenerational trauma. The £2,000 to recognise that is appalling and insulting.

Please tell me how you arrived at that date and how you arrived at the £2,000.

Mr Carey: We looked at that through the consultation, and we tried to document some of the key decisions. Some redress schemes do not have any posthumous claims, and a decision had to be made about whether to accept posthumous claims or not. In Northern Ireland, we generally have posthumous schemes. The Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme was backdated to the date of the Stormont House Agreement. Judge Hart recommended the September 2011 date, and that moved to 1953 through a political process. That is a harm-based scheme, and this is an admission-based scheme, and those are two quite different processes. As Elaine outlined, this is about when an individual would have expected to receive redress; it is based on expectation. It is not tied to a liability, a bereavement or an intergenerational trauma payment; it is not that. It is about an expectation of when the person would have received redress.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK, but, although it was done at Westminster, I was involved in the political discussions around HIA, and we recognised that they were subject to harsh conditions by even being in one of those children's homes or institutions, and that is why so many of them were included under the umbrella of being eligible. What I am saying is that I cannot understand why you are applying a different logic.

Mr Carey: A key distinction, particularly on the standardised payment, is that it is an admission-based scheme. It is trying to say that people —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): So was the standardised payment of HIA.

Mr Carey: HIA is, generally, a harm-based scheme.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I remember being involved in it. It is around the harshness of the environment.

Mr Carey: That is right, but it also required a statement-of-experience process post public inquiry.

Ms Allen: Whereas this scheme is based purely on admittance. It does not matter what your experience was: if you were admitted, you are entitled to the payment; whereas, with HIA, you had to —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I honestly thought that the standardised payment was made just because someone had been in that harsh environment.

Mr Carey: There is a fixed element in HIA, but I think that it is based on a statement of experience. I will have to double-check that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK, please double-check that.

A lot of people have been very upset about the date of 2011.

Mr Carey: They have.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): They saw their mothers living through the trauma of having their child taken away from them, and that date is quite insulting.

Mr Carey: We have received that feedback as well, Chair. We tried to balance some of those aspects in the redress scheme. There is a separate scheme to come: the individually assessed payment scheme. We are trying for around £45 million of this redress scheme to go out directly to either a person who was admitted or to a child — now adult — who was in or linked to their mother's admission. There is about £13 million in posthumous payments. It is about trying to get a balance between that mix and making sure that there is enough flexibility in the IAP scheme to make sure that we can provide appropriate redress to all the cohorts there. That is the sort of balance that we have had to make.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes, but it is grossly unfair, because there will be a huge tapering off of people who will have the memory and be aware of their mother's experience. It is an arbitrary cut-off point, and I do not think that it is necessary or in the spirit of the whole process of looking into what happened to these birth mothers and their children. I will leave it there. I think that the Committee will come back to that, time and time again.

You will be aware that the birth mothers etc are saying that the £10,000 standardised payment should be linked to inflation. The Westminster legislation was in 2019. If you take £10,000 in today's money — we have not got the redress, so we cannot project — it would be the equivalent of £12,771. If you took it at 2020, however, when the redress scheme opened, £10,000 in today's money would be approximately £12,500. I have heard the arguments from TEO about that being unfair to people who received a payment under HIA, but it is unfair that the birth mothers and adoptee adults are being asked to accept a smaller amount, in real terms, of acknowledgement money.

Mr Carey: Yes, I understand that argument. The HIA scheme just closed, so that £10,000 was available for people from April of this year. We have looked at the two international examples that we have of birth mother experiences. One of those is the Republic of Ireland scheme. It is difficult to get an exact pattern, but, basically, the minimum payment to a birth mother there was around €5,000 for three months in an institution — I will double-check that that is exactly right. However, it also excluded any child — now adult — who was in an institution for less than six months. This scheme tries to address that. It includes a lot of individuals who have been excluded in other processes.

Similarly, the forced adoption scheme in Australia provided, in Victoria, 30,000 Australian dollars — that is about £15,000 or £14,000 — for a birth mother experience. They did not, however, compensate — sorry, "compensate" is not the right word — or provide payment —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I know: acknowledge it.

Mr Carey: — to any adopted adults.

We have tried to balance those approaches. I take your point about inflation. In lots of ways, however, this redress scheme is about trying to get a bit of money to lots of people. It is not about compensation; it is about trying to get some money to as many people as we can.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK.

This is my last question, which goes back to the high levels of infant mortality. You outlined the Queen's and Ulster University research succinctly, so you know that they said that it was difficult because they did not have all the records. How will that mortality rate be factored into redress? Will it be in the individually assessed payments in cases where, for example, a mother has had a very undignified pregnancy that resulted in a stillbirth? How would that be reflected?

Mr Carey: That is probably one of the most difficult aspects, Chair. We heard directly from people about that during the consultation process. The short answer is that that experience of child loss at birth would be covered and captured in the individually assessed payments. That feels like the most appropriate place for that to happen.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Thank you. That is it from me.

Mr Dickson: The Chair very clearly outlined our concerns about both the compensation and the £2,000 payment. I appreciate that you have to have a cut-off date for the £2,000 payment. As the Chair said, however, it tapers, and I suppose that, in the extreme, you could cover all the way back to the creation of the Northern Ireland state. What about the 28 September or 27 September? How satisfied are you that somebody will not fall within literally a minute on the wrong side of that line? Birth certificates are to the minute, so it has the potential to be a very distressing point for people.

This should not be about pounds and pence, but have you costed out a range of scenarios for the payments?

Mr Carey: Yes, we have. We would be happy to come back to the Committee to provide evidence on that. There are lots of scenarios, so that is not a straightforward question to answer.

Mr Dickson: That is why I am not asking you to put a figure on it now —

Mr Carey: Yes.

Mr Dickson: — but it would be helpful to understand your thinking so that we can ensure that we are satisfied that money is not the issue on which you are determining that. I think that we need to see your working-out for that.

Mr Carey: Yes.

Mr Dickson: Another area of the Bill, clause 21, is not redress, but it does deal with expenses of witnesses. Is that effectively a standard payment? If not, how will it be assessed for each individual? Presumably, there will be travel to and from the inquiry to cover for witnesses, but I am interested to know what that payment will be and what it is based on.

Mr Carey: Clause 21 would cover primarily travel and subsistence activities for individuals who are providing oral evidence.

Mr Dickson: Yes, but at what rate? Have you determined what that rate would be?

Mr Carey: I do not know.

Ms Murray: That will be in regulations.

Mr Carey: Is that in regs?

Ms Murray: That will be covered in the regulations, which will come before the Committee after —.

Mr Dickson: Presumably it is covered by some sort of standardised formula that is used for —.

Ms Murray: Yes. There would be a standard formula, and it will cover the expenses of loss of time, travel, legal costs and other things. It will be set out in regulations, rather than in the Bill.

Mr Dickson: OK. There is one other issue that is in regulations. There is a list of relevant institutions at schedule 2. Are you satisfied that it is an exhaustive list? If not, is there room to add to it, should others appear?

Mr Carey: We are not satisfied that it is an exhaustive list. That is why paragraph 2 of the schedule provides the power to amend that list.

We can add or remove an institution by regulation, and we can amend the years. We are not satisfied that that is a complete list, but we are satisfied that there is a process by which we can add to or remove from it.

Mr Dickson: Thank you very much.

Mr Kingston: In Part 2 of the Bill, clause 30 states:

Is that the case? Will it be established in TEO? Will it be a Civil Service-led service? Does it exist now, or is that clause basically saying that it will exist?

Ms Allen: The legislation will establish it. Similar to the other schemes that we mentioned, another Department will be designated to administer the scheme and carry out its administrative functions. However, the service will be an independent body. The Department of Justice administers the Victims' Payments Board and the HIA Redress Board. It has been doing preparatory work for us for the past number of months on what the board would look like, its policies and procedures and operational arrangements, such as the number of staff that will be needed, IT systems and things like that. That means that we are getting it done in advance and are not having to do all that work at the back end of the process. There will need to be a formal designation once the legislation is in place.

Mr Kingston: Right. Are you saying that it has been decided that it will sit in DOJ?

Mr Carey: It cannot be formally designated until the legislation is passed. However, the Justice Minister has engaged with the First Minister and the deputy First Minister on that, and there is an agreement up to the point of legislation. That is very welcome, because it means that lots of the operational staff, infrastructure and skills that will be required for a redress service are available and can work on the process. It means that we are not having to pass the legislation and then think, "What next?". That agreement has been very welcome.

Mr Kingston: What is the expected timescale for the process once the Bill passes? What is that process likely to be? People will have to apply. We do not have a list of people. People will, ultimately, have to apply.

Mr Carey: That is exactly right. It is applicant-based, so people have to apply for it. Clause 42 covers the regs. We hope to consult on the regs prior to Royal Assent. It is slightly risky, but, given the process that we have, we would like to think that it is appropriate. The regs will come to the Committee as well. I cannot give you a definitive date, Brian, but we would like to do the secondary legislation in parallel with the primary legislation's receiving Royal Assent.

Mr Kingston: Right. Given the age of some of the people who are involved, the timescale is very important.

Mr Carey: Absolutely.

Mr Kingston: As we heard, the amount that is awarded will not be inherited. The £10,000 becomes £2,000. I am going to push you on that. Can you give us a ballpark figure? Come on — will it be within a year? What do we think? When will payments be made? Obviously, the Bill has to pass.

Mr Carey: Exactly. The key thing, Brian, is the passage of the Bill. That sets the timetable for the secondary legislation. You would want to be making payments next year.

Mr Kingston: Right, OK. Will you expect payments to go out in 2027? Apologies; 2026.

Mr Carey: Yes.

Mr Kingston: OK. I want to ask about schedule 3(3). Maybe that is meant to cover some eventuality, but I do not understand its purpose. It says:

I do not understand why it is necessary to say that.

Mr Carey: Do you want to come in on that?

Ms Allen: That is a legal thing in that an adopted child is no longer the child of the birth mother. It is to ensure that the adopted child is also included.

Mr Kingston: OK, so it is just a fail-safe to make sure that somebody does not lose out.

Ms Allen: Yes.

Mr Kingston: OK. I would have thought that it is obvious, but that means legally or whatever.

Mr Gaston: I have a couple of quick questions. The standardised payment of £10,000 is, obviously, a recognition payment for somebody who has been in or connected to somebody else who has. That does not prevent anybody taking a civil case. Will the second scheme be different?

Mr Carey: I do not know, but you would presume, Timothy, that, if you accepted the individually assessed payment, it would be a very common feature of a state redress scheme that you would —.

Mr Gaston: For the £10,000, that does not apply.

Mr Carey: For the £10,000, we just want to keep it simple and try to get some money out.

Mr Gaston: Clause 31(5)(a) talks about the eligible relative. For clarity, if there were six eligible relatives, the £2,000 each would come to £12,000. However, you are saying that there is a cap of £10,000. Is that correct?

Mr Carey: There is no cap. If there were six eligible relatives —.

Mr Gaston: They would receive £2,000 each regardless.

Mr Carey: Exactly. We tried to outline that a little bit in the EFM. It is not that scientific, but we have tried to look at something called a total fertility rate, which considers the size of the average family. In that period, there were probably in and around three children in a family. There is then a spouse or a partner and a child who was separated at birth. We think that, on average, there are potentially five people.

Mr Gaston: Is that how you arrived at the £2,000 payment?

Mr Carey: That is how we arrived at that figure. This is where it gets quite technical, so I apologise, Timothy. Posthumous claims, generally, are lower. People are less likely to make a posthumous claim, so we have applied what modellers call a deflator. Your propensity is lower for a posthumous claim generally. That is why we have a slightly lower cost on posthumous claims. You could have 2,000 claims, but you might have only about three actual applicants. I should maybe put that in a paper, because it is quite technical. In theory, there is no cap. The payment is not capped at £10,000. If you have 10 eligible relatives, it will be £2,000 each.

Mr Gaston: Clause 32(1)(a) and clause 32(2) deal with the time limit for applications for a payment. Clause 32(1)(a) states that an application for a payment must be made before the end of the period of three years:

and clause 32(2) states that that can be extended to five years. From my short time in Stormont and having worked on HIA, I know that, once it gets to the final period, there is always a rush and there is more publicity and more people talking about it. Does a maximum of five years need to be in the Bill?

Mr Carey: That is your point, Chair, as well, I think. It is actually quite expensive to keep a scheme open and to have judicial members there, and making it time-bound provides an opportunity to encourage people to apply. It is partly a behavioural thing that, if there is a deadline, people are more likely to apply to that process. There are balances there.

Mr Gaston: By putting in five years, that is the door closed. Once the legislation is through, that is the final deadline.

Mr Carey: If an individually assessed payment is coming on the other side, there might be a mechanism that you could administer. Someone who had missed out on the standardised payment could also apply. There could be a mechanism under that scheme.

Mr Gaston: Does that mean that the criteria for the second payment will not apply for the standardised payment?

Mr Carey: No. If you look at other harm-based schemes, you will see that the criteria for the second payment are factored on three key areas; duration; severity; and impact. There are lots of different models that you could use, but you can invite people, and it is very much about an individualised experience. One of the challenges that we faced with this is that we do not have enough information on some of the institutions. They would be better catered for the individually assessed payment, where you can look at those individual cases and say that a situation was the same or similar to that of someone who was in a mother-and-baby institution.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Sorry, something has just occurred to me. If somebody says, "Yes, thank you. I'll take the standardised payment of £10,000" or whatever, does that mean that they have excluded themselves from being able to go for an individualised payment?

Mr Carey: No.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That is OK.

Mr Carey: The individually assessed payment will be in addition to that. I am sorry if I caused any confusion.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): No. It is probably clear, but there is so much other stuff going on.

Mr Kingston: May I come back in? The estimated cost of the scheme is around £80 million. Is that the right figure?

Mr Carey: For the Bill as introduced, the cost is £80 million, of which £58 million will be for initial redress payments. We have applied a bit of a range in the EFM. As the scheme is demand-led, we do not know how much it will cost. It will be very much driven by demand, and there are limited means of control, Brian. There is £58 million for initial redress payments and £14 million for the inquiry, which, again, will be very much driven by the work and recommendations that we receive from the panel. Then there is about £8 million for redress administration. That is how the costs build up to £80 million.

Mr Kingston: Right. Does that mean that, at this stage, it is not clear whether an element of that will come from Westminster or out of the Northern Ireland block grant?

Mr Carey: At the minute, it will all be funded from the Northern Ireland block grant with a view to getting contributions from Treasury. There has been engagement with Treasury and the NIO on that, but that has not got very far or as far as we would like. That is how I would describe it.

Mr Kingston: OK. Has there been engagement with the institutions to get them to compensate the Northern Ireland public purse such that the money will be paid from the public purse in anticipation of getting it back? Is that in the Bill? I do not see it. Is that process under way, or when is it starting? Where is the legislation for that?

Mr Carey: Brian, most redress schemes operate on a voluntary basis, so there is not a legislative footing for contributions. The Scottish redress scheme has an obligation to report on that. That is slightly separate from its being on a statutory footing. The Republic of Ireland Government are examining and have examined that. A negotiator called Sheila Nunan negotiated with nine of the institutions in the South. Disappointingly, only one made a meaningful contribution, and that process concluded in April. They are considering what options are available to them.

Mr Kingston: Did you say that there is no actual legislation involved in that?

Mr Carey: We have not been able to find —.

Mr Kingston: Was that the case with the HIA scheme?

Mr Carey: It was the case in the HIA scheme. It went through negotiation, mediation and then arbitration. It was a quasi-judicial process.

Mr Kingston: OK. I am sure that we will get an update on that in due course.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Some of the questions that I was going to ask have been asked. Given that this is a voluntary scheme in the same way as the HIA scheme, will the negotiation be completed by the time that the inquiry starts? It is important that that happen and that the position of the institutions be reflected in the public inquiry. That may need to be stated, if not in legislation, in intention, because — well, you know what the issues are.

I want some further explanation, if possible, of the role of the British Government and the NIO, given the fact that the institutions predate devolution. Where are those discussions? You said, Martin, that you are not content with how far the discussions have gone, but is there no acceptance at all that something will have to be provided to the redress scheme?

Mr Carey: My understanding is that the Finance Minister has raised that with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and the First Minister and deputy First Minister have also raised it with the Secretary of State. Requests have been made about engagement.

The core argument is that lots of the institutions operated after 1973, and a lot of the experiences that we are looking at happened in the 70s and 80s, so there is a moral argument as well as a legal argument to that. There is also a policy element to it. Legislative changes in England and Wales were not reflected here for a period, so there was a 10-year period in which there was a difference. That is the moral and policy argument for it, but, to be honest, there has not been as much movement on it as we or as Ministers would like, but discussions on it are ongoing. That is the second point.

The first point was on the voluntary aspect of the scheme. Francesca outlined that this is an independent investigation. It is designed to establish what happened, why it happened and who was responsible. That responsibility will be a key part of the inquiry to determine the level and share of responsibility between state and other actors. That is an assurance that we can provide on that.

Ms Ní Chuilín: This is happening under the Inquiries Act 2005. Part 10 of the EFM outlined what you just said, which is what happened, why it happened and who was responsible. On the references to HIA and the rest, it is important that an up-to-date statement on voluntary contributions from the orders and institutions be part of it, because it is very clearly part of the acknowledgement — not the acknowledgement — for survivors and victims of the institutions. Have you even considered that, Martin?

Mr Carey: We have had some engagement with institutions primarily on the investigation of records. There have been discussions on the intention on redress and contributions. That will enter into a more formal process. We spoke previously about whether we could fit a provision on that into the Bill. There is no such provision at the minute, but, as we go through Committee Stage and get closer to the end of the process, that might be something that we can work with the Committee on.

Ms Ní Chuilín: It is important, because every member of our Committee, regardless of political party, has felt the unfairness in the situation, for want of a better term, and, on behalf of the victims and survivors, is really frustrated at the lack of development from the orders and institutions. It would be remiss of us, as a Committee, not to do something. If we cannot put something into the Bill, it will be left out, and I do not want any of the good work that you, along with many others, have done only to leave that part to the inquiry. It is important that we try to find a way for that to happen. We are talking about not only the financial aspect of redress but the public acknowledgement of it.

Mr Carey: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. I have a quick query. Will the redress scheme be open to mothers who gave birth in the South but whose children were adopted in the North?

Mr Carey: It depends on the scenario, but the person would have to have been admitted to one of the listed institutions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. I was just seeking to clarify that.

Mr Carey: If that were the scenario, the short answer is no, it would not be open to them. Every case is slightly different, but the principle is that they would have to have been admitted to —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): An institution in Northern Ireland.

Mr Carey: — an institution in Northern Ireland. Having said that, cross-border transfers and movements are a key element that the investigation would like to examine.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Sinéad, are you looking to say something? Go ahead.

Ms McLaughlin: I want to ask about affordability and transparency in the context of clauses 31 to 33. Can you confirm whether affordability concerns shaped the flat rate that is in clause 31(9)? When you were talking to survivors, why was a tiered assessment or a needs-based payment not considered?

Mr Carey: What was the last bit, Sinéad? You just broke up there. You said, "A tiered payment", and then there was something else at the end.

Ms McLaughlin: I was asking about having a needs-based payment model that is based on the severity of the experiences of the survivors as opposed to having the flat rate. Were affordability concerns taken into consideration?

Mr Carey: I will answer the first part. The needs-based approach will be factored into the individually assessed payment, which will be based on duration, severity and impact. That is designed to replicate in lots of ways what HIA provided for, which was a range of between £10,000 and £80,000, so it is based on an individual's experience.

We have looked at international examples and comparable schemes to determine what would be a suitable and commensurate level of award for the standardised payment. In all such decisions, consideration has to be given to the balance of where resources should be in not only the SP and the IAP but more generally. This is a big scheme, and there has to be a balance to make sure that there are resources to cover the individually assessed payment that is to come.

Ms McLaughlin: Has a fiscal impact assessment been done of the model that is in the Bill?

Mr Carey: We outlined the £80 million in the Bill.

Ms McLaughlin: You said that you carried out the impact assessment but do not know the numbers yet. Have you modelled it all out?

Mr Carey: Yes. We have looked at comparable schemes and at lots of factors, including propensity, which refers to how likely it is that individuals will apply. One of the interesting things is that you could have a redress scheme that is open for 20 years, and some people would never apply. We have factored in things such as that. That is analysis that we would be happy to share with the Committee. It will be important, as you go through the scrutiny process, that that is available to you so that you can look at some of those elements.

Ms McLaughlin: Yes. It is really important in the interests of transparency that we understand how that was modelled to begin with.

In order to future-proof and review, is flexibility built in so that you can have a midterm review of who has come forward and perhaps even a review of the flat rate if it is found that a reduced number of applicants have come forward?

Mr Carey: There is nothing in the Bill, Sinéad, that imposes a legislative duty to do that. If Committee members feel that that would be useful, it might be a good addition to the Bill.

Ms McLaughlin: It would be helpful to put something such as a midterm review into the Bill in order to evaluate how the scheme is progressing. If that were stated, it would give us another opportunity to make sure that those who should be supported are being supported, and it would help us to evaluate the scheme.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I do not see any other indications. Thank you very much for your work on the Bill and for having such a long session. You indicated, Martin, the possibility of setting something out on —.

Mr Carey: Yes, there were queries about the financial costs, which we will provide. Carál had a query on what would happen if you did not have landowner consent for a geophysical survey, and Brian had a query about the list of institutions. Correspondence on those items is coming to you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Was there not something about the thinking on posthumous applications as well?

Mr Carey: Yes, that was just about the modelling that we have to provide. It is quite detailed. I do not know whether that would be for a separate session, but we are happy to send that information so that you can have a look at it and see what you think.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): It would be useful to have some of that before summer recess so that we will have time to digest it before we come back for the evidence sessions. If we could get some of that sooner rather than later, it would be appreciated.

Mr Carey: We will try our best.

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