Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I thank Thomas Lough, Michael Greig and Karen Clarke, who are all researchers and are responsible for pulling together these papers for us. The briefing will be split into two parts. The first part will provide members with information on areas related to the inquiry and redress, and the second part will focus on the financial element of the Bill. I invite our witnesses to speak to their papers. Thank you.

Mr Thomas Lough (RaISe): Thank you, Chair. It is nice to see you all again. Thanks for having us here to discuss the Bill. There are three of us here, so we will split it into three parts. Michael will take you through the inquiry part of the Bill, I will take you through redress, and Karen will discuss the financial implications. We will be happy to answer questions after that.

Just a couple of brief things before we start. Given time constraints — you have already had a long afternoon — we do not intend to cover every clause of the Bill or every potential scrutiny point from the papers that we have drafted. We will go through some of the clauses, notably the ones covering areas where there was particular interest from the Executive Office public consultation responses or where there are larger numbers of potential scrutiny points. The papers cover the Bill in full, so, hopefully, those are helpful for you and the Assembly as a whole.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Sorry, Thomas. Before you go on, is there a PowerPoint presentation?

Mr Lough: Yes. Sorry.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. Please continue, Thomas.

Mr Lough: The Bill paper also contains an executive summary at the start, which, hopefully, is helpful with some of the main scrutiny points that we found in the Bill. I thank the officials in TEO for answering some of our questions while we were preparing these papers. It was much appreciated. We do not intend to go through the background to the Bill, because you are all very well versed in it. If you are happy, we will just get straight into the Bill itself. I will pass to Michael to cover the inquiry section.

Mr Michael Greig (RaISe): Thanks, Thomas. Thank you, Chair, and hello, everybody. As Thomas mentioned, I will not go through the inquiry section clause by clause. Instead I will draw your attention to clauses of particular note, any relevant scrutiny points, aspects of the public consultation and, finally, a comment on burial grounds. Nonetheless, if any of you have questions relating to the other clauses or points that were raised relating to those clauses, I will be very happy to take those questions when we get to them. A couple of changes were made to page 3 of our Bill paper. That is why the pack was rereleased shortly before this meeting.

The first clauses that I will mention cover the inquiry itself. Clause 1 establishes the truth recovery public inquiry into systemic failings of institutions and public bodies between 1922 and 1995. It is inclusive of those years. It excludes the matters already examined by the historical institutional abuse (HIA) inquiry and, although the inquiry may consider the ongoing effects on individuals after 1995, it cannot extend the time frame of the inquiry itself. Clause 2 establishes that the terms of reference are to be prepared and published by the Executive Office. Clause 2(2) explicitly sets out that the inquiry will:

The Bill and the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) do not provide a definition of "systemic failings". The definition used by the HIA inquiry is referenced in the paper and, in our consultations with TEO officials, they clarified that systemic failings will be defined by the chairperson. That was the same approach that was used during the HIA inquiry. Additionally, the HIA legislation stated that any amendments to the terms of reference require the approval of the Assembly. This has not been included in the Bill as written. Currently, any amendments made to the terms of reference by TEO can only be done after consultation with the chairperson and after consideration is given to the 'Truth, Acknowledgement and Accountability' report. Changes do not require approval by the Assembly, and so the Committee may wish to scrutinise that particular area.

The 'Truth, Acknowledgement and Accountability' report recommended that the terms of reference include investigations into financial operations of the institutions. These recommendations are not explicitly included in the Bill, so the Committee may wish to consider whether they should be incorporated into the terms of reference as currently written. Other responses to the public consultation were that the inquiry should be following a human rights-based approach. TEO has indicated that, while human rights are central to the inquiry, having a sole focus might limit the scope of what the inquiry can consider.

Clause 3 provides a definition of "prescribed institutions", with provisions for additions to those institutions by regulation. Institutions added to the list to be investigated by the inquiry but not included in the original terms of reference are not automatically covered by the redress scheme. The Committee may wish to consider the potential risk for raised expectations among victims and survivors who were in those subsequently added institutions.

Clause 4 contains definitions of "relevant persons". This includes any person admitted to a prescribed institution, any person born while their mother was under the care of an institution and any person whose mother was under the care of an institution until immediately before their birth. At this point, I want to point out that the EFM states that:

Clause 4(2) provides TEO with the power to exclude certain individuals who may satisfy the conditions of being a relevant person but are outside the scope of the inquiry. The Committee may wish to seek clarification on how these exclusions will be applied.

I am going to skip ahead a few clauses, so I am not going to cover the rest of the clauses relating to the inquiry. These include the appointment of the panel, assessors, advisory panel, suspending the inquiry and ending the inquiry, to name but a few. Again, please let me know if you have any questions relating to those clauses.

Clause 13 discusses evidence and procedure. Clauses 13(3) and 13(5) enable the inquiry to take evidence via a live link. While that may help facilitate participation in the inquiry — for example, for people not based in Northern Ireland — there is a risk that older victims and survivors and those with limited digital access may be disadvantaged from joining the inquiry. The Committee may wish to ask what support will be provided to those individuals.

Clause 15 empowers the chair to impose restrictions on public access and disclosure. That includes overriding any confidentiality restrictions. The Committee may wish to consider whether safeguards are sufficient to balance transparency with privacy rights and ensure that that power is used proportionately.

Clause 16 deals with the power to compel by notice witnesses and evidence, and those notices are supported by enforcement measures and offences. I just note that the Department's human rights impact assessment states that the power to compel evidence may engage article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is the right to respect for family and private life. The Committee may wish to consider whether the Bill balances the need to compel evidence versus an individual's right to a private personal and family life.

I will skip forward to clause 21. The clauses that I have skipped deal with inquiry reports. Clause 21 enables the chairperson, with the approval of TEO, to award amounts to cover witness expenses. The EFM explains that TEO will set out the broad conditions under which expense payments can be made, but the Committee may wish to seek assurances on the fairness and transparency of those conditions.

The last clause that I will discuss is clause 27, which enables TEO to make rules relating to the inquiry. Those rules are subject to negative resolution, meaning that they are not subject to scrutiny. Whilst that aligns with the Inquiries Act 2005, the Committee may still wish to consider whether any scrutiny of those rules is appropriate under that clause.

The last point that I will make is about the evidence base on deaths and burial grounds. Whilst that is not specifically mentioned in the Bill, the public consultation document stated that, at present, "there is no specific site" in Northern Ireland:

Therefore:

The inquiry will rely on the power that I mentioned under clause 16, which is the power to require the production of evidence. A private Member's Bill is currently out for consultation: the private cemetery status (burial protection) Bill from Nuala McAllister. The consultation document states that an archaeological study of Milltown cemetery indicates that the size of the mass grave there may have been underestimated. One of the recommendations in the truth and accountability report was that the inquiry commission a geophysical and archaeological investigation of former institutional sites with the aim of ascertaining whether there was the presence of otherwise unmarked graves. The Committee may wish to take into account the fact that other sources indicate the extent to which grave sites have been underestimated and do require further investigation.

A few other recommendations were made in the 'Truth, Acknowledgement and Accountability' report. Those are all laid out in section 5 of the Bill paper. I will mention briefly a couple more of the recommendations that are laid out there. It recommends that the inquiry should lay out:

Whilst clause 10 authorises the chairperson to appoint an advisory panel made up of relevant persons, aka victims and survivors and their relatives, the Committee may still wish to enquire about other methods that are used to maximise victim and survivor participation. The report also recommended that the chairperson of the inquiry be appointed from outside the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland. The report also states that TEO should seek nominations from victims and survivors for a list of potential chairpersons. The Committee may wish to consider how that process will be followed.

That is all that I will say on the inquiry at this juncture. I will pass back to Thomas, who will take you through the redress payments that are presented in the Bill.

Mr Lough: Thanks, Michael. We will go through some of the clauses that relate to the redress service, which are clauses 30 to 42, and also schedules 1 to 4.

The organisational responses to TEO's public consultation focused a lot, as you can probably imagine, on the eligibility criteria and that side of things. I know that the Committee has a lot of interest in that as well, as do stakeholders and victims and survivors, so the majority of what I will talk about relates to those eligibility criteria. Those are set out in clause 31. That sets out the criteria under which the redress service will consider an application, as well as providing for the payment amounts to which an eligible person will be entitled. The Bill sets out the redress that we will provide for a standardised payment. As TEO has noted, that recognises the impact that admissions to institutions has had and continues to have on the lives of victims and survivors. There will be an individually assessed payment (IAP) following the inquiry, which will be a harm-based scheme as opposed to the one in this Bill, which is an admittance-based scheme.

The proposal for those two payment schemes reflects part of the truth recovery panel's recommendation for redress, and it was supported by the majority of respondents to the public consultation. However, the panel's recommendation goes further than what is being proposed in the Bill, saying:

The Bill's proposals for redress would cover victims and survivors in only some of the scenarios laid out in that recommendation.

Schedule 2 to the Bill defines "relevant institution" and "relevant years". Those institutions listed are a number of mother-and-baby homes and Magdalene laundries, but no workhouses or other related institutions are listed in that section. Notably, the independent panel's consultation response mentions a further mother-and-baby institution that it believes should be included for redress, which is Clogrennan in Larne. That came to the panel's attention through a victim and survivor who engaged with its process. Despite the suggestion that it be included in that list at schedule 2, the Bill does not list Clogrennan. The Committee may wish to ask TEO why that institution has not been added and what consideration has been given to its addition.

A number of organisations that responded to the public consultation wanted a wider scope for eligibility for the standardised payment. Whilst the Bill does not list every institution that people wanted included, paragraph 2 of schedule 2 does allow TEO to make regulations to add or remove an institution, so that power exists. Those regulations require the approval of the Assembly. There has been criticism regarding institutions that are not on that list. As I said, it does not provide redress for victims and survivors who spent time in, gave birth in or were born to someone admitted to a workhouse. The independent panel, in its response to the consultation, suggested that women who gave birth in workhouses and were separated from their children should be included as well as those children, now adults.

WAVE Trauma Centre was also critical of the exclusion of workhouses. Its opinion is that anybody who spent time in a workhouse during the relevant time period, irrespective of their gender, age, disability and pregnancy status, should be included in the standardised payment as the same mistreatment, discrimination and conditions existed there. In its clients' view, it is extremely harmful to exclude certain victims and survivors from that part of the redress process. Again, the Committee may wish to ask about TEO's decision not to include workhouses.

The Bill does not include redress for victims and survivors who spent time in private homes. Clause 31(2)(b) specifically excludes those who were in a listed institution but who were paying for private medical care there. A total of 70% of those who responded to the public consultation disagreed with that exclusion. In its response, for example, the independent panel said that women and girls who were separated from their child in such circumstances, and those children, now adults, should be eligible. That was also the view of the Women's Policy Group. The point was often made that they or their family may have paid for their care, but there were other reasons why that might have happened — for example, to cover up sexual abuse or incest within families. A point often made in responses was that the stigma and shame of being in those institutions existed regardless.

Clause 31(4) provides for children, now adults, born when their mothers were under the care of a relevant institution, or whose mothers were under the care of a relevant institution until immediately before the birth. to be eligible.

I know that the Committee has a particular interest in posthumous claims. Schedule 3 to the Bill clarifies "eligible relatives". The Bill as introduced allows claims to be made by a person who is the partner or the child of the deceased. The public consultation suggested 15 November 2021 as the date for posthumous claims under the redress scheme. The report on the consultation notes that 60% of respondents disagreed with that, and most felt either that there should be no date or that it should be 1922, in line with the period to be investigated by the inquiry. As you will be aware, the Bill did not go with that date, and clause 31(5)(b) proposes 29 September 2011 as the date for posthumous claims. That was chosen because it is the date on which the HIA inquiry was announced. A number of the organisations that responded to the TEO consultation suggested that there should be no cut-off date at all. The independent panel notes that the date used in the HIA redress scheme was amended to 1953, which was the date of an official inspection report on one of the institutions. The independent panel noted that evidence of the state's knowledge of what was happening in mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses goes back decades. On that basis, the panel suggested that there should be no cut-off date in the Bill. The response of the Women's Policy Group was similar. As you will be aware, campaigners, including some victims and survivors, also find that cut-off date unacceptable.

Clause 31(9) provides for the payment of £10,000 to anyone who was admitted to or born in a listed institution. An eligible family member of someone who is deceased will be entitled to £2,000. Under clause 31(8), a victim or survivor who was admitted to multiple listed institutions would be entitled to only one payment; however, they may be entitled to both the £10,000 payment and the £2,000 payment if they meet the relevant eligibility criteria. As you will be aware, the payment amount is a concern for a number of people and for organisations that responded to the consultation. The majority of respondents to the consultation — about 54% — were concerned that the payment was too low, or that was their main concern. Some organisations did not suggest a specific amount, but suggested that it should be increased. The Women's Policy Group, the independent panel and WAVE were three of those, and the independent panel suggested that the payment should be £15,000. The Committee may wish to ask TEO again what consideration was given to choosing different payment amounts and to their impact on the affordability of the scheme as a whole as well as on those who receive the IAP.

My final comment on the eligibility section is about rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. TEO's human rights impact assessment highlighted the fact that a number of the eligibility provisions in the Bill would engage protocol 1 of article 1 of the ECHR on the right to property and could engage article 14 on prohibition of discrimination. I am not a legal expert, so I will not go into too much detail, but it suggested that some rights could be interfered with by some of the eligibility requirements, specifically those that exclude private patients, victims and survivors who were admitted to institutions other than those listed in schedule 2, and families of people who died before the posthumous date. The impact assessment gives TEO's explanation as to why it believes that potential interference with those rights is proportionate — the convention rights may be interfered with, provided that it is proportionate — so the Committee may want to consider that proportionality, as TEO explained it in the impact assessment, in order to satisfy itself that those provisions, along with the others in the Bill, are compliant with the convention.

Clause 32 provides for the time limit for applications to the redress service to be three years, with the possibility of a two-year extension. The regulations to extend the redress service are to be made by negative resolution, so the Committee may wish to consider whether that is appropriate, particularly in light of, among other things — Karen will come to this — the financial implications of extending the scheme.

Finally, I will just mention the membership of the scheme and how applications are assessed under the Bill. Clause 33 is relevant here, as well as paragraphs 3 and 5 of schedule 1. Clause 33 says that applications must be considered by a judicial member of the service or by a panel of members, one of whom must be a judicial member. The service as a whole must have at least two judicial members, one of whom is the president of the service, and at least one non-judicial member. It will be for the Lady Chief Justice to appoint the president of the service and the other judicial members of the service. From the consultation report, most respondents agreed that this should be an independent body headed by a judge, but some concerns were expressed around it causing redress to become too court-like and too quasi-judicial and adversarial. A lot of respondents recommended the inclusion of victims and survivors in that part.

Redress in different places is always very different, so it is not always easy to compare, but, for comparison, the current chair of Redress Scotland has a professional background as a chartered psychologist and systemic psychotherapist. The panels that Redress Scotland uses have a wide range of people as members, and judicial members are not required. Judicial members are not required to make decisions on redress under the Scottish legislation. In that respect, the Committee may wish to examine what the rationale is for the requirement for having judicial members on those panels to make the decisions and whether having a broader multidisciplinary panel composition, similar to Redress Scotland, could produce a less adversarial process. You may also consider it helpful to understand from TEO what experience it considers desirable for the non-judicial members of the service and how it intends to appoint those members in a timely manner. Finally, you might also wish to ask TEO how many members of the service it considers might be necessary, which will also play into the financial side of it. With that, I will pass to Karen to discuss the financial implications of the Bill.

Ms Karen Clarke (RaISe): Hi, everyone. As Thomas said, I will go through the projected costs of the Bill, and that includes the inquiry and the redress scheme. As you will be very glad to hear, I also will not go through a clause-by-clause financial analysis. You have all had a long day.

Before I go on and talk about the specific costs of the Bill, it might be useful to take you through some recent research that was completed by the National Audit Office, the House of Lords and the Institute for Government, which have all done reviews of public inquiries across the UK. Some of the themes that they found might be useful background when considering this Bill.

First, the most significant cost driver for most of the inquiries that were looked at was legal staff, and that averaged around 36% of all inquiry costs. Second was the cost of establishing and maintaining the inquiry venue, including setting up and maintaining the IT, such as the videoconferencing that Michael has already mentioned. Other general running costs usually account for around 30% of inquiries' costs. In addition to the inquiry chair and legal advisers, most inquiries usually have a team of secretariat staff, which includes policy specialists, technicians and administrative staff who are all there to support the inquiry process. Typically, the costs for non-legal staff for an inquiry account for around 18% of inquiry costs. The length of time that an inquiry runs for is also a major driver for inquiry costs, and that includes the time from the very start, so the length of time taken to agree terms of reference, the length of time to establish the venue and the length of time to get the secretariat in place. Other minor costs have been identified, such as witness expenses, communication and consultancy fees.

As you know, TEO has estimated that the inquiry will cost in the region of £14 million.

That is based on a number of assumptions: that the inquiry will last for no more than three years; that there will be a chair and two panel members; that there will be an eight-person advisory panel made up of people with direct experience; that there will be around 320 witnesses or core participants; and that expenses for witnesses and panel members will be based on the Crown Prosecution Service's daily rates.

Although TEO makes those assumptions, it is important to highlight that a number of aspects of the inquiry cannot be fully tied down at this point. The terms of reference will dictate the scope and therefore length of the inquiry. Although the terms of reference will be drafted by TEO, that should be done in consultation with the inquiry chair. That has importance for the independence of the inquiry. It will not be possible to finalise the terms of reference until the chair is appointed, because the chair will have to be consulted. The terms of reference will influence the scope of the inquiry: for example, the number of institutions that will be considered and the number of witnesses who can be called. Expenses and the length of time that the inquiry takes will therefore be influenced by the terms of reference. As Thomas mentioned, TEO has allowed for 11 prescribed institutions. That is based on the Ulster University (UU) and Queen's University Belfast (QUB) research from 2021, but, as set out in clause 3, TEO can change that, if required. That can only happen once draft regulations have been laid with and approved by the Assembly. That is another point of scrutiny of which the Committee should be aware.

The size of the inquiry panel is another important factor that will influence costs. The panel has to be established in consultation with the chair, so, of course, we have to wait until the chair is appointed before the panel is formalised. TEO has allowed for an advisory panel of up to eight people, who will be paid an honorarium of daily costs. It has estimated that eight people will be required for around 42 days over the three years of the inquiry. The size of the panel, the number of days for which they will be required and the overall length of the inquiry will influence those costs. As I said, TEO has allowed for estimated costs for around 320 witnesses. Should the scope of the inquiry change, those costs could change. For context — to give the Committee an idea of how close this inquiry is to other inquiries — the HIA inquiry lasted 223 days and cost just over £13 million. Its EFM estimated that costs would be around £15 million.

As Committee members can see from our paper, we have suggested scrutiny points relating to the inquiry. I will highlight a few more of them. You may wish to consider what financial contingencies TEO has in place, should the inquiry take longer than three years, and how, when compiling the projected costs, TEO has accounted for any potential changes to the number of institutions to be investigated under clause 3 or to the definition of "relevant persons" in clause 4. The Committee may also wish to consider whether TEO plans to regularly and routinely collect financial information relating to inquiry costs.

When it comes to the costs associated with the redress scheme, as the Committee knows, the Bill as introduced proposes a statutory financial redress scheme to acknowledge past wrongs, not as a form of compensation. That is a one-off, standardised payment that is based on admittance to one of the prescribed institutions. In the EFM, the Bill allows for £58·2 million in financial redress. As TEO has pointed out, the proposed redress scheme will be demand-led. That makes it very difficult to estimate the actual amount that will be required, because we do not know the number of people who will come forward.

TEO has very usefully provided RaISe with background information on its underlying assumptions for those costs. It estimated that around 4,500 victims and survivors will come forward for the £10,000 redress payment and that around 6,600 will come forward for the £2,000 posthumous payment. As Thomas said, in some cases, people will be eligible for both. It is important to highlight how the demand could significantly impact on the cost of redress. For example, if we had even 10% more demand than anticipated, the cost of the redress scheme alone would be up to £64 million. Big costs could rack up very quickly.

In addition to the redress payments, it is important to consider the costs associated with the administration of the scheme. TEO estimated that the cost would be in the region of £2·6 million over three years, giving a total of £7·8 million. As Thomas also mentioned, under clause 32, TEO has the right, by negative resolution, to extend the administration of the scheme by a further two years. That would bring the scheme's total administration costs to £13 million. Given the financial implications of the regulations that could be laid under those clauses if the Bill is enacted as introduced, the Committee may want to keep a watching brief on that area.

I will highlight some of the other scrutiny points in the paper. How confident is TEO that it has identified all the relevant institutions for the purposes of the redress scheme? How did TEO account for any potential future amendments to the number of prescribed institutions and the definition of "relevant persons", given that, although clauses 3 and 4 relate directly to the inquiry, there may be future implications for the redress scheme?

I have a few final thoughts. The total cost to the public purse of the Bill as introduced would be around £80 million. The Bill and associated costings do not include a potential individually assessed harm-based compensation scheme. Such a scheme would follow in separate legislation after conclusion of the inquiry. As you know — it is noted in the EFM — TEO will seek financial contributions from responsible organisations where failings have been identified. You may wish to be updated on how TEO proposes to do that and what processes it will use. TEO has also highlighted the fact that it has been engaging with the Northern Ireland Office and the Treasury on a contribution from Westminster for periods when Northern Ireland was under direct rule. Again, you may want to be kept updated on the progress of those negotiations.

Mr Lough: Great. That is all that we will say on the Bill at the moment. As I said, the briefing does not cover every clause. If we have missed out anything, it is not because we think that it is unimportant; we just wanted to highlight some of the areas that the consultation responses or other things brought to our attention and that were important to mention. We are happy to take questions on those areas or anything else that is in the Bill.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you, all. That was really good. The papers are really thorough. You have obviously done a lot of work on the Bill, and I really appreciate that. It will help us in this process.

A couple of things jump out at me. The first are the assumptions that the Executive Office has made that there will be 4,500 redress claimants and 6,600 posthumous claimants. Considering the efforts that have been made — I am probably speaking more to the air here — to get people to come forward and give witness statements and testimonies, the number of people who have done so is low: it only goes into low three figures. I think that the assumptions are way off. I suppose that we should be asking where TEO got those figures from. TEO said that up to 10,000 people passed through mother-and-baby homes, plus their children, but the evidence of who has engaged with the truth recovery process to date —.

Ms Clarke: I totally take your point, Chair. As you said, the figures are based on the populations that were estimated in the 2021 report. TEO also looked at the number of people who came forward for redress payment in the scheme in the Republic of Ireland. As you said, the number is a lot lower than anticipated. Maybe that is a point to raise with the officials. Perhaps they are being conservative or risk averse.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes, probably. Another aspect that jumps out from your evidence is the 320 witnesses. The independent truth recovery panel has put in a lot of effort to take those witness statements. To what degree will they be taken, or will there be a duplication of effort when the inquiry comes? That is something for us.

I am not sure that there is a clear enough link between the scope of the Bill and people entering workhouses. Thomas, you touched on the harsh treatment in workhouses of only women, women who had children etc. We need to tease out whether we want to expand the Bill or whether we feel that the language needs tidying up a bit. Do you want to speak to the workhouse issue?

Mr Lough: That certainly came through in the organisational responses to the consultation. I spoke a lot about those, because they were the ones that we were able to actually see. The responses that mentioned that as regards the scope of the Bill were clear that conditions in the workhouses were also bad and difficult and that there was a stigma to that as well. There was a difference: some suggested that it was women and girls who were admitted there, and that, as with the other institutions, their children should be eligible; whereas others suggested that anybody who was in a workhouse, no matter their gender, why they were there or whether they were having a baby, should be included.

From the consultation document that TEO put out, my understanding — and I think that there is a bit more about it in the paper — is that there would be difficulties if they were to open up the redress scheme to workhouses. Bearing in mind the idea of the scheme, and because of the gendered nature of the system and the misogyny around that, to open it up to workhouses where there were men and women, and to then narrow that down to women, would raise a lot of difficult legal questions about whether that is possible and of potential discrimination. From TEO's reading of it, it is not straightforward, but it is definitely worth asking about that.

Ms Clarke: I think that the QUB and UU research paper mentions that record-keeping in the workhouses was sporadic, and that it might be much more difficult to include workhouses in any inquiry or redress service.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I appreciate that. It is just about the Bill being crystal clear on that. Thank you.

I am conscious of time. I call the Deputy Chair.

Mr Dickson: I am very much pressed for time: I have a school prize-giving to go to very soon.

I take the point that you make about workhouses, but another area that was raised with us is what happened to children who were moved into foster care. That is another aspect that is not dealt with directly in the legislation. Institutions moved children into foster care, so they had a duty of care to the child who was with foster parents. There is substantial evidence of abuse by foster parents and, therefore, by extension, the organisation that placed the children there.

Mr Lough: It is worth pointing out again — I know that you are aware of it — that the standardised payment that is legislated for in this Bill is, as TEO has said, supposed to be an acknowledgement payment related to those specific institutions, whereas the harm that was caused, which may be more complex, will be an IAP, but that will not come until after the inquiry. There is nothing to say when that might be, so it could be quite far down the line.

Mr Dickson: If this legislation does not alert you to the fact that those other things were possible —

Mr Lough: Michael may be able to speak to that. We will have to see whether the scope of the inquiry covers that and how the terms of reference are framed.

Mr Dickson: I want to ask you very quickly about the panel —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Oh, yes, the advisory panel.

Mr Dickson: — of people whom the chair can appoint. Is that up to a maximum number, as stated in the legislation? I think that it says eight: is that right?

Ms Clarke: The advisory panel?

Mr Dickson: Yes, the advisory panel. Is it a maximum of eight?

Ms Clarke: It is up to eight.

Ms Ní Chuilín: It is up to eight, yes.

Mr Dickson: In theory, however, the chair might appoint only one person or none. As it stands, the chair could decide that they could do it without a panel.

Mr Greig: The number of individuals on the advisory panel is at the discretion of the chair.

Ms Ní Chuilín: That is the point that Stewart is making.

Mr Dickson: Yes. The chair could go without a panel. Equally, there is no definition of what the work of the advisory panel will be.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We will need to tease that out in the terms of reference.

Mr Dickson: Yes, sorry.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I was contacted by a survivor who asked about the St Joseph's home on the Ormeau Road. Other members may have been asked about it as well. Other people have come forward in relation to the private hospitals. One girl who I met during recess said that her mother talked about being coerced by her parents. There was a lot of coercion and control. Another aspect that I am worried about is the workhouses. If we are looking at this through the lens of patriarchy, misogyny and all that, how will all of that be defined?

Stewart has covered the issues around the advisory panel. We have a bit of tidying up to do, because "up to eight" could mean none. It could be at least eight, with discretion for whatever. I looked at article 13 of the ECHR, which is the right to an effective remedy, and article 14, which, as you mentioned, is the prohibition of discrimination. The effective remedy may come in for men who were reared in workhouses. That is a big financial challenge.

The two papers are brilliant. They will be a great help throughout the passage of the legislation, so thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I know that they are in the pack, but I wonder whether we can have them sent as PDFs in an email. I always find it easier to work with that.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes.

Mr Gaston: I do not want to delay, because we have talked about this at length, but my concern is about contributions. It has been shared with me that we will almost be in competition with the South to get money out of the institutions that operated on an all-Ireland basis. I believe that there is unanimous support in the Committee for ensuring that something is built into the Bill whereby the state is not left to pick up the entire cost. There needs to be fair contribution from those who carried out the harms. Getting the payment is one thing, but we also need to ensure that we have the services to go with it. It should not be for three years or five years; people will need access to services for as long as they require them.

I will keep making those comments about contributions and services as we go along. It is very important for this Committee that, as we progress the legislation, protections are built in to ensure that people can get out of it the support that they require. This will cause a lot of trauma for people. We need to ensure that the legislative process does not make that any worse and that people have the help and support that they need to navigate their way through it.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Agreed.

Mr Lough: Timothy, on your point about contributions, which Carál also mentioned, there is nothing in the Bill about a legal requirement for financial contributions. Not to speak for TEO, but I know that TEO has said that, because of the type of scheme that it is — an admission-based scheme — it is perhaps more difficult to do that. The latter scheme — the harm-based scheme — is different because it looks at the harm caused rather than just the fact that it happened in an institution — and I do not mean "just" in a blasé way. It is also worth noting that neither TEO nor ourselves have found anywhere where someone has successfully legislated to force those payments to be made.

Mr Gaston: Even if you do not find that, that does not say that we should not push those doors.

Mr Lough: It is not to say that it is not possible. We discussed the Scottish scheme, for example. That is a voluntary scheme on the basis of a waiver being put in place, whereby, if someone accepts the payment, they cannot take a claim against that institution. There is an agreement around that. However, again, that is a voluntary scheme, and institutions do not have to sign up to it if they do not want to. I just wanted to make that point about the difference between the types of payment and how that plays into the funding.

Mr Gaston: Do you think then that, in phase 2, there will be a better opportunity available to get contributions from institutions because somebody is identifying a harm that has been caused? Not to quantify a harm, but that is almost labelling it to an institution: this harm happened in its premises and under its care.

Ms Clarke: It worked to some extent with the HIA inquiry. Following that inquiry, they were able to identify where there were failings within the institutions. Did they call them a "negotiator" in the South?

Mr Lough: Yes. There have not been actual contributions. I would not like to say what might or might not work, but, because you have an admittance scheme at this point, an institution might say, "Well, we are not contributing just because somebody was there". It may be more difficult to push against it when the inquiry has identified experiences and can set out exactly what happened in an institution. I would not say that it is an easier avenue, but, after the inquiry, that second individually assessed payment may be where —. In Scotland, for example, they have received some voluntary contributions from institutions. That redress scheme is a harm-based scheme, so it is more akin to the IAP scheme that will come following the inquiry.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That is a really important point. We are all keen to see contributions, but it might be easier to demonstrate that once the inquiry has concluded its work.

The Committee Clerk: Chair, the Committee is due to receive a legal briefing. We requested legal advice on the very subject of how easy it would be to compel organisations. That will come to us in the next couple of weeks. I just remind you of that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Thank you very much. I am sure that you will be before us again in the course of the Bill, but, for now, thank you.