Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Welcome back to the Committee, ladies. Members, I will just reacquaint you with Oonagh McAleer and Mechelle Dillon, from Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice. We have heard from both ladies in closed session before about some of their own experiences. We have invited you here today to hear your thoughts, concerns and aspirations for the Bill. We appreciate that you have submitted your evidence in advance. We have all had the chance to read that, but you have the opportunity now to make some opening remarks.

Ms Mechelle Dillon (Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice): Good afternoon, Committee members and Chairperson. Thank you for inviting Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice to give evidence today. We welcome the opportunity to attend the session and welcome the Bill. Today, we would like to express our acknowledgement and appreciation of a number of points throughout the Bill and to propose amendments that we deem fit.

I will open with our acknowledgement of clause 31, subsection (1) to (5)(a), which clearly lays a foundation for who is entitled to payment. Whilst we welcome and appreciate the criteria highlighted in that clause, we want to draw attention to subsection (5)(b), the posthumous date. While we respect the investigation going on from 1922 to 1995, we strongly oppose the use of the date, 29 September 2011, for the posthumous claim for standardised payment. With that in mind, I can see the conflicting views on that date. On one hand, 1922 was a long time ago, and, yes, we have to take into account the relatives of the deceased. Would they still be alive today, and would they be aware of their family history? On the other hand, they were real people who experienced real trauma, and they deserve justice and acknowledgement, like the rest of us. That also includes babies who sadly passed while in those institutions. How can we forget about them? We also have to consider whether an inquiry ranging from 1922 to 1995 would have consequences for the time frame in mind for redress and whether it would prolong the investigation.

On 15 April 2024, the Assembly passed a motion to progress the baby loss certificate for those who experienced miscarriage before 24 weeks. If the Assembly had sympathy for that, surely it can have the same sympathy for any woman, girl or child who endured the horrors of those institutions and passed away before 29 September 2011. We know that having the start date at 1922 with regard to the entitlement to payment is unrealistic. However, we suggest moving it forward to April 1953, as the historical institutional abuse (HIA) inquiry did with its date. The majority of victims and survivors felt that the claims on behalf of the deceased should be allowed for both redress schemes, for individual and standardised payments, although some families felt that it might be hard to provide adequate detail for an individual assessment.

The majority said that the terms of reference should go right back to 1922, that being the date of the formation of the Northern Ireland state, and that the inquiry should have discretion to consider institutions and not be given a narrow, prescriptive remit. Again, that blocks out those who may have important testimonies to tell. Furthermore, the legislation stipulates that a partner or a child of a deceased person can apply on behalf of the deceased. That was an issue in the HIA inquiry. The legislation should allow the wishes of the deceased, as per their will, to be abided by. Some people do not have partners or children with whom they have a relationship, but their pain was no less and should be no less compensated. Many of those who have suffered as a result of those institutions will have seen their families fractured as a consequence of the hurt that was inflicted.

In order to avoid such unfairness, we consider that there should be scope for an application to be made by those who are the primary beneficiaries of the deceased person's will or where they can provide evidence to demonstrate, on the balance of probability, that it is appropriate for them to make such a claim. We must also consider those who have never had the opportunity to prepare a will through no fault of their own. We also consider it important to ensure that children of birth mothers who were taken from them and/or adopted by others can make a claim on behalf of the deceased parent, even if by reason of adoption they are not considered as their next of kin.

In addition, it seems clear that almost all claimants to the Magdalene laundries and mother-and-baby homes, including workhouses, redress scheme would ultimately be awarded figures in excess of £10,000 at the standardised payment stage. That was put forward in the consultation responses, and the figures must be amended. Our responses suggested an increase to £20,000 for the standardised payment. That is because, in 2017, the HIA victims and survivors received £10,000, and, with the recent inflation of the cost of living, £10,000 would not be sufficient. Survivors have suffered criminality at serious levels and lives have been ruined, so they should have compensation that recognises the extent of loss and damage. They should not be compensated at the same level as a whiplash claim. That would be a further insult. Furthermore, the £2,000 that is to be awarded to eligible relatives of the deceased is unacceptable and beyond inadequate. How can the Executive Office put a price on anyone's life and their experiences? Those people have gone to their grave without any justice or recognition: surely you can do better.

Before I hand over to Oonagh, I want to acknowledge and appreciate that any benefits will not be affected by either the standardised payment or the individually assessed payment. Thank you very much for your time.

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

Ms Oonagh McAleer (Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice): Good afternoon, Committee members, and thank you for the invitation to be here today.

To begin, I will refer to the HIA inquiry and to the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum, which states:

Whilst we agree with that, in 2009, victims and survivors of HIA spoke out, and the result was a report in 2017 in which mother-and-baby institutions were not included, and we were left out. We had been underage, pregnant girls. In fact, we were children. We would have been within the scope of the inquiry, but, because we were pregnant, we were discriminated against. Some girls had been only 13 and 14 years of age, and they received no justice. We had no options but to campaign for an inquiry for over a decade and a half, and, by the time that we are finished with our own inquiry, we will be into two decades. People are sick and dying. It is unfair to leave out anyone.

The inquiry must be inclusive of all institutions in Northern Ireland. Leaving anyone out would be adding insult to injury. The list of 11 institutions that is in the column on page 29 must be amended. All mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries, workhouses, children's homes and cross-border homes — for example, Fahan — must be included. The lack of clarity around that list needs to be addressed immediately.

There is the right to investigate all those institutions. There were so many systemic failings. Human rights were denied to young girls, women and their children who are now adults. We believe that the time frame from 1922 to 1995 and that all the adoptions and fosterings and those children who were boarded out should be included. We believe that the historical adoptions of our children should remain a factor, and not the whole adoption system of today's practices.

We believe that the inquiry will investigate systemic failings by the organisations and public bodies, but will it examine what happened in the institutions in the treatment of relevant persons while under the care of the prescribed institutions, when their children, now adults, were taken from their mothers?

We believe that no individual or institution should be overlooked, and no stone left unturned. We wish to be included as relevant persons, for example, the babies and children who died whilst in the care of those institutions and whose little remains lie in unmarked graves. The grounds have not been protected. We want to know who took the babies, how they were buried and who disposed of them in the mass graves in Milltown cemetery, Belfast, and Killeavy graveyard, Newry. We know that there are 2,000 remains in Omagh behind the police barracks, where there was a maternity wing for the workhouse. Those graves have not even been looked at. The ground is overgrown. All those institutions must be recognised.

It has also been pointed out that the releasing of documents for the relevant persons may cause them harm. That is a big issue for victims and survivors. We know a lot of detail, but people are still having trouble in accessing information. It would be helpful to provide relevant information and evidence for the inquiry to victims and survivors. Survivors are being told that their records could traumatise them. However, we feel that it is worse not to know that vital information. Withholding information is in no one's best interests. This is the truth and recovery process: without the truth, we do not have any recovery.

On clause 14 and public access to proceedings, a lot of victims and survivors are out there and are very emotional. They have been harmed from their life's experiences in those institutions. We believe that they must be protected at all times through the proceedings. There was no protection in the HIA inquiry. We do not want the same to happen in this inquiry. We need accountability.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you very much, ladies. Can we get copies of your notes?

Ms Dillon: We have copies for you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you so much. There is quite a lot in that, so it would give us a bit more time to digest it.

I have agreement with the Committee that we will not duplicate questions. So, if others do not ask questions, it is because you have covered it. Just be aware of that.

I want to pick up on the posthumous date, which you have spoken about not just today but in the past. I am struggling with any justification for it not stretching all the way back to 1922. You mentioned 1953 in relation to HIA. Do you want to speak to us about why you do not think that it should — I am not trying to put words in your mouth — just go right back to the start?

Ms Dillon: If you were to go right back to the start to 1922, if a birth mother were still alive today, she would be 103. If she had a child at the age of 16, her child would be 87 and possibly not with us. If we were to go halfway, it would be 1956. I do not know about going back so far. If you were to go back to have the 103-year-old, the child would be 87 years old and could still be alive, along with her child and that child's child. That is four generations.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): The reason for my grappling with it a bit is that this is meant to be an acknowledgement payment in some ways, and, if we were to exclude anybody, we would not be acknowledging all the women and their children who have passed. That is what I am grappling with a bit.

The other area that I want to ask you about is the amount. You mentioned 2017, and the Act went through Westminster in 2020. Responses so far have indicated that £10,000 is not enough, and there has been mention of between £12,500 and £15,000. Do you want to talk a bit more about why it is important that people feel that the acknowledgement — the redress payment — makes them feel that they are being recognised?

Ms Dillon: Goods and services that cost £10,000 in 2017 would now cost £13,443·71. That figure is from July 2025. When you compare £10,000 in 2017 with £10,000 now, it is nothing considering the way that the cost of living is going now.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Lastly, in relation to the purpose of admission, clause 31(3)(b) states:

I find that quite clumsy, and some of the feedback has been that it is unclear as to how people are eligible. Do you have any thoughts on how some of the words around eligibility could be tidied up to demonstrate why the women were in there and the treatment that they received? Do not worry if you have no thoughts on it. It may be something that we can come back to.

Ms McAleer: We will give that to you in writing.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): No problem.

Mr Dickson: Thank you so much for joining us today. This is very important to us, and what you have been saying has been very helpful.

I have an interest in the list of homes and institutions. Can I tease that out with you? Have you been able to identify places that, you feel, are not listed? How can you help us to find more places?

Ms McAleer: The list of 11 does not serve the purpose at all. The scope is not wide enough. We know people in our group who are not included. Even the children's homes are not there. They need recognition. People do not even realise that they are part of the inquiry until they see it in black and white. They ask questions and still do not believe what they are told, because it is not there. Until people see it, they have no security that they are in it. There were so many orphanages in Northern Ireland. They were in Portadown, Strabane, Omagh, Fermanagh and all over the place. Nobody has done their homework on that. This is happening now: it has been going on for a decade and a half.

Mr Dickson: Can you provide us with the names or addresses of those children's homes?

Ms McAleer: By all means.

Mr Dickson: That would be helpful so that we can quiz officials and ask, "Why did you not consider this place?".

Ms McAleer: Fahan is one of the main places. A lot of children were trafficked to Conneywarren children's home, especially from Newry. They were brought down, perhaps three at a time, from Newry to Fahan. That seems to have been a big path. Derry seems to be one of the biggest places where children were taken. If you go there, you will find that a lot of the children — adoptees — who are now adults whom we are talking to come from Derry. They were placed there. A child's mother might have come from Belfast, and she was shipped away to England or down to the South of Ireland, as far as possible from her child so that she would never find them.

We were stripped of everything. We are talking to you here today and trying to make you understand what happened, but you will never understand. You are getting only a small piece, which we as birth mothers are offering you. In fact, in our group, including the people who are listening to us in the next room, there are three more girls — women — who were underage. The HIA inquiry said that the institutions catered for girls who were over the age of 18 and that nobody in those institutions was under that age, but three of them are sitting there, alive today, as well as me.

Mr Dickson: I reiterate this to you and anybody who is listening: if you believe that you have a connection with some other establishment or place, please tell us.

Ms McAleer: By all means. We will send that list. No problem.

Mr Dickson: Thank you.

Ms McLaughlin: It is good to see you here today, Oonagh and Mechelle, and it is good that we have reached the point of your giving evidence on a Bill.

I agree that a lot of babies and mothers from Derry went to Fahan. The border did not exist for those purposes, so we really need to dig down deep and make sure that the relevant institutions are listed in the Bill.

I want to ask you for your assessment of the need to compel the religious institutions to contribute financially. How do you feel about that, in terms of justice being served? As you rightly said, we will never have an understanding, because it was not our lived experience, but how important is that piece to you?

Ms McAleer: The organisations that did this to us left us with legacies of suffering and mental health issues that will take a lifetime for us to get over when we have finished with this.

They should be made to pay — compelled — now. If they were compelled to pay up now, you could have a more manageable pocket of money and could even put the date back to earlier than 2011. We are talking about the taxpayers' money that our children are paying. I was beginning to wonder whether the pocket of money that you have is the reason why that cut-off date is there and whether the date is there because the funding is not there. We are not here to talk about money. We are talking about human lives — women who are like me and were in there and tortured. It was a torture chamber. That is what it was — nothing else. If you were to compel those nuns and other institutions now, it might leave a bit more scope in your pocket so that you are fit to go back and say, "We can turn the clock back to a suitable date and give the people the justice that they deserve".

Ms Dillon: It should not be down to the public purse.

Ms McAleer: No.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you.

Ms Ní Chuilín: You mentioned the concern about not getting access to information. The Chair and all of us are looking at different questions. We are just trying to pick up from what you said about the Bill. One of the concerns that most of us have, particularly with clause 16, is that the disclosure of the institutions is being done almost under a public interest test. We have concerns with that. Given that you raised that point, I am saying that just to let you know that those are some of the issues that we will come back to.

We also need to look at how we can strengthen the Bill to ensure that anyone can get access to information. We all understand the GDPR and human rights implications in the right to privacy and everything else. However, when you are looking at a public inquiry into an absolute scandal, the very institutions that were responsible for covering all that up should not be allowed to hold on to information that will give you redress and justice. I just wanted to let you know that.

Ms McAleer: People need to know the truth —

Ms Ní Chuilín: They do.

Ms McAleer: — and if you do not have your file in front of you, how are you meant to stand in front of a judge at an inquiry and tell the truth about what happened to you? It will not be the end of your story.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Oonagh, the Bill includes the potential for witnesses to be supported by legal services. We have heard from others that a level of legal support is needed in the run-up to the inquiry and possibly for elements other than the payment that will give people some redress. What are your views on that?

Ms McAleer: I believe that people are surely entitled to it.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I am sorry; I mean if you have the expectation that you will get a solicitor. I should have put that in clearer terms.

Ms McAleer: Most definitely. The reason why I believe there should be someone there for survivors, and I will say this as it is, is because you in here get legal representation. We are survivors. We need someone out there whom we trust, and they could be someone with whom we can grow a relationship and someone who is there for us. Sometimes when we go into places like that, we become a child again and they are the adult and have a voice. We are here today because of the other people out there who are sick and do not have a voice. They have not been involved as long as we have, so we are here as representatives for them today, and we are talking for them. We need that legal representation. I have been saying that for a very long time, because it is about trust. We need to have somebody whom we can trust. I know that you are not going to say that you are not on our side or anything like that, but you are neutral.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Some of us are not.

Ms McAleer: Some of you are not, but, in your positions, you have to balance it. We need to have someone who is there for us. We need that support mechanism. We need someone who will walk the road with us. That is very important. Does that answer your question?

Ms Ní Chuilín: It absolutely does, Oonagh, because we needed to hear from you that there is an expectation that victims and survivors who attend the inquiry and who may be witnesses will have legal support. That is not clear. It is clear for witnesses, but it is not clear for the process beyond that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Before I bring Timothy in, I will mention a point that I am grappling with. What weight will be given to the testimonies that the truth recovery independent panel has gathered? I believe that the panel has been given an extension for a few more months in order to take more testimonies. What importance will be given to those testimonies in the inquiry compared with those of others, such as you ladies, who will speak to the panel? We need to drill down into that.

Mr Gaston: I want to start with your point about our being neutral. I come at the issue believing that there is a moral duty on each of us who is engaged with the process to put something in place that is fit for purpose so that the hurt that has been caused over many years is recognised.

I will turn to schedule 2. I take your points on board, and I will follow on from Stewart's point. We need you to share with us the information about the homes and the places where you say that there are unmarked graves. The likes of me are in no way over the detail of that and are dependent on the witnesses who come forward. I have the Bill in front of me, but I do not have the lived experience. That is why it is so important that you come to Committee and share your lived experience and your stories and testimonies of what happened. I want to see a full list of who you believe should be in schedule 2. I want to know about the areas where you believe babies are buried so that we can chase that up.

You mentioned clause 4 in your evidence. Will you expand on that a bit more? Clause 4 is titled, "Definition of 'relevant persons'". What is your issue with clause 4? In what way does the Bill not go far enough? Are there aspects of that clause with which you agree? That information will allow me to have in my head the issues with clause 4 that you mentioned.

Ms McAleer: As I said, the list does not cover all the institutions. It should be a lot clearer about what the prescribed institutions are.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I do not want to put words in your mouth, Mechelle, but I think that you mentioned, for example, women who have had a stillborn baby or a child who has died as being "relevant persons". It is not relevant institutions; I think that we are now talking about "relevant persons".

Mr Gaston: Schedule 2 is about the homes, which is reinforcing —.

Ms Dillon: Are you talking about miscarriage?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes. That would have been —.

Mr Gaston: My question was about schedule 2. I was reinforcing the Deputy Chair's point that we need the information and the details about any other institutions. I then went on to clause 4, which is the "Definition of 'relevant persons'". You mentioned it, but I want to be crystal clear about what the issues are and what you want to see in the Bill.

Ms Dillon: That is grand. We can write that up and email it to you, if that is possible.

Ms Sugden: Thank you for sharing your experience. You are 100% right that we will never know what that experience or its lasting legacy feel like. I am hearing that the Bill does not reflect children's experiences, so I am keen to hear your view on how we might deal with their experiences. You are right: under-18s, regardless of whether they are mothers, are children. Where do you feel that the Bill does not reflect that, and how do you think that we can deal with how children were treated in all this?

Ms McAleer: Do you mean the women — the girls — who had babies?

Ms Sugden: I mean children or anyone who was under the age of 18. I am interested in your comment that they were not necessarily eligible because —.

Ms McAleer: They were not eligible in the HIA inquiry. Basically, we were left out and discriminated against because we were pregnant. If we had not been pregnant, we would have been in the HIA inquiry. It is clear as the nose on anybody's face that it was discrimination.

Ms Sugden: Yes. OK. Do you think that what the Bill is trying to do reflects the experiences of the children who were involved and their lasting impact?

Ms McAleer: It needs to be looked into in more depth, and probably more people need to come forward to give their stories.

Ms Sugden: That would almost be a piece of work that is additional to what we are trying to do in that —

Ms McAleer: Yes. Exactly.

Ms Sugden: — we have not looked into that issue on its own. Thank you.

Mr Harvey: Mechelle, you talked about grounds and graves that are not protected in places such as Milltown and Killeavy, but you mentioned Omagh in particular.

Ms Dillon: Oonagh mentioned that.

Mr Harvey: What more can you tell us about that?

Ms McAleer: From what I can remember from Marianvale, there were graves in the grounds. That ground has all been dug up and is gone. An archaeologist was there some time ago, and I think that the report that came back from that work said that the area was not suitable. However, there is still a small graveyard in Newry. In Carrickcruppen, there is a grave measuring 16 feet by 8 feet. I do not know whether Sean O'Connell put that into his report, but we told him that it is there. A man who works in the graveyard said to me:

There are three tokens of gesture on the grave that are from the Good Shepherd convent. They are distinctly on the grave. The tokens give the date of when the baby died but do not say when the baby was born. There is a date of when the baby died, but the baby had to have lived to have died.

At Milltown, babies are buried in the Bog Meadows. There are babies buried all over the place in Northern Ireland, and that is an awful shame. It is a tragedy. It is Northern Ireland's shame, but I know that we do not want to get into the Tuam aspect of it. I feel that those graves and babies need respect. Not only that, but not every woman who had a baby survived, and some of the girls who went into the institutions never came out of them. I remember a girl who was carried out the back door of Marianvale. We said, "Where did she go?", and we found out that she went out through the back door because she had died. She had taken an overdose of the tablets that we were supposed to have been given. The experience that we have and that we lived through haunts me every night.

Mr Harvey: I am sorry about that. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I have two quick questions. I have brought so many notes with me, and I just spotted them. There is a suggestion that we should include in the definition of "relevant persons" the fathers of forcibly adopted children. Do you and the people with whom you have been working feel that the fathers' voices have not been heard?

Ms Dillon: The father was about in the case of one group member, but he was told politely to bugger off. He did not get a say in what was going to happen to his pregnant girlfriend. Basically, fathers were told to go away and were told, "We will take this over". Even though that father was willing to take up his manly duties and stand up for the girl, it did not happen.

Ms McAleer: As evidence of that, when a girl went into one of those institutions, the question about the father was never asked. The father was always put down as "unknown", even on a birth certificate. That was not our choice; it was done for us.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Thank you. I have another very quick question. It is on clause 32, which is, "Time limit for applications for a payment". The Bill suggests that that should be three years, but some people have said that it is not long enough and that it should be five years. There would obviously be costs to keeping the scheme open for an extra couple of years. Do you think that three years is enough? What should we put in our Committee report on ensuring that people apply within three years? For example, what sort of communications strategy should there be? Do you have any thoughts about the three-year period and about how people could be encouraged to apply within that time?

Ms Dillon: I think that three years is sufficient, but, if it seems as though more people are starting to come forward in that period, it should maybe be extended a wee bit. See how it goes —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): There is a clause for that.

Ms Dillon: — and take it step by step.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Do you have any thoughts on how to make sure that people know about the scheme?

Ms Dillon: Advertising.

Ms McAleer: Some birth mothers that we have are 70 or 75 years old, and adoptees are getting older. I did not want to have to say that. Sorry about that — I have folks here —. Are you all right, Mechelle?

Ms Dillon: Speak for yourself.

Ms McAleer: Yes. I have lost my track; you have put me off the track.

People need to be told through the newspapers and the radio. Not everybody has social media; I am not that great on it myself. There should be something else, such as — I will say this — a roadshow, if you understand what I am saying. There needs to be advertising that says, "We are going to be in your area", whether that be Enniskillen or elsewhere. I am sure that you know where Belcoo and those kinds of places are. They are up in the heart and —

Ms Dillon: In the sticks.

Ms McAleer: — in the sticks of Fermanagh. Very few people out there know those areas, but, if you were to go to them and say, "We will be here", people would come.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Mechelle and Oonagh, for coming to the Committee and for all the representations that you make on behalf of yourselves and other people. Will you clarify whether most of the people whom you support are involved through mother-and-baby institutions? Are some involved through Magdalene laundries and others through workhouses? Is it predominantly about the people who were in one of those mother-and-baby institutions?

Ms McAleer: It is mostly about mother-and-baby institutions, but a small number are from the Magdalene laundries. A few people who were born in private nursing homes engage with us, and we can see their pain. Their pain is there as well.

Mr Kingston: I ask that, because the Bill is weakest on workhouses. Not everyone who is a "relevant person" under clause 4 is an "eligible person" under clause 31. We need to probe that with officials in the Department. Someone can be identified as a relevant person but not an eligible person for the purpose of redress. To be eligible, the person has to have been a pregnant woman who gave birth in the workhouse or a child who was born in the workhouse. I do not know whether you have looked into that. The workhouses aspect needs greater work. They are not even on the list of institutions, although there might be one on it. There is an absence of definition.

Ms McAleer: When this whole thing started up, it was all about the mother-and-baby institutions and what we knew about, what I knew about, what Mechelle knew about and what others knew about. Then we had institutions added, and the workhouses were one of those. Yes, that came to light only in the past few years. If we had known that all those institutions were going to be included, we would certainly have done a lot more homework on it. Now that we have an inquiry, we are left, as you say, with very little information about the workhouses. That has not been expanded out there. Very few people even know that this is happening. People who were in mother-and-baby institutions do not even know. Every day, we meet people who say, "I never heard of this. I don't know what's happening", and I know that they were in a mother-and-baby institution. It is very early days for the workhouses, and it is early days for any of the other institutions, including the laundries. A lot of the people who were in the workhouses will be a lot older, and a lot will be dead. We are willing to help in any way that we can to get more information on the workhouses and bring it back to you before the inquiry even starts.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That is a good point, Brian. I was speaking to the Committee Clerk and Assistant Committee Clerk this morning about that issue. You put it well: they can be a relevant person but not an eligible person. That is something that we need to look at.

Ladies, thank you very much. We will close the session for now. Obviously, there will be follow-up with you. We have two more sessions this afternoon in which we will hear oral evidence. I am sure that we will be in touch with you again.