Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): You are all welcome here today. We will be looking at the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill. I welcome Andrew Walker, chief executive of the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS); Sandra Peake, chief executive of WAVE Trauma Centre; and Ciara Scully, CEO of Adopt NI. Thank you for providing papers in advance. They were very useful and well set out. I will hand over to you to make some opening remarks.

Mr Andrew Walker (Victims and Survivors Service): Thank you, Chair. I will make some remarks on behalf of the three of us. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you again today. I represent the Victims and Survivors Service, and I am joined by colleagues from our community partner organisations. They are Dr Sandra Peake, the chief executive of WAVE Trauma Centre, and Ciara Scully, chief executive of Adopt NI. We appreciate the invitation to contribute today as you continue your important work of scrutinising the Bill.

Together, our three organisations form a partnership, and we have been working together since September 2022 to support victims and survivors who have been impacted by the institutions, their pathways and practices. Since the launch of the services in 2022, over 500 individuals have accessed support. Our model is survivor-led, trauma-informed and built on collaboration. Our roles are distinct. VSS is an arm's-length body (ALB) of the Executive Office and is responsible for delivering support and services both directly and through the appointment and funding of community partner organisations. WAVE and Adopt NI are our community partners and are independent charities engaged directly in community-based service provision. Our shared purpose is clear: to ensure that those who have been affected are heard, supported and empowered.

The Bill represents a significant and welcome step forward. It offers the potential for truth, acknowledgement and redress. It also brings a responsibility to ensure that any processes that it establishes are not only trauma-informed but ethically grounded and emotionally attuned. From our experience of supporting victims and survivors of the Troubles and conflict, as well as survivors of historical institutional abuse (HIA), we know that the design and delivery of processes relating to truth, acknowledgement and redress must be trauma-informed at every stage. Survivors are not simply participants in the process; they are individuals whose lives have been shaped by profound violations of trust and care. The systems that we build together under the direction of the Bill must reflect that reality. We must be mindful of the fact that even well-intentioned processes can risk re-traumatisation if they are not carefully designed and delivered. That is why the trauma-informed principles of safety, choice, trust, collaboration and empowerment must be embedded throughout the process.

With that in mind, we particularly welcome the Bill's provision that will allow the chair of the inquiry panel to appoint an advisory panel. We believe that it is fundamentally important that the survivor voices are embedded firmly in the mechanisms of the inquiry. Survivor participation is not just symbolic; it is essential to the credibility and effectiveness of the process. International best practice shows us that inquiries are strengthened when survivors are not only consulted but included as experts in their own experience.

We also highlighted the importance of access to records in order to support participation in the inquiry and enable applications for redress. We know that access to records has been and continues to be challenging for survivors and their families. Without effective and timely access to personal records, many survivors face barriers to engaging fully with the processes that are intended to support them. That is not just a technical issue; it is a matter of dignity, identity and justice. As the processes on participation in the inquiry and application for redress are developed, it is crucial that the reality of survivors' experiences of accessing records is understood and taken into account.

In parallel, efforts to make accessing records a more efficient process will bring great benefit to survivors who are seeking to participate in the inquiry and/or redress, which will, in turn, improve the effectiveness of the inquiry and redress scheme. On redress, we re-emphasise that the value of co-design, mapping the applicant journey, involving survivors and shaping regulations while ensuring that there is clear, compassionate communication will all be critical to building a scheme that is trusted and effective. We have commenced that work with colleagues in the Executive Office and with the shadow truth recovery redress service. We know from experience that, when survivors are involved in shaping the systems that affect them, those systems are more likely to be responsive, respectful and fit for purpose.

We also note the sensitivities around posthumous eligibility, payment levels and time limits. Those are complex and emotive issues. They touch on grief, recognition and fairness. The Bill proposes a posthumous cut-off date of 29 September 2011, and we are aware that many survivors and their families feel strongly that a different date or no date at all should apply. The consultation process also led to strong feelings among survivors about the values of proposed redress payments for applicants and posthumous applications.

Beyond the Bill, we must also consider the wider context. Survivors will need ongoing support whether or not they engage with the inquiry and redress scheme. Communication is critical. We know from other similar processes that we have been involved in that communication must be clear, consistent and compassionate and designed not just to inform but to reassure and empower survivors.

Survivor voices are central to success in such sensitive processes. We note the ongoing role of the consultative forum and the need to ensure clarity for survivors about the roles and remits of the consultative forum; the advisory panel, once it is formed; the Executive Office; Victims and Survivors Service; and our community partners, particularly when advocating for survivors.

Finally, we reassure the Committee that VSS, WAVE and Adopt NI remain committed to supporting victims and survivors before, during and after the passage of the Bill. We will continue to work closely with the Executive Office, the shadow truth recovery redress service and, most important, those who are directly affected.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you today. We look forward to taking some questions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you very much. For anybody who is watching online, I should say that "VSS" means the Victims and Survivors Service. I am just conscious of the fact that we will use that abbreviation.

I will pick up on the comments that you made about the responsibility for the inquiry to be trauma-informed and to have awareness of its traumatic nature. I am conscious of the fact that we have had a lot of inquiries in Northern Ireland and that those have sometimes led to campaigners feeling quite let down. How can we best meet their expectations? How do we reflect the fact that there could be a divergence in aspirations or expectations from the birth mothers to the adult adoptees?

Mr Walker: It is about building in those trauma-informed principles of trust, safety, choice, empowerment and collaboration. We have seen the beginnings of that in the way in which the Committee started the process. It is important to have that from the beginning. I know that you have had familiarisation sessions that have allowed people to understand what the process will be like. We need to apply that approach all the way through the different elements of the inquiry and redress.

We have very much started to do that in our work with Executive Office colleagues on the redress side of things. We are ensuring that we learn from the experience of the previous processes that we have been involved in, including the historical institutional abuse redress scheme and the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme (TPDPS). Some of the learning from those schemes was on communication in particular and how we communicate at different stages in all the processes alongside having awareness of the environment that we are in and the environment that will be there in the inquiry. If there are any oral hearings with redress, it is really important to build all that in in a trauma-informed way. Sandra has been involved in some of that work as well.

Dr Sandra Peake (WAVE Trauma Centre): The big thing is the clearness of language to ensure that, when people feel excluded because of the Bill, they can look through the regulations to consider why they feel excluded. Learning from the experience of survivors who went through the HIA process and embedding that knowledge, particularly at this stage, has been really key. Obviously, the Executive team has done that. Ultimately, systems fall when communication is not clear, when people view the process as re-traumatising and when individuals feel that there is no control. Whatever we do, we need to build a sense of control into all processes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. Sticking with the inquiry, you mentioned the advisory panel, which is detailed in clause 10. There is a list of those who will form it, and it must include people who were "admitted to a prescribed institution" etc. Do you have any thoughts on overburdening people who have a stake in the inquiry? They may have to put on a slightly different hat to be on the advisory panel, and there is then a potential conflict whereby people ask, "Why were they picked to be on the panel and I was not?". Do you have any thoughts on how best that should be managed and whether the Bill is sufficient to handle it?

Mr Walker: The most important thing is that that provision is in the Bill in the first place, and I note that it is a stipulation that the chair "may appoint a panel". We would all support a change in the wording so that it says that the chair "will appoint a panel" so that the panel could be in place. It is really important that a wide range of views is reflected. That will be difficult and challenging. Our support model assists people who are engaged with the inquiry, and, through that, many people have been engaged already with the independent panel through testimony. In answer to a previous question, that is another good example of a trauma-informed approach. All the wrap-around support will be there to assist people to engage in all the elements of the process, including with the advisory panel and any other aspect of the inquiry and redress.

Sandra, do you have any thoughts on that?

Dr Peake: The big thing is ensuring that lived experience is enshrined in any process. That can only be of benefit to that process. The issue is in how that is done, recognising that there is a need to have safety and care around that process and that those who will sit on the panel have the preparation to manage those elements. The most comparable example for us is the fact that we are looking to train people to be citizenship educators so that they can use their experience to help other statutory institutions to understand people's experiences. The more that that preparation can be built in, the better. The voices of lived experience should be heard.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I will move on to the redress scheme. I am not sure whether you were watching the Committee last week. I will direct this question to you, Sandra. It is about the profile of those who access specialist services at the minute. In the submission, you say that £10,000:

We heard last week, for example, from Birth Mothers and their Children Together about the fact that, if the amount were higher for the standardised payment, it would reduce the number of people who come forward for the individually assessed redress payment. Have you have picked that up?

Dr Peake: We have, and, after the Committee meeting, I will provide some case material to you on that. There is strong feeling on it, particularly on the part of those who are older. They feel that, by the time the process comes through, it might be too late for them. That is why there is a particular feeling that the amount that is to be awarded is reflective of neither current living today nor the timeline of life expectancy for some. I am happy to furnish you with some case studies, examples and voices of people who feel strongly about that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That would be useful. Thank you.

I have one last question. The papers were so useful that I had not really thought about the issue of the original birth certificate. That may be something for you to talk about, Ciara, in connection with the admissions-based redress scheme. Can you speak to us a bit about whether there are potential barriers or difficulties that you foresee not just for the applicant but maybe for their deceased relative?

Ms Ciara Scully (Adopt NI): That is especially relevant for deceased relatives and posthumous claims. In the first instance, an adopted adult requires access to their original birth certificate. In our experience, many come to us first because they are at the very start of the journey and have not uncovered any of that information. There are barriers in that. There are waiting lists in the trusts for access to record services, which, we feel, really needs to be looked at. In complex cases, where we cannot find the record of birth or where there was an illegal registration — that could be, for example, in the case of foundlings — it will take longer to evidence the birth registration in some cases.

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

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you for your presentation today and, indeed, for the report that was sent to the Committee. You are strong on the co-design aspect of the process and on an applicant's journey. You can already see that there is the support that you offer and that others offer. During the legislative process and, indeed, the inquiry and redress, what will the support for an applicant who is going through that journey look like? That is my first question.

I have a concern about clause 10, and we may pick that up with officials. When I see "may" rather than "shall", I get worried. The clause says that the chairperson has the ability to appoint a panel on their own. What are your thoughts on that? Do you want to start there?

Mr Walker: Sure. On the point about what the services and support will look like, I will say that, from the beginning of their co-design in 2021, they have been aligned to what was happening at the time. The original consultative forum moved forward to become the truth recovery independent panel, and there was support around that. We are now planning the support that we can provide around the work that the Committee is doing. We are also planning the support that will be provided to people during the inquiry and when they apply for redress.

More generally, the service-and-support model is needs-based and trauma-informed, as you would expect. A combination of services is provided either directly from VSS or from our community-based partners. Access to those services normally comes about through a conversation with the individual about their needs. It is what we call an "individual needs review", which will generally happen with the community partners. That leads into the services that are required at the time, depending on what that individual needs. That will be impacted by whatever elements of the process they are engaging with.

We in the community and voluntary sector are looking at social support; talking therapy; support with people's testimony during the independent panel's work; complementary therapy; welfare; and personal and professional development. Some of the specific services that Adopt NI specialises in include family tracing and the DNA testing pilot, which, as I know from last week's meeting, the Committee is interested in. I will maybe get to that.

If there are more individual specialised or complex needs that we in VSS can directly support the individual with through our frameworks, we have what we call the "individual needs programme", which provides support in areas such as persistent pain; psychological support; education and training; disability aids; and trauma-focused physical activity. There is a suite of services, and there is a really good route to accessing them. Individuals can be in touch either with the community partners or directly with VSS. We do that work as a partnership to make sure that people get to where they need to be.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I am sure that you are concerned — maybe you are not; I do not want to put words in your mouth — about the fact that some victims and survivors said in their presentations that one of their big anxieties, of which they have many, is that their age means that they will have to go through the process, and one particular anxiety is that, when they get past the standard payment, they need to give evidence. What else can be done? We still need to deal with that sensitively.

The representative from Adopt NI will know that the birth certificate of some individuals states, "adopted". That is traumatic for them, as is trying to access their records and information about what happened to them from people who are colluding, really, to keep things secret. What else might those people need as support as we go through the legislative process and pre- and post-inquiry?

Mr Walker: The suite of health and well-being and emotional support is good. We need to ensure that there is investment to scale that up in line with the number of people who will likely come forward as we move through the processes.

This area has been mentioned, but access to records will cause difficulties not just when we get to the point of an individually assessed payment but even with the standardised payment. Ciara will maybe say something about the complexities there. There is a recognition of the fact that colleagues, particularly those in the health trusts, are fully occupied with the child protection matters of today and that investment and support are essential for those colleagues to help with the release of information right at the beginning of the process with the standard payment.

Ms Ní Chuilín: My final question is about clause 16 and disclosure, which is an issue that I raised previously. Clause 14 is headed:

clause 15 is headed "Restrictions on public access", and clause 16 is titled:

We all understand data protection, but, if there is an inquiry that is trying to unearth who someone is, we still have technicalities that are almost stand-alone for a public inquiry that is trying to get access to information. How would you advise people to go through that? As the Bill reads at the minute, it is up to the chair to decide what access people can have, and that is completely unacceptable. How do you feel about what clauses 14, 15 and 16 say about that?

Ms Scully: We talked about mapping out a client journey for the inquiry process, standardised redress and payment that will allow us to mitigate some of the barriers to participation. We can work with people to uncover information, but we know that it is not a one-stop shop.

Ms Ní Chuilín: That is fair enough. Do you have concerns about those clauses, given what people have already experienced?

Mr Walker: The concerns are more about the timelines, particularly on the redress side, so they are about how quickly people will get information. Some cohorts will find it difficult to get information. There will be powers to compel in the redress service, but that opens up other issues with accessing information that could not be shared with the applicant. All that is being worked through.

Dr Peake: One of the issues is that it is deeply traumatic for people. To give an example from one case study, the people had to go back not once, not twice but up to four times for information, only to be charged. Clear thought needs to be given to that. The client journey is important, because there is a sense of silence in communities about people who have never been recognised and have been made to feel ashamed and excluded. All those things are important to the approach that needs to be taken. We and Adopt NI are working together on a regional redress process that opens up access for people wherever they are. If they are in places such as Strabane, Antrim or Ballycastle, we will be able to provide them with direct access to face-to-face services. That needs to happen, because, in order to build trust, people need to see whom they are dealing with, particularly given the group's ageing profile.

Mr Gaston: Andrew, you mentioned information that was not shared with the applicant. What would that look like, or what could it be?

Mr Walker: We are in the early stages of thinking through what access to the information that the redress service will need to process an application will look like, because there are powers to compel. There is potential for information to be accessed by a truth recovery service, but it is a separate process for individuals to access that information. I think that I am correct.

Ms Scully: If it is helpful, I can send you a case study to illustrate that. There can be a lot of back and forward with an institution when evidence has not been found. We may be able to supplement that with evidence of a birth certificate or by finding out that somebody was in a workhouse, for example, and we can then go back to an institution and find that a bit more information is uncovered. We can supplement and help to validate that information.

Mr Gaston: Why would that not be shared with the applicant?

Ms Scully: That is a good question.

Mr Gaston: That is a concern that I have, and you raised it. We are looking at a system in which we will have a redress payment for anybody who has been in an institution. The next stage will be where a payment is based on somebody's experience of what they have faced. If you are coming in front of us today and saying that there will be information that will not be shared with the applicant, that could, essentially, put their phase-2 payment in jeopardy.

Mr Walker: We are at the very early stages of working through what those problems look like and what their solutions will be, so I do not want to go too far in saying that that is an issue that cannot be resolved. It is part of the early discussions on how information will flow from the various sources to the redress service and to an applicant.

Mr Gaston: Obviously, a conversation has taken place that has put that doubt in your head, and that concerns me greatly. If it is somebody's personal information, they should be entitled to see that and no barriers should be put in their way that would rule them out of getting a phase-2 application or evidence to support their phase-2 application further down the line.

Mr Walker: An individual's right to access their information goes through specific processes, and it involves, in some cases, redaction of files and social workers. There is a process that has to happen. Whether there are any other routes through which information can be accessed has to be worked through over the next while as we prepare and design the processes for the scheme.

Mr Gaston: VSS was set up in 2012 by the Executive Office, essentially to deliver for victims and survivors of the Troubles or the conflict. What learning has there been from the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which classifies a victim as a survivor of "a conflict-related incident"? Where I am going with that is that there is a realisation that you could not have somebody who was hurt by their own bomb in the same room as somebody who had lost a son to a bomb.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Timothy, we are here to talk about the Bill.

Mr Gaston: Yes, and that is where I am heading. We talk about a trauma-informed approach, and we have heard in the past where birth mothers and adoptees had been put in the same room, which created tensions before we got to this stage. We have heard about a client journey, and I really want to understand whether lessons have been learned.

This is not the first rodeo for VSS; this is something that you have been through with the situation that I am talking about with the bomber and the person who has been injured by the bomb. However, we have repeated that by putting birth mothers and adoptees in the same room. What assurance do we have that, when we come out at the other side of this, the client journey will be a trauma-informed approach and we will not rehearse and repeat the problems that have been established and that we have seen through to get to that point? Those issues have caused a lot of pain.

Mr Walker: The client journey and the applicant journey are primarily about that individual's route through to individual-based support. There are times when individuals will come together, either in group-based activity, which Sandra might say something about, because WAVE has led on a lot of that, or in forums such as the consultative forum or in the advisory panel when it is formed, if it is formed. It is important that there is a wide range of voices in any such structure.

Mr Gaston: There needs to be an understanding of the tensions.

Mr Walker: Yes, absolutely, and that is where the support and services need to wrap around. As I said, all the supporting services that we have put in place since 2021 in this space have been about wrapping around the activities that have been happening at those times, including the consultative forum and its early stages. That is difficult, of course, and VSS has been there throughout that period. It has been there all the way through to the independent panel's work, through your Committee's work and as we go forward into other services for the inquiry and the redress scheme.

There are times when groups work together. Sandra, you have facilitated some of that already, so you maybe have something to say about group work.

Dr Peake: Ultimately, care and support have to be provided, but it is also about looking at where individuals are, assessing their needs and working with them to develop a clear plan of care. Workers will work with victims and survivors, as they present, on their issues. On the basis of examples from the consultation forum and other initiatives, there can be huge learning achieved if people are happy to come together to give their input. Birth mothers can make many assumptions about adult adoptees, just as adult adoptees can make many assumptions about birth mothers, but, if people are prepared to come forward and feel that they can share their experiences and their voice will be respected, the process can be worthwhile. It is more about their voices being heard, because people have previously been silenced, marginalised and excluded. In some cases, that silence even permeates their family.

Giving people the best support takes a huge amount of work. I think of Adopt NI's work on tracing and on DNA. It is important that people have control over that. The big thing that we need to do, however, is to ensure that our services put people in control and allow them to make choices. It is not about what Andrew or I think is good for individuals; it is about what they think. Individuals should be able to choose how they want to contribute and how they want to be heard.

Mr Gaston: I want to ask about the scheme's reach and promotion by drawing comparisons with the victims' pensions scheme. Fewer than 1,000 people in GB have availed themselves of the victims' pensions scheme. There is a redress scheme in the Bill. How can we make sure that it is utilised and that we get information out there so that people know about it? Uptake of the victims' pensions scheme was under what was expected. Think of the number of people who came to Northern Ireland and perhaps served here for years but have not looked for the victims' pension. How can we best utilise our resources to ensure that we reach as many people as we can not only in Northern Ireland and the South but in GB? In the past, it has been a problem that we have not been able to reach the audience.

Mr Walker: One thing that would be useful is an understanding of the responsibility for the communication, advertising and promotion of the scheme. There is something in the Bill about advertising the scheme's opening date. That has to be done. I do not think that there is anything in there about who will take overall responsibility for promoting the scheme or promoting engagement with the inquiry. We will all play our part in that, but it may be useful for there to be a better understanding of who takes the lead and where the budget to do that work will come from.

We can all do targeted promotion through our own channels. Our three organisations have a wide reach on social media and other platforms. We will obviously promote the redress scheme. We will also try to target any information that we get at places where we know that those who are eligible may be. I take your point, however, and I agree that it would be useful for us to take a combined approach.

Mr Gaston: When dealing with matters arising earlier, the Committee looked at slides from the Victims and Survivors Forum (VSF) that showed its members' views. Questions were sent out to 236 victims and survivors, but only 54 responses were received. I have a concern that we are not reaching the people whom we need to reach. I place it strongly on the record that we need an associated budget and a clear pathway for how we will reach those people.

I will move on to the £10,000 redress payment. That figure was set in 2015. We explored the issue with the groups that gave evidence at Committee last week. A lot of victims have had experiences for which money will never compensate them. They do not care about the money. Getting recognition means something to some people, however. A sum of £10,000 in 2015 would now be something like £14,000, after taking into account inflation. Does that higher figure better reflect recognition? What feedback have you had on that?

Mr Walker: There are a lot of different views on settling on an appropriate figure, which we saw from the consultation responses. I will make the same point as you that no amount of money could ever be enough compensation. Other schemes have approached the issue in different ways. I think that the figure of £10,000 is often linked back to the figure that may have been the entry level figure for payments under the HIA scheme, which was some time ago. That remained the payment throughout the five years of the scheme, so the amount remained the same whether people applied at the beginning or end of the scheme, even though there was a rise in inflation and an increase in the cost of living between the two dates.

The Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme, for example, is fixed to an indexed amount, whereby each year it increases by a minimum level. When we first talked about that scheme, I think that the minimum level paid out for the lowest degree of disablement was £10,000 or £10,500. Four years into that scheme, the amount has been indexed and is already at £12,500. The point that I make is that there are lots of ways in which increases can be built into a scheme, and there are lots of views on whether £10,000 is an appropriate amount for the standardised payment. That is the lead-in figure, and there will be an individually assessed payment scheme later on. The Committee heard last week that many people feel that they do not want to apply to an individually assessed payment scheme, because of all the difficulty entailed or because, unfortunately, they may not be around to apply when the individually assessed payment scheme is established.

Mr Brett: Thank you very much for your presentations. I have just joined the Committee, so I am getting up to speed, although perhaps not in as much detail as I would like, as I got access to papers only yesterday. I am familiar with the work of WAVE and the VSS. How will your expanding workload as a result of the Bill impact on each of the core services that you offer?

Dr Peake: From WAVE's perspective, a separate team works solely with mothers and babies. The casework model around which that team is structured differs from that for the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme and is instead based on feedback from individuals who wanted to work with one worker rather with several. We have therefore shaped the service to meet needs on the basis of client feedback. We have just appointed enough workers for WAVE's five centres. Belfast has the highest concentration of workers, and the workers there are working out of a separate centre. I cannot "de-Troubles" WAVE and what we offer through the Troubles scheme. What we can do is ensure that people have a sense of place and space in WAVE that is bespoke to their needs. That applies to mothers and babies, as well as to victims and survivors of HIA.

We have submitted applications to the Victims and Survivors Service. We work closely with Adopt NI to provide a seamless service. Our work is on people's health and well-being needs and on taking people through an individual needs consultation (INC) and obtaining some records for them for that. The specialism of tracing, information recovery and records recovery very much rests with Adopt NI, however. As I said, we want to have a seamless service across the board. When we started the pilot project, there was a reluctance from some even to come to the centre. We catered for them by offering evening appointments after the centre had closed, Saturday appointments and outside services so that people did not even have to come anywhere near a WAVE centre. It is about being as accessible as we can. Engagement has been really good. Some 270 people are engaging with WAVE on support service provision. The team is actively working, so we think that that number will grow.

I will pick up on Timothy's point about communication. There is very much a need for a community information campaign. We have tried to focus on community organisations that we are working with and have gone in to speak with them. The team was in the Shankill Women's Centre recently and has been in with community groups in Newry. It is reaching out to people to let them know what is happening, what is coming and what services are available. The one challenge for us will be to access records in order to allow the process to be opened up for a full INC to be done. Records are key for support service provisions.

Mr Brett: On your concerns about the Bill itself, Carál rightly picked on the use of "may" instead of "will" or "must" in clause 15, but your answer to her was not clear to me. Do you support clause 15 as drafted, or should it be changed? It relates to the appointment of the advisory panel.

Mr Walker: That is clause 10.

Mr Brett: Clause 10. Apologies.

Mr Walker: We absolutely believe that there should be an advisory panel and that the voices of survivors should be included in the mechanisms of the inquiry. As worded, the clause gives the option for a panel to be appointed. Our view is that it should read, "should appoint".

Dr Peake: Yes, "should appoint".

Mr Brett: Ciara, is that the view of your organisation as well?

Ms Scully: Yes.

Mr Brett: OK. Perfect. Do you have any concerns with any of the other clauses in the Bill and believe that the Committee should focus its work on them?

Mr Walker: You were not on the Committee last week, but the issues that survivors raised here last week were pretty common. They were on the posthumous date and the value of the payment. Up to a point, we have mentioned good communication, promotion and awareness of the scheme. Those are some of the key things that should be —.

Mr Brett: Does WAVE take a corporate position on what the payment level should be?

Dr Peake: It does. In our engagement with the client base, the recommendation was that the payment should be closer to £15,000, which would reflect the increase in the cost of living from that time. We appreciate — the point has been made here — that, for some people, money is not the motivation; the primary reason is validation. For people who are entering their later years or, indeed, people who feel younger but do not want to go through the individual assessment process that will come later, it is important for them to have that clear option. We have seen the difficulties that people encounter, particularly survivors of HIA. Those difficulties arise from having to put people through a detailed and quite traumatic process, so, for some people, validation may be all that they will receive through the scheme, and that would be their wish. We need to take account of that.

Mr Brett: My final question is on expectation versus reality. I may be looking just for advice on how the Committee can look at the Bill from the perspective of victims rightly having an expectation that what they went through and their needs now will be validated. As legislators, we also have to legislate in the realm of what is possible, including what finances may or may not be available to the Executive. I would be concerned about introducing a level of payment that raises victims' expectations, only for us then, having patted ourselves on the back for passing the Bill, to have to go back to them and say, "Sorry, there is no money there to deliver it". As a member of the Committee, I seek your advice, so I am keen to get your view on how we can ensure that the legislative process will result in legislation that is deliverable rather than in legislation that serves only to raise people's expectations, which, if unmet, will ultimately re-traumatise victims.

Mr Walker: In any decisions on how the Bill evolves and is amended before it becomes law, I urge the Committee to consider what support will be needed. If changes are made to, say, the posthumous date, the amount paid out or access to records, all of that will feed into how many applications there will be and how much support will be needed and the scale of that support, to ensure that we are all well sighted and have prepared and planned so that, when the inquiry and the scheme start, we are ready to go and have the right support in place. All decisions that are made will have an impact.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We have asserted that, if we table an amendment that changes the payment from £10,000 to £15,000, it will be up to the Executive Office to find the money. I am not trying to contradict what you said, Phillip, but it is not for us to justify why we would want the figure to be raised to £15,000. It would be up to the Executive Office to find it.

Mr Brett: It would be for us to justify, Chair, or whoever votes for or against any amendment to justify, because all of us in the Assembly are accountable for the actions that we take. We cannot just change the figure and then have no expectation of how we will deliver it. I fully support getting as much for victims as we can, however.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I am saying that, if an amendment is passed for a certain amount —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: The Executive Office will have to find the money.

Mr Brett: Of course.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That is a worry for people who may be watching today, so I just wanted to clear that up.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you very much for your presentations. It is good to see you and to hear about some of the good work that you do daily.

We are starting to scrutinise complex and highly sensitive legislation. It takes a lot for us to get our head around much of the detail. The Bill will probably become even more complex as we go through the legislative process. What understanding do you feel that victims, survivors or clients — whatever the preferred terminology is — have of the proposed initial payment? How aware are they that it is an admission-based redress scheme and is not part of the harm-based scheme that is to follow the inquiry? I understand that victims and survivors have waited an awfully long time to see progress made. There is a real desire to get the legislation through as quickly as possible so that payments can be made that recognise, justifiably, the suffering, stigma and shame that individuals had put upon them. We all want to see the situation made right.

I am curious about your experience of how well that is understood, because it is complicated. How well understood is it that the initial payment will simply be a payment to acknowledge that someone was impacted on and that they were admitted to one of the listed institutions?

Mr Walker: There is a relatively good understanding of the two parts of the process. That came across relatively clearly in last week's sessions. Sandra and Ciara may wish to comment on the level of awareness of individuals with whom they work. What becomes complex — again, that was evident last week — is the confusing position on the different terms used for redress and the inquiry. We have "prescribed institutions" and "relevant institutions". We have "relevant persons", "eligible persons" and "eligible relatives". That terminology becomes quite cumbersome. We understand why all those terms are in the Bill, and we understand that there are two different processes that will do slightly different things. That has, however, generated quite a lot of confusion and probably continues to do so. Perhaps we can think about ways to get the message across a little more clearly about the difference between the inquiry and the redress scheme and about who is eligible. The reference to "eligible relatives", which is important, is also probably confusing.

I do not know whether Sandra or Ciara has any comments to make about the general awareness of the people with whom they work directly.

Ms Scully: I do not disagree. Everybody with whom we are engaging — almost 300 people — understands the difference between the standardised and individualised payments. The issue is whether they see themselves coming under those payments.

Mr Walker: There may be a level of concern about what that next stage will look like and about how difficult and traumatic going through the individualised payment scheme might be. That is not to underestimate how difficult and traumatic it might be to go through the standardised payment scheme, through just engaging with the inquiry. Although the application process for the scheme itself will be straightforward, the subject matter and the act of putting pen to paper, potentially for the first time, to submit something will probably be difficult. Again, that is why it is important that we take the approach that we are taking to supporting people with their application. Not everyone will want to sit down and do it themselves. If someone wants help and the wrap-around support that comes with that help, we need to ensure that the model is in place and that the resource is there to help them do that from day 1.

Mrs Cameron: I appreciate that. Nobody wants people to endure any more trauma or suffering. We all desire that anything that can be done to make the processes as smooth and easy as possible be done.

Have you any practical suggestions to make on what can be done about the problem of accessing records? How can accessing records be made much easier? That in itself is traumatic. Families are very complicated, and some families are way more complicated than others. It is not easy.

Working with individuals can be challenging, because we all have different views and different needs, and we all react differently to things. So many times, among groups, charities and Churches, we see how people can almost war with one another over having their needs met. Do you have any practical suggestions to make, even on getting access to information?

Mr Walker: I will mention one thing and then hand over to Ciara for the specifics. It follows the point that I made about providing support for our colleagues in the health and social care trusts to have the resource that they need to meet the requirements that will be placed on them as more and more people come forward, fairly soon, to look for records. We are probably already seeing the start of that. Ciara reports that more people are coming forward in advance of the start of the processes to try to get records that they may not have looked for before. When the scheme launches, exactly what is required for redress and for people to understand their own story and engage with an inquiry will become even clearer. That will lead to a greater demand on the really stretched services that there are to release the information.

Are there any practical suggestions from your work, Ciara?

Ms Scully: An open dialogue is needed across the relevant Departments from which resource may be needed to alleviate the shortfall that exists. That shortfall will only increase as the number of people coming forward increases.

Mrs Cameron: I appreciate that. Chair, that is a real concern. We are all aware of the pressures on the health service. Even if a massive pot of money were to be found tomorrow, that capacity and professionalism could not be magicked out of thin air . That is a another real consideration.

Mr Walker: It is about people and capacity even more than it is about money.

Dr Peake: The resource is needed now. It should not be provided next year. If it is next year, that is already too late. When it comes to access to GP records and police records, one learning from the TPDPS and the HIA scheme is that much more preparatory work should have been done to be ready for when they opened in order to be ready for what was coming. If you hope to meet the deadlines next year, the resource impact needs to be looked at urgently.

Ms Scully: People will need to come forward to access their information in order to see whether they are eligible. Regardless of whether they are eligible, that will have an impact on the resource as it stands.

Mrs Cameron: OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We are a couple of minutes shy of our allocated time for the session. Ciara, will you give us an update on or overview of the DNA service? That would be useful, especially for people who are watching online.

Ms Scully: Out of the 'Truth, Acknowledgement and Accountability' report, victims and survivors requested that they have access to voluntary DNA testing. The simplest way to describe that is that somebody can go and buy a DNA testing kit and do it themselves. From experience, however, I know that it is not that straightforward, unless a very close match indicates a direct relative.

We set up the service to complement the standard tracing and genealogy that we do to meet the objective of finding a birth parent, for example. It is done and safeguarded in a way that will meet that objective without alerting wider family members to the fact that there is a person in the ether who is on their family tree. The individual will have full support through our advocate and will have access to the genealogist and genetic genealogist in Adopt NI to interpret the results. It is a time-consuming endeavour for one individual, depending on the matches, and it sits alongside what I call "standard, paper-based genealogy". The wizards in the team then look at the genetics and provide the interpretation.

About 43 people to date have engaged with that service. We have had largely positive outcomes. Out of the 43, 30 cases have been successful. When we say "successful", we mean that, in 25 of the cases, we have determined a direct paternal or maternal link and have been able to offer the person an intermediary service or a choice about how to progress the link with their relative. In some cases, we say that it is successful if can identify a grandparent, but that could be a maternal grandparent with four sons, and it is then difficult to define which one of them is the birth father. It still gives the individual a bit more information, however, and we can begin to paint a family tree for them. In some cases, that can confirm or refute information that they have already received from statutory services, so DNA testing complements that information.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Good stuff. Thank you. I have one final question. Is that a free service?

Ms Scully: It is funded, yes.

Mr Walker: It is part of the model. It was set up as a pilot, has been fully evaluated and has now been rolled into the standard services. There is provision for 75 cases a year, but we will be flexible as we work to scale up the services.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Brilliant. Thank you so much for that, and thank you for all your work in preparation for today. I really appreciate it.