Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I welcome the following officials from the Executive Office: Martin Carey, the director of the truth recovery programme; Francesca Murray, the head of the inquiry team; Elaine Allen, the head of the redress team; and Michaela Jordan, the head of the truth recovery programme team.

I remind Committee members that, following last week's meeting, we forwarded 12 queries. The officials have asked whether they can split the 12 questions into three sections for today's oral briefing. Each section will cover four questions, and we are aiming for less than five minutes of introduction a session, after which we will ask questions. Earlier today, the Committee Clerk emailed members with the areas to be covered under each section.

I invite you to brief the Committee.

Mr Martin Carey (The Executive Office): Thank you, Chair and Committee. We will run through four questions at a time.

The first question was about the joint working in institutions and what information is available in relation to that. That is covered under clause 2(2). All the evidence that we have from the Queen's and Ulster University (UU) report is that there were clear networks or groups of individuals, professions, organisations, institutions and state working together. We have tried to cover pathways into institutions and what happened to people when they were there, and clause 2(2)(b) specifically looks at the state's role around registration, regulation and inspection.

Clause 2(2)(c) is about the placement and departure of children. On page 6 of the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM), we have outlined what we mean by "public bodies". Those include agencies, legal and medical structures and social services. Page 6 of the EFM also outlines what we mean by "other persons". Those include GPs, clergy, social workers, baby homes, private nursing homes and businesses. That is a good example of that network or joint working. That has been a feature of the Queen's and UU report. I am sure that it will be a feature of the independent panel's report and of the public inquiry. That is a short outline on that joint working.

Question 2 was about what provisions there are for individuals around legal representation. The broad principle or power is covered in clause 21(2), which gives a power to provide expenses to witnesses. That is about legal representation. The detail of how that will work in practice will be in the rules. That will be under clause 27(1)(c). That will provide some assurances that individuals who want to provide evidence or oral statements to the inquiry will be provided with legal support, and there will also be a core participant status as part of the Bill. We are not completely sure how much that will be, but it will be in the millions to provide legal representation and support to victims and survivors.

Question 3 came up last week and has been a theme in some of the engagement that we have had with victims and survivors since the launch of the Bill. It is about the emphasis on cross-border movement and what information is available in relation to that. The Chair referenced last week the memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Republic of Ireland on Omagh. First of all, there is a North/South element to it, but there is also an east-west element. There were practices where individuals or institutions were not just moved North and South. There are case studies around Fahan in County Donegal. We have records from the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) and the independent panel in relation to Fahan. There is also an east-west element in respect of Scotland, England and Wales and movement from institutions here to GB. PRONI has good engagement, via the independent panel's structures, with the National Archives in the South and with Tusla, and we are trying to put in place some data-sharing agreements, particularly from some institutions that are held privately. Stamullen in County Meath is an example. The cross-border element is technically covered in clause 2(2), but I appreciate that it is not just about cross-border; it is about cross-jurisdiction.

Question 4 was around compulsion. The Bill is effectively silent on compulsion of contributions at this point. That does not take away from the broad principle that the Ministers, the Executive and, I am sure, the Committee share that those deemed responsible should make financial contributions. There was some discussion with researchers, and I know that there is separate legal advice that the Committee is receiving in relation to that, but it is around how and when. That commitment around contributions is clear, but it is just how that will operate in practice.

I will pause there, Chair.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. I want to pick up on the issue around the memorandum of understanding. We have seen the legacy framework coming forward, but we have not seen the text of the Bill. While we have been sitting here, we have got a message from one of the birth mothers. She was sent to Barnardo's in Dublin to access her records, which is not great for someone who has already been traumatised. Can the conversation progress from a memorandum of understanding to the Irish Government bringing in their own legislation. Has that conversation started?

Mr Carey: Yes. There are a couple of elements of key legislation. In March 2022, a provision was brought through the Assembly for the preservation of documents. That made it an offence for institutional records to be moved outside the jurisdiction and not to protect the records that were in place. That legislation has now been replicated in the South, and that provision was introduced, I think, in November last year, which was a positive step.

There is that distinction about individuals. It is easier — I say that loosely, on the basis of the discussion that we have just heard from the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS) and Adopt NI — for individuals to request information here. There might have to be separate processes to request similar information in the South. Our process here is not perfect, but it is requiring individuals. Ciara Scully and her team provide lots of support and advocacy work to help people through that process, but I would describe it as a work in progress.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I may come back at a different stage, but we spoke about the power to compel the institutions to pay. Clause 36 relates to the power to disclose information, and clause 37 talks about payments. I am not saying that you did this deliberately — I want to be clear on that — but, when you see sentences saying that payments will be treated in relation to certain means-tested benefits and the institutions that are responsible for this are not even mentioned anywhere, it just seems to be, "We might take some of your benefit if you get a payment". Yet the people who caused the misery are not even mentioned in those clauses. Is there room for an amendment to compel the institutions to make a payment?

Mr Carey: We have looked at what options are available in relation to that. One of the challenges that we have been working through is what legal basis we have to include a power to compel in the Bill. That brings in some complicated legal processes around something called article 1 of protocol 1 about a person's right to property. The Bill is silent on that point. It is important that we had the opportunity to bring the Bill to the Assembly. That is not to say that that work has stopped, but it is just trying to work though —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I appreciate that — I think that we all do — but the issue for us is that you can engage article 8, you can engage article 13, you can engage all the articles. The Committee's position is that it is not just for there to be no attempt to compel the institutions to pay. Whether they have the ability to pay is down to the inquiry, but they should at least be compelled to pay. Also, if there is any attempt to sell off or hide assets —. If you were responsible for causing damage to one of the pillars out front and I was liable for it and it cost £10,000 but really I could afford only £1,000 — there needs to be some sort of attempt for redress. This is part of redress as well.

Mr Carey: It is, yes.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I would like to see something. I understand that you can use whatever piece of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) not to do that — I am not saying that you are doing that — but, equally, there are articles in ECHR to do it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I will just remind members that the Committee has asked for legal advice on this that we will have presented in closed session next week.

Ms Ní Chuilín: That is fine, but it would be great if the Department could propose the amendments rather than us having to do it.

Mr Carey: I am happy to provide a short response to that. We have examined what has been done in other jurisdictions and what options are available. We have not been able to find anywhere that has not used a voluntary basis for contributions. That is not to say that we cannot explore options, but, at this point, the Bill is silent on it.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I appreciate that, and we have had Paul Sweeney, who until now has tried to get voluntary contributions from the orders and institutions. At least an attempt has been made by the Department in good faith to go down the voluntary route. We received correspondence from one of the institutions that was really offensive, saying that this actually cost it money. We were all astounded by that, but at least the Department has examples of where, in good faith, it has tried to go down the voluntary route. As Committee members, we have heard nothing that indicates that the institutions are acting in good faith. That is why we feel that compulsion needs to be in the Bill.

Mr Carey: The challenges that the Republic of Ireland has faced have been the same. An independent negotiator called Sheila Nunan was appointed, and she engaged with nine institutions: only one provided a meaningful contribution. They are exploring options around that as well.

Mr Gaston: I follow in the same vein. Essentially, the redress payment is an acknowledgement payment. I see no reason why the institutions should not pay a portion of it, if not all. At the end of the day, it is an acknowledgement that that individual has been in that home or that institution. I have heard nothing to date, apart from, "No other jurisdiction has done it" and "We are looking at best practice" and this, that and the other. I am not interested. We have got to the stage now where we have tried talking to those people, and nothing is coming back. I am not interested in what other people are doing, only in what we are doing. If the Department does not come forward with something, the Committee, on the basis of the legal advice — there is unanimous feeling in the room when we talk about this — should hold the religious orders and institutions accountable for the money that this is costing.

We have heard tell that, "In phase 2, it might be easier to get them to pay." No, we need to look at redress as first payment, because that ties somebody to that home and to the responsibility. We need to do all that we can. The Department needs to do all that it can in leading this to make sure we have something in the Bill that means that they will have to pay. If they have assets, they will have to pay.

Mr Carey: It is definitely easier after the public inquiry, but I take your point. It is not the intention of Ministers or Departments to just leave it. We are looking at every option, Timothy. It just depends on how doable some of those options are, what assessment we need to do and how it is reflected, whether it is in this Bill or a separate process. To go back to Carál's point, we understand that this is not just about a financial contribution, although that is important; it is about a restitution or a redress element.

Mr Gaston: Absolutely. There is an acknowledgement on behalf of those that caused the harm that they are paying towards this. That is more important than any financial payment that the victims will receive.

I move on to the legal costs. Just to expand on that, there is the expectation — they have had it confirmed from you — that costs will be covered. Can you expand on whether there will be a list, essentially, of solicitors to work off, or will it be a case of Joe Bloggs using his own solicitor in the expectation that that will be paid? From looking at the Bill, we have again the word "may" in there, from memory. People need to have assurance and understanding that, if they have built up a rapport with somebody over the years and trust that person — they are a confidant of theirs — they can use them to help them along the process. Clause 21(2) reads:

We need a clear set of rules or a clear understanding that, where somebody wants to go to their solicitor, they will get financial help, instead of hiding behind the chairperson with the approval of the Executive Office. If somebody is going to give evidence and incur legal expenses, they need to know that from the get-go.

Mr Carey: I will let Francesca answer, and I will provide detail on how this has worked in practice in a recent inquiry, Timothy.

Ms Francesca Murray (The Executive Office): Detail on the legal expenses and how they will be managed and paid will be done through the regulations. That will all be set out step by step in the regulations. The regulations will be consulted on, so people will have the opportunity to feed into that and say what they think. There are several different models where people can go on an individual basis, or there is a group model where solicitors can provide services within specified groups. For instance, a number of victims' groups may wish to go in a group model, and that would be done that way through the core participants. There could be support for someone to provide a witness statement, and that would be supported from the very start through to the end with the signing of the witness statement. It is envisaged that that will be within the regulations, and how it will be done will be set out in the regulations. Again, that is subject to consultation, and people have the opportunity to provide their views on that too.

Mr Gaston: When will we see any of that?

Mr Carey: Timothy, as we get to Final Stage and the final vote, we would like to consult on the regulations before Royal Assent. A key aspect of that is the views of the chairperson. A recent public inquiry had groups that put forward proposals on whom they wanted to represent them. That was one model, and a couple of local legal firms represented close to a majority of them. There was a third provision, Timothy, for individuals who were not affiliated with a group. A separate legal firm was available for them to provide their evidence or support them through the inquiry. There are a couple of different models around core participants, but that will be consulted on as part of the regs.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We have the Examiner of Statutory Rules coming in later, and we will talk about the secondary legislation in that session.

Mr Brett: This question comes from my ignorance, having not previously been on the Committee. What does the question about whether officials have considered the Omagh bomb inquiry memorandum of understanding mean?

Mr Carey: Phillip, in the Bill, the powers to compel or measures on data sharing are stronger, if you like, in this jurisdiction. In the Omagh bomb inquiry, there was an intergovernmental arrangement that data was shared between the two Governments. It is trying to put in place similar arrangements, particularly if there is an institution of interest. Stamullen in County Meath is maybe a good example where some of those records are held by the state in the South, so we have a protocol that can access those from an investigation perspective.

Mr Brett: If you are looking for a good example, that is probably the one that you want to avoid in relation to a memorandum of understanding with the Irish Republic, given that there is no ability to compel witnesses and no ability to compel information or document sharing. If you want to have a failed process, you copy the current memorandum of understanding with the Omagh bomb inquiry.

I want to pick up on Timothy's point on clause 21, where he highlighted a really important issue. Will the regulations be subject to draft affirmative procedure by the Assembly?

Mr Carey: They are definitely subject to draft negative.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Not them all. The regulations under clauses 27 and 32 are subject to negative resolution. They all need to be affirmative.

Mr Brett: Timothy and Carál highlight the important point that the regulations will be so important and so serious that it will be important that the Assembly has an automatic say in that. Officials should look at that.

I want to pick up on the point that Carál and Timothy made about silence and compulsion for the institutions to pay. The view from the Department is on right to property. I deal with constituents daily who cannot afford their private rented house and are evicted. No human rights protections come in to save their house; they are put out on the street. If they are not able to pay their Housing Executive rent, they are evicted and put out on the street, and they have no recourse to further public funds because, in the view of those institutions, they have made themselves intentionally homeless. I do not see how we can use this as a protection for institutions that engaged in wrongdoing, yet we cannot use those legal protections to protect our constituents. The Department really needs to have a proper and full look at this, because, although I am only new to the Committee, it seems clear that we want to table an amendment that clearly puts the pressure on the institutions and legally requires them to come forward. As Carál articulated, if we were to engage in wrongdoing or were to be found guilty of doing so, we would have to pay for it. I encourage you to do it, because, ultimately, you will end up with a Committee amendment, and it would be better that it comes from the Department.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I am conscious that we have three more sections for this panel to get through. Go ahead with the next series.

Mr Carey: Question 5 was on access to information. I am happy to go into a bit more detail and follow on from the evidence provided by Andrew, Sandra and Ciara. Clause 16 provides for that power to compel evidence and documents. We have talked a little about redress. Clause 35 is basically about the ability to bring information in and share it with third parties. We could have that scenario that we had in that previous process, which we want to avoid, where an individual might not have access to the information that the redress service has access to. We absolutely want to avoid that. There is a complex process around mixed data. Basically, if an individual belongs to

individual. I am happy to provide more detail, but I will not say much more on that question at this point.

Question 6 was about the difference between "relevant persons" and "eligible persons". The point that was raised last week was absolutely right: a person could be "relevant" to the inquiry but not "eligible" for redress. You could have a scenario where a wider set of people are relevant for the inquiry and a smaller list of people are eligible for a redress payment. That is to confirm that that is the case. That has been outlined, and, again, I am happy to go into more detail. Clause 4 outlines who is a relevant person for the inquiry, and clause 31 outlines who is an eligible person for redress. As we go through the process, you might find that the individually assessed payment (IAP) expands again. It is about trying to provide that framework.

Question 7 was around the definition of the terms of reference and the scope of the inquiry. Again, a lot of evidence has been heard about that. Through clauses 2, 3 and 4, the Bill seeks to provide a framework for an investigation, and it outlines the institutional types that will be investigated. That includes pathways and practices in and out of institutions. Some victims and survivors have the view that the inquiry should be much wider and should examine the wider adoption and fostering system. Those considerations have been taken into account through the consultation process. We have tried to provide some assurances, but I appreciate that that is not going to assure everybody at this point. I will not go into lots of detail, because I want to leave time for questions on that.

The final thing in this block was about some of the evidence around young birth mothers and whether they would be included as relevant to the inquiry. The inquiry does not have any age parameters, so we are not making any restriction on age. For example, if someone had provided evidence to the historical institutional abuse (HIA) inquiry and they are relevant to this inquiry, they absolutely will be included in the inquiry here. That also applies to redress. There is no age parameter for young birth mothers. That provides reassurance on that issue.

I will pause there, because there was quite a lot on those four questions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes, thank you. I want to pick up on the issue around deceased babies. For example, at one of the familiarisation sessions, there was a woman whose sibling died within hours of birth. She did not really see her relative represented in the Bill. Will you speak to that?

Mr Carey: The inquiry has tried to frame "relevant persons" as "any persons", and that includes, unfortunately, a child who died during childbirth. We want to capture that experience as part of the inquiry, and it includes their treatment in care and what happened after they died. Obviously, it is a very emotive issue, but the inquiry will seek to examine infant mortality rates because, from the previous research, evidence and inquiries, that is an area of interest, and that will extend into burials and unmarked graves.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Is there anything within the redress?

Mr Carey: At the minute, they would not be eligible for redress under the current provision.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): With the posthumous date, basically.

Mr Carey: That is right.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): The other aspects are the burial sites and unmarked graves. Is that outside the scope of the Bill, as far as you are concerned?

Mr Carey: It is absolutely relevant to the inquiry, and it is covered by clause 2(2) of the Bill under "departure" or "placement". I am using that phraseology loosely, but we are interested in where a child was buried if they died in infancy and whether any examination of their experience and any evidence is available. There is a provision in the Bill to commission geophysical surveys, and there are powers for an inquiry chair to do that with sufficient evidence. At the moment, that would have to be done with the landowner's consent, so what happens if the consent is not available? We are seeking additional legal advice on that issue.

Ms Murray: There is also the power to compel the death and burial records. The inquiry will look at how they match and, if there is a disconnect, why that has happened. That will bring that to the fore. Although it does not look like that is in the Bill, it is segued in that sense, so it can be covered.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Maybe we should consider an amendment tn the wording.

Mr Gaston: I have a couple to pick up on the ability to compel disclosure. It is important for records. In the last session, information not shared with applicants was mentioned. You briefly touched on that, and you mentioned that it was "mixed".

Mr Carey: That is right.

Mr Gaston: Can you expand on that to clarify what the comment in the first session relates to?

Mr Carey: Timothy, if an individual is adopted, what happens at the minute is that they can go to the health trusts, and they will be assigned a social worker who will go away and get their information. They might come back with a 20-page adoption file or a one-page file, but some of the pages may hold information that relates to another individual.

Mr Gaston: If the individual was adopted twice or something?

Mr Carey: Yes. It could also be a birth mother or a sibling. The file could hold information about more than just the person, and that has to go through a practice guidance. A social worker has to go through the file and identify the elements that can be disclosed to the individual, and there are a lot of balancing tests. For example, if the person is still alive, there is a disclosure that the information could be included and disclosed to the individual. One of the issues that we may have as we go through the redress process is that an individual may come to us with an application, and we will have to verify that they were linked to their mother's admission. How do we do that? Ideally, the individual would provide some of the information to the redress service, and it would verify that. However, we could face a bizarre scenario where an individual might not be able to access that information but the redress service could. There is a differential whereby a redress service may be able to get more information about an individual than they can themselves.

Mr Gaston: Just for clarity, none of the information on an individual's time in a home and what they experienced there, which could impact on their phase 2 claim, should be withheld.

Mr Carey: It will be up to the individual to decide what information they want to receive. Some individuals will choose not to access information about their experience but may wish to put in an application for redress.

Mr Gaston: My concern is not about the information that they may choose to receive but about the information that they do not have the right to see.

Mr Carey: For the second stage, which is the individually assessed payment, Timothy, the basic principle is that, if individuals have received information about their personal circumstances, that information can be used in an individually assessed payment application under a statement-of-experience model. However, we do not know what the individually assessed scheme will look like at this point. If it follows other processes, individuals will receive that information, and that will form part of their statement of experience.

Mr Gaston: My concern is that the individual might not get all their information.

Mr Carey: That is a risk.

Mr Gaston: How will they know what is in that information and whether it will be useful for phase 2? I know that we are still working out what phase 2 will be, but my concern is that the information might be withheld from them, which would make their phase-2 case weaker.

Mr Carey: That is a risk, Timothy. It is possible that an individual might not have all the information about their circumstances in order to put in the best possible application under IAP. Some of the mitigations for that will be in the practice guidance on how people access information. There may be other legislative options to support that as well.

Elaine, have you anything to add?

Ms Elaine Allen (The Executive Office): It is important to clarify that, for the standardised payment, we do not want people to go away and gather a lot of information. That is not what is needed. Applications will be based on a mother's admission, if the person making the application is not the mother. For example, a birth certificate may be needed. A person will need to know who their birth mother is, and that is where problems may arise. To make an application, they will need that information. The redress service has the power to compel, which means that, in essence, the redress service may be able to get information about a person that the person cannot get or cannot get quickly enough.

It is about looking through potential problems with the power to compel versus the power that an individual has. Different things need to be worked through. It is not anticipated that the redress service will have reams of information on a person that that person will not have. The redress service will only verify the admission. It will be up to the president of the redress service to determine what that information is, whether it is a log of somebody having been admitted or just confirmation from somewhere that they were admitted. For the standardised payment, the plan is not that an individual will have to go out and try to get a lot of information. We do not know an awful lot about the IAP, but we know that it will be a harm-based scheme, so, when a person makes an application for IAP, the information that they will want to gather to put in the application will be entirely up to them. For the standardised payment, however, it is not expected that the redress service will have a lot of information that the individual does not have. We just need to work through the details before the scheme opens in case there are circumstances in which that might be the case.

Mr Gaston: My concern is that the redress service will be able to get a lot more information than a person, which means that a person may not be in the best position to get — did you refer to it as "IAP"?

Ms Allen: Yes, "IAP" means individually assessed payment.

Mr Gaston: There may be information to which they are not entitled but which they need to put in their application for IAP.

Mr Carey: That is a potential risk, Timothy. There may be individuals who cannot get access to information that could be relevant to an IAP application.

Mr Gaston: But the redress service could.

Mr Carey: Yes, the redress service could.

Ms Allen: As it stands in the Bill, the redress service will compel only the information that it needs in order to make the standardised payment. If you are thinking ahead to the individually assessed payment legislation, yes: if it has the power to compel, we will be in that situation. At the minute, however, that is not the case. We are working through any issues that there might be with information that the redress service could get that an individual might not be able to get, but the process is designed to be straightforward, so there should not be a huge area of risk.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Going back to restrictions: clause 15 and clause 16. My concern is the use of public immunity. To be clear, I have no issue with someone coming forward as a whistle-blower — they need to be protected — but I have an issue with institutions being protected. That is grossly unfair. I understand that it comes from the Inquiries Act 2005.

Mr Carey: That is right.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I accept that it was done in good faith, but I do not want to give anyone the ability to claim immunity, because people seeking redress need to see and hear from the institutions.

Is the Department considering the amendments? I have asked before about that. Clause 17 says that the chair will have the ability to decide to publish information. It becomes a bit garbled to me. When it comes to privileged information, particularly if it is about redress payments or, if you go further, how will they get that, if it is not clearly laid out? To be frank, I imagine people looking at the EFM would have difficulty trying to find a way through it all.

Mr Carey: I am not sure. It references an "assimilated obligation", which is not the most accessible language at times.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I do not even know what that means, Martin.

Mr Carey: Exactly. It is really around retained EU law, but I think the principle that you are making is that clause 17(2) is basically a public interest —

Ms Ní Chuilín: Clauses 15 to 17.

Mr Carey: Yes, clause 15, in lots of ways, is as much to protect victims and survivors and their confidentiality.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I understand that.

Mr Carey: It is about the protection of information that has been provided in confidence by victims and survivors. In public inquiries, generally, restriction orders are used. That is what clause 15 is there for and aiming to do.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Can I give you an example? In the South, a woman did not know that she had a twin brother, but Tusla had that information. The Irish Government sealed the records, and she cannot get access to them. Her twin brother had died, and she found that out accidentally. That is so insensitive.

Mr Carey: Yes, of course. Carál, with regard to what an inquiry chair discloses about a core participant or individuals, there will have to be a controlled process about information received in the inquiry through that power of discovery and how that is then disclosed to individuals.

Clause 17(2) is about public interest immunity, and we have taken more advice on that. I do not have a final view. We have tried to look at where it has been used in other inquiries. It is pretty limited, from what we have seen to date, and has primarily been used in national security, but it has also been used in relation to — I will not use the phrase "whistle-blower", because there is separate legislation for that — maybe, if a crime has been committed —

Ms Ní Chuilín: To protect witnesses?

Mr Carey: — or a crime has been reported. I cannot provide a definitive view on that, but we are looking at it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Just to confirm, in our legal advice we have also asked for that.

Ms Ní Chuilín: That is fine, but I want it to be clear that we have raised this.

This is my last question: will the regulations be done before the Further Consideration Stage?

Mr Carey: We thought that we would probably do the regulations after the final votes but before Royal Assent.

Ms Ní Chuilín: You are really putting a lot of emphasis on the fact that you expect us to trust — I am not saying that we do not trust you, but there is a big leap of faith here. You are giving us your assurance that it will be in the regulations. If it is not in the Bill and it cannot be amended, we want to make sure that we will all see the shape of those regulations before we vote, because it is a democratic process. We are open to scrutiny, but we do not want to let any of those victims down — nor do you — but, if we are relying on what is not in the Bill being in the regulations, and it is not there —.

Mr Carey: Of course. Carál, the intention is to go out to public consultation on the inquiry rules and the redress rules.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Before Further Consideration Stage?

Mr Carey: Probably after the final votes.

Ms Ní Chuilín: OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Section 3, please.

Mr Carey: Question 9 was about clause 31 in general. I will not go through it all, but it is basically posthumous claims and eligibility. I am happy to take individual queries on that. We acknowledge that the posthumous claim is obviously one of the most sensitive areas of the Bill. We have heard lots of feedback on the posthumous date, and we have heard similar feedback as well. However, to reiterate, posthumous payment is tied to the basis of expectation and when an expectation of redress was created. November 2021 was the most obvious date. Following the consultation, it was moved back 10 years.

We have looked at lots of other schemes. This is a gender-based scheme that is trying to provide redress to people — women and girls — who were admitted into the institutions. The only two international comparisons that we have are with the Republic of Ireland and Australia. The Republic of Ireland had a different approach: they provided redress to people admitted. Children under six months were excluded from that process. Their posthumous date was January 2021. The scheme in Victoria, Australia, provided the equivalent of a £15,000 payment to birth mothers. It did not include children and did not accept posthumous claims. That is just for context. We have tried to develop an inclusive system so that as many people as possible can receive redress. I will not work through all of the questions because I am sure that there will be questions just on that.

The children's maintenance aspect of clause 31 was about the experience of private patients, particularly in Thorndale and Malone Place. The private patient element was specific to Thorndale and Malone Place.

We have covered question 10, which was about the network of institutions, so, in the interest of time, that was covered in question 1.

Foster care, which was question 11, is included. If an individual was in a mother-and-baby institution, a laundry or a workhouse, one of the pathways or practices out may have been into foster care. However, it does not include an individual or the entire foster system. The current policy is that it is very much about institutions and their pathways and practices, so it would include individuals who were in institutions who ended up in the foster care system, but it does not examine the entire foster care system.

The final matter — then I will stop talking — is about birth fathers. Going back to our original policy intent as part of the public consultation and as part of the EFM, this is very much gender-based: it is about women and girls. Those institutions did not exist for men, but I absolutely understand that parental loss was the same for birth fathers, in many cases, but this is very focused on that gender-based admission to mother-and-baby institutions, laundries and workhouses. That is part of the key considerations around birth fathers.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I know. I was just clearing that up because you saw, last week, that some people thought, "Yes, Adele was right". We wanted to raise that.

We are going round the houses again, Martin, but I just want to put it on record that I do not care what other countries have done in their redress schemes. We have had 10,000-plus women go through those institutions, and they have lived with the shame and stigma. We need to develop something that fully recognises all the women, children and adult adoptees who have gone through those institutions. I understand and the paper that you sent last week indicates that there were some inspections in the 1960s or something.

Ms Ní Chuilín: In 1953.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes, years ago, and that was part of the justification that set it aside against the HIA institutions. We know that, when there was an inspection in school, it spruced everybody up, and we were all on our best behaviour. I do not care whether there were one or two inspections. It is clear from the testimonies. We have spent over £1 million through the truth recovery independent panel, for example, and through other research to identify that there was harsh treatment throughout all the institutions. I do not care what dates other people use or what rationale they had. I will certainly push for the posthumous date to be pushed right back so that we do not cut anybody out of the process.

Mr Carey: Those are political decisions and are for the Committee and the Assembly to consider. I want to reassure people that financial redress is only one form of redress, and we have to balance that with support services. There has been some excellent feedback about support services, information retrieval, investigation and memorialisation as forms of redress. It is not just about financial redress.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I appreciate that.

Mr Carey: I appreciate your view as well.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. I want to pick up a point that was raised last week about the language used in clause 31(2)(b). The witnesses last week felt that the wording does not really reflect the harsh treatment and is a wee bit clinical. Could you speak to why it was drafted in that way?

Mr Carey: We were trying to make a distinction between when an individual —. We absolutely understand that some people will say, "I was provided neither shelter nor maintenance as part of this process". We do not want to have such a high bar that it leads to an individual being eliminated from receiving a redress payment. It is just about trying to have some type of language —

Ms Ní Chuilín: Even using the word "confinement". We have been dealing with the issues, and you will know better, but there were 12-, 13- and 14-year-old girls who were pregnant and no one asked why, how they got there or what happened to them. There was clearly a lot of coercion and control by families because of the stigma and shame. I know that it is not meant in this way, but when you talk about "shelter", it is like "Give me shelter". It is like a generous, open term.

Mr Gaston: Like emergency accommodation almost.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Aye.

Mr Carey: I think that, last week, someone used the phrase "punishment". That word might feel more reflective of an individual's experience. We do not want to have a redress scheme that is basically at the discretion of a redress president. If an individual comes forward and provides an application and there is no information, we want them to be able to say, "I was there for shelter and" —

Ms Ní Chuilín: Martin, I am 60 and have had kids. When you go in to have a baby, it is called "confinement". It is a medical term. Frankly, I am afraid, that, if the chair or president is a right-wing conservative, where is the protection for people? All I am saying is that it is the inquiry's job, along with the panel, to extract all the information, but what if it is not? They might say, "It wasn't in the Bill. It was down to the Assembly. It is the Assembly's fault".

Mr Carey: Carál, hopefully, you can see that elements on the redress side are about having a simple, standardised payment, but I appreciate your point that you do not want there being too much discretion.

Ms Ní Chuilín: No, we do not.

Mr Carey: The desire is to provide as many people with redress as possible, not the opposite.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I suppose that it is about the victims and survivors seeing themselves in the Bill as well.

Mr Carey: Yes, of course.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Does anybody have any other points?

Go ahead, please, Timothy.

Mr Gaston: I —

Ms Ní Chuilín: Oh, here, you will be back. We will get the legal advice, and then we will really put your feet to the fire.

Mr Carey: That is good.

Mr Gaston: I welcome the clarification on the foster care element.

On birth fathers — I know that this is a real contentious one — you spoke about this being a gender-based Bill, but, at the same time, there were fathers who wanted to take responsibility and were basically told to just go away.

Mr Carey: Francesca, do you want to speak to that?

Ms Murray: In respect of the inquiry, the chairperson will welcome views from all angles, and that includes any birth father who comes forward to give evidence. For us, the term "relevant persons" is about persons who were affected. Yes, we understand that we are looking at it as a gender-based thing, but there will be the opportunity in the inquiry for other people to provide evidence, and that could be from the likes of a birth father. A birth father will not be expelled from the inquiry because he was not a mother. That aspect is in there, but it is maybe not plainly stated in the Bill.

The inquiry will look at the circumstance and the admission. How did the admission happen? Someone may give evidence to say that there was a father, or a father may come to the inquiry and give evidence that the chairperson can listen to. As we say, there are two aspects to it. Some people may find that insensitive, and some people want that inclusion. There is the option, without having it stated in the clause on relevant persons, for a birth father to present to the inquiry and give their evidence.

Mr Gaston: They would not be eligible for redress, then.

Mr Carey: Yes. The redress very much centres on gender. Mother-and-baby institutions and Magdalene laundries were for —

Mr Gaston: A baby can be male or female.

Mr Carey: A baby can be male or female, yes.

Mr Gaston: So it is not right to say that it is gender-based, essentially.

Mr Carey: It is not. I mean, there are males and females who were children and are now adults. They were victims of those processes as well. Eligibility is tied to a birth mother's admission to a mother-and-baby institution or a laundry, both of which were female-only institutions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Is that you finished?

Mr Gaston: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I want to pick up on the letter that was shared with us about the truth recovery independent panel and the information that the deadline for the publication of the report has been extended until March 2026. Obviously, we would have preferred it if that had aligned with our scrutiny process. One of your papers states that approximately £1 million was spent up to June 2025. How much money has been allocated for the extension? Is there a blank cheque?

Mr Carey: There is no additional cost. The independent panel has a budget of £2 million. There will be no additional cost over the £2 million. I do not know what the final out-turn will be, but the budget is up to £2 million. It is a time extension rather than a cost extension.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. As we mentioned, extra money was allocated for marketing, and that obviously proved successful. People came forward with their testimony.

Mr Carey: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I am not going to be churlish about that. However, I am conscious that we will spend £5 million, £6 million or £7 million on the public inquiry, and I just want to know whether you have thought about the technicalities of how the testimonies etc will filter in, because everything is written. How will they interface with people giving oral testimonies?

Mr Carey: I suppose — [Interruption.]

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I will pause with that question for a second — [Interruption.]

Sorry. It is difficult to listen in the room. I am sure that it is worse online.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Was there not more money set aside for the public inquiry?

Mr Carey: In the EFM, we have estimated the inquiry costs at between £12 million and £20 million, with a main cost estimate of £14 million. That is over three years.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): You are right. If we are going to spend all that money and then have the whole inquiry itself —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Exactly.

Mr Carey: With regard to how the panel's work will feed in, there are lots of advantages in having oral testimony. I think that it has collected about 237 new testimonies in addition to the testimonies that it had from the previous research. That provides a strong evidence base to establish about individuals. In addition to individuals having a participatory role and being able to have their information taken in a safe space, that information provides a bedrock for the inquiry. That is a direct advantage for the inquiry. There are also the archival records. PRONI digitised more than 5,500 records, so all those records are now available for the panel and the inquiry.

Mr Gaston: Concerns were raised in the past when the truth recovery panel did its Royal Mail postal delivery because areas were missed. Common towns and cities are mentioned in here, and I am concerned that some areas might be missed, including areas where some institutions were situated. Are you happy that the 237 and 350 people who have come forward represent a good geographical spread?

Mr Carey: I do not know. I know for a fact that there will be a mix of people. In the HIA process we found that 80% to 85% were people based in Northern Ireland. About 10% of those providing evidence are in England, Scotland or Wales, and there is then a percentage from the South. I do not know whether Francesca can give more figures off the top of her head. However, we are reasonably confident that we are getting a good diaspora mix. It is not just people who are here: we also have people coming forward and providing evidence who are in England, Scotland, Wales and further afield, and from the Republic of Ireland. I am happy to provide more information on that. We are reasonably confident that we are getting a good mix of evidence.

Ms Murray: In our consultation we had people from Canada, America, New Zealand and some from Europe as well. Through our diaspora contacts in our work in the consultation we were able to reach those people. We could have done more and will do more in the inquiry to reach more people, but we found that there were people coming from the wider world rather than just here.

Mr Gaston: When you say that you will reach more, what does that look like?

Mr Carey: Leaflet drops have been pretty effective for the HIA and have been effective here as well. Once the legislation has passed, that is a model for the inquiry, the redress scheme or jointly that, you would like to think, would be utilised to invite people to come forward to the inquiry, for redress and for the support services. That is what I would describe as a "do minimum". There will be other campaigns. Digital campaigns that the HIA ran were also effective.

Mr Gaston: In GB?

Mr Carey: In GB it has, I think, been mainly through Fiona Ryan's team, and a questionnaire through trusted channels and networks. There are some groups that the HIA and the Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse (COSICA) have been engaging with, but there has not, I think, been GB-wide advertising.

Ms Murray: We went through the diaspora groups in GB, and that was disseminated through all the groups during the consultation. We will look at doing that again and at how we could widen it. With the older demographic, radio may be more accessible to them, as well as the leaflets. It is about shaping our communication to those we are trying to reach rather than getting a big media campaign that might be ineffective. We will work on how that will go out.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you all. You will probably be before us again. For now, we appreciate your time.