Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I will ask the Clerk to speak to the summary of the written evidence received to date.

The Committee Clerk: Members will be pleased to know that I will not go through pages 85 to 144 of the pack, because that would take all day. What I will do is highlight some of the main issues that have come out of the 80-plus written submissions that the Committee received as part of its call for evidence. Members can follow along with me on the brief that I sent to the Committee.

As a reminder, our formal call for evidence was launched on 7 July 2025 — that seems like a long time ago, now — and closed on 29 September 2025. We received 59 Citizen Space responses and a further 20 official written responses to the call for evidence. We have continued to receive correspondence since then that will form part of the submissions that have come into the Committee. They will not be part of the call for evidence formally, but the Committee will still consider them.

Members will note that I have gone through each clause and tried to summarise the written evidence that the Committee has received in relation to it. In some cases, there are proposed actions that I will flag to the Committee that we may be able to agree on or think about as we go through.

First, I will highlight clauses 1 to 4. We received a large number of responses relating to those clauses. That was not unexpected. Clause 1 relates to the inquiry itself. Many respondents thought that the scope of the inquiry is too narrow. At the evidence sessions this morning and last week, the Committee heard that the scope is too narrow on a number of fronts, such as the institutions that are included and even the type of organisations that it will look at. There were calls to include private nursing homes, private baby homes and other non-institutional settings. Concerns were also expressed about the exclusion of historical institutional abuse (HIA) survivors from the inquiry, and one query was received about whether things that were investigated by the HIA inquiry should be looked at again by this inquiry.

An overwhelming theme in the written submissions from the majority of people on clause after clause after clause is the desire for trauma-based, victim-centred, human rights-based framing, particularly of the inquiry. We also heard that at this morning's evidence session and at last week's sessions. When we come to our deliberations on the Bill, which will start after recess, you may wish to consider whether other institutions could be within the scope of the Bill, considering the title of the Bill. Members may need to look at that. The Bill is written in such a way that the prescribed list of institutions can be added to, but only with Assembly approval. The Bill does not allow for the inquiry or TEO to change it. They can propose changes that will go to the Assembly via —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: What about a Committee amendment?

The Committee Clerk: If they were to decide that they want to change it, once the Bill has gone through, it would come as a statutory rule (SR) — a regulation. That may well be the case when the inquiry starts.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I would prefer that we do it as a Committee amendment.

The Committee Clerk: That is another option. I just wanted to flag up the fact that it cannot be changed by the inquiry or by the First Minister and deputy First Minister without Assembly approval.

I will press on because there are a lot of clauses to get through. Clause 2 relates to the terms of reference. Something that has come out from many of the submissions is that members of the public and victims and survivors want a clearer definition of what is meant by "systemic failings". That is a broad term. Although a definition may not be required to be inserted in the Bill, it may well be worth members seeking clarity on that before we conclude the report.

Members should also note that there is strong support for all "actors", as I have called them — state, religious and private — to be included in the terms of reference. A number of submissions highlighted omissions to the terms of reference — particularly adoption agencies, private baby homes and, as we also heard this morning, informal networks and pathways. They are not in the terms of reference at any point. My proposed action is that members consider whether inclusion of those bodies can be done via amendment but be mindful of the relatively narrow scope of the Bill, considering its title. Certainly, TEO should be asked for a further definition of what "systemic failings" means in the context of the Bill.

There was much comment on clause 3, which relates to the definition of "prescribed institutions". Most submissions showed support for flexibility in relation to the institutions included. As the Bill is written, there is that flexibility. However, concerns were raised about a lack of transparency in relation to decisions made about the clause in the drafting process; in other words, a number of respondents asked why particular institutions are included and others are not. Members may wish to get from the Department the criteria for why certain institutions are listed as prescribed and others are not. The explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) goes so far, but there could, perhaps, be more detail. Anything that is to be inserted into the Bill may well come in regulation once the Bill becomes an Act.

Clause 4, which relates to the definition of "relevant persons", is the last of the big ones in the first section. There was overwhelming support for groups included in the Bill. However, as we heard in two of our stakeholder sessions and saw in a number of submissions, calls have been made to include birth fathers as "relevant persons". That is the biggest area not included in the Bill. However, there were also calls for other siblings, extended family and those affected outside of institutions but not related to be included in the clause. Members might wish to seek a rationale from the Department for it not including any of those groups, rather than the rationale used for the groups that are included, because we already have that in the EFM. That may help the Committee in its further deliberations. Again, some concerns were expressed, although not by a large number of respondents, about the apparent inclusion of adoptees and intergenerational victims. As we mentioned earlier, Chair, that was raised at the evidence session. I suggest that members may consider that in the clause-by-clause scrutiny.

Mr Gaston: One of the discussions that came up at the session this morning was on clause 4(2). It concerns the definition of a relevant person and states:

The question that was asked this morning is, "What does that mean?".

The Committee Clerk: We can ask that of the Department. I would not want to give an answer, because —

Mr Gaston: At the table this morning, it was asked what that means. We are detailing "relevant persons", but in clause 4(2), it says that:

people are basically treated as if they are not relevant. That seems contradictory. I could not answer that when it was asked this morning. Can we get clarity on that before we go to clause-by-clause consideration?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That is fine, yes.

The Committee Clerk: No problem, that is fine.

Clause 5 relates to the inquiry panel. There was a clear, majority preference for a multi-member panel with diverse expertise, not a single-person panel, which seems like an oxymoron. The majority of submissions expressed a wish that survivors be consulted on the composition of the panel. I think that that will be reflected in future regulations and guidance, rather than in the Bill.

Concerns were raised about impartiality and the lack of legal accountability for the panel, although I stress the fact that that is representative of a minority of the submissions that were received. Members may wish to seek departmental clarity on what guidance might come forward on the composition of the panel and selection of panel members. That matter is, perhaps, for deliberations. That runs into clause 6, which is "Appointment of members". The submissions indicate that survivor involvement is key in any appointments that are made. Many respondents were also interested in transparency and independence and wanted that to be known. Again, we can ask for clarity on whether further detail on that will come through regulations and guidance or whether it will come before the Bill finishes its passage through the Assembly.

Clause 7 is on impartiality. There was not a huge number of submissions on the clause, although the issue was raised that there needs to be a clearer definition of "close association" for people. As per clause 2, it might not be appropriate to insert a definition into the Bill, but the Committee could ask for further details of what is meant by "close association" for its own benefit, and that could be included in the Committee's report. Some concerns were raised about religious affiliations and bias as obstacles to impartiality. However, those were not majority views. I suggest that we seek a further definition of "close association" in order to help the Committee in its deliberations.

Clause 8 is on duration of appointment. There was strong support in the submissions for the safeguards that are detailed in the clause. Again — this comes up in a number of submissions — political interference is cited whenever there is any involvement of the Department in appointing people or having a say in it. Therefore, there are calls for independent oversight of that process. That is another thing that might be outside the scope of the Bill but that the Committee could recommend in its report.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Not to open this up, but were we not going to look at the processes followed by other inquiries such as the Muckamore inquiry? That might be something to look at when we get that research back.

The Committee Clerk: Yes. I have made contact with relevant officials at Muckamore and will get further detail on that.

Ms Ní Chuilín: We could even look at the renewable heat incentive (RHI) inquiry: that involved a full panel.

The Committee Clerk: Yes. There is also the COVID inquiry. That was more about a modular approach. I have made contact with all of those, so that will form part of our deliberations over the coming weeks.

On clause 9, "Assessors", submissions were really that trauma-informed, survivor-sensitive experts need to be included in the assessor cohort and there needs to be transparency in the roles. Again, Committee can ask for more information on that and can issue that as a recommendation in its report.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Because nobody wants a Capita. Everybody is clear on what they do not want.

The Committee Clerk: Yes.

Ms Ní Chuilín: That leaves it vague that it could be, in my opinion.

The Committee Clerk: OK.

On clause 10, "Advisory Panel", the role of advisory panels has hit the news this week with another inquiry. There was strong support from all submissions for it being a survivor-led inquiry panel for the process of the inquiry itself, and there were calls for the roles to be defined and for representation on the advisory panel to be diverse. The Committee may want to look at that in its deliberations and may want to consider a clearer definition of the role of the panel, not just its appointment.

We come now to the more technical clauses. There was mainly support for clause 11's suspension of the inquiry. Some respondents raised concerns about the risk of political misuse of the ability to suspend the inquiry. The Committee will want to note and discuss that further, perhaps in its clause-by-clause deliberations.

On clause 12, "End of inquiry", some stakeholders raised concerns about a premature closure of the inquiry, although that was not a widespread concern. There were also requests for survivor consultation before the inquiry is published. Again, that would be something for the inquiry to decide for itself and, potentially, for Assembly involvement as to whether the inquiry would report to the Assembly before it published.

Ms Ní Chuilín: That needs to be in the terms of reference.

The Committee Clerk: Exactly. That is right.

Clause 13 is fairly technical, and there were a few comments on it. Again, the overriding theme is trauma-informed and flexible evidence-gathering. Some stakeholders wished to underline the importance of accessibility and fairness in all procedures that the inquiry holds.

On Clause 14, "Public access to inquiry proceedings and information", again, support was shown for transparency — the Committee has already talked about it and continues to do so — and for survivor privacy protections and witness protections to be available and used, as required, during the inquiry. There were also requests for guidelines on admittance and refusal of admittance to hearings and inquiry proceedings. That is something for the inquiry to make within its guidance and not necessarily something for the Bill. However, the Committee can, obviously, make a recommendation on that as part of its report.

Clause 15, "Restrictions on public access, etc", is the opposite of that. Respondents stated that there should be a balance between transparency and protection of victims and survivors on that issue. That has been raised in Committee. There were also concerns about procedures to shield witnesses, victims and survivors in the inquiry process. Stakeholders were keen that those shielding processes were not to be used for institutions, so perhaps there is something to clarify that only certain groups would be afforded those shielding processes. Again, that is something that we could seek further clarification on from the Department on whether it plans to strengthen that clause to define who would be given the right to those shielding procedures and who would not. The Committee can think about that during deliberation.

On clause 16, "Powers to require production of evidence", as you would suspect, there is clear and strong support for the inquiry to have all relevant powers to compel evidence from any public body or otherwise, where necessary, for the inquiry to complete its investigations and conclusions. That came through in all three stakeholder events that we held. One specific area that the Committee has touched on is the cross-border production of evidence. That was raised by a majority of respondents. The Bill is silent on that. However, obviously, the Bill can deal only with its own jurisdiction. It may be worth members seeking further information from the Department on its view on cross-border evidence.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Chair, we need to write to it at this stage. I do not know whether this issue has ever come up in a North/South Ministerial Council meeting, but that is where it needs to be. The last Irish Government sealed the records. We need to ask whether we can get an up-to-date position. A lot of those religious orders were all-island, so we at least need to ask about that, particularly in relation to clause 16.

The Committee Clerk: Are members happy for us to do that?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes, thank you.

The Committee Clerk: That is no problem. Just as an aside, at the last North/South Ministerial Council meeting, last week, the First Minister talked with the Republic of Ireland Government about discussions around that Bill, so that is on the agenda generally anyway.

On clause 17, "Privileged information, etc." the Committee has already touched on the issue of public interest immunity (PII). There was not a huge number of submissions on that, but some respondents raised concerns about the misuse of public interest immunity. The Committee has received advice on that and is due to receive further advice in the coming weeks. I suggest that we note the legal advice received, and it can form part of the Committee's deliberations. We are due to get more advice on 18 November.

Ms Ní Chuilín: The legal advice that I got was so down the middle that it did not say anything one way or the other. I am just being honest. I found it unhelpful. It might be factually correct. It is not to say that what they produced was not good work; it just did not provide any clarity, to be fair. We need to come back to this because, if that provision had been in as part of the examination of, for example, Kincora, you can rest assured that British national security would have been used as an excuse not to give those victims access to the information that they need. I cannot imagine it being used here, but the fact that it is there is problematic.

The Committee Clerk: It is worrying.

Ms Ní Chuilín: We might need to come back to some of the concerns that were raised. I am not saying that we need to take that out. We just need further explanation about what tests would determine that a PII would be used. Where is the public interest test in using a PII in an inquiry about a scandal? That is for us. We need to keep it right. Legal information is privileged, but this is democratic, public scrutiny of the Bill. We need to open that up a wee bit somewhere along the line, if possible.

The Committee Clerk: Certainly, Chair, I can ask colleagues for clarity on that, which we can then use in the deliberations, if that is OK.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK, thank you.

The Committee Clerk: Clause 18 is "Submission of reports". There was a widespread view that reports must be thorough, survivor-informed and lead to change. That sounds obvious but many stakeholders wanted that. There was also support for interim reports. That is not in the terms of reference. Again, members may wish to consider writing to TEO to find out whether it has considered interim reports as part of the clause because, currently, it is silent on that.

Ms Ní Chuilín: If we had a modular approach, would there not be a report at the end of each module?

The Committee Clerk: Again, because we do not know —

Ms Ní Chuilín: We do not know. OK, fair enough.

The Committee Clerk: It ties in with that which I will come to in a bit, but, yes, that is right.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Before you go on, Clerk, we have quite a lot of queries to go back to the Executive Office.

The Committee Clerk: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Will we receive replies in written form, or will the Committee have another opportunity to test some of those issues?

The Committee Clerk: Both.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Both, OK, in that they will come back to the Committee before we go into formal deliberation.

The Committee Clerk: The officials can be part of the deliberation stage before we go into the formal clause-by-clause scrutiny. At that point, we will try to get all the queries sorted.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK.

The Committee Clerk: Clause 19 is "Publication of reports". This is more of a technical clause. There was a widespread view that redactions must be minimal and justified. There was also the theme of political interference, but that is perhaps something for the clause-by-clause deliberations.

Clause 20, "Laying of reports before the Assembly", is very technical. That would be part of the Bill anyway, and it was welcomed that publications are required to be laid and therefore will be in the public domain.

Clause 21 relates to witness expenses. The Committee has engaged on that issue with stakeholders in oral evidence. There was widespread support for legal and financial support for witnesses to the inquiry, especially those from the victim and survivor cohort. There were requests for clarity on and fairness in the expenses on offer. We have gone to the Department for clarity around expenses, so that will come back to us. It may be that further guidance on that is required.

Clause 22 is technical in nature and relates to inquiry expenses. A couple of concerns were raised about the Executive Office withholding funds from the inquiry, but that was not a widespread view. More than anything else, the clause allows for the inquiry to be funded, .

Clause 23 relates to offences. There was widespread and strong support for penalties against obstruction of the work of the inquiry. I do not think that we need to say much more on that.

Clause 24 relates to High Court enforcement. There was strong support for enforcement powers. Those who responded see the provision of enforcement as being essential for accountability. That is for members to note.

Clause 25 is technical and comes from the [Inaudible.]

There were mixed views on the clause. There was widespread support for the protection of inquiry staff, but there is some concern about a lack of accountability for the participants in the process. We can come back to that in deliberations.

Clause 26 has come up in Committee. It is clear that many stakeholders feel that a timescale of 14 days for the application for a judicial review is too short. There were several requests from respondents to extend that and for trauma-informed flexibility to be shown. We have already requested the Department's view on the 14-day time limit and the rationale behind it. We have not yet received a response, but, obviously, that will come back to us.

Clause 27 relates to the rules. There was widespread and strong support for the anonymity of witnesses who are representing the victim and survivor community, if required. There was strong support for full document access, and there were requests for further powers for survivor access to records. We will keep coming back to access to records and anonymity, but the Committee may note that for now. If there is thought about having a Committee amendment on that, we will need to think about the scope of the Bill.

Clause 28 is technical and relates to consequential amendments. There was support for oversight by the Children's Commissioner, where necessary.

Clause 29 is fairly technical and relates to interpretation. There were requests for broader definitions, but we can note that and come back to it in deliberations.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I maybe did not pick up on this before when reading it, but, given the profile of the people concerned, can we ask the Department why it has gone for the Commissioner for Children and Young People as opposed to the Commissioner for Older People?

Mr Dickson: It could be both.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes, both. I had not picked up on that before. Are members content that we do that?

The Committee Clerk: That ends Part 1 of the Bill, which is on the building of the inquiry.

Part 2 is on the building of the redress service for the acknowledgement payment and the first redress payments. Clause 30 is the start of that. There was unanimous support among respondents for establishing a dedicated redress service. Many submissions emphasised the need for it to be trauma-informed, accessible and survivor-focused. That also came through strongly at our stakeholder events. There were concerns about bureaucracy and, therefore, re-traumatising people who will have to go through a process again. That was not a widespread view from the call for evidence, but there have been calls for guidelines, transparency and adequate resources. That is for members to note.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): In this morning's session, some stuff came up around eligibility and the fact that the language used means that it is difficult for some people to understand what is being said.

The Committee Clerk: Members will not be surprised to know that, in the written evidence, clause 31 got the most response of all the clauses. There was widespread and strong opposition to the £10,000 standard payment. Many suggested payments in a range between £12,500 and £15,000 or even more. I looked through all of the responses, and no single value comes to the fore, but between £12,500 and £15,000 certainly appears to be —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Chair, the HIA recommendations include that the payment for any future issues is in line with inflation. How long ago did the HIA inquiry finish? Was it in 2016?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): The report on the inquiry was published in January 2017, so you can take that as being the starting point. Then again, the legislation for the redress scheme was in 2019. We would have to come up with a transparent rationale for why we would do something, but there are a number of points. It will be six months hence before this Bill gets Royal Assent.

The Committee Clerk: By the time the redress service is built and up and running, it may even be more than 12 months from when the Bill gets Royal Assent.

There was similarly strong opposition to the amount of £2,000. Those criticisms were rehearsed throughout all the stakeholder events. There was unanimous criticism of a posthumous date of 29 September 2011. Views on an alternative date vary, but there is, clearly, unanimous disagreement with the current approach.

On the other aspects of that clause, some submissions call for the inclusion of siblings, birth fathers and those who have been affected outside the listed institutions. There was a small number of requests for a harm-based approach to be taken, rather than eligibility being based on admission. However, this element of the scheme is about acknowledgement, and the harm-based approach will come in the next —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: It is the individual.

The Committee Clerk: Yes. For transparency, I should say that a number of groups said that, but that will be for the next piece of legislation that will come forward.

Mr Gaston: On that point, it came through strongly at this morning's session that it is not about the place or the institution but the harm and trauma caused. I do not know how to capture that information. We have been focusing on location rather than on the trauma that has been caused. That came across strongly, time and time again, at this morning's round-table session.

The Committee Clerk: Thanks, Chair. The inquiry is really there to try to get to the bottom of that harm.

Clause 32 is on the application time frame, which the Committee has already looked at. There were mixed views on there being a three-year window for an application for the first redress. Many respondents preferred a time frame of five years or more. There were also concerns — these came up again this morning — about elderly applicants, those who are not in this jurisdiction and those who are what are called "late-discovery" adoptees.

Mr Gaston: Something has occurred to me. If we were to go for the five years — it looks likely that it will be three years, extended to five — would that push the individual payment back a further two years?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I think that the second redress scheme will come after the inquiry, so I do not think that it will have that much influence on this.

The Committee Clerk: The conclusion of the inquiry will inform the process for the harm-based approach, whereas this is a stand-alone acknowledgement payment.

Clause 33 relates to applications for payments. There was some criticism from stakeholders of judicial-only panels. There was more widespread preference for trauma-informed, multidisciplinary panels. A number of submissions called for a simplified and accessible application process. The application process itself will come through in regulations, once the Bill has been enacted. There was a lot of emphasis on compassionate handling and maintaining survivor trust during the application process. Members may wish to seek further information from the Department on whether there has been any thought about the application process and on how far down the line the Department is on that. I do not think that that would be in the Bill, but rather that it would come through in guidance and regulations.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We could comment on that in the Committee report. We need to be aware of the Department's thinking on that.

The Committee Clerk: Absolutely.

Ms Ní Chuilín: The lady with a cancer diagnosis raised that issue.

The Committee Clerk: Yes. The Bill, as it stands, makes it clear that people with life-limiting conditions will be given preference.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): The phrase is "terminally ill".

The Committee Clerk: Yes, "terminally ill"; I am so sorry. I do not know whether that individual would qualify for that.

Clause 34 relates to priority of applications; we were just coming on to that issue. There was widespread support for the Bill's proposal to prioritise terminally ill applicants. There were suggestions to broaden that criterion to include serious health conditions, mental health conditions and elderly survivors. Members may wish to seek the Department's view on broadening the criteria for priority applications.

Mr Dickson: There are two aspects to that. One is widening it, as you said, to include serious illness and other conditions. The other is this: if you are going to prioritise terminally ill applicants, what is the definition of a "terminally ill" applicant?

Ms Ní Chuilín: It is six months or less.

Mr Dickson: That is a Department of Health determination. In the last six months of your life, this might not be your highest priority, so there has to be a wider range than that.

Ms Ní Chuilín: One hundred per cent.

The Committee Clerk: Clause 35 relates to the power to require further information. That was touched on at all the stakeholder events. There was widespread and strong support for the powers in the Bill to compel institutions, religious orders and government bodies to give evidence. Respondents placed emphasis on privacy safeguards and on making sure that the inquiry used trauma-informed practices and support for survivors. There was clear and strong support for that in all the oral evidence that we received as well.

Clause 36 relates to the power to disclose information. There was overriding support for that. There were concerns about privacy issues, especially for birth mothers, although that was not a widespread view. There were also requests for informed consent for anonymous applications and for data protection with regard to applications. Members may wish to discuss that further in their deliberations.

Clause 37 relates to payments. There was strong support for it to be a lump sum payment — a single payment. There was unanimous agreement that payments must not affect benefits, legal aid or care costs and, importantly, that that is the case in every jurisdiction and not just Northern Ireland; that was a key theme that came through. Members may wish to note that during their deliberations. However, it may be worth seeking departmental assurances about future payments being exempt from tax. The clause speaks only on the redress acknowledgement payment. The Committee talked the other week about perhaps having bridging legislation that takes the legislation to the next stage in saying, "You must make sure that future payments are also exempt from tax or welfare payments". That is something to think about.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Tax, not just benefits, has come up as an issue.

The Committee Clerk: Tax as well, absolutely.

We are nearly there. Clause 38 relates to right to appeal. There was widespread concern that the 30-day appeal window is too short. That has also come up in Committee. Suggestions included an increase to 60 or 90 days and for flexibility to be built into the windows to reflect trauma, illness or support needs. Some submissions suggested a prescription for legal assistance on the right to appeal. Members may wish to seek the Department's view on extending the appeal period.

Clause 39 relates to advice and assistance. There was much support for financial advice and legal support being provided as per the Bill as drafted. Some stakeholders wished to see independent and trauma-informed advocates and survivor involvement in actions resulting from the clause. Fundamentally, however, the clause was supported by the majority of respondents.

Clause 40 relates to restriction orders. There was support from stakeholders for protecting survivor privacy. There were concerns about indefinite restrictions and potential misuse of them to shield institutions. That goes back to an earlier clause that we talked about. That will come through in deliberations.

On clause 41, there was widespread support for appointing advisers who have lived experience and specialist knowledge.

Some respondents called for clear criteria and transparency in the application process.

Clause 42 relates to regulations. There is definite, stated recognition of the need for flexibility in the terms of the clause. Concerns about discretion were also raised by a small number of submissions. There was emphasis on the need to have survivor consultation, clear guidance and compassionate rules. The Committee may wish to ask the Department whether it has any thoughts on the guidance that might come through on that.

Clause 43 relates to application to the Crown and is very technical. A small number of submissions had concerns about exemptions for the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments. However, it is a purely technical clause to meet the legal requirement for the redress system.

Clause 44, on supplementary provisions, is technical in nature. There was a small number of submissions on the clause. Support for flexibility was noted, and, again, there was a clear emphasis on the need for transparency.

Clause 45 is on general interpretation. Among those who submitted responses on the clause, there is clear support for definitions and accessible formats, including inclusive formats for those with disabilities or literary challenges. Members may wish to consider that during deliberations.

Clause 46 relates to commencement. One submission raised a concern over delays in implementing Part 2. However, interestingly, there were requests about timelines and contingency plans if the Executive were to collapse before the commencement of the inquiry.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That is a good point.

Mr Gaston: It is a very good point.

The Committee Clerk: It would require TEO or FMDFM to look at whether there is —

Mr Dickson: A mechanism.

The Committee Clerk: — a mechanism that would allow things to go forward.

Mr Dickson: That is important.

The Committee Clerk: Members could ask the Department about that. To be honest, it had not come up until that point.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): It is valid.

The Committee Clerk: It is a valid point. Those requests were to ask the Department to provide an updated timeline for commencement of the inquiry and contingency plans should the Executive not be in place.

Clause 47 relates to the short title. There are a lot of mixed views on the title of the Bill. Many felt that it is too narrow and excludes private homes, pathways and systemic practices. There were individual suggestions of a more inclusive title that also reflects forced family separation and adoptive systems. Members may want to note that during deliberations.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes, we can come back to that.

The Committee Clerk: At that point, I will stop speaking.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK, that was quite a lot. In our packs, we got the suggested actions. A few more have been noted. After the meeting, could you circulate that list and we can maybe sign it off by email? There is quite a lot there.

The Committee Clerk: If members are happy to do that, we can —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: To note the other —?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): It is just that, while we were going through it, a few extra ones were —.

The Committee Clerk: There are proposed actions in the Clerk's brief, but there are other actions now. I can add them and recirculate the brief, and we can go from there.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK, thank you.

Mr Gaston: My point is on something that came up strongly in this morning's session. Clause 31 relates to entitlement to a payment. There was strong support for non-financial help as well, and I struggle to think where that is in the Bill. The view of those with lived experience who were round the table this morning is that while, yes, there are already mechanisms through the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS), if there is entitlement to the payment, direct help in a centralised location should be coordinated to go alongside that, so that those people do not have to go to VSS, which is discretionary. If somebody is entitled to an acknowledgement payment, surely that should open the door for them to get help — lifelong help, not just help for a number of years.

That came across strongly this morning. I do not know where we would put it in, because clause 31 relates to payment. However, certain individuals have a big focus on this being not about money but about getting the physical and mental help that they may not have had. They believe that, if they get an entitlement payment, there should also be services that wrap around them as they move forward. It will be traumatic: a lot of things will come up in the inquiry. We should look at that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That may be for the Committee report, but it is well noted.

Mr Dickson: Is this the time to raise the issue of the gang rape inquiry in England, which appears to have gone off the rails? It, perhaps, also goes to the Muckamore inquiry. Can we check what learning points there are from that situation in England, particularly as it circulates around the role of the independent panel?

The Committee Clerk: Yes, clause 10 relates to the advisory panel, an issue that is very much in the news. I have already approached the Muckamore inquiry, and I will have a look to see whether there is anything else that we can gain on that.

Mr Dickson: It would be useful to keep an eye on what is happening in England.

The Committee Clerk: Certainly.

On Timothy's point, hopefully, next week, we will get the Hansard report of the evidence from this morning's stakeholder event. That may help concentrate exactly what people were saying about that, and we can bring it back to Committee.

Ms McLaughlin: I was going to say exactly what Stewart said about the inquiry in England. We need to keep a close eye on that to make sure that we do not fall into having some of the problems that they are experiencing.

I want to say that this has been a brilliant piece of work. The document has been really helpful. Thank you to the team for bringing the document forward and for going through it in such a way. That has brought a lot of clarity to the evidence that we have received.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We have agreed that you will circulate that.

We are moving into recess, and then we will be back and doing our deliberations. Do you want to speak to some of the work that Stephen Orme, the Bill Clerk, is doing?

The Committee Clerk: Stephen Orme is the Bill Clerk. He is on paternity leave, having had a baby boy — Sam — 10 days ago, which is great. Stephen has already started to formulate potential areas for amendment. Those will crystallise more in the deliberation, but a lot of work has been done behind the scenes on the areas that kept cropping up in the 23 oral evidence sessions. It is clear what clauses they relate to. We will come to the Committee with much more detail on those from 12 November onwards.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): It is useful to hear, especially for the people who have been watching this intently, that that work has been going on behind the scenes and that it is not just consequential. I give reassurance that we are trying our best to move this forward.

Mr Gaston: Stephen is obviously watching the evidence sessions and bringing areas forward as potential ideas for the Committee. Is the Department doing something similar? What is its status in all of this?

The Committee Clerk: The Department is watching all of the evidence sessions intently. We are sending lots of queries from those sessions to the Department. The Department will be working on those and coming back to us; in fact, it has started to come back to us on some of them. We will get all of those together, and they will form part of the deliberations. From the conversations that I have had with officials in the Department, I know that they are intently watching the evidence that the Committee has been gathering over the past number of months.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Michaela, would it be appropriate for you to comment on that from the Gallery? Do you want to take a seat, please?

Ms Michaela Jordan (The Executive Office): Thank you, Chair.

Ms Ní Chuilín: On cue. Very good. [Laughter.]

Ms Jordan: We have been paying close attention to the Committee's deliberations and all of your evidence sessions. From listening to you, we have noticed where the Committee might like to amend the Bill. We are taking legal advice on those options and preparing advice for Ministers to consider the pros and cons of each of those options on the basis of that legal advice. We are also preparing draft instructions. Where Ministers are supportive of any of the potential Committee amendments, we intend to share with Committee what those amendments would look like, with the important caveat that, if they are substantive policy changes, they will be subject to Executive agreement. That work is going on.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. I will not open it up for questions, but thank you for that. I put you on the spot. The Clerk has confirmed that you will come back in an official capacity as part of our deliberations.

Ms Jordan: Absolutely.

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

Ms Jordan: You are welcome.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Members, is there anything else before we move on?

Mrs Cameron: As Sinéad said, well done to the team.

Ms Ní Chuilín: The pack is great.

Mrs Cameron: It is a super piece of work. Thank you.