Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Welcome. It is good to see you all at the Committee. We have Joe McVey. We thought that it was just Joe coming today, so I will ask Joe to introduce the other witnesses for the benefit of the people in the room. Thank you for your papers. We have just established that you have probably engaged with all political parties in advance of today's meeting. That is useful, because it allows us to get to the substance of the issues.

Mr McVey, would you like to make your opening remarks, including introducing your colleagues?

Mr Joe McVey (Commissioner for Victims and Survivors): Lovely. Thank you very much, Chair and members, for the opportunity to meet you this afternoon. It is nice to see some familiar faces and some new MLAs with whom we have not yet engaged.

I will introduce the team. On my right is Tina McCann, our director of policy, engagement and research; on my left is Andrew Sloan, our long-standing, long-suffering chief executive. Some of you will know Andrew from the past.

Chair, as you said, we sent a briefing paper and supporting documents in advance, and I am mindful that members will have read those. Rather than taking up too much of your time with them, I will, with your permission, Chair, make a couple of brief opening comments to put the information in the paper into context and then, to inform the discussions, highlight and bring to your attention some of the issues in our paper.

I remind members who are new to the Committee of some of the background to the commission. Some members will know that we have been going since 2008. We were established under statute. To put it in simple terms, we are primarily there to promote and support the needs of victims and survivors. We do that through a range of approaches but primarily through our research, evidence and policy gathering, which is evidence-based and, equally important, informed through engagement with a wide and diverse range of stakeholders, particularly victims and survivors who have lived experience of the Troubles and what it means to them.

As you know, we have a range of statutory powers that we endeavour to exercise to the best of our ability. We are a relatively small organisation: an arm's-length body (ALB). We have a complement of 12 staff and a budget on paper of £1·2 million. In reality, as is the case with all arm's-length bodies, we are working within a deficit budget of just over £900,000 and, perhaps, a reduced staff complement, which, as I might come to later, gives me some concern regarding our ability to oversee and carry out all our statutory duties.

The most important point that I want to emphasise this afternoon is why our work matters and why the interests of victims and survivors still matter. You will be aware from the paper of the statistics of those who died during the Troubles conflict. Three thousand seven hundred and twenty individuals died; more than 100,000 people were injured; and more than 200,000 people are living with the mental and psychological damage of the Troubles. Within that, the important thing for us is the fact that the impacts are as real today as they were many years ago for individuals, communities and society. Those things are important.

According to statistics and recent population studies, one person in five in Northern Ireland sees themselves as a victim and/or survivor. That gives a sense of how the societal impact is still important and real, given the size of our population. We can look at why it matters, particularly to the Executive and everyone here. The Programme for Government (PFG), which took a long time to gain support and get over the line, is predicated on peace and prosperity. We argue strongly that, without taking due account of the needs of victims and survivors, it is difficult to say whether we could achieve peace and/or prosperity.

Not surprisingly, all the issues that are important to victims and survivors are interrelated. I will highlight four, one of which is funding. Members will be aware that we are about to enter a difficult funding phase for victims and survivors and the groups that they work with. In March of this year, we will have the decision on the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS) funding programme. It will surprise no one here if we discover that the demand for funds far exceeds the supply. That will have an effect on services and the groups that support individuals. At the end of 2027, which is not far away, we will have the end of PEACE PLUS. That will impact on a significant investment in this work. Those two things are coming up.

Those constraints will also impact on the infrastructure that supports victims and survivors. We have long-established and experienced groups working with victims and survivors. Any impact on those organisations will affect them and the people whom they support. Given the years of experience that they have built up, there is a challenge to the infrastructure and the workforce. We also have the Regional Trauma Network (RTN), which does tremendous work. That is coming to the end of its pilot phase. No one is sure what the future of the RTN will be. We also have the imminent closure for new applications to the Victims' Payments Board (VPB). That creates an air of uncertainty around the key infrastructure organisations.

Members will also be aware of the legacy framework and the Troubles Bill and how that is playing out. It is fair to say that, so far, it has been divisive and toxic here and at Westminster. That, in itself, is significant when it comes to victims and survivors, because it feeds into the uncertainty. Equally important, if the Troubles Bill goes ahead, the challenge for the institutions highlighted — the commission, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) or other institutions — will be an increase in demand for services at a time when we face reduced services.

The final issue that I want to highlight is payment for the bereaved. Since taking up post four months ago, I have found, when I have engaged with groups or organisations, that there is universal support for that issue. The commission put forward evidence at the end of 2023, and that evidence and information sits with the First Minister and the deputy First Minister's office. We are keen to get a response to that so that we know how that issue can be taken forward.

Those are some of the issues that we hear about from victims and survivors, and we were keen, coming to the Committee, to highlight them. Equally, as we go through the discussion, we want to emphasise that we are keen to come back to the Committee and to individual MLAs to update you on how those issues are impacting on victims and survivors, whether it is funding, infrastructure, legacy or payment for the bereaved, because we feel that there is a danger, given the separation of powers and funding between here and Westminster, that victims' and survivors' issues will somehow get lost in limbo. Moreover, because it is such a difficult and contentious issue, there is a danger that, either here or in Westminster, there will, for good reasons, be a bit of shuffling backward and forward, but we are keen that, with your support, we can keep the spotlight on those issues.

I will stop there. I welcome questions and discussion.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you so much. I am conscious that much of the conversation about the Troubles Bill and the scrutiny work on it has taken place in London away from the majority of victims and survivors. What role are your office and staff playing in trying to provide evidence or information about the impact of the Troubles Bill on people here?

Mr McVey: The legacy framework and the Troubles Bill were, in some ways, launched in our office with the Victims and Survivors Forum, which is a broad church of individuals with views and experience. Their initial response and ours was to give the framework and the Bill a cautious welcome. Since that, we have been trying to engage with victims and survivors, groups and a range of stakeholders to get a sense of how it impacts on victims and survivors.

Our position is that it is positive to see the framework and that it is good to see the Bill coming through Westminster. Equally, there is a range of areas in the Bill on which we would like to see additional clarification. Fundamentally, for us, as it stands at the moment, I do not see the needs and concerns of victims and survivors being represented in the debate, in the areas relating to the commission or the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery or in the aspects of clause 4. I say that because those things are sometimes seen in isolation. If a revised commission is set up, what will be the input and scrutiny from victims and survivors? I say that because, unfortunately, we sometimes get caught up in the technicalities.

In summary, we give the Bill a cautious welcome. We are delighted to see progress, but a lot more work needs to be done. A lot more engagement and support from the Committee — members know the local views — would play into that as well. We represent the broad church of victims and survivors, including veterans, and one of our concerns is that the debate is almost set up as veterans versus victims and vice versa. That is not a helpful debate, because all victims and survivors need support and protections, and it has almost played out as being one against the other. That is not helpful.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): As a follow-up to that, what role do you see for the Victims and Survivors Forum here? It is well established and, as you say, has found ways for people to work together. Do you see any role there?

Mr McVey: The Victims and Survivors Forum was set up through a careful and deliberate process, and we have engaged with the forum. The forum sees itself as playing that role. It is easy for people to volunteer for a role, but the terms of reference for the work, its purpose and the full swathe of tasks need to be set out. At the moment, it is focused on the Legacy Commission. Our view is that we need victims and survivors to look at the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery and the potential for oral history and memorialisation. There is a lot of work for victims and survivors to do. Equally, if our forum is asked to take on that role, we would like to be able to ask about how it can be strengthened and whether additional expertise is needed. At its heart, it needs to be victim-centred: at the moment, it is not.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We are the scrutiny Committee responsible for the work of the Executive Office, and the victims and survivors' strategy sits in that Department. You touched on the need for cross-departmental working in your written submission and how the potential shortfall of £300,000 will impact on the planned programme delivery: what is your role in the cross-departmental work to remind Departments, which have their own budgetary constraints, that the needs of victims and survivors should continue to be at the forefront and the strategy delivered?

Mr McVey: I came into post recently and welcome the fact that there is a strategy and give full credit to the staff and the Executive for getting it over the line. There is a need for victims and survivors’ groups to be more involved in developing the strategy. For example, the strategy needs a strong implementation plan. Along with TEO colleagues, we will look for the baselines and the monitoring and evaluation framework that is required to make it work and the space to do that. Issues such as gender are not particularly evident in the victims and survivors' strategy, nor is the issue of intergenerational trauma or support for young people.

By coincidence, I was at a workshop last Friday, and the impact of rural issues on victims and survivors also seems to be absent from the strategy. The strategy is a work in progress, and we welcome the opportunity to work with TEO to address some of the issues that need work and attention.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): My final question is about the Programme for Government and the 'Commission for Victims and Survivors Outcome Delivery Plan'. You referenced the aim of:

We cannot say that everyone who is a victim and survivor has a role to play or a responsibility for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Where is there a good crossover between supporting young people and leaving them with the legacy of a reconciled society but giving a role to the victims and survivors sector?

Mr McVey: There needs to be consistency. For example, the strategy references working with young people and intergenerational work. Unfortunately, I am not sure that those aims come to the fore in the draft implementation plan. The funding regime needs to give organisations the ability to bid for funds to allow them to do the intergenerational work, and it can be very simple work. For example, the work could be done in schools with the support of the Department of Education to give young people a greater understanding of the conflict and the history to make sure that it does not happen again. It plays to the need for all Departments to play their part, but that requires strong cross-departmental working and action plans. It is an Executive strategy, and every Department has a part to play.

Mr Dickson: Thank you for talking to us about the role, work and challenges of the various things that you deal with. I will concentrate on two areas. The first is the current and ongoing financial landscape of your organisation, particularly the potential loss of PEACE PLUS funding and how it might be replaced. What, if any, consultations have you had with the providers of PEACE PLUS funding to explain what would happen to the services that you deliver from those funds?

My second question the Chair has covered, but I want to explore further the intergenerational spread, particularly with survivors, and the trauma that has passed down through generations to young people today. I think that you gave us the answer: education and how it is delivered through schools. However, it needs to go wider and into a range of community and other activities. Where, for example, do you touch Communities in Transition (CiT)? What element of education and support is there for communities that may have a fixed view of who and where they are, and how can those views be transformed by the work that you do?

Mr McVey: Funding will be an issue. At the end of March, a decision will be made on the VSS funding programme, and that could lead to an immediate shortfall. PEACE PLUS comes to an end at the end of 2027. My ask and hope is that TEO colleagues and the organisations that provide those services will come together to make representations to PEACE PLUS and the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) to get a sense of what plans there are and what is in place. There is a need for that to happen. My concerns over the past couple of months have been the representations from the broader voluntary and community sector about cuts. Unfortunately, we seem to have a habit here of getting to the cliff edge in the hope that something will happen. I implore TEO colleagues to say, "Let's start doing this work now and get the plan in place".

The issue with intergenerational trauma is joined-up working. People think that the Victims and Survivors Service sits with TEO and the Executive. However, its work needs to broaden out to include, for example, the Department of Education and the Department for Communities. To be fair to TEO colleagues, an awful lot of good work in good relations and reconciliation is going on across all Departments and councils, but I do not get the sense that it is joining up, and that is the challenge.

We hear the phrase "intergenerational trauma". Some people get it, whereas some are sceptical. We meet lots of younger people who, in many ways, carry the injustice that their grandparents and parents suffered and continue to fight for what they see as justice, information or both. That is important. Equally, many young people, when you raise those issues, say, "Well, that's nothing to do with us" and "That's in the past", and that is equally dangerous. As we know here, all you have to do is scratch the surface to realise that we all carry views and behaviours that do not build a better future. We need to work with young people at the sharp end who are still dealing with the trauma of the past but also more generally with schools and education and in community settings.

We worked recently with the Northern Ireland Youth Forum. It was simple work on oral history, but it led those young people to question their backgrounds and how they viewed the world. They were quickly able to say that here was a toolkit that could be used in schools and educational settings to get people to think and to challenge all our behaviours.

At the level of funding, we need a plan and a level of working with young people. We all of us need to agree more investment in education.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you. Your paper is really good; it is well put together and has a lot of information.

I wonder what part the British Government will play in funding, particularly on legacy. At the moment, we are looking at mother-and- baby homes, the Magdalene laundries and the workhouses: the Executive have to pick up the full cost of that. The state had to pay absolutely nothing prior to Stormont.

My question is about funding. We have raised the issues before, but I have real concerns. You mentioned intergenerational trauma. I am thinking of the VSS. I wrote to TEO, and I know that other members of the Committee have had concerns about the fact that groups that worked with victims and survivors were not funded for their services for under-18s. That has changed now, but VSS is saying that those who are known as "Do not attends" (DNAs) are not being catered for. People who suffer from trauma have erratic patterns; they do not keep appointments well. For a body that operates services on behalf of victims, that is just too short-sighted.

The other thing is victims' payments and pensions. There is no one here who has not been lobbied about that. What survivors are being put through is nothing short of horrific. It is humiliating, retraumatising and far too slow. No one on the Committee differs on that. I would like your office to speak up for people who have to go through the process. It is awful. All of us have had people in our offices who are in bits, having gone through that process.

I have one last comment on the Troubles Bill and legacy issues. Everyone can raise issues, but, when I see how Sean Brown's family has been treated — Bridie Brown is a woman in her 80s — I wonder, as will others who are looking on, I am sure, how those people can have any confidence in the process or in the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. Your research indicates that people do not feel part of the process. If they are not part of the process, they will have no confidence in it. That is just one example; everybody can give their own. How do you answer those questions, when you are constantly seeing families like that and many others being treated with nothing but contempt?

Mr McVey: I get that. I know that other members will have had similar experiences. I will try to pick up on a number of those points. From our perspective, when it comes to the Troubles Bill or anything to do with legislation or legacy, we ask whether it is victim-centred. Inevitably, when you go into the legislation — there are much cleverer people than I who delve deeply into various clauses of the legislation — we sometimes do that at the expense of forgetting why we do this work. That goes back to the work being victim-centred.

Ms Ní Chuilín: People do not see themselves in the legislation.

Mr McVey: No, they do not. Part of our response to that is to push back and say that it needs to be victim-centred. We liaise closely with the funding bodies, whether the VSS or the Victims' Payments Board. They have a difficult job. They are trying to process payments and, in a sense, get money out the door, to put it crudely. They do that quickly and efficiently. However, sometimes, that is at the expense of remembering who they are dealing with. If you were with someone having to make numerous phone calls and waiting for information to come through, you would see that that creates more trauma and difficulty.

The DNAs' payments are a simple example of unexpected consequences. When funding bodies are trying to save money, how can they balance their books knowing that they are about to hit a crisis? If you tell groups that they need to change how they work with, in this case, sessional providers, that might seem like a small issue. However, I know of three or four groups that employ about 40 sessional providers, all of whom are self-employed.

It is a gender issue: 99% of those people are women, a number of whom have been victims and survivors and have trained and are now providing their services. It is hard, if you are in that situation, because the clients themselves are experiencing trauma, to say that you cannot turn up today at your appointment. The person who is impacted by that is, unfortunately, the person on whom you are relying to deliver a service. It is one of the things that people have not thought through until it is too late, and the danger is that, if you lose such people, you lose that expertise.

All members here will know that it takes a lot of trust and confidence for victims and survivors to come into the office, and it is about how we do it. It is not a — well, I suppose it is a criticism. For all funding bodies, there is a tendency to treat all groups the same, so there is a one-size-fits-all approach to how we allocate funding across all the groups. I am not sure that that is particularly helpful, because they are dealing with different client groups.

To go back to your comment about Sean Brown, without commenting on the case, the difficulty is that it speaks to people's confidence in the system. Again, we are being told by families and victims and survivors that they are looking for maximum disclosure on such issues. That is where, sometimes, legislators forget what they are dealing with.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you very much for your papers and for your evidence. You have set out in the papers a strong view that all Departments have a role to play. Have you in mind any particular process that would help you? We have a bad reputation: there is a lot of silo working in government. What can the Executive Office do to ensure that all Departments play their role?

Mr McVey: Last week, we had a positive meeting with the head of the Civil Service (HOCS). The head of the Civil Service would probably not agree, but there is a sense that all Departments work in silos. I think that the idea being looked at is to identify a champion in each Department, and that is fairly easily done. My concern is that that becomes simply words. I would be much happier to see the Departments coming up with an action plan in which they commit to the work that they are doing and how that delivers the victims and survivors strategy, tasking Departments to come up with that. My sense is that a lot of them are probably already doing really good work but we are maybe not aware of it. There is a simple challenge to each Department to ask what it is doing that helps to deliver the strategy and what more it could do. Also, I know that it is always an issue of funding, but it may well be, from looking at how Departments spend their money, that there are additional resources that they could invest. It is about getting them around the table, getting them to produce meaningful action plans and seeing what resources they can contribute.

Ms McLaughlin: If they produce action plans, what should the reporting mechanism on those action plans be? How do you see that worked through? We see action plans frequently but never fulfilment or implementation or reporting. What data collection and reporting mechanisms are required to feed in?

Mr McVey: The issue of data collection is important to us, because, at the moment, as I said, good work is going on but is not being collected. We have encouraged TEO to encourage a lot more data sharing between itself and VSS and the Victims' Payments Board to get a sense, fundamentally, of what we get for our money and what difference the investment is making. That question needs to be asked. We encourage TEO colleagues to meet every quarter and demonstrate the difference that the work is making and the support that they get from other Departments. I mentioned that we were working with a reduced budget and a reduced number of staff. It is partly our role to act as a critical friend to the Department and ask whether the strategy is progressing as it should and whether other Departments are playing their part. As an independent and impartial critical friend, we should be able to come back to you, say, every quarter or every six months and say, "Here is how the strategy is developing", being mindful that it is an Executive strategy. There is a danger that it can simply be left with the Executive Office. That is unfair: there is a responsibility on all Departments.

Ms McLaughlin: Did you share those ideas with Jayne Brady when —.

Mr McVey: Yes, we have, which is why, I think, the head of the Civil Service has committed to her work to see how she can get other Departments to play their part.

Ms McLaughlin: That is interesting. It is really important, because, if we do not have that, we are kind of missing out.

Another theme that came across strongly throughout your papers was your concern about mental health and well-being. There were some figures there: I think that it was 60% of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults in Northern Ireland is conflict-related. That is a significant figure. How concerned are you about the lack of funding for the mental health strategy in Northern Ireland?

Mr McVey: Very concerned. That is the danger in seeing the strategies in isolation. Again, I am sure that every member around the table has people come into their constituency office in whom you can see the impact, whether it is from PTSD or significant grief or trauma in their life. Then we have the mental health strategy, which was promoted with great fanfare only for us to discover that there was little money to support it. That is the danger with all the strategies. Frankly — this is a personal view — we would be much better, perhaps, being less ambitious but more realistic about what can be delivered. Look at the recent pulling back on the action plan for the mental health strategy. That, in itself, is worrying. Again, it is that issue of the Department of Health doing its bit, TEO doing its bit and other Departments doing theirs. Unfortunately, there is a lack of joined-up working.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Joe. It is good to see you again. I wish you well with your new role.

Mr McVey: Thank you very much.

Mrs Cameron: Sinéad touched on a question that I was going to ask about mental health. I feel strongly about that issue as well and about the need to find balance between paying for the past and ensuring that we provide for today and people's future needs. We know that the mental health needs, for whatever reasons, around trauma in Northern Ireland are absolutely huge. You have pretty much answered my question on that.

Not every victim and survivor is represented by a group. Your survey shows that one in 10 who meet the legal definition of a victim or survivor say that they do not access the service but would like to, and many say that they are not aware of support or feel that support is not offered to them. Obviously, not all those victims engage with funded groups. Do you know why that is? What can you do in your role to ensure that victims and survivors who are not part of a group are able to access that? How do you even identify them? Is identifying them a concern? How can we ensure that they are properly identified, reached and supported through the strategy and are not overlooked because they are not part of an organisation?

Mr McVey: We have a well-established infrastructure of groups, so, for me, it was surprising that there are so many people who are not part of that. It speaks to an issue of unmet need. Again, I am sure that everyone in this room, in their work, will have come across people who share their stories — some of them very tragic experiences — and who clearly fall within our definition of a victim or survivor.

People do not come forward for a range of reasons. Culturally and traditionally, we are quite private. People here, by and large, do not want to share their trauma or grief. For those of a certain age, including me, the tradition was that you just got on with it. You do not share your pain or grief; that is just who we are. I think that a lot of people are not aware of the groups and that some look at groups and think, "Have these groups got an agenda? Are they politically aligned? Are they only for certain sections of the community?". Some of them are, for good reasons, but, for us, it is a case of how we promote the services more. How do we promote the commission so that we can say to people, "There is help and support available", and perhaps guide them towards those well-established and experienced groups? However, there is then an issue. Do we get to the point of saying, "We cannot support the majority of the population here because we are concerned about the people who have suffered over many years"? For us, it is not a choice — you have to do both — but there is a strong sense of unmet need out there. Again, if you combine that with the fact that there will be increasing demand as the new bodies are set up, it creates a challenging environment.

Mrs Cameron: Do you think that the unmet need adds to the intergenerational trauma? When we say those words, we think, "How can that be? How can this young person be affected by what happened so long ago, which they did not directly see?". However, we see people every day coming into our office. We speak to them and try to help them, and it is clear that they are traumatised and that that has almost been bred on. How do we stop that cycle?

Mr McVey: That is a really good question. I had a conversation yesterday with a young woman whose family is from a service background. She described how she had been brought up. There were simple things in their house, like taking off their seat belts in the car when going down a hill, in case there was a bomb underneath their car. She just thought that that was normal. She described that to us, who were from all different parts of the community. To her, that was normal, but it is not. How do you help people through education and support to move on? It may sound odd and I may sound like Job's comforter, but there is a sense in which the reason why we do this work is to make this place better, to build a better future. It is not to live in the past. It is simply to ask, "How do we learn from that past to make things better now? How do we support young people?". When I say "young people", I am talking about anybody — I am looking around the room carefully — under the age of 60.

Mrs Cameron: Well done. [Laughter.]

Mr McVey: Sorry, Chair, that was dangerous.

Ms Ní Chuilín: We are in our 60s. These are all young ones.

Mr McVey: I was looking at the light.

There is that sense of how you do that. Genuinely, there will be people in the room who are much younger and have very young children, and you are trying to give them confidence that this place will be better. That is why we are focused on this work. Victims and survivors do not want to live in the past; they want to ask, "How do we make this place better?". That is the positive aspect to the work. It is about doing it in such a way that the work is adequately resourced and the infrastructure is there to make sure that we are not falling back into difficult times.

Mr Gaston: Joe, welcome along. Thank you very much for sharing detailed information, and it is from that that I want to pull a few things out today. In paragraph 3, it says:

under b) —

You are in the role now for essentially four months, and I want to get a clear understanding of your point of view.

I start with the definition of a victim. In the Victims and Survivors Order 2006, it states that a victim is someone impacted by a conflict-related incident, which means to me that a victim-maker, somebody blown up by their own bomb, is treated as a victim. What is your view of the definition of a victim?

Mr McVey: Thank you for the welcome, Mr Gaston.

I could say that the answer to that is simple. We work to a definition — you have just referred to that definition — and that frames our work in everything that we do. Underpinning that is a sense that ours is a fairly inclusive definition. That is really that. I could end my answer there, but I am not going to, because your question goes to the heart of some of our ongoing divisions. To a lot of people and a lot of groups, that definition is anathema. People feel strongly that it creates some sort of moral equivalence, and that is a valid point of view. In our work, we try to engage with those individuals and those groups as much as we can. We are an impartial body, which means that we stick within our definition, and those are all the powers that we have.

It is important that you recognise that victims and survivors are not a homogeneous group, in the same way as veterans, for example, are not a homogeneous group, so, when we meet them, we have to be mindful and respectful of that. For example, you have an event coming up here shortly — a European victims' day — focusing very much, as it is phrased, on innocent victims. Certainly, from our point of view, I am happy to go along with that and attend that event. You have to respect those views, but, as you would expect, my politician's answer is that we live within and work to our definition. I cannot stray from that, nor would I want to comment on it. However, I emphasise that we need to be mindful of different views and to respect those views.

Mr Gaston: So that I am clear, you are happy with your duties, which is to keep it under review, and you do not intend to lobby to get that definition changed.

Mr McVey: No. For me to lobby on anything political would be wrong, as you know. I will say that the power to change that definition lies with you. I have met political parties and, without divulging any confidences, if that is a direction that political parties want to go in, we will try to inform those discussions by saying, "Here is what the victims and survivors' groups we are engaging with would like to see". However, in my short tenure, I have not come across groups asking me, "Will you raise this as an issue? Will you bring that to the fore?". Fundamentally, it is for you as legislators to ask, "Is there an interest, and is the appetite there to change that?" If there is, it is for you.

Mr Gaston: I am glad to hear that you are coming along to the event at Stormont for the innocent victims day. At last year's event, that theme came through strongly, and I have no doubt that it will come through strongly at this year's event as well. The definition of a victim is important to many — that a victim-maker should be put in the same bracket as a victim. I say to you in this public arena today that that will come across, and I believe that that is something that needs to change. I would like you to take that issue on board in your term in office.

Moving on to paragraph 10, you pay tribute to the victims forum:

You are very complimentary about the body. You said that your office started in 2008; indeed, my understanding is that many innocent victims have left the body in that time because they were included in the definition of a victim along with victim-makers. It might have been before your time, but I want to flag that with you today. Victim-makers are included in the scope of the forum, and that puts innocent victims off taking part. I think in particular of Jackie Nicholl. You can get the press statement online. In December 1971, he lost his 17-month-old son, Colin, in a bombing on the Shankill Road. He engaged and was part of the forum. When he was at some of the meetings, he befriended an unrepentant and boastful IRA bomber, so I can understand why Mr Nicholl left that forum. Some of those who were responsible for the murder of his 17-month-old son were taking part in it. How would you cater for his welfare as an elderly man if he came forward seeking help, knowing that it is a forum in which, he knew, he could not participate because he did not feel that it was a safe space, since some of those in the forum were boastful, to this day, of the atrocities that they had carried out in Northern Ireland?

Mr McVey: That is a well-constructed question and speaks to one of the challenges that we have. In my time, I have met them probably four or five times. I spent two days with them last week at a residential. They come from all walks of life and political persuasions. Fundamentally, they are there as individuals. They are not there to represent organisations or political viewpoints. Secondly, they are the most forward-looking group that I have met in many years. They focus on the future and their shared humanity. It has been a short tenure, but, in those meetings, I have not heard any of them use language that would offend anyone. Their language is very considered, they are respectful and, as I said, they are looking to the future.

On the composition of the forum, it has been working together for a while. I cannot comment on past forums; I can only pay tribute to the work that the forum is doing at the moment and to the membership. Tina and Andrew will keep me right on our process, but, from memory, we invite people to join the forum. People are selected carefully. Are they interested in building a future? Are they respectful? Do they have the emotional intelligence to make sure that they can make a contribution? I have been in the post for only four months. I have no difficulty in encouraging people to join the forum; in fact, I am keen to go out in the next 18 months to try to refresh it.

In response to your question, I am mindful of the fact that the needs of the forum five or 10 years ago are different from what the forum needs now. We need to have more voices of young people, more voices of people from disadvantaged communities and more voices of women, because of their experience of the Troubles. They are disproportionately under-represented in the forum. We need to look at make-up, but, in my experience of the forum, I would have no difficulty in encouraging anyone to come forward.

To go to your question, we, as the people who convene the forum, have a responsibility for the welfare of the individuals. If I felt at any point that there was any danger to anyone or that they were going to be emotionally or psychologically damaged, I would make sure that they did not come forward or, if they did come forward, that they knew they were going to be respected and looked after. I have spent my life in the voluntary sector, and one of the things that I am mindful of is the needs of volunteers. Those people are volunteers, and they need to be looked after. You do not want to create a situation where someone is upset or traumatised. We ask for members to give a lot of their time. We ask them to come along at little notice in terms of the legacy group. At those meetings, we always ask them if they are comfortable about sharing their experiences. It is not easy to do that in that room, because we have veterans and the family members of people who have been killed by the security forces and by paramilitaries. Therefore, they feel that it is a safe space for them to share those experiences.

Your point is factually correct, and I appreciate what you say. It could have been done with greater sensitivities in the past, but I assure you that what you mentioned is not happening in the current make-up of the forum.

Mr Gaston: Paragraph 30 of your submission relates to the bereaved payment:

What do you make of the Irish Government's commitment to acknowledging their systemic failings when they allowed IRA men to use the Irish Republic as a safe haven for years? A House of Commons paper on the extradition record states that, between 1973 and 1997, at least 110 extradition requests were made by the UK and only eight were successful.

How can we take it at face value that the Irish Government are seriously involved in reconciliation in Northern Ireland, when they provided a safe haven and were a contributor to the Troubles? To this date, nobody seems to want to go after the Irish Government to get them to open their files to see the extent of the role that they played in the mass murder of Protestants in Northern Ireland. They aided and abetted ethnic cleansing along the border areas. To this day, neither the British Government nor this place want to put pressure on the Irish Government to come clean about their role in the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

Mr McVey: Again, I could argue that that is outside our jurisdiction and that of the Assembly. However, to give respect to your question, we hear that view from quite a few of our groups and the individuals to whom we talk, and it speaks to the point made earlier to Ms Ní Chuilín about confidence. If the legacy framework or the Troubles Bill is to build confidence in communities here, both Governments will have to step up and step forward, whether that is with respect to the maximum disclosure of information or the acknowledgement of what was done in the past and, in some cases, is still being done by Governments. Acknowledgement is important to a lot of people, and it is sadly lacking here and in the South of Ireland. That must also be backed up with tangible evidence that Governments are serious.

Again, we referenced the fact that money and resources are issues, which is always the case, and some groups have said clearly that they expect the Irish Government to invest significantly in support for the bereaved, victims and survivors or memorialisation. At the moment, one or two of our groups here are working hard to support victims and survivors in both the South of Ireland and GB, and you might argue that doing so is outside our jurisdiction — well, the South of Ireland is.

There is a need for both Governments to give confidence to communities here. The concern about the legacy framework and the Troubles Bill for the groups that we brought together recently was to do with apathy and the suspicion that both Governments would not do the right thing and that, yet again, victims and survivors would be led up to the top of the hill and disappointed that there would not be acknowledgement or investment in services and that they would be left again. In response to your question, that is a challenge for both Governments. I totally understand your question and the scepticism and suspicion from some of the groups that you work with and that you have talked about.

Mr Gaston: One more, Chair?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): A small one, because there is another member with questions.

Mr Gaston: My last question will be quick. At last week’s Committee meeting, I asked the First Minister whether she would apologise for or retract her statement that there was no alternative to IRA violence: she failed to do that once again. How much does having a First Minister at the head of the Stormont Executive who still believes that there was no alternative to IRA violence and murder in Northern Ireland do damage to your role as commissioner and to the impact that your office can have in moving forward? When you get the opportunity to meet her, will you ask her to reflect on that?

Ms Ní Chuilín: You are asking the commissioner a difficult question.

Mr McVey: It is a fair question, and it goes to the question of confidence. The commission's role is to promote and support the interests of all victims and survivors. Therefore, we have to be mindful that those types of comments lead to a sense of betrayal across the community. Equally, other elements of the community might feel that those comments were justified. I cannot comment on comments that were made by the First Minister, but I understand the question and the hurt that they might have caused in certain communities. We hear that. Equally, we hear strong condemnation of our Government here in how the Legacy Commission and the Troubles Bill is playing out. People are looking for even-handed and equal treatment. At the moment, that is absent.

Mr Brett: Thank you very much for joining us. Our party's position in relation to the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 is clear, but it is important to recognise that, unfortunately, it is not for this place to set the definition of a victim. That legislation was passed at Westminster.

I will pick up on a couple of issues. The first relates to victims' pensions and the application process. The start of the scheme was delayed in Northern Ireland as a result of the decision by the former deputy First Minister, who is now the First Minister, to block the designation of the Department of Justice as the administrator of the scheme. It was her view that those who perpetrated violence, not just those who were the victims of violence, should receive a pension. Are the ongoing delays in the awarding of victims' pensions raised regularly with the commission?

Mr McVey: Thank you very much, Mr Brett, for your question. As I indicated, we are hearing that the Victims' Payments Board and the payments that have been paid out have made a significant difference to the lives of thousands of people. That, in itself, has been transformational. Equally, the process that the people have gone through has been traumatising in some cases and has impacted on them and their families. You will be aware of groups, individuals and, I am sure, MLAs who have tried to help people through the process, and that is equally difficult. My understanding, having talked to those on the Victims' Payments Board, is that the staff are trying to do their best to cope with difficult cases. They are looking back over many years and trying to pull information together, and that is a challenge. The door to new applications will close in August, and our concern is about making sure that people are aware of that and ensuring that no individuals here or in GB feel that they will lose out. Even with the door closing, I am mindful that the Victims' Payments Board has a heavy workload ahead of it and will do for many years.

As you indicated, delays and political stand-offs, unfortunately, impact on victims and survivors and their families, who, frankly, are not interested in why those things are happening and the political games between Departments. They just want to see whether they will get a resolution to their issue and the funding and support that they deserve.

Going back to where I started in the conversation, it is about trying to ensure that victims are at the heart of all bodies in their governance and how they develop their processes. We need to make sure that the bodies are, to use a term that is often used, trauma-informed and not driven by the process or an emphasis on efficiency and effectiveness sometimes. We must remember that we are dealing with people and families, not dashboard widgets.

Mr Brett: I would not classify the delay as "political games": there was a clear ruling from the court. It was stated that:

It was not a political game; it was an attempt to break the law by the former deputy First Minister, the now First Minister.

The paper that you submitted to the Committee mentioned the commission's 'Advice to Government on provision of a bereavement payment scheme and services for people bereaved as a result of the Troubles/conflict' document. That advice was submitted in December 2023, which predates your tenure, Joe. Who was responsible for authoring that report?

Mr McVey: That was done by the office of the commission under the former commissioner. I picked that up when I came in. How that scheme is being progressed is one of the issues that all the groups raise with me. As an office, we would like to see it progress. The difficulty is that, technically, it sits with the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. We are awaiting its response to that advice. We are being encouraged by groups to ask how it is being progressed.

It sounds a bit like a technicality, but we are waiting to get a formal response. It is under consideration. When we get that response, we would like to come back to the Committee to say how that issue might be progressed, because, again, universally, there seems to be a demand and a need for it, so we are keen to do that.

Mr Brett: From reading the advice, the commission's recommendation seems to be that the scheme should be paid for by the UK Government through the provision of the block grant to the Northern Ireland Executive. Why is there no recommendation in there that the Irish Government should contribute financially to it, given the role that they played in facilitating terrorist activities in Northern Ireland?

Mr McVey: As I understand it, that is because we can speak only to our work in Northern Ireland. Having said that, I go back to my previous comment: if it is an issue that comes forward from both legislatures or Governments, that could be looked at. We are just keen, as you have probably gathered, having done the research and got support for all the groups, to see how it can be taken forward. My view and that of our staff team at the moment is that more work needs to be done and that we can only start that ball rolling once we get a formal response back.

Mr Brett: Yes, but, in order to have a formal response, a well-thought-out and structured request needs to have been made. The Committee, for example, unanimously agreed wording on a report on a different Bill that said that the Northern Ireland Executive should seek recompense from institutions and Churches both in Northern Ireland and on the other side of the border. Therefore, it is well within your remit to say, "It is the view of the commission that financial contributions should be made by the Irish Government". Will you commit today that you will look at that paper and see whether that can be included?

Mr McVey: That is a helpful suggestion, but, once we get a response from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister that they have considered it and if their consideration is to say to the commission —.

Mr Brett: I am not asking for their consideration: with respect, I am asking for your consideration. The advice was submitted in 2023. You have waited over two years to get a response, and it does not look as though you will get one any time soon. Are you going to do any work on trying to get a paper? Clearly, there has not been an agreement on the paper that you submitted, and that is why you have not had a response.

Mr McVey: There are two things that I would say. Your point about the delay highlights another issue. Again, as I mentioned in the paper, there was a 21-month gap between my predecessor's stepping down and my taking up the role of commissioner. I flag that now for the future, because that gap meant that, on some pieces, work has been lost, and this is a prime example.

Mr Brett: We have got you for four years, Joe.

Mr McVey: Thank you. Is that a statement of support? [Laughter.]

I hope that that lasts.

It is an example of where we need to keep the spotlight on the role of the commission and its work. We are happy to come back with a revised paper on the scheme for the bereaved. Again, from our point of view and technically speaking, we are still keen to hear in writing what the First Minister and the deputy First Minister think, because we could go off in one direction, and they might not come back and say, "This is a great idea".

Mr Brett: So far, they have not come back to say, "That was a great idea that you submitted". Maybe you should have a look at that.

Mr McVey: I live in hope.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We will focus on the issue again next week. We will have a stakeholder panel of victims and survivors, and then departmental officials will be in to talk about the strategy. Joe, you may want to watch that online.

Thank you so much. We really appreciate that. There may be some actions for us to agree, but, for now, I thank you and wish you well.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you. It was good to see you.

Mr McVey: Chair, I know that you have your business to do, but we are keen to come back to update you and keep the pressure and spotlight on in order to make sure that the issue of victims and survivors does not get lost.

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