Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I welcome to the meeting Irene Sherry, senior leadership team, Bridge of Hope; Lee McDowell, director of services, Ely Centre; Andrée Murphy, deputy director, Relatives for Justice (RFJ); Kenny Donaldson, director, South East Fermanagh Foundation (SEFF); and Dr Paul Gallagher, trauma education officer, WAVE Trauma Centre. Thank you all for your submissions in advance. You have arranged how you are going to do your presentation, I think — no?

The Committee Clerk: No. Each witness will take one pillar of the strategy, I think. Is that right? Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. There are five of you, and we want to get into the Q&A session, so please try to keep your opening remarks as succinct as possible, and we will then go into questions and answers. Thank you. Who will start?

Mr Lee McDowell (Ely Centre): I will go first. Thank you, Chairperson and Committee members. On behalf of the Ely Centre, I welcome the opportunity to speak specifically on the pillar of "The Past" in the victims' strategy and what that means in practice for the victims and survivors whom we support daily.

For many victims and survivors, the impact of the past has not receded with time; instead, it continues to affect their physical health, mental well-being, relationships and sense of security every day. The strategy previously committed to assisting:

and to ensure that they actively shape the mechanisms that affect their journey to recovery. That commitment to being victim-centred must remain the guiding principle.

The establishment of the Peace IV health and well-being caseworker and advocacy support network was an important and practical expression of that commitment. Through trained advocacy managers and workers, over 4,000 victims were supported to access information, voice their views and make informed choices.

Whilst not a funded advocacy victims' group, we strongly support the continuation of that work under PEACE PLUS. The legacy landscape remains contested and evolving, particularly in light of recent legislative changes. In that context, flexibility and properly resourced advocacy and health and well-being services are essential if victims are to remain central and engaged.

The opening of the victims' payment scheme (VPS) in August 2021 was a significant milestone under "The Past" pillar. For many permanently disabled victims, the scheme represents long-overdue acknowledgement of the wrongs that they have suffered and the lifelong physical and psychological harm that they have endured. As an organisation, we have assisted many clients through the process and have seen the difference that formal recognition makes. It is not simply financial; it is about validation, recognition and dignity.

However, if the "The Past" pillar is to remain truly victim-centred, we must acknowledge where gaps exist. The legislative criteria of the VPS have resulted in anomalies. Many genuine victims have been deemed ineligible, which has caused further distress. In particular, many bereaved individuals who were not present at the scene or immediate aftermath of an incident do not meet the criteria, yet their trauma and loss are lifelong. As an organisation, we believe, therefore, that two things are necessary: first, that the VPS should remain beyond August 2026 to continue to support permanently disabled victims who either are unaware of the scheme or have been reluctant to engage with it to date; and secondly, that serious and structured consideration be given to the development of a bereavement recognition scheme grounded in the same principles of fairness, dignity and acknowledgement. We have a paper on that, which I am happy to leave after the session.

The strategy also recognises that dealing with the past is painful and complex and that truth and justice remain core priorities for many victims. From our experience of working with the victims of Enniskillen, Corry Square and Kingsmills, we know that that is correct and that the changing legacy landscape continues to create uncertainty and anxiety. That is why the staff funded by the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS), such as welfare advisers and social support teams, and the PEACE PLUS health and well-being caseworkers are so critical. Those staff are where the rubber meets the road between the victims' strategy and the lived experiences of victims on the ground. They coordinate support across health, mental health, social care, legacy and financial stability. They provide continuity and reassurance, ensuring that the needs identified through the past and this strategy are addressed in practice.

It is important to recognise the ageing population of the victims' community. Whether we like it or not, we are all getting older, and many of those directly affected by the Troubles are now living with cumulative trauma, disability, bereavement and declining health. "The Past" pillar cannot be separated from well-being. Vital for us over the past 10 years has been the role of the VSS, particularly through its victim support programme (VSP). The programme has ensured sustained investment in community-based, trauma-informed services. That coordinated support from the VSS ensures that commitments made in the strategy translate into real support on the ground.

I would encourage properly resourced educational initiatives that involve victims and victims' groups in helping younger generations to understand the human impact of the Troubles. The human cost of the Troubles belongs to those who lived it. It is not, and must not become, a burden for our children to bear. If we are serious about building for the future, an honest, factual and balanced programme of education around the Troubles is essential.

"The Past" pillar contains strong and meaningful commitments. Progress has been made, particularly through the health and well-being caseworker network, advocacy teams and the VPS. The task is to strengthen what works; strengthen long-term delivery; address identified gaps, especially around the bereaved; and ensure flexibility as needs continue to evolve. As a group, we remain committed to working with the Executive Office, the VSS and our partners to ensure that victims are not only referenced in policy but supported in practice.

Ms Irene Sherry (Bridge of Hope): Good afternoon, Chair and Committee members. I welcome the opportunity to speak to the "Needs" pillar. That strategy recognises that meeting the needs of victims and survivors is not just about financial recompense or historical acknowledgement. It is about health, well-being and sustainable recovery. It commits to ensuring access to supporting services through a coordinated, trauma-informed system that responds to individual experiences and promotes long-term well-being.

A foundational element of that approach is the health and well-being caseworker network. Caseworkers are acting as the first point of contact, helping to identify ongoing needs, whether psychological, physical, social or practical. They then assist with navigating tailored pathways to support. Complementing that, we have the Regional Trauma Network (RTN), which represents a significant development in how trauma services are organised. Rather than isolated pockets of support, the network brings together specialist trauma care across statutory services and community partners, ensuring that people can access evidence-based therapeutic support in the right place and at the right time.

The legacy of conflict extends far beyond physical injuries. It has had a long-term impact on mental health and well-being, with many people experiencing ongoing psychological distress. The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 has intensified the trauma, distress and uncertainty for victims and survivors by removing pathways to truth, justice and accountability whilst compelling engagement with processes that many have experienced as re-traumatising and disempowering.

From a north Belfast perspective, those challenges can be striking. It has been one of the areas most intensely affected, with communities experiencing repeated episodes of violence, displacement and social fragmentation. The cumulative stress of conflict and its intergenerational effects have contributed to patterns of social isolation and poor mental health and have a direct correlation with continued poor health inequalities.

The strategy's focus on local, accessible and culturally competent support services offers a means to address those persistent challenges, but it also calls on all of us to ensure that resources are equitably directed to where they are most needed, including in hard-pressed urban communities such as north Belfast. Importantly, the strategy recognises that needs are not gender-neutral. In our experience, a gender-informed approach is essential to ensure that the strategy delivers meaningful and effective support in practice.

The "Needs" pillar of the strategy is a bold step towards recognising that healing from conflict requires more than words. It demands sustained investment in people, in networks of care and in trauma-informed systems that truly meet victims and survivors where they are. Whether through the health and well-being caseworker network, the Regional Trauma Network or gender-aware practice, our collective challenge is to ensure that the strategy translates into real-world improvements in health, well-being and quality of life for those whose lives were shaped by the conflict. As PEACE PLUS ends, urgent action is needed to secure sustainable, long-term funding to ensure continuity of support. To prevent gaps, the Government should commit to a dedicated cross-departmental funding allocation to bridge the transition period.

Finally, I urge the Committee to recognise that truly effective trauma-informed work depends on removing the "did not attend" (DNA) stipulation requirement. Retaining that condition risks undermining the very purpose of the policy by driving away highly skilled, trauma-informed practitioners whose expertise is essential to deliver safe, consistent and effective support. Retaining sessional practitioners is vital to ensure the continuity of care for victims and survivors. Their ongoing involvement not only safeguards trusted therapeutic relationships but underpins long-term sustainability, stability and quality of service and delivery for victims and survivors.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you.

Ms Andrée Murphy (Relatives for Justice): Thank you for having us and for discussing the strategy today. I start by acknowledging that there will be people in the room who have experienced conflict bereavement and injury. On behalf of Relatives for Justice, I welcome the strategy. It is an important document, it has been co-designed, and it is very welcome.

There are elements of "The Future" pillar that we need to be careful around, particularly those that recognise the harms experienced by those who have been most directly affected. Victims and survivors are not a homogeneous group, and those who have been bereaved and injured will carry lifelong trauma, and because of their experience, they will often become campaigners because the system and statutory agencies have failed them. A future action plan must embrace that and ensure that all support is trauma-informed, rights-based and sensitive to legacy-related harm in an embracing and non-judgemental way that will not reinforce trauma. It means embedding psychological services that understand conflict trauma, not just providing generic mental health provision. It means that engagement with the investigative or legal processes can re-traumatise individuals. The last time I was here, we talked about the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme (TPDPS) as an example of that type of process, and individuals must be supported accordingly. The approach must ensure that advocacy services are not treated as optional extras but as something essential for those who are engaging with any systems.

Co-design must be real and not rhetorical. Co-design requires early engagement, not consultation after the decisions are made. There must be transparent criteria for funding or other service provision and clear feedback loops to enable communities to understand how their input has shaped the outcomes and that those who engage with the services feel that they are as integrated into the strategy as any of the rest of us. We believe that meaningful co-design is critical and requires capacity support, so that victims and survivors can engage effectively, but there will be an impact if they are under-resourced or constantly firefighting because of one-year or two-year funding cycles. Our action plan needs to include the resources to enable sustained participation.

The third element is accountability and measurement. We want an increased emphasis on the qualitative data, and not just bean counting of who we support and where, but the meaningful change that is being supported by all the organisations that we see here today. In the future, as the strategy rolls out, we can meet, as we are doing today, to discuss the clear timelines that are attached to each commitment. We also encourage independent evaluation at the midpoint and completion of the scheme.

As we all know, victims and survivors have waited decades for truth and justice and adequate support. With the comprehensive infrastructure in place, including the Regional Trauma Network and the victims' support programmes, the strategy cycle can make tangible progress, but several substantive areas require emphasis in the action plan. They include access to justice supports and acknowledging the economic impact and poverty that conflict-related injury and bereavement can have on the long-term social and economic consequences, and the fact that financial stress compounds trauma.

The strategy must integrate welfare advice, financial inclusion support pathways and pathways to economic resilience. Under that, we need to have a human rights-compliant system of reparations. I fully endorse what Lee said about the fact that a programme for the bereaved needs to be put at the top of the agenda, particularly in light of the TPDPS. We cannot pay lip service to the bereaved, and we need to look at the intergenerational impact. Sustainability and consistency of funding is critical. We are coming to a cliff edge for that kind of support in October 2028, which will be on us before we know it. We need to plan now, not just when it becomes a crisis.

The action plan and the strategy is an opportunity to move from acknowledgment and tea and sympathy for victims and survivors to actual delivery and from symbolic commitment to measurable progress. Thank you for the opportunity.

Mr Kenny Donaldson (South East Fermanagh Foundation): The pillar that I have been asked to speak to is "Enablers". Forgive me, but I will probably jump across other areas as well, because that is the nature of enablers.

Twenty years ago, there may have been a view that the victims and survivors' sector would have reduced somewhat over that 20-year period. Part of the principle of the "Enablers" pillar and increased collaboration across central and local government is that you have to be careful what you wish for. The sector has increased exponentially. One example is the TPDPS scheme. We have supported circa 2,500 people in submitting applications to that process. Of those who have come forward, 40% are people who are new to victims and survivors' services. Approximately 70% to 80% of them then required other interventions as a consequence of engaging with the scheme. That is not to mention their extended families. If you take that across each of the groupings that provide for that scheme alone, it illustrates that the death rate of people in that first generation who have passed away over the past 20 years is nowhere near the growth rate that has come as a consequence of the TPDPS, the RTN, the clinical work and the evolution of all that, which is positive, but it creates a larger constituency.

When we talk about "Enablers", we are talking about advancing each area defined in the strategy as part of our own organisational strategy and practice. However, among the sector, there is a need for a more integrated and combined approach on the issues. The core requirement of the strategy is to embody across government and society a sense that victims and survivors' issues should be everyone's business and concern. We have, thankfully, reached the stage where that is an accepted reality across government, but the resource now needs to follow in order to really get into the issues.

Largely, the Northern Ireland Troubles were symbolised by broken and distrustful relationships in communities, whether they were cross-border, North/South or east-west. Even though the Committee's work looks explicitly at the Northern Ireland context, there is a need to engage with Dublin and Westminster on the provision of equitable and accessible supports for victims and survivors who live outside the jurisdiction.

The strategic alignment "Enabler" is about mainstreaming victims and survivors' services in the thinking of other programmes and focuses. The victims and survivors' sector has had much to contribute to broader discussions, and it should not be restricted in doing so because of marginalisation or other issues. It is about getting beyond the point of pigeonholing the sector as some form of separate constituency and community to the wider populace, because that is not accurate.

When it comes to learning and evidence, over the past 10 years, it is accurate to say that the victims and survivors' sector has been up for the challenge of professionalising, monitoring and evaluation. Probably, as a sector, we are now close to the top when it comes to having a robust monitoring and evaluation process in order to garner information on successes and outcomes for victims and survivors. Of course, more needs to be done.

I turn to capacity and service support, as it is framed. Many of us operate in facilities that are archaic and not exactly consistent with the provision of a positive mental health and well-being experience for victims and survivors. In 2026, there needs to be a look at where we are with all that and at what investment through a capital programme is needed.

Trauma awareness and education is one area that is absolutely critical from our perspective as a group. Lee has mentioned it already. On where we are at the moment, next year, the Republic of Ireland will incorporate the Northern Ireland Troubles in the Leaving Certificate history curriculum for the first time. We have no comparable consensus here in Northern Ireland. Our summation is that it is certainly not a cornerstone issue in curricula, and the piecemeal approach that is taken means that there is scope for that period to be taught in a particularly partisan way, reinforcing divisions and prejudices, as opposed to contributing towards shared understanding. I am not saying that of any sector in particular: right across the board, work has to be done. We would submit that there is a need for a cross-departmental task force to be established that would incorporate Education, the Executive Office, Health and sectoral representatives to, first, conduct a baseline around what is currently happening across all sectors of education provision in Northern Ireland, investigate international best practice and come forward with a set of proposals on how those matters might be progressed.

We want to make a number of other broad points. It is our view that the Committee and, moreover, the Assembly should take a detailed and forensic look at legacy with the focus on how architecture can be created, suitably resourced and empowered to deliver the optimum, and not the absolutely begrudging minimal outcome, for victims and survivors. That means both states — the UK and Irish state — approaching those issues with a fair, balanced and equitable manner. Therefore, it is not purely about the provision of services around advocacy but about how those systemic issues sit. We ask for your involvement in all that.

Reparation for the bereaved is a common thread across us all. An unintended consequence of the TPDPS is that it has magnified the sense of injustice for the bereaved around their experiences not being, in any way, acknowledged or validated. A scheme is required urgently to deal with all that. We are realistic about how difficult it will be to legislate for that here. It may be that we need to look across the water to a national solution, but that is above my pay grade.

Finally, I just want to reiterate the point that we are very pleased to see a strategy of 10 years and a focus ahead of us. A lot of the growth that actually occurred post the last strategy happened between the years of 2019 and 2024, ironically. However, we are now in a space where we must absolutely reconfigure where we are as a sector and ask whether we are serious about delivering upon the actual need, or whether we are going to ask a constituency to deliver a service with a loaves-and-fishes approach.

Dr Paul Gallagher (WAVE Trauma Centre): Thank you for inviting me to represent the WAVE Trauma Centre and everybody else who is here.

We are talking about the way ahead, structures, roles and relationships. I want to go back a little bit before we go forward on that. Evidently, the structures that we have in place at the moment have been developed as needs were identified over the decades. It is fair to say that victims and survivors groups came first. For example, WAVE was started in 1991 by, and for, those who had been widowed or whose partners were killed in the intervening period in and around north Belfast. They recognised each other as needing support with basic everyday needs, childcare and social support. They reached out to others across the community. They had to do it for themselves. There were no statutory structures in place for victims and survivors until 1998. Services operated in silos up till then. The Troubles and their impact were actually invisible. Everyone was subsumed into health and social services, including those who were most impacted by the violence; the bereaved and injured. There was no bespoke strategy.

There was only a cursory nod to victims and survivors of the conflict in the preamble to the Good Friday Agreement. After 1998, we had Bloomfield, the victims unit in the then OFMDFM, the memorial fund, the Victims' Commission, VSS, the Victims' Payments Board and the Regional Trauma Network. Now, thankfully, we have coalesced those structures under the auspices of the Executive Office. That is welcome, but we must keep an eye on how they can be developed further. As we know, victims and survivors' issues are much more than just what my colleagues have covered so far. They should be seen as part of a wider societal approach to dealing with our past and the effects not just of the violence but structurally. We should widen the structures, roles and relationships.

I reiterate that an interdepartmental approach is needed. We need to include the Department of Health. We will be coming to the end of the RTN pilot. It needs not only to be continued but expanded and promoted in the health service, right down to GPs and the medics in our emergency departments, so that they are able to signpost people to the RTN, because many people do not know about it. We need to include the Department for Communities in understanding the long-term impact of the conflict and how it mapped on to communities that had already experienced social deprivation — and that still do to this day. The Department for Infrastructure has a role to play in making sure that victims and survivors can live in this country free from reminders of violence: for example, the paramilitary flags that hang off lamp posts and adorn walls in our housing estates. Those are the same estates where paramilitary gangs still terrorise our communities and re-traumatise victims and survivors through their continued presence: the Department of Justice is key in that regard. The Department of Education, as Kenny said, can play a key role in educating our children about the past. That should not just be about who did what to whom and why but, instead, focus on the impact of the trauma and how it permeates the generations. The Department for the Economy could consider ways to provide redress to victims and survivors and their families, possibly by supporting them to go into further or higher education, if they so wish.

Everyone has a role to play in delivering on the draft strategy: everyone at the table beside me, all of you in front of me, the other MLAs who are dotted around this Building, the civil servants sitting behind us who deliver public services, the Department heads, the media and wider society. Everyone has a part to play in this, because we are all involved. Victims and survivors are not a section of the community who sit on their own. A massive number of people can consider themselves as victims or survivors. People who look at family members who have been impacted on are themselves impacted on by what has happened to them, what has happened within their families, how they are treated by society and how their experiences are validated or invalidated. All of that is important.

It involves strengthening relationships. I look beside me and see how the representatives of these groups have built relationships over the years, in spite of our profound differences, sometimes, on matters of principle. The same can be said for many of our MLAs over the years. The relationships are built on delivering for people, from whatever part of the community, who need support. The way ahead is to build on that and to understand that, by dealing with the past, in the present, we can help build for the future — a future that says, "Never again. There will be no return to violence, whether that be physical, social or structural violence", which is what was at the heart of much of the conflict in the first instance.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you, all, for your opening remarks. Departmental officials will be coming in after this session, so, in some ways, in our questions to you, we will be focused on how we will hold them to account on delivery of the strategy. I want to begin with a theme that ran through some of your submissions, which is the new victims' support programme and the funding and stipulations around "did not attend", eligible expenditure and stuff like that. One or two of you may want to speak to how the changes in that programme are impacting on your ability to deliver. I think that Bridge of Hope talked about that. Do you want to go ahead?

Ms Sherry: I am happy to take that, Chair. We have been in receipt of victims' funding since 2003. Historically, it came through the Community Relations Council (CRC) and then VSS after it was set up. The new programme is a significant change in policy direction, given the impact that it will have on the delivery of services. Probably 99% of our practitioners who are female and deliver counselling, coaching and complementary therapies work at below-market-value rates. The VSP outlines that funding will increase to £45 per hour for counselling and £35 per hour for complementary therapies. Practitioners also have to provide their own materials, which, for us as a group, is hard to stand over. Those amounts are considerably lower than what those individuals would get if they were working privately. Many of the practitioners in our organisations, from across constituencies, are victims and survivors themselves. They came for the opportunities to grow, develop, upskill and train as therapists, coaches and counsellors, and they brought with them their experience and a wealth of knowledge about healing and recovery. They have a passion for delivering in local communities, using that community development, place-based approach.

It is outlined that it is the responsibility of the groups to decide the entirety of their DNA policy, but we as groups have to do that on the basis of the stipulations, which state that, if someone rings in the afternoon and cancels an appointment for the following day, the practitioner will not get paid at all, and, if someone does not turn up on the day, the practitioner will only get half their payment and only for two appointments. That totally disregards a trauma-informed approach, particularly in constituencies where the conflict, socioeconomic deprivation, poverty and layers and layers of intergenerational trauma have had a major impact. It is well known and established, even across statutory provision, that DNAs are likely among that cohort. Why penalise people who are already working at below-market-value rates? I ask you to help and support us on that, because it is a critical issue for the sector.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you very much. I want to pick up on the issue of Troubles-themed education and awareness in the curriculum. I think that you, Kenny, raised that, as did Lee. Do you want to lead on why you feel that that work is important?

Mr Donaldson: A number of our groups have done their own pilot-based work in that area over the past number of years. Young people absolutely have an interest in understanding the past. It is disingenuous to say that young people just are not interested or that it is outside their concern or focus. It about how to provide that understanding in a manner in which we provide a set of facts. Of course, there are a number of narratives about what happened in this place. What we attempt to do when we present in those situations is cover the range of narratives and allow young people to judge for themselves. You should never go into a school-based environment and propagate a narrative to anybody; it should be about encouraging critical thinking, providing information and letting young people determine for themselves what happened. Without that being given due focus, what sort of future are we building? We are building a future in the absence of engagement with our young people, who are the present and the future. That work has been shirked for a long number of years. I understand, to some degree, why that has been the case, but we have now come to a crunch point. The Republic of Ireland, our nearest land neighbour, is progressing that work next year, and we have had some engagement with the education system down there. To me, it would be ironic if we continue to shirk it here.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Do you have anything to add to that, Lee?

Mr McDowell: As a father of four children from high-school-age down, I have a personal interest in this. I do not want to repeat everything that Kenny has said, but there has to be an honest, factual and balanced approach for kids, delivered in a way that is convenient for them. We need to involve victims — victims have to be included. It is surprising and really encouraging that, when you talk to victims of all ages, even those who are 70 or 80 years of age, and put across the idea, "Would you be interested in going into schools? Would you be interested in talking on podcasts and telling people about what happened to you and the human impact of the Troubles? We all know what happened, but what was the human impact on you, your family, your business, your community?", they are keen to engage in that. So, yes, something that is delivered in a youth-appropriate way, while it will take a lot of resource, should be done.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Would you like to add to that, Paul?

Dr Gallagher: I would. WAVE has been undertaking that in schools and universities for 15 to 20 years as part of our trauma education programme. We have a Master's degree in Trauma Studies. We also have a really innovative project called Citizen Education. Hundreds have been through that process over the years. Like what Lee spoke about, we bring victims and survivors into the universities to speak to first-year nursing students, medical students and social work students. Those sessions and tutorials are built into the Northern Ireland Social Care Council curriculum for social workers and baked into nursing. The project has won awards. The General Medical Council said that that type of work is "notable practice", which was a nice accolade to get. That work is already ongoing, but it needs to be developed that bit further. Victims and survivors get a lot out of it too, because they are able to take something that was negative in their lives and use it for the positive, so it is victim-centred. The guys who get involved are trained to go in there to hone their story towards whatever profession or age of student needs to hear it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. I have one last question. In your paper, Andrée, this jumped out at me:

Will you expand on that a bit? It seems that you feel that there is a cohort of people who are not being serviced by public or voluntary support. Will you elaborate, please?

Ms Andrée Murphy: We have mentioned, in particular, the bereaved. So much of the policy so far, including the payment scheme, which is deeply flawed, has been around the injured. The processes alienate, doubly silence and doubly censor many people but particularly the bereaved, who have been let down by the Legacy Act and by the legacy processes. They were promised so much in 2014 with the Stormont House Agreement, and they have had that withdrawn from them. They are still campaigning now, instead of being on the far side of an investigative process, and then they see a scheme that is cruel. It excludes very many people, and even the bereaved who are going through it are treated deeply cruelly. A strategy that does not engage with that harm will fail. We, in our groups, try to make up for that by delivering some services, but, ultimately, the public policy is not there.

The differential in the experience of women and men in the conflict has not been appreciated. Some 91% of the people who were killed during the conflict were men and boys, which has an obvious gender implication, but what do we do to ensure that women are also appreciated within the processes? In processes to deal with the past, women are often treated only as eyewitnesses or next of kin, rather than as primary rights holders. Women as victims of sexual violence and those types of harms, again, are not appreciated. In RFJ, we have worked with mothers who lost children during the conflict. Women who lose children experience not a secondary harm, as it is in law; they experience a primary harm. We have an opportunity to respond in public policy and say to them, "We see you. We appreciate that the harm done to you was very different, and we will build our policy around that". However, because we do not apply a gender lens, we do not do that. Lee spoke about the ageing population. They are women who will pass away without having had appropriate recognition of their harm.

Those are the sorts of gaps that we see.

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

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you, all, for your presentation. Just for information: I wrote to FM and DFM on the exclusion of under-18s from the VSP application process, and, in fairness, they accepted that. I will not ask you to comment on it, but I will just say this: I do not believe that VSS should be making up policy on the victims' strategy on behalf of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. From my perspective, that is what VSS tried to do, and it backfired.

My issue is that DNA — "did not attend" — largely impacts on women, who had pathways primarily through your organisations. I take this opportunity to give you all credit for that, because that is sustainability in looking after those people. There is nothing like a connection with and support from someone who has been through it. That is not easy, and I acknowledge it. We are still not out of the woods with the "did not attend" stuff. We all agree that VSS seems to have decided to pass that back to the groups. By the sound of things, it is a case of, "It's your responsibility. If there's a gap in the money, it's down to you". It is a bit disingenuous. We are certainly not content with that. I say that just by way of feedback.

In this Committee, we have raised the separate issue of the victims' pension. People, regardless of where they are on the political landscape, have described the process as traumatising and humiliating. Some people, on hearing about other people's experiences, have opted not to apply for it. I hope that we can agree to get people, including VSS, back in on that. I am not asking you to comment on all that, because I have made a political comment.

How important is it to recognise what you offer? You are the experts — you are part of a group of expert practitioners. How should what you say, about giving the best possible service and support, be reflected back to VSS? You have talked about DNA, which is one example. What are the others? There is the Victims' Payments Board and the whole Capita process. What else do we need to do to raise the issue of the horrendous experiences that people have had in going through that? Money is being handed back because it cannot be spent, and it cannot be spent because people are being put through all sorts. A cliff edge is coming, and the people who need that money most will not get it.

It is down to you who answers that.

Ms Andrée Murphy: There needs to be co-design. If we have a PEACE PLUS programme and a VPS programme, we are brought into rooms and asked for our opinion, but it is not our decision. It is not up to us to determine it; we just see it afterwards in an application form or a letter of offer. That is not real co-design. If we had actually been involved in co-designing any of those elements, from the monitoring and evaluation processes through to how we pay the staff who deliver to victims and survivors, it would look different. Sometimes, there is simply lip service paid to co-design. That is at the heart of all of that. The TPDPS —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Will you explain that initialism, please, for the people who are listening in?

Ms Andrée Murphy: Sorry, it is the payment scheme — the pension — for the injured. You are right: we end up falling into using initialisms.

I will give an example of something relating to the pension that happened before Christmas — it concerns a woman whose two children were killed. She was at the scene, but her presence was not recorded by the RUC at the time, because the father dealt with the RUC. The mother was there and saw her children killed, but she was turned down by the payment scheme, because her presence was not in the initial record at the time. It was not reported in 'The Irish News' or recorded by the RUC. She had to go through an appeals process. Her two children were killed. Anyone looking at that with any sensibility would understand, but she was called a liar when she said, "I was there". She had to go through all those processes. It is utterly despicable. On the face of it, it looks like the process worked, because, ultimately, she won on appeal, but, actually, the process caused harm. We need to capture the harm that is being done, and value and appreciate that harm, rather than just saying at the far end, "Here's the outcome", because that is not right and it is not fair.

Carál, you made a point about people not applying. That goes on across the board. There are people who are waiting for a long-overdue judicial review, in the High Court, on so-called punishment shootings and attacks. They are waiting for a decision to be made as to whether they are eligible. They are people with lifelong physical and psychological injuries who do not know whether they are eligible for the scheme — a scheme that will close to applications on 31 August. That disproportionately affects people in working-class areas and young people. They and their families are being told, "We don't see you. You're excluded". The impact of that is that they come to our organisations, and we try to make up for those failures. We say, "We see you. We believe you. We absolutely appreciate you".

Ms Ní Chuilín: Is that the experience for all the groups?

Ms Sherry: Yes, that is the experience. We are working with a family in which one individual has been successful, one has been turned down and one is waiting for an assessment, but all three of them were present. We have had individuals who have been really distressed — I cannot stress how difficult a process it has been.

I want to go back to the under-18 work. It is getting late for us to get indications of the outworkings of the VSP application process, which currently will have under-18s in services. We do not want there to be a disconnect in that going into the new financial year. It also needs to be appreciated that many of the groups have other under-18 work in other programmes. That, as well as the DNA issue, has not been redressed. I appreciate how busy your schedule is, but, if there is an opportunity, it would be useful and worthwhile for us to come back to you on the outworkings of the decisions, after they are made. All of us have long-standing relationships within victim and survivor services — there are excellent working relationships there. Some of those relationships go back to 2003 in CRC. We have good working relationships, but, as Kenny alluded to, there is a lot of governance, even in the involvement of the Regional Trauma Network.

We agreed collectively to all become British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) accredited services to set the bar for our work and our delivery with victims and survivors. There is a lot of governance. A lot of work has been done, but, sometimes, it is about recognising the disconnect between a funding programme and the pressure that we face organisationally. As Andreé said, there is a need not just to look at the quantitative aspects of the strategy but to recognise the qualitative aspect, particularly for victims and survivors. The personal impact of some of that is key for us.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you.

Mr Gaston: Good afternoon, all.

Kenny, I will start with you. Last week, the Committee was due to receive a research paper on the role of the Irish state in the terror campaign. Unfortunately, when the paper came, there was no information on that, which is disappointing. Some members in this room argued that it was outside the scope of the Committee. You talked today about having a detailed and forensic look at legacy regarding the systemic issues. I believe that you are talking about the Irish Government in that.

How can the Committee have any credibility when it is looking after innocent victims and victims' issues while ignoring the Irish state's involvement in the terror campaign here in Northern Ireland?

Mr Donaldson: I have made my remarks in that regard. I feel that we almost have to take a step back sometimes and to ask this question: what do we want at the end of this process? Do we want a society that is further at ease with itself, where there is a level of validation of experience across the board and where people have renewed relationships that they can build going forward? For that to happen, we need to look at who all the stakeholders were in our Troubles, not just those who are in our own backyard, which we confer, by nature of jurisdictional issues, is where we should have our focus, but all contributors. Then, if we are truly serious about it, every individual who is in politics or in the victim and survivor sector should make the case consistently that there needs to be fairness and equity and that there need to be structures and systems that are absolutely of the same quality, with the same level of oversight and independence. If that is not done at that level, what we are talking about today pales into insignificance, sadly, because the yearning that exists in a victim and survivor around the trauma and injustice that they experience is inextricably linked with their mental health and sense of an unjust society. I feel that it is crucial that the Committee and others take that on board and engage with the Irish state in a way that has not happened in the past.

Mr Gaston: I welcome those comments. On the question, "What do we want from the process?", I want the truth to be told. I do not want a version of events being taught in the South from next year onwards that involves a rewriting of history or a one-sided narrative. You told us at the Committee last year that between 550 and 570 murders have a cross-border element to them, whether that is in the planning or the escape of those who were involved. Some 110 extradition requests were made to the Irish Government, and only eight were successful. The Irish constitution was used in court to argue that the offences committed were political. Irish industrial explosives, which were stolen from quarries in the South, were used time and time again in IRA bombs prior to Semtex being imported from Libya.

I have a real fear that, if we do not start to call this out for what it is, the curriculum that will be compiled and taught to those in the South next year will be a rewriting of history and a diatribe of a version of events that quite simply did not happen. How can we trust the Irish state to deliver a module in their curriculum if they will not even acknowledge that they were an active participant in the Troubles here in Northern Ireland? Is that a fair question for Lee?

Mr McDowell: You asked what the Committee can do. All I can do is share the question that we asked the Government just before Christmas, which was this: given the failures of the Irish Government to play a meaningful role in the past, including decades of cross-border non-enforcement, the avoidance of meaningful investigation and extradition surrounding Enniskillen and Kingsmills, what measures do the Government intend to implement to ensure that the Irish Government will be accountable and actively participate in investigations and support justice for victims of all terrorism? We followed that up with a request for some form of apology. We have not received a response to that yet; we are still awaiting that. That is all in the document that we shared with some of the parties, and we are happy to leave that with the Committee as well.

Mr Donaldson: To be fair, Chair, from my perspective, that particular piece of work requires a separate session to really drill down into it. Today, we are talking about the wider victims and survivors strategy for the next 10 years across all that plethora: about the practical delivery of services but also the policy-based issues that inform how this society does or does not move forward. There is a pull there.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I take your point. I do not want to eat into your time. Our role is to do the scrutiny work for the Executive Office. That is our main function.

Keep going, please, Timothy.

Mr Gaston: Your paper states:

— obviously the UK and Irish —

The Irish Government harboured terrorists south of the border and denied extradition requests. Yes, an apology would be nice, but I would like an acknowledgement, first of all, that they were an active participant in the years of terror that were inflicted here on Northern Ireland.

Kenny, your paper goes on to state:

I am seriously concerned about the knock-on effect. We talk about the generational trauma that continues from that. When I was looking into that to get a bit more detail, the case of Thomas Niedermayer came up. After his murder, his wife, two daughters and a son-in-law all committed suicide. That was within one family. Is that an isolated case or has that been experienced right across the years of the Troubles? Can you give us any information about how widespread that has been?

Mr Donaldson: I think that it is true to say that, across our groups and the constituencies that we work in, that would be the case. We have one memorial quilt with 64 individuals remembered on it. My own knowledge, without having to drill into it, is that 17 of those 64 patches were direct suicides within the families, which is around 25% of the people connected with that memorial quilt. That is one anecdotal piece of information. Beyond that, we have not tabulated the number of people who had a heart attack at the scene of incidents, the number of trauma-induced cancers that brought premature death or where there have been a series of stillborn births. As we know, there have also been many miscarriages. None of that is unique to any one section of the community; it has been across the board. Some would say that the number of what could be termed "secondary premature deaths" could be eightfold to tenfold the number of actual Troubles-related deaths, so in the region of 30,000 to 40,000.

Dr Gallagher: As Kenny said, it is across the board and among all groups. We have people coming to WAVE and the other groups who present with coronary heart disease 10 years earlier than the national average. We have medical students who come in each year and go through all our assessments for new clients. Gut and intestinal issues are high, inflammation is high, dementia appears to be higher and the number of those who suffer from chronic pain is higher. A lot of issues relate directly to their experiences. Some 15% of the referrals to WAVE in the past year were linked to trans-generational trauma too: it is being passed on to the next generation and the one after that. We are worried that people — children who are not even born yet — could be impacted on by what happened to their parents and grandparents, so I take your point.

Mr Gaston: Lee, I will move on to your submission to the Committee. In it, you said:

I take it that that applies to those who were not present at the scene of an incident as well as to the wider issue of the definition of a "family member". Is that true?

Mr McDowell: The definition of a "family member" was raised last summer. We have not received a response on what constitutes a "family member" or a "loved one". That would broaden the definition of what a "family member" could be. It could include colleagues. We deal with a lot of the security forces and the military. A lot of those guys were right beside friends whom they had known all their life — they were probably closer than brothers — and they were blown up and killed in front of them. They are deemed ineligible. The suffering and trauma that they have endured from those experiences still live with them, but they are not deemed eligible.

There was an interesting case last year in England — in London, I think — of Afghan interpreters and a definition of a "loved one" that included more than someone who was related biologically. Again, I have not heard any feedback on the questions that we submitted on that, but it would be worth exploring.

Mr Gaston: On that basis, would you support the definition of a "family member" being rolled out and expanded to that of the Afghan scheme?

Mr McDowell: Yes, if someone was present at the scene and their trauma is evidenced. If someone is living with trauma as a result of a Troubles-related incident — if they are permanently physically or psychologically injured — they deserve the opportunity to go through the scheme.

Mr Gaston: I have seen correspondence from Mrs Justice Yip that addressed the definition of a "family member" in the context of the Afghan resettlement cases. The court held that the term "family member":

and that:

On that basis, for those whom you outlined, the definition of a family member has been accepted in one context but not in the other.

I will quickly move on.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Just one more question, Timothy, please.

Mr Gaston: Andrée, in your opening remarks for Relatives for Justice, you talked about doing things in "an embracing and non-judgemental way". Your written submission referred to civilian bereaved families. I am interested to know what your definition of a "civilian" is. Does it include those who planted a bomb in the same bracket as an innocent victim?

Ms Andrée Murphy: You need to look at the definition of "victim": there are all those who were bereaved and all those who were injured. That is useful. We can see that all those who have suffered a harm are included for services and such purposes. We can also recognise that there have been discrete schemes that have privileged or been in place for other members or cohorts of the bereaved. We need to look at who has been left behind and ensure that they are all included in a new scheme for the bereaved that recognises everybody and is in line with the new definition.

When we talk about inclusivity and non-judgementalism, it is about those who live. We will all have different opinions about a contested conflict. We need to ensure that we can include all families and all those who have been bereaved so that we can move forward. For instance, thinking about the commentary from earlier, we need to ensure that all legacy processes include all those who were responsible in the conflict. At the minute, we see legacy processes that actively exclude accountability for the intelligence services. We need to ensure that we include all of those — all of those — who are responsible and whose inclusion would bring healing to family members, because, at this stage, that is our obligation. That will bring us in line with articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and allow us to start being compliant with those international standards, as we would expect. More than that, it means that we can reach all families with respect and dignity without excluding people. Surely that is the place where we all want to be.

Mr Gaston: From a moral point of view, there should be no equivalence between a victim-maker and an innocent victim.

Ms Andrée Murphy: I hear that a lot. We could think about victim-makers who reside in lots of places. We could think about the policymakers who devised collusion and say, "Who were the policymakers there? Were they the victim-makers?". They are often given gongs or become Sir This, Dame That or whatever. We see that. It is a very contested area, but we are talking about supporting victims and survivors to ensure that we can move on in society. We can hold our opinions about the past, and we will all have different opinions on it, but, in order for all of us to move forward, the definition of victims is really useful and allows us to be able to do the most that we can for the greatest number of people.

Mr Gaston: That allows you to hide behind and sanitise the terror campaign that took place by the IRA and other paramilitary groups, but if that is what you want to do —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: That is ridiculous.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I think that we are getting very —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Absolutely ridiculous.

Mr Gaston: Certainly not in my book.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Order, members. I will move on.

Ms Ní Chuilín: He never fails to insult people.

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

Mrs Cameron: Thank you very much for your attendance and your presentations. You are clearly all doing a lot of vital and sensitive work. I thank you for that.

You highlighted the long-term needs and the needs of an ageing population. I want to give you the opportunity to tell us what specific services are at risk under the current funding cycles. You may want to take the opportunity to also tell the Committee more about the funding models for each of the organisations that you represent. That would be good.

Mr McDowell: At the minute, our application is with the VSS. That is our core funding programme. That will continue services for what we call "core staff" for the next two years. At the minute, we do not know whether we will be here in six weeks; all of us could be out of a job. That application would keep our core funding going for the next two years. As Andrée said, it is very hard to develop services and programmes for our ageing population and our youth when you are sitting with a two-year funding programme. We request that that be extended to at least a five-year cycle, if that was at all possible.

We are also funded through TPDPS. That will go on until that scheme ends. The Victims' Payments Board's TPDPS is, supposedly, ending in August 2026. We also have funding from the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust and the Veterans' Foundation due to the work that we do with Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. We then have the PEACE PLUS programme as well. It is a cocktail of funding, and that is how you have to survive, to be perfectly honest.

Ms Sherry: On the victims' funding, it is similar to Lee. Synchronicity is really important between the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme staff, those who are caseworkers under the PEACE PLUS programme and those who are under the victims support programme, which is our core work on counselling, coaching and training for victims and survivors. That is probably where there is a concern about the end of the PEACE PLUS funding and about our not knowing what is happening with the pension scheme and where staff are in that. That uncertainty creates a destabilisation. We are in year 9 of the current victims support programme, and, over that time, there has been a significant increase in workload for all of us here and others to bring on the health and well-being caseworkers, those who work on advocacy resilience, and workers to support the pension scheme. On top of that, the regional trauma network has a considerable workload.

We chat informally together and have expressed that we are anxious to see the outworking of the victims support programme and whether it answers the concerns that we have all been raising over the past number of years about our rising core costs to keep our organisations functioning and the additional staff requirement, albeit that we were all very proportionate in what we have submitted. There has been a significant increase in workload, and we are all keen to see how that translates into the outworking in the letters of offer.

As Lee said, it is so close to the wire that it creates instability for us around planning processes, particularly because March is the time when staff use up their leave. It is an anxious time for us, and I hope that there is recognition of the enormity of the work. We have not touched on it today, but the exposure to trauma for all our staff is absolutely phenomenal. When we look back, historically, there was always an opportunity for our groups to be able to apply for some resource for self-care opportunities for staff. That was all eradicated in the funding. We talk about vicarious trauma and secondary trauma, but we hold that mantle in trying to support our staff and practitioners in their well-being.

I appreciate that funding is difficult across government. However, I do not think that the things that we have asked for are huge. The expectation of potential maximum DNAs across a financial year was quoted at around £135,000. If I have got that wrong, please forgive me, but I think that is about 1·69% of the £8 million budget for funding for victims.

It is about looking to be practical, solution-focused and engaged. There needs to be flexibility in the programme if something is not working. Leadership has been demonstrated by the groups that have been involved in RTN work. We have been adaptable. We have worked very hard under extreme pressure. We will continue to do that because we believe in supporting victims and survivors and helping them in their journeys to recovery as best we can.

Our appeal is to help us make our jobs easier by advocating for us. I think that we would all agree on that. There is a lot of agreement among us all. We work together in many meetings. Sometimes, people might think that we do not engage, but we have seen much of each other in the past couple of years and have become really good friends and work colleagues.

Mrs Cameron: On the back of Paul's comments, I will ask about intergenerational trauma. For anybody listening in or watching on, can you give us some examples of that, because, for a lot of people, it is mind-boggling that somebody who is not yet born could become a victim?

Dr Gallagher: Trauma can be transmitted or passed down in so many ways. A lot of it happens within the family and is related to how they have or have not coped with their experiences. Some people talk about a conspiracy of silence around the issues, which is when families do not talk about them, as one of the major impacts. They do not have the space or support to talk about their experiences and resolve their trauma. In some ways, the children take on the fear and trauma, maybe making up their own stories about what happened in the past. In some families, the children become the parents and grow older more quickly than they should. There are many factors.

If you come along to one of our classes, we can teach you about transgenerational trauma; we offer four-day courses and all sorts of things. We cannot take up the time to do that now, but I offer support for MLAs and others to come along. TEO groups have done some of our courses on betrayal trauma and other aspects of trauma. You can learn a lot more about it. If you look at Eventbrite, you will see that the courses are open to the public; with that, I have plugged all our work.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you. That is helpful.

Mr Brett: I thank each and every one of you for coming along and for the work that you do. I have the pleasure of knowing some of you personally, and I thank you for that work. I will start with the recently appointed Victims' Commissioner. Have you all met the new commissioner? You have.

Mr McDowell: Yes.

Ms Sherry: Yes.

Mr Brett: The work of the commission is central to the strategy. There was a gap before the appointment of the new commissioner. Have you seen a change in the service now that its figurehead is in place?

Ms Sherry: The new Victims’ Commissioner has reached out positively to us all; we can agree on that. He has chaired a couple of really positive conversations with us. He has been mindful and welcoming in asking us whether there are concerns or considerations that he can help us with. We have all been in a room with the commissioner this week to talk about the PEACE PLUS research programme. It has been a positive and welcoming beginning; he has, certainly, reached out to us all very positively.

Mr Brett: Andrée, I read a wee piece of your writing on commissioners and commissions. You stated:

Were you talking about the Victims' Commissioner in that article?

Ms Andrée Murphy: The commission model works best when the advocates work with the commissioner, so that the commissioner does not displace the campaigners and those who advocate from the grassroots upwards. We have seen examples of the office of the Victims' Commissioner acting unilaterally, away from groups. Commissioners acting in that way does not work as well as when they work with groups, gaining strength by reflecting where the majority of victims and survivors are: there is a lesson in that.

That is, obviously, from a column that I write in a private capacity. The official position of Relatives for Justice is, absolutely, to work with all those involved in policy development, and working with the commission is one arm of that. When the advocates in all our organisations speak, what they say needs to be listened to and given weight; we all benefit from our collective input. Does that make sense?

Mr Brett: It does not answer the question that I asked you. You referred to:

Do you believe that the current Victims' Commissioner has been "bought"?

Ms Andrée Murphy: No.

Mr Brett: Who were you talking about when you said:

Ms Andrée Murphy: When did I write that?

Mr Brett: You wrote it on 29 November 2025 under the title "Is it time we had a commission for commissioners?".

Ms Andrée Murphy: That is an inappropriate question in this context. OK?

Mr Brett: OK. Well, I will tell you why I do not think that it is inappropriate. On your profile on the Sinn Féin Belfast Media website —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Phillip likes his props, by the way.

Mr Brett: Carál, it is my turn to speak. What happens is this: we get deflection, but the facts speak for themselves.

When you write such articles on that website, they open with the line:

That is why —.

Ms Andrée Murphy: That is a fact.

Mr Brett: Yes. You are here in that capacity, so I ask you this: which commissioners whom we are responsible for scrutinising are you saying have been bought?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): You can choose to answer that as you wish; that is your prerogative.

Ms Andrée Murphy: Generally, we all have to scrutinise all the officers in all the commissions to ensure that they operate in line with where the victims and survivors whom they are meant to represent place their advocacy. That is fair comment.

Mr Brett: Fair enough. While we are talking about things being inappropriate, I will say that another one of your articles was grossly inappropriate. It was titled "Unionist cold-war aggression takes hold yet again".

You said:

I am a member of the Democratic Unionist Party and the Orange Order, and I make it clear that I do not have any disorder. My responsibility at the Committee is to stand up for victims and survivors, and that is what I will continue to do.

The Committee agreed last week to write to the First Minister and deputy First Minister on the back of views that the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors gave on what some have described as "reparations" and others as "bereavement payments". I strongly contest the use of the word "reparations" because it indicates that there was a war in Northern Ireland. In my view, there was not a war in Northern Ireland; there was a terrorist campaign against the civilian population of this country. The Committee's position is that the Irish Government should contribute to any bereavement payments. Do you all have a view on that?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Kenny, you have not spoken in a while: go ahead.

Mr Donaldson: Absolutely. We have consistently made the point that there should be a contribution. We have gone further; there are some examples of people involved in proscribed organisations contributing to some acknowledgement of the victims and survivors who were created. If we want to get real about the issues, we have to do it consistently across the board.

At the risk of sounding as though I am defending civil servants or the VSS, the crux of the wider piece that we are speaking about today is this: does £8 million cut it in providing a full service for the constituency of victims and survivors in 2026? If the answer is an emphatic "No", dubious decisions on policies might flow from people thinking, "How do we make the budget fit?" and taking rearguard action. There needs to be realistic thinking on that.

When it comes to the issue that you raised, Phillip, we believe that, for too long, the Irish state has existed almost as a neutral onlooker. So much good could be done if it were to come to the table and acknowledge its participant status. As we have often said, it does not take someone to pull a trigger or detonate a bomb to be a participant in the context of the Troubles. We need honourability across the board: both states and all the proscribed organisations.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Lee, you were agreeing. Do you have anything to add?

Mr McDowell: I agree with Kenny. The Irish Government have a role to play in contributing to the bereavement scheme. We all want reconciliation. It is a big word, but we want it for our kids. It requires acknowledgement from all sides. There has been an apology from the British Government for acts that were carried out, and an acknowledgement and an apology, however indirect those might be, need to come from the Irish Republic. Part of the Troubles originated from its soil, and, for that reason, it must come forward with some form of acknowledgement of what happened. Yes, it should contribute to the bereavement scheme.

Mr Brett: Thank you.

Miss Áine Murphy: Folks, I am going to take us back to the Regional Trauma Network. You have all touched on it in your papers. Andrée, you mentioned that, ideally, its operation should be taken from the trusts and put back on a regional basis. What has worked well and what has not? What engagement on RTN have you had with trusts?

Ms Andrée Murphy: We operate on a regional basis. We see people accessing our services throughout the island. They can access in-person or remote services. Nearly all of us operate regionally and on the island of Britain as well. Indeed, because of how we are able to provide our services, people access them from America and Europe. Given what we do so and to reduce the disparity between the services, it would make sense for the Regional Trauma Network to operate region-wide at the minimum. That would prevent duplication and create a unity of purpose. We see trust operations differing in their commitment to victims and survivors, particularly when it comes to whether they think that the scheme should be for victims and survivors.

Resources work best when we see them in communities. For example, funded by PEACE PLUS, our health and well-being caseworkers work with the trust to provide information on what is available and seamless referrals into statutory services, and statutory services refer people back into grassroots services that are delivered on the ground. That works best: creating that seamless referral process is really good. We maybe need to see a little more buy-in to that from the statutory services, linked with the wider mental health strategy.

The long-term commitment to PEACE PLUS matters — I will say it again — because the RTN is clearly identified as part of one of the pillars of the strategy for victims and survivors, but, when the health and well-being caseworkers and advocacy workers go in two years' time, most of that collapses.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Irene, do you want to contribute?

Ms Sherry: The Regional Trauma Network has been an excellent way of building relationships between our five health trusts and the victims' groups. Its being jointly chaired by the Executive Office and the Department of Health is important. It needs more time to embed. Where it has worked well is in the building of good relationships among key staff in the different trusts. We may work with victims and survivors across trust boundaries, and that has worked.

What has worked excellently is the innovation: co-design work from the trusts and groups and the co-delivery of programmes on trauma parenting — trying to break the cycle of trans-generational trauma — and pain and trauma. I came here from a session that our clinical lead and the physio from the Regional Trauma Network in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust co-delivered to a pain and trauma group. That is innovative, ad hoc growth work.

The difficulty is probably with our resources. Consider access to services in the city of Belfast, where the prevalence of poor mental health is so high. For 20 years or thereabouts, there has been access through GPs to the Everton Trauma Centre; Philip and Carál will be familiar with that.

There are therefore significant waiting lists on the pathways into the service. There should not be a differential in access to that service; it should be the same for people in the Belfast Trust, the Western Health and Social Care Trust, the Northern Health and Social Care Trust and all the trust areas.

We met the Health Minister to discuss maintaining the provision for victims and survivors in the Regional Trauma Network to give us more bedding-in time. That is critical for us because it has been our first opportunity for us to engage with psychiatry and psychology at the individual's level of need. I welcome the fact that the Belfast Trust has secured a psychiatrist, who was with us at the Regional Trauma Network this week. That is welcome because it gives us the opportunity to lift the phone to them and to engage and be present. It is early days and something to build on, but it is an exemplar of collaborative work between government and communities. I look forward to seeing that build in the future.

Mr Donaldson: The chips have been knocked off the shoulders of both sides — community and statutory. There is now an acknowledgement that each needs the other. In the past, there was probably a propensity to work in a more siloed way without looking at what was in the best interests of the people whom we served. There are dedicated people working across our trusts. We see them working every day, and that attitude of, "They only work nine to five" is tosh. We know that, and MLAs know it. I have to plug the western region, where there has been a lot of innovation and preparedness to go out and make things happen and, sometimes, suffer the consequences: that is what you need. Sometimes, you need trailblazers on the issues.

Miss Áine Murphy: There is a lot of learning in that. In the same vein, it is great to hear that, when co-design is done well and properly, it works, so it is meaningful in that way. Andrée, you said that there is work to be done on the care pathways and the referral process. Access to services is difficult across the board, which is more of a resourcing issue.

Andrée, data capture was mentioned in your note. You provided the example of the lady whom you dealt with before Christmas. I assume that each of you has engaged with VSS and brought issues to its door. When you do so, what is the response from VSS?

Ms Andrée Murphy: As Kenny said, we all have a good relationship with VSS. Traditionally, VSS has been a responsive and good organisation to work with, during COVID in particular. Resource issues have led to some tricky stuff — there are no two ways about it — around the VSP. It is about finding a way to have open conversations that are built on trust and the mutual appreciation of each other's roles. I have no doubt that we will find a way forward in that regard.

We have seen things happen. During COVID, for instance, we were able to say, "These are the needs of victims and survivors", at a time when the remote delivery of complementary therapies seemed unlikely. How could you provide for people who had been having massages and reflexology? We thought about it, and we provided mindfulness, deep rest and relaxation and anxiety-reducing techniques over the phone and through Zoom. That led to a blossoming of all our service delivery, which is now hybrid provision. That was achieved without additional resources, by supporting the idea of innovation and through the commitment of the practitioners, as well as VSS, to take a risk. It works, and that is when it works best.

Miss Áine Murphy: I do not know whether anybody would like to add to that. A secondary point is that, again, it is about having data — qualitative over quantitative — on victims and how they engage with the process from start to finish. How would you go about measuring that engagement and present the to VSS?

Mr McDowell: We have to return the monthly numbers through its new portal. It wants to see the numbers, but the big stuff is in the case studies in the quarterly reports. We always identify various areas of the support that we deliver. We pick a client and provide a good qualitative study of the area. That is the meat on the bones and the most important stuff. The numbers are just numbers. The service needs those, but the real substance of our work is in the case studies, because they paint the picture of how the money impacts on people on the ground. More of that would be welcomed, particularly by those who have to fill in the monitoring things every month. The qualitative stuff is the most important.

Dr Gallagher: You do not see a lot of that stuff in the first instance. Clients come to the groups who may have been coming along for other social supports for over 15 or 20 years because they have been there. It is not just something to do: the social support and social aspect of recovery from trauma is massive. We cannot do it alone. We need others. We need to connect with others to feel safe.

In the outward-facing way in which we meet clients daily and in the centres that we have, we are different from a statutory provider. There is a wrap-around service when you come in and meet the person on the front desk, who directs you and offers you a cup of tea. It is not just a beverage that is being offered but a sense that you can sit down for a minute to chat. Maybe that person will be the first person whom someone has spoken to that day. Maybe that person will be the first person to whom they have ever opened up about something that happened to them 50 years ago. All those things are difficult to capture. However, if you capture them nonetheless and look at that over the period of the 10-year or 20-year strategies, you will able to see the things that you cannot see on a form after six weeks of CBT, or something like that.

Ms Andrée Murphy: The longer time is really important, because we need to be supported to carry out that long process. It is linked to the intergenerational trauma question that you asked earlier. Someone will change, and their needs will change, over a period; for example, as they become a new parent or their own parent passes away. We are able to provide for them continuously in that process, but that is counted only as one person. When we capture that process, we do better.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. I know that it has been a long session, but Sinéad wants to come in.

Ms McLaughlin: I will be as brief as possible in developing some of the things that have been said.

In October, we heard news that the Stormont mental health strategy would be scaled back. On the basis of your experience, what impact will that have, particularly on victims? Mental health was identified in all the presentations today as one of the key issues for victims and survivors. I am concerned that scaling back the core element of support for the mental health strategy will have an obvious impact on the people whom you represent.

Ms Sherry: I am happy to take that. Organisationally, I have led on a lot of mental health initiatives across Belfast in the past 20 years. I sit on the shadow area integrated partnership board, which is part of the integrated care system in Belfast. Significantly, poor mental health appears at the top of the population health data that is disseminated: the figure is very high.

Another issue that comes through our doors quite a lot is situational and emotional crises and a lot of active suicide ideation. That takes an awful lot of work. It also relates back, particularly, even to the DNA situation, because some of the communication that I advocated to VSS was about sessional practitioners: when we deal with people presenting in situational and emotional crises and active suicide thoughts, practitioners can be working with people for three hours, linking with families and GPs, de-escalating the risk, and they are not paid for that. That is why I proposed some kind of agreement about paying for two DNAs — appreciating the funding environment — and then allowing for clinical leads to have clinical consultations and communication.

You are 100% right on the mental health strategy, and considering within that where the neighbourhood model will move as regards the link to GP federations and trying to keep people out of hospital. We are some six years into a strategy, with 15% delivered, so there will be concern because there is very limited resource going in. After the EY report on community and voluntary groups, they are about to set up a working group on action 17 of the mental health strategy. That is on integration with statutory and community partners. The director for mental health, Heather Stevens, will co-chair that working group.

That will be key when we are advocating on the needs for victims and survivors in those rooms at a strategic policy level because policies or local plans probably do not recognise enough the impact on victims and survivors. The more we can advocate to get it out publicly, the better because mental health is at the top of our agenda.

Ms McLaughlin: Yes. Another thing that concerns me in your evidence is the ageing demographics. You said that 63% of victims and survivors are over 45. In the context of ageing demographics, there was a report from the Commissioner for Older People today on accessing GP services, that is primary care, but right though, and the impact that that has had on society. Not all older people have a network of support, so I fear the impact of reduced resources and the short-term funding model on the services that you provide. We have to look outside the strategy for victims and survivors at other areas that are meant to be feeding in and supporting because resources are very depleted.

Thank you for the work that you do and the people whom you represent. I am sorry that you were spoken to in the way that you were today. You are here to represent Relatives for Justice. They are victims and survivors as well. People speaking to you in the manner that they did today is disrespectful to those victims and survivors. We are not here to disrespect any victims and survivors, so, on my behalf, I apologise.

Ms Andrée Murphy: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you, everybody. I appreciate your time today. I have just one question, and perhaps you can all answer it quite quickly. It has not come up today, but it came up in your papers. It is about the Troubles Bill going through Westminster. Is there anything that you want to get on the record today? It will be in Hansard. Are there any thoughts from the organisations that you represent?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Sorry, I was going to say that we may need to come back, because we could do with another session. I suspect that we could do —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK.

Ms Ní Chuilín: The comments made to you by Timothy were akin to those made about Pat Finucane in Westminster. They were harmful and dangerous. I am letting you know that there is a standards commissioner. If you want to make a complaint, I will certainly support you. We are all from different political backgrounds; we could each be clever and ask questions of witnesses and then insult the people who they represent. That is ridiculous. It is also belittling the work that we are trying to do in these institutions. Like Sinéad, I am sorry that the usual suspects have gone down the rabbit hole, but there are commissioners if you want to make a complaint.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Does anyone want to make a small statement, or will we try to convene another session? It has been a long session. Thank you all. I appreciate that it is difficult, especially when you feel that you are being personally attacked, Andrée. All your contributions were valuable. We appreciate your time, your coming to the Committee and preparing for it. Thank you.