Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you very much. I apologise for the delay: we had a lot of ground to cover in our previous evidence session. I appreciate your patience. I welcome to the Committee Gavin King, acting director of the victims and survivors' division at the Executive Office; Siobhán Porter, head of branch at the victims and survivors' unit; and Marcin Klimasz — is that close?

Mr Marcin Klimasz (The Executive Office): Yes, that is correct.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Marcin Klimasz is policy lead in the victims and survivors' unit.

I ask you to make some opening remarks. Members have read the papers and know the strategy, so if you can keep your remarks brief, that will allow us time to ask questions.

Mr Gavin King (The Executive Office): No problem, Chair. There is no need to apologise. I should be apologising to you for the briefing coming to you late — only yesterday. Hopefully, members have had time to read it and have found it useful. There are no issues at all with the delay. I will keep my remarks brief to allow for questions. We have a lot to talk about.

Thank you for the invitation to update the Committee. I am conscious that our previous update session with you on the strategy was on 19 February 2025. This session represents a great opportunity for us to provide the Committee with an update on current delivery, future plans to develop and improve the services that are being provided, and challenges that we are working to address. It was fantastic to hear the groups giving evidence to the Committee at the previous session. They are central to what we want to do. We can talk about that as well.

The ethos of the strategy is collaborative design and partnership working. Victims and survivors' needs are central to the delivery of the strategy. That approach has been key to the positive changes that we have witnessed since the strategy began, which include the delivery of the victims' support programme (VSP), which has been driven by the community and voluntary sector groups that we have heard from. In 2024-25, for example, more than 4,000 groups took part in complementary therapies, with 81% showing an improvement in health and well-being.

In its previous session, the Committee heard about challenges to the operation of the victims' payments scheme (VPS). In collaboration with DOJ, however, over £120 million has been paid to date to provide acknowledgement of and support to thousands of recipients. The Committee also heard about the Regional Trauma Network (RTN). That is delivered in collaboration with the Department of Health and has provided unique pathways to support victims. Over 60% of RTN participants have reported an increase in their health and well-being. Those are just some statistics. Hopefully, we will get an opportunity to talk about some of the monitoring and evaluation later.

Despite those significant successes, there remain challenges. As is the case with other Departments, we do not have the resources to deliver everything that we would like to. To maximise what can be achieved, efficiency and effectiveness of delivery are crucial. To help to focus delivery on addressing those challenges, we created a draft TEO action plan, which details key actions across the three pillars of the strategy: "Needs, The Past and The Future". The Committee heard a bit about that at the previous session. The action plan was drafted in collaboration with the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS) and the Commission for Victims and Survivors, and it has been shared for comment with the larger groups that the Committee has been talking to today. After comments have been received, the plan will be finalised and published.

Departmental action plans will complement and inform the work of the delivery plan. We will, hopefully, get a chance to talk about those later. Departments have provided senior officials to act as contacts for the work. Engagement with Departments is ongoing, and there have been indications of progress. The draft TEO action plan and departmental action plans will be important. They will provide a framework for delivery as we seek to make progress. Community and voluntary sector groups will be involved at every step of the way — that is crucial. To ensure that that happens, we are energising engagement through the practitioners' forum, which will provide a voice for groups to shape delivery. That forum will meet regularly, with specific agendas focusing on key issues for the strategy.

We recognise that not all victims and survivors will engage with groups. We therefore commit to engage regularly with the Commission for Victims and Survivors and VSS on how best to incorporate the voices of victims and survivors across wider civic society, regardless of their membership or affiliations.

While planning and engagement is important and delivery is crucial, outcomes are fundamental. We have been working intensively on how the outcomes of the strategy are monitored and evaluated.

We have really good systems in place at project and group level. I can tell you about a variety of surveys, and we will talk about them, hopefully, a bit later. We are working with Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) colleagues, the Commission for Victims and Survivors, VSS and the groups to create surveys that will enable us to provide the data in a consistent manner for the strategy as a whole. We will test those processes at every stage through the practitioners' forum that I mentioned earlier.

With the range of delivery, development of action plans and work on monitoring, it is clear that there is a lot of forward momentum and potential for the future. However, as I mentioned earlier, there are significant challenges as well. As I say, in common with other Departments and business areas, we operate in a challenging financial environment. The reality is that we cannot fund everything that we would like to or deliver everything that we want to as fast as we would like.

The strategy represents a journey. The Commission for Victims and Survivors, the VSS and the community and voluntary sector are key partners in that journey. In addition, other Departments have a key role to play in making a positive difference to the lives of victims and survivors as we continue to move forward. The TEO Committee also plays a critical role in providing feedback to progress the delivery of the strategy. We are happy to answer any questions that you have.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you so much, Gavin. Is there anything from your colleagues before we ask questions?

Mr King: No.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thanks again for the update on the strategy.

Among the issues that came out of the previous session was the need for interdepartmental working and the issue of intergenerational trauma. It seems such a huge issue, not just the individual needs of victims and survivors but how we almost become trauma-informed in the delivery of public services. Can you speak to how you are getting other partners on board to help with the delivery of the strategy?

Mr King: There are two issues there. I will start by talking about departmental action plans. The transgenerational issue has also been referenced in the wider context of "did not attends" (DNA). I might talk about that. However, I will talk about the departmental action plans first and see how that goes.

Chair, you mentioned the departmental action plans on previous occasions, and we have heard from the groups today. The overriding issue is that we cannot deliver this alone for all the reasons that we have talked about. There is a timeline for departmental action plans. All Departments were asked to nominate a contact last year and all have now done so. Each contact has been asked to complete a draft framework, and we hope that, in time, those draft frameworks will lead to full action plans. That is the idea.

Each framework has five areas and two time periods. The five areas that we are asking each Department to consider are as follows. The first is raising awareness. One of the groups mentioned earlier the Department of Health. Even with something as simple as someone going into an emergency department to get treatment: could it provide awareness? That is the awareness part of the framework. You can see how simple it is. DAERA, for example, could simply raise awareness in rural areas as part of its other business. That is something that it could do. Raising awareness is one of the five areas.

Trauma-informed delivery is another. Again, it is in the services provided by Departments. Can they look at that? We have done a lot of work in the draft TEO action plan on that, which might inform some of that work. We can talk about that later on. That is the second of the five areas.

The third is shared learning. Ms McLaughlin talked about this in a previous Committee meeting: silo working and some of the issues with it. We have to understand the realities of it. Shared learning is very important for trying to break that down, because we want to reach out and say to other Departments, "Look, there is work that we are doing. Can it help you?".

The fourth is sustainability. We talked about finances and the issues around it. Is there anything being delivered by other Departments, and could it lead to something where they could contribute in that way?

The fifth is very specific: departmental delivery. Is there something very specific that Departments are doing?

I have mentioned the five areas, but also critical are the two time periods that we ask Departments to consider. The first time period is current: what is being done now. I have given examples of emergency departments and work in rural areas. Is there something that we can begin to do now that might add momentum to the process?

The second time period is in the future, which is about how we progress with this. I will talk about next steps shortly. A Department might say that it has a new strategy or process coming up. We might usefully ask, "Is this a great opportunity? It might chime with something that we are doing", and so on. Hopefully, that can be of use.

Where are we at the moment? One thing that I have not said on this is that we already engage with DOJ, through the Victims' Payments Board and the victims' payments scheme, and with DOH on the operation of RTN. That has been positive. Those relationships provide two things: a base on which to build and learning from things that have gone well and things on which we can improve. As I mentioned, we also have strong links with programmes in our Department. I can talk about that usefully when we talk about the TEO draft action plan, if we come to that. At this stage, I will say that that action plan will be able to inform the departmental action plans.

We have meetings with all the Departments in the diary. We have met the Department of Finance and the Department of Education. The groups that the Committee met in its previous session said so much about education, and that could usefully inform our discussions with DE. There is also DFC, and we regularly meet DOJ and DOH, as well as business areas in our Department. Next, we will meet DAERA, DFI and DFE. The initial meetings have been positive, and Departments are considering the initial frameworks. We have already been signposted to relevant resources; in the case of DOF, that is nidirect. There are things that we can add to that.

One challenge is silo working, which Ms McLaughlin has referenced on previous occasions. Another challenge is how to involve the groups. We are meeting the Departments, but we also want to hear from the groups. We do not want to keep going ahead on our own only to hear later that there are issues.

As a next step, we are seeking to meet formally twice a year, with more informal contact with the wider team. It is a 10-year plan. We are looking at what we can embed and we are continuing to build. It is about trying to put energy and momentum behind it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. Some cities around the world where there has been conflict have been good at memorialising that conflict, maybe through a statue, a window or another way of recognising the pain that the society experienced. Would such memorialisation fall under this piece of work? Could you coalesce some sort of work with victims and survivors on that to put something permanent in place?

Mr King: I will mention a couple of points, especially on wider learning. Preparations are being made for a lot of learning, at the event on Friday, about the wider historical institutional abuse (HIA) issue. That will feed into it. The head of the Civil Service (HOCS) has been engaging with the families of civil servants on the specific issue of memorialisation. As part of that process, HOCS has met civil servants, and DOF approved, in December, the plan for a memorial to be placed on the estate. We hope to move forward on that in the coming months. That memorial, the learning from that process, and learning from the event on Friday will inform how we move forward with wider memorialisation.

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

Ms Ní Chuilín: It has been a long day, Gavin, but you heard the groups in the previous evidence session talking about co-production and co-design. As for the process feeling meaningful for them, they feel that they are consulted after the fact rather than being part of the co-design process. It sounds as if a lot has happened recently, with the practitioners' forum, to try to change that. I would like to hear your comments on that.

Everyone has raised the issue of the DNAs for VSS appointments. Will you comment on that, too, please?

Mr King: Yes, no problem at all. To reiterate my first point about timings, we will stay here for as long as we can be helpful. There is no issue at all with that.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Fair enough.

Mr King: On issue of DNAs, I will give some wider context on that and on children's and young people's services and intergenerational services, which the Chair mentioned at the start. I think that my doing that will be useful for providing context on the process and on how we might seek to move forward.

The issue with children's and young people's services was identified by the member. I thank the Committee for that. There is an oversight role in the strategy, which is something that we need. The Executive Office Committee's role is mentioned in the strategy, and that is an example of where that role has been useful to us: we are grateful that that issue, and the need to have transgenerational services in the victims' support programme, was highlighted.

That is a strategic issue, so it is in the strategy. We were able to respond quickly. One of the groups giving evidence to the Committee at the previous session said that there were some residual issues with continuity in the provision of services for young people, and we will look into that. We hope to address that issue and to engage intensively with VSS. We hope that there will be broad continuity. That is a strategic issue.

There are challenges with the DNAs, because they are to do with operational delivery. If something is missed out of the strategy, we can operate directly and quickly on that, and we have done that, I hope. With operational delivery, we need to look at the systems that we have and how we can make them better. The —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Gavin, may I just say something? You probably know this better than I do, but people who are going through trauma are not great at keeping appointments. It is the same with mental health issues. It is sporadic, and because of the impacts of everything on them, the groups end up becoming financially penalised. I think, therefore, that it is a bit more than an operational matter. I say that respectfully.

Mr King: That is 100% correct. Apologies. That was not the right term to use; I slipped into official language.

Ms Ní Chuilín: It is fine.

Mr King: I used that term only to contextualise the difference between something strategic, such as children's and young people's services, which we hopefully addressed quickly, and issues that are, shall we say, delivery-oriented. Delivery-oriented may be a better form of words. It is a question of how we better addressing delivery-oriented issues quickly.

I will say a little bit on the context of how that comes about. When the commissioner gave evidence to the Committee, he talked about the difficulties with services. He used the term "cuts". That was not his fault, but it was not a cut. The victims' support programme costs TEO approximately £8 million a year. That has been consistent. The commissioner framed that as being a result of a cut from the £12 million. It is not a cut, however, but rather that there are now £12 million-worth of applications to the scheme. One of the representatives at the Committee's previous evidence session mentioned that the success of the strategy, the success of the groups in delivery, and the success in awareness-raising will result, inevitably, in further demand for services. That is where we are, and that is what has led to the issue that we are experiencing.

Ms Ní Chuilín: In your view, is that why the VSS has said that it cannot cover the DNAs financially? We are trying to get to the bottom of that, genuinely.

Mr King: I would not speak for any specific organisation or aspect of this, other than to say that the wider context is the increasing demand. We now have the DNAs' situation, and there could be further situations as we move closer to the point at which the VSP and any of the other programmes that we deliver begin delivering. Apologies for taking that time. I just wanted to set the context.

What are the next steps? What do we do now? When my predecessor was at the Committee, this time last year, he mentioned that the test of the strategy will be when we have to make a change when we are faced with a strategic issue in the strategy. Hopefully, we have now seen that that can happen. We need to do more so that there is a pathway for delivery-oriented issues and groups do not feel about the issue the way that you referred to and helpfully raised.

We will work at pace. We will work with the practitioners' forum, and we want to get a sense from groups, some of which the Committee heard from today, but there are more. Doing that at pace will, hopefully, bring out any additional issues. Then we will want to work quickly to see what we can do and find a solution.

There is increased demand, so it is difficult. Arguments have been expressed, and apologies for the language that I used when talking about the operational matter. Delivery is key. As I said, we want to work at pace to try to find a solution. We want to work with everyone in order to do so. Hopefully, the Committee will hold our feet to the fire, and we will be able to update you.

The key thing is to have a meeting of the practitioners' group and to get a wider sense of the issues from the rest of the groups. We can then work out what we can usefully do.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Gavin, one of the previous witnesses talked about looking at potentially reconfiguring the sector. A lot of the organisations have been in operation for 20-plus years. As part of the engagement that you just referenced, will there possibly be a conversation had on how the sector can be reconfigured to better reflect the needs of people who avail themselves of its services?

Mr King: Again, it is about the use of terms such as "strategic" and "delivery-orientated". That conversation and assessment need to take place for both frameworks. Strategically, that will take place, and we will hopefully get an opportunity to talk about the draft Executive Office action plan. If the plan is approved by Ministers, there will be a full review around 2028. There then may be an opportunity to let the VSP and some of the other programmes develop and deliver, thus allowing people to look back and say, "It's now time to reorganise strategically". That is critical from a delivery point of view. If a group were to identify a more focused issue with delivery, we could not wait until 2028. That is where the practitioners' group would come in. We would hope that it would raise that issue and that we would then be able to make the change.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you for clarifying that.

Mr Gaston: Good afternoon. I am glad that you were here for the earlier session. That will have been beneficial, because you were able to hear some concerns at first hand and to hear the questions that members put to the panel.

In a couple of weeks' time, I will host the annual European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism event in the Building. I have no doubt that, by the end of that day, it will have been raised with me a number of times how the strategy document is full of buzzwords, colourful pages and empty words. I say that because the last paragraph of the foreword states:

Directly below that is the signature of the First Minister of no alternative, Michelle O'Neill.

The First Minister was here a couple of weeks ago, and her claim that there was no alternative to the conflict was put to her once again. She doubled down on her stance and failed to apologise for her hurtful comments. Do you not feel that that is counterproductive to the work that you are trying to do, which has essentially been torpedoed as a result of somebody having adopted that stance?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): You can answer that question however you wish. I appreciate that you are an official, not a politician, so answer how you see fit.

Mr King: No problem. I will try to answer it as best I can. I thank the member for his question. For me, it speaks to two issues. It speaks to the issue of some victims feeling that someone who is involved in the strategy does not represent them. You mentioned days of reflection, and there are other services and forums. Discussions have also taken place with the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors. You mentioned how some people feel uncomfortable speaking at forums, which is the second issue. Generally speaking, those are the two issues.

I totally understand the question. All that I will say is that the Executive have endorsed the strategy. That is positive, as it really helps us with what we are trying to do. Moreover, that endorsement hopefully provides some reassurance of the Executive's commitment to improving the well-being of victims and survivors in order to help them build a better future. That is what I am absolutely committed to doing, and, as I said, it is helpful that the Executive endorsed the strategy in that context.

We may talk later about some of the issues with the victims' payments scheme and re-traumatisation. It is such a complex area. Victims and survivors have many challenging needs and different views. They can choose whatever day of reflection or whatever service they feel they best identify with. We have tried to make the strategy as broad as we could. If that is not working, we have talked about strategic reallocation and using the participation group for concerns to be aired.

A range of services is available. Some will not appeal to or suit all victims. Some will want to work with specific groups, while some will want to go directly to the VSS. We want to try to accommodate as many different views and needs as we can in the strategy. One example of a service is the individual needs programme. Its approach is to react to the needs of the individual victim. If a specific, specialised need is presented, we will therefore aim to meet it.

Mr Gaston: To get to the nub, the strategy contains colourful language such as "victim-centred", "trauma-informed" and "evidence-based", but when we have the First Minister of no alternative coming to the Committee and doubling down on her stance, those are just empty words, given that they come from the person who is responsible for the strategy. Victims therefore feel very let down. How can they move forward when somebody takes that stance?

Page 24 of the strategy states that the Executive Office will:

You heard my question earlier about the role that the Irish Government played in the Troubles in Northern Ireland. What have you done through the strategy to get them to acknowledge that they were an active participant?

Mr King: There has been engagement with Governments on wider government contributions and on the different aspects of the work that we are doing through the strategy. We engaged closely with Governments about raising awareness of the victims' payments scheme, and that has hopefully allowed victims from other jurisdictions to receive support and acknowledgement through the Peace programme. More substantive funding matters are, naturally, for Ministers to look at.

We have talked about the bereaved and potential further work to be done on payments to them. Any advice on how other jurisdictions can do that will be considered.

Mr Gaston: More pointedly, has the Executive Office had any discussion with the Irish Government about their role in the Troubles in order to get an acknowledgement from them that they were an active participant, to get an apology or even to get them to contribute money to some of the schemes?

Mr King: In the timeline for larger schemes, that has not come up yet. More generally, our engagement has been on the programmes and their delivery.

Mr Gaston: You say that it has not come up yet. Who directs you that it should come up?

Mr King: It is a specific scheme. In delivering the strategy, engagement extends to the work on the victims' payments scheme and the Peace programme. What happens in future programmes will be a matter for Assembly discussion.

Mr Gaston: The Irish Government will therefore not be challenged on the role that they played until you are told that that is an issue to raise with them.

Mr King: Our role is to focus as much as we can on the delivery of the strategy. Any engagement at the moment is focused on the victims' payments scheme and the Peace programme.

Mr Gaston: We heard earlier that, from next year, the Northern Ireland Troubles will be taught as part of the curriculum in the South. If you are not challenging the Irish Government on their role in the Troubles here, will you have any input into what is being taught there? How are you going to protect innocent victims if you do not ensure that history is not being rewritten and that propaganda is not being preached and taught in Irish schools about what happened in Northern Ireland? There were years of terror. How are you going ensure that what young people in the South are being taught will not add fuel to the fire by blaming everything on the big, bad Brits?

Mr King: The focus of our strategy is on a range of services that we provide. Hopefully, we will be able to talk about monitoring and evaluation later on. That may give you some reassurance about the programmes' positive impact.

Mr Gaston: Not everybody is interested in money. Me, I am interested in the truth. Victims are interested in truth and justice, but we have not got that from the Irish Government.

Mr King: I apologise if I misrepresented what I wanted to say about money. It is about outcomes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): It is very clear to the people who are watching that you are responsible for delivering the strategy, which was co-signed by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister and endorsed by the Executive. I recognise what you are trying to do, which is trying to get cross-departmental buy-in. We all know, Timothy, that it is not Gavin's responsibility to engage with the Irish Government on those issues without his having authority from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to do so.

Mr Gaston: That is what I am trying to tease out, which is that no direction has been given to anybody in the Executive Office to challenge the narrative of the Irish Government's role. The strategy is titled 'Strategy for Victims and Survivors of the Troubles/Conflict 2024-2034'. If that challenge is not in there, are we talking about challenging the narrative in 2035? Doing so is obviously not on your radar. It is an absolute failing of this place that, for innocent victims, we have an Executive Office that, in its engagements with the South, is more interested in outcomes and in value for money than going after the truth of what happened and challenging the existing narrative. I am really concerned that, when the curriculum in the South comes out for next year, young people there will get a distorted picture of what happened in Northern Ireland. We have no control over that. We are not challenging it. We do not seem to be feeding in to ensure that what is taught reflects what actually happened.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): You do not have to respond to that, Gavin.

Mr King: There is a general point that I want to make. I am aware of the wider point that you are making, but I do feel that outcomes are not to be dismissed. The programme is making a substantive difference. I hope to have the opportunity to talk about some exciting plans in that area.

Mr Brett: First, my view is that engagement with the Irish Government on that issue, and engagement on international relations in general, should be conducted by the UK Government. It is neither the place of the Executive Office nor the place of this devolved institution to engage in diplomatic or international relations with our international neighbours. Such discussions should be led by our sovereign UK Government.

I will pick up on a couple of things. First, you may have heard me raise a concern in the previous session about language in the strategy and the use of the word "reparations". I see that it appears on page 9 of the strategy, but that is the only time that it appears. What do you therefore mean where it states:

Mr King: It gives a sense of the range of issues that are important to victims and survivors. It is a list of issues that are important to them.

Mr Brett: What do you mean by "reparations"?

Mr King: I cannot speak to the specific —.

Mr Brett: It is in your document.

Mr King: Yes. It was a co-design process. I imagine that the issue was raised and was then faithfully reproduced in the strategy to indicate that people considered reparations to be important.

Mr Brett: You therefore cannot speak to the meaning of a word in a strategy that you are here to speak about.

Mr King: I do not want to misspeak or to misrepresent what was indicated during the co-design process. The idea was to include a range of issues that victims and survivors felt were important in that context, but I can go back and have a look so that I do not misrepresent what was said.

Mr Brett: The definition of "reparation", as you are probably aware, is the action of making amends for a wrong that one has done. I am just trying to work out what, in the Executive Office's view, the Northern Ireland Executive has done wrong.

Mr King: As I said, I think that the strategy is referring to the views of victims in that context.

Mr Brett: I ask that you to come back to us on that one.

I will move on to the victims' pension. Have you been involved in the victims' payments scheme?

Mr King: Yes. The victims' payments scheme is one aspect of the strategy and one of the areas for delivery under it.

Mr Brett: What concerns were raised as a result of the former deputy First Minister — now the First Minister — having to be taken to court by victims of terrorism in order to get a Department designated to administer the victims' pension scheme? As you will be aware, that scheme was due to open in May 2019 but was delayed. When she was deputy First Minister, the First Minister refused to designate a Department to administer the scheme because her view was that people who blew themselves up should also get a victims' pension. What impact did the actions of Michelle O'Neill have on delaying the process?

Mr King: I can speak to the victims' payments scheme only as it appears in the strategy, which was published in October. The scheme has been in operation for a number of years now. It is a complex scheme, but, overall, we feel that it has provided support and given acknowledgement to significant numbers of people.

Mr Brett: Has the delay in opening the scheme had an impact on people's applying for the services and support due to them?

Mr King: It is such a complex scheme. There are so many issues involved. We heard from the groups in the previous session about some of the issues with it. What I will say is that, to date, there have been over 12,000 applications to the scheme, and over £125 million has been paid out to date, despite all the complexities and issues surrounding it. Earlier, the groups mentioned issues such as re-traumatisation, which we may discuss later. Overall, however, given all the difficulties that there have been, over £125 million has been paid out, which is a significant amount.

Mr Brett: It is. We are the Committee that is responsible for victims' issues. Victims of terrorism had to go the High Court in this country because Michelle O'Neill tried to block the introduction of the scheme. That was disgraceful.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Will you break down for me how the £8 million for reconfiguration is allocated? How much is for infrastructure and how much goes to providing front-line services for people?

Mr King: Let me take it up a level. The £8 million is for the victims' support programme. That money therefore goes to the groups.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK.

Mr King: When we were talking earlier about the £12 million of demand that has arisen, which is an example of the scheme's success, the £8 million that was mentioned is fully for the groups.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Is it for just front-line services, then?

Mr King: Yes. That goes to all —. Excuse me. The full allocation has not yet been finalised, but the hope is that the equivalent of 40 or more groups will be supported, including, hopefully, those groups that were here today. That is what the £8 million is for.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Timothy, do you have a question off the back of that?

Mr Gaston: Yes. We are talking about victims and money. Officials were before the Committee a couple of weeks ago, and I think that they told us that in the region of £50 million had become surplus this year, a lot of which was down to victims' issues. Can you speak to that at all? My concern is that, given what has been budgeted for this year, the same thing will happen next year and the year after.

The Committee recently considered legislation on mother-and-baby institutions and workhouses. If the date in the Bill is changed, it is estimated that doing so will cost an extra £30 million. Given that there was a £50-odd million surplus this year, is that projected to happen again next year? Are you able to provide any clarity on the posthumous date?

Mr King: No. Obviously, there is a full budget. I do not want to misspeak. I do not want to make a forecast about next year or say that last year's budget issues will be repeated. I want to make that clear. It would be remiss of me, however, not to say that some of the forecasting difficulties that you reference relate to the operation of the victims' payments scheme. As I have said, we may talk later about some of the other issues with the scheme.

On that point, it would not be fair of me to forecast. That is separate from the operation of the scheme, which is on our side. My issue with forecasting is that there are difficulties in doing so. By way of mitigation, I will say that the scheme pays out significant sums of money every week. I mentioned the scheme's total, which is £125 million or £126 million. That is a credit to the scheme, but it does make forecasting very difficult, because if we have a forecasting issue with the victims' payments scheme — it might involve £30,000 or £40,000 — that can equate to an issue of over £1 million in even one week. As I said, it is a very difficult scheme to administer.

I totally accept your point, however. We need to do better. We are working with the VPB on being closer to how the monthly payments are made and to the trends. There are some questions to be asked about the scheme's complexities, but it is so complex, and there are so many variables involved. I am not trying to make excuses. It is a difficult area, and that is why some of the forecasting issues have arisen. We are going to try to do better. We are taking steps to do better by doing weekly close analysis. It is a very large scheme, however.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you very much for preparing the strategy and for your work on delivering it. I am sure that you will be back at the Committee before the end of the mandate. In the meantime, thank you very much.

Mr King: Thank you very much indeed.