Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I welcome to the meeting Fiona Ryan, the Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse (COSICA); and Denise Morgan, who is head of policy, research and engagement. We cannot believe how long it has been since you were in front of us, probably because we have seen you in other forums since. We really appreciate the time and effort that you put into the written briefing that you sent us. It is comprehensive. Would you like to make some opening remarks?

Ms Fiona Ryan (Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse): Thank you so much for the opportunity to come before the Committee today to update you on my work and that of my office. It is greatly appreciated.

When I spoke at the memorial recently, I said that we all had a duty of thanks to victims and survivors. Were it not for the tireless work of survivors to have the abuse that they experienced recognised and responded to, the truth of what happened to them would not have been acknowledged. They have performed a massive public service, and we owe them our gratitude. I would like my thanks to be recorded again.

Since I became Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse in December 2020, we have engaged with almost 1,300 individuals and responded to almost 1,700 queries and cases. The impact of child abuse, including institutional child abuse, can be lifelong and profound. There is no substitute for the voice of survivors, which is why we undertook the research consultation — I hope that you all have a copy of it — with victims and survivors on their physical and mental health needs, their experiences of services and their concerns for the future. I thank the 126 individuals who shared their thoughts and experiences in the consultation; our advisory panel for its insights on the scope and roll-out of the consultation; and colleagues in the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS), WAVE Trauma Centre, Advice NI and TEO. What has emerged is a stark and poignant picture of the physical and mental health needs of victims and survivors of historical institutional child abuse. Chronic physical and mental health conditions are widespread. Victims and survivors tell us that almost every facet of their life has been affected. We also know that survivors of domestic and sexual abuse face an increased risk of further retraumatisation as adults.

Victims and survivors are highly reliant on general health supports, especially GPs, yet, at the same time, they have told us that they are often reluctant to seek medical help. Specialist services and community support play a crucial role in their well-being. I thought that it would be useful to share with you the response from Professor Anne-Marie McAlinden from Queen's University Belfast, who is an acknowledged expert in the area of justice, on her reading of the findings:

Our findings demonstrate that survivor support needs will only increase as survivors age and that survivors will need general and specialist support throughout their lives. Recent stats from the Victims and Survivors Service show that 641 individual survivors of institutional child abuse accessed support in the first three quarters of last year, 141 of whom did so for the first time. That is clear evidence of new individual survivors coming forward for support.

I will leave the Committee with the following messages. We need to recognise and respond to survivors of child abuse and resist retraumatisation. To do that, we need to reach survivors, so that they can make informed choices about what they want to do. Communications matter, and they require a sustained and strategic approach. We need to ensure that that choice is real, and that there are services and pathways to support survivors if they choose to come forward. Survivors of institutional child abuse have repeatedly highlighted the need for lifetime support and services, because the impact of abuse can last a lifetime and even beyond, as we know from transgenerational trauma. Survivor needs are likely to increase with age. There can be no sunset clause on services to survivors. Services need to be there for the lifetime of survivors.

The intersectional nature of institutional child abuse must also be recognised. Many victims and survivors of historical institutional child abuse experienced harm in additional settings, underlining the need for a broader, integrated and trauma-informed response. The negative impacts on health and well-being experienced by victims and survivors of non-recent institutional child abuse are also likely to be shared with other survivors of other forms of child abuse.

I have previously highlighted to the Committee the lack of data in Northern Ireland in relation to the incidence of child abuse, including child sexual abuse. One in five people who contact my office is from outside my statutory remit. The Executive Office has a central role in shaping how Northern Ireland responds to the legacy of institutional abuse, including institutional child abuse, not just historically but as survivors age and their needs become more complex. The memorial to the victims and survivors of historical institutional child abuse states that it is:

It is also a warning and a reminder not to fail the victims and survivors again and not to fail children now.

I trust that today's update will support the Committee in its scrutiny role, and I look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure that the interests of victims and survivors of historical institutional child abuse remain visible, supported and listened to.

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

Denise, have you anything to add?

Ms Denise Morgan (Office of the Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse): No.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Not at this stage; OK. Thank you.

Again, thank you for your report and the work on it. It is very insightful. To start, I will focus on specialist therapeutic support services. I spoke to a gentleman who attended the unveiling of the memorial plaque, and he asked about psychiatric assessments and treatments that are at tier 4 in mental health service access. How good are the support services that are there at the minute? Might more medically led treatments be needed?

Ms Ryan: First of all, the Victims and Survivors Service is the expert in that space. However, as you will have seen in our report, there is generally a high level of satisfaction with the supports that the Victims and Survivors Service and, indeed, its community partner — WAVE Trauma Centre — provide. I have met the gentleman to whom you spoke; in fact, my colleague Denise has engaged with him, and we have, we hope, found a solution for him.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That is good. How prevalent is that sentiment?

Ms Ryan: That is a great question. To be fair to the Victims and Survivors Service and its community partner, we are talking about cases in which a survivor's needs are sufficiently complex that they go beyond the step-care model that is being provided. I would like to see — this came out in the report — clearer pathways for survivors who have additional and complex needs and the Regional Trauma Network being opened up to victims and survivors of historical institutional child abuse.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Perhaps we can pick up on that. Thank you.

There is a question about the sustainability of the services. The legislation is quite time-bound. To what degree are you linking with the Department of Health and its health strategy — you have given me one example — so that there can be a bit of sustainability?

Ms Ryan: That is a great question. Even the most cursory reading of the report tells you that victims and survivors' needs will only increase as they age. They will not decrease. That is important.

I have written to the Department of Health and have sought a meeting with the Minister of Health. We hope to build on the good practice that exists around trauma-informed care when victims and survivors interface and engage with the health system. However, there are some stark findings in the report. We are talking about a serious reliance not just on specialist health and well-being services, which I will speak to in a moment, but on the general health service. Some 54% of people said to us that they rely primarily on their GP. At the same time, people show us that there is a real, marked reluctance to engage with the medical system because they are afraid of disclosing or not disclosing, and they do not know what the response will be. There are also the real structural challenges with the health system at the moment.

I am unequivocal in saying that, while I appreciate the funding and resource pressures on wider services in Northern Ireland, my recommendation, as Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse, is that there be no sunset clause on specialist services for victims and survivors. We know that child abuse can have a lifelong impact and that trauma can reoccur. Consequently, we need to ensure that services are there for survivors when they come forward. I highlight to the Committee the point that the inquiry's terms went up to 1995.

That means that, if you were a 15-year-old in 1995 — this is where my terrible maths will come out — you are likely to be in your early 40s now. We are talking about a lot of life ahead of people. As we know from trauma, it is often when someone becomes a parent or grandparent that issues that they have maybe held come up for them.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I have contacted your office in the past about the issue of victims and survivors having to keep repeating their story and background to healthcare providers and housing officers. It might be useful to take that into the public domain. The Committee has been dealing with mother-and-baby institutions and the Troubles, and we will be moving into the issue of clerical sexual abuse. Is there a model or process that would be useful for our public authorities so that people would not have to keep repeating their stories?

Ms Ryan: That is a really good observation, and it has been shared with us quite a bit. One of the challenges for people engaging with services where there is a turnover in staff is that they are asked to recount their experiences again. Survivors have told us that that is retraumatising. When I speak to service providers in the statutory sector and the community and voluntary sector, I highlight the need for trauma-informed practice. We use the words "trauma-informed practice" all the time, but I ask, "How is that lived in the service?". A key element of a trauma-informed approach — we are all familiar with this — is recognising the widespread prevalence of trauma. A survivor should not necessarily have to disclose in order to get access to the services that they need, but, if they disclose, it should be in a safe, respectful and trustworthy environment. It is about establishing safe practices and pathways, but, to pick up on what you said, that may require reflection. As far as I am aware, there is no off-the-shelf model that we can bring down. It is about a trauma-informed approach and reflective practice.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): You mention in your report the need for a prevalence study. I think that we have heard about that from you before. I know that you have been campaigning for that and trying to raise awareness of it.

Ms Ryan: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Will you give us an update on that and your aspirations in that space?

Ms Ryan: I have been speaking to you for a long time about the need for prevalence. That is for a number of reasons, not least my challenges as a commissioner. I am coming into my sixth year as Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse. A key issue for everyone working on any form of child abuse is the lack of data. We really struggle in Northern Ireland with appropriate levels of data. As we roll out and provide services, I wonder how we are informing ourselves about that service provision. Is it sufficient to say, "Well, we have this number of people coming to the service, therefore that's an indication of need"? That is part of an indication of need, but it is actually an indication of the number of people coming to your service. How are we to measure the gap between the people who need services and the number who are able to access services?

As I said, one in five people who have engaged with my office is out of my statutory remit. "Engage" is a nice, sanitised term. I am talking about people who contact my office and disclose the abuse that they experienced as children in other contexts. I know from having engaged repeatedly with survivors — I have met, listened to, spoken to and heard from them — that there is huge intersectionality. Many survivors were abused in multiple settings. The reality is that we really struggle with getting an accurate picture. That informs even redress. I think that the estimates for redress ranged from 5,000 people to 20,000 people at one stage. What do we know right now about child abuse in Northern Ireland? What do we know about the prevalence and incidence of child sexual abuse? Who were the perpetrators? If we are going to make the words on the memorial real, we have a unique opportunity at this point to find out more and not close our eyes. We are pledging to protect children. It is not just for the survivors whom I represent; it is for those outside my remit, who have often told me that they do not feel acknowledged. In addition, it is for children and the children to come.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Are you getting any positive soundings from the Executive Office or from the Executive as a whole about movement on commissioning?

Ms Ryan: I have had conversations. We must amplify our voice on the reality, because it is not exclusive to the Executive Office; it is also a matter for Health and Justice. We had a preliminary report on adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) in Northern Ireland that included child abuse. That report serves as a starting point, which is why I used the word "preliminary". It gave strong indicators that the prevalence of child abuse is potentially comparable with other jurisdictions. I imagine that politicians, legislators and Departments will be interested in that, because it informs service provision and policy direction.

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

Ms Ní Chuilín: The report is excellent. It is uncomfortable reading and rightly so.

Ms Ryan: Yes.

Ms Ní Chuilín: My question is about data. That information is about probably the worst childhood experiences of people who are now adults but still live with that trauma. There does not seem to be an overarching piece of work to collect all that information. For example, given the history of nationalist and republican communities, very often, no one contacted the authorities when anything happened because of their suspicions or because it may have been used against them in a sinister way. I know for a fact that, over the past maybe five years, lots of people who have been looking for somewhere to go to get help have been going to organisations that are not designed to deal with child sexual abuse. They go to their GP, and they are probably on medication.

Ms Ryan: Yes.

Ms Ní Chuilín: That is only the tip of the iceberg. There will be subsequent reports and bits of research that come forward on clerical sexual abuse, including on the most recent revelations. We know from previous work, such as the historical institutional abuse (HIA) inquiry, and the current work on mother-and-baby homes, Magdalene laundries and workhouses that sexual abuse was prevalent, even as a pathway. Where are all of those adverse, horrible incidents captured, so that we get a true reflection of what happened? We may need to put that question to TEO.

There is still a heavy reliance on the community and voluntary sector to provide services. Some Health and Social Care (HSC) services are doing what they do best: you get referred to either child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) or adult services, which are under massive pressure. While the community and voluntary sector is recognised, the funding and support does not follow through. We have a group of people who are really vulnerable and need our help, but they are not getting it. I would appreciate it if you could raise that point when you meet the Health Minister, because it is a fact.

In your discussions with TEO or, indeed, other commissioners, what is your suggestion for ensuring that the experiences of the people who live with that trauma are noted, captured and included in the data? How do you suggest that that be done?

Ms Ryan: That is a massive question. I acknowledge the reality of what you have shared about survivors. As you know, I worked in the area of domestic and sexual violence in the Republic of Ireland before I took up the post of commissioner. I was on successive monitoring committees for the national strategies on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence in the Republic of Ireland. Domestic and sexual violence is very much seen as a gendered crime. The reality is that, while men are, of course, victims and survivors of domestic and sexual violence, we recognise from an equity perspective that women are more likely to experience more severe harm and worse outcomes, as are children in that context, on a very real level.

The answer that I want to give you is massive, because what you are talking about is a structural, systemic response. If we keep pursuing tactical, piecemeal solutions, we will not give victims and survivors what they want and need. It is not necessarily a small group of people; international statistics suggest that it affects one in five people, if not more. That is a big proportion of the population.

People talk about the cost of providing services to victims and survivors. A British Home Office report states that the vast majority of the costs of child abuse are borne by the victims and survivors through lost opportunities, potential mental health issues and employment issues. We are looking at a phenomenon. If we look at it as a public health phenomenon, which is what is considered good practice on the issue of child abuse, and say, "What is the impact of this public health epidemic that we have? How can we cost this up, and what do we need to do to address it?", we are looking at building a strategy across prevention, protection and prosecution and then policy integration. Those are just words, but you need that structural, systemic response.

If we are looking at research-informed, evidence-based policymaking, we can start with data. To be clear, my recommendation of a prevalence study is not a way of saying, "Well, we'll start with that, and then we'll wait for everything else to happen". It would be useful to have a prevalence study. It is about informing the system. However, that does not mean that we do not look at what services are available to survivors. I recently met and spoke to Nexus, which cannot keep up with the demand for its services; in fact, if it were to fully advertise its services, it would be overwhelmed. That is an indictment.

Ms Ní Chuilín: GPs refer their patients to services in the community and voluntary sector because those are the best that they can get in the interim while they wait for more specialised psychiatric services or emotional support services. A prevalence study is needed, but it cannot be the only option.

Ms Ryan: Absolutely. I agree with you. It is not the only option.

Ms Ní Chuilín: It cannot be the only the option.

Ms Ryan: No.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I would appreciate it if recommendations were made to the entire Executive, because the area of child sexual abuse — that which is within your remit and that which is outside it — is huge.

Ms Ryan: Carál, it is massive. To be clear, the kind of response that you are looking for requires a whole-of-government response, significant cooperation across Departments, will and resources. All that I can do is speak from the perspective of being the Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse, share with you my experiences in that area and, in good faith, what survivors have told me and make recommendations to you in good faith that, I think, may have an impact.

Frankly, Departments, Ministers and legislators have far more influence in the area than I do.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you.

Mr Gaston: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for coming along. Your opening remarks included the line:

We, as a Committee, need to bear that in mind. After you leave today, it will stay in my mind that the issue will not go away; in essence, it will grow as somebody goes through their journey of life.

Your paper states that, since your office was established in 2020, you have engaged with 1,300 individuals and dealt with 1,700 cases. You mentioned that one in five cases is outside your remit. Of the 1,300 individuals, therefore, 260 have approached you —

Ms Ryan: Approximately.

Mr Gaston: — with cases that are not within your remit. Within whose remit are those cases?

Ms Ryan: That is an interesting question. We hear people describing child abuse in different settings. We hear from survivors of institutional child abuse who may have been abused in foster care and then put into an institution. Given the debates prior to the formation of the historical institutional abuse inquiry, you will know better than I do that foster care was not included in that inquiry.

I will give an example of someone's journey. Someone who had been in foster care might have been put in a children's institution and then put into foster care. They might then have been put back into a children's institution before being put into a mother-and-baby institution. We are talking about abuse in multiple settings. Survivors who have come to us include those who have told us that they were abused in school settings. As you are aware, in the Republic of Ireland, there will be an inquiry into child abuse in schools.

What I can say about our remit, Timothy, is that we listen, we acknowledge, and, unfortunately, we have to tell people that they are outside our remit. We then signpost them to services. The answer to the question, "Is there a commissioner for survivors of child abuse?" is no. If someone discloses details that require PSNI engagement, we will refer them to the PSNI, but we would never tell someone what to do. We signpost them to services, because we are aware of our boundaries and our levels of competence in such situations.

Mr Gaston: There seems to be a gap. You mentioned other European countries. Does Northern Ireland need a child abuse commissioner?

Ms Ryan: That is a recommendation for Departments and the legislature to consider. As I have said, I suggest that we need a public conversation about child abuse. We know from the ACEs study and from my work that there are significant levels of harm and that there is a prevalence of child abuse. We need to accept the fact that there is child abuse, and we need to do further research. However, to pick up on your colleague's point, that cannot be used as an excuse for not doing what needs to be done in the meantime on services and support for survivors.

Mr Gaston: I will come back to your line about survivors' support needs increasing as they get older. I am looking through your paper, in which you point out that your office is funded only until December 2027. What is the plan after that? Who will pick up that work if the funding is not continued?

Ms Ryan: I am waiting to hear from the Executive Office on its plans for the office of the commissioner. My term finishes in December next year. It is probably safe to say that we have established that there is a need for an office such as ours: we provide data, signposting services and research. A decision on that has to be made; however, it is not a decision that is within my remit to make, obviously.

Mr Gaston: If we were to go back to the very start and set up a process again, should we look at the abuse and at the child and step through their journey? Do you think that Stormont has got it wrong in that we have been looking at the box or the location of the abuse? You have said that you could have been abused in —

Ms Ryan: Multiple settings.

Mr Gaston: — multiple settings. We are missing out people and failing people because of that. Is your advice now and moving forward that, if we set up any inquiries in future, we should look at the child — the victim — and step through their process instead of looking at where the abuse occurred?

Ms Ryan: It is good practice to always start with the child — to start with the victim and survivor and to build out from there and look at the child as you work with the child who has been abused. That is how you understand the relationships that can happen between different contexts of abuse. Taking that systemic approach is to the benefit of children and to the benefit of victims and survivors. The challenge has been that, for example, survivors who were in foster care and then were in institutions or some variation of that have often felt very much forgotten. Survivors of foster care in particular have said to me that they feel very much forgotten. That is the challenge.

Where do we begin when we look at inquiries? It is by starting with the child and working out from there. Starting with a building, rather than the practices and pathways, will mean that you will always miss victims and survivors and you will always miss children.

Mr Gaston: I move on to the prevalence survey, and Paula has already covered some of that. You have outlined eloquently the need for it. You said that it would help to provide data, and you mentioned that there is a lack of data and information to back up where the abuse happened. Essentially, two Bills are coming through Stormont, the Justice Bill, which is in Committee Stage, and the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill, which has come through Committee Stage. Should a prevalence survey be built into one of those Bills? Do you feel that that sits with TEO or sits better with Justice?

Ms Ryan: Going back to my earlier comments, a whole-of-government systemic approach is required. To be frank with you, yes, I think that a prevalence study is needed. It is not for me to comment on what vehicle will achieve that, but whatever will allow us to get to a point where we understand more about child abuse in Northern Ireland, including historical institutional child abuse and other forms of institutional child abuse, has to be considered and should be actively considered.

Mr Gaston: Are you aware of any other prevalence survey that has been put into statute that we could use as a precedent case?

Ms Ryan: I am not at this point, but I am happy to come back to the Committee with that information, if you think that it would be helpful. I can tell you that there are prevalence studies, for example in the jurisdiction adjacent to this, the Republic of Ireland. Prevalence studies have been used there to inform government policy and strategy in this area. I spoke earlier about the national domestic, sexual and gender-based violence strategy in the Republic of Ireland. The prevalence study that was carried out in the Republic was carried out by the Central Statistics Office, and it provided what is considered to be a comprehensive and robust analysis across the population. Perhaps what was interesting as well was that it gave an indication of the changing types of child sexual abuse and of who the perpetrators were, primarily, and what the profile of perpetrators was.

Mr Gaston: One of the documents talks about the partnership agreement, and it is clear from it that this is an issue for the First Minister and deputy First Minister. I am of the view that we should request that the First Minister and deputy First Minister come before the Committee on this issue alone to put on a focus on it on the basis of the information that you have given prior to today and what you have shared with the Committee, and I look for the Committee's support on that.

I would like to explore with you the publicity budgets associated with your office. What sort of budget have you for publicity?

Ms Ryan: I was given a general resource budget, not one for publicity. I have been to the Committee before and said to you individually that there were missed opportunities, particularly at the start of redress. They were missed opportunities to reach victims and survivors. What I mean by that is that, potentially, there are survivors who never got to know about redress or support services. I am just picking up a point that I have made to you before. Services to victims and survivors of historical institutional child abuse were effectively nine months after redress.

To give you a simple example, you have all received publicity leaflets from my office, the cost of which we which we take out of our resource budget, rather than having a dedicated publicity budget. When I was visiting an agency in Britain that provides outreach in the community for older Irish emigrants, I met a gentleman from Northern Ireland. I was chatting to him, and I asked him whether he had had redress. He said yes. I asked him, "How are you for services? Are you getting services?". He said, "What services?" He was part of the first group of people that went forward for redress in that nine-month gap.

If I could share something with you, it is key and important to ensure that there are services available at every stage of whatever process you are going to engage in. The reality is that there were missed opportunities on publicity and marketing. We can see already that there are survivors coming forward. There was a sense that, when survivors got redress and, maybe, some limited services, they would no longer need to avail themselves of support services, but that is not the case, as we can see from the evidence of the Victims and Survivors Service.

I suggest to you that there are survivors out there who are either unsure or unaware of their service entitlements. There are certainly survivors, particularly in Britain, who are at increased risk of not knowing about their entitlements.

Mr Gaston: I have a final comment and a final question. If after December 2027, your office is not continued — I know that you are in post until then, but I think of the people whom you support — what would it mean? If your service were to be withdrawn and there was not an appropriate support level put in place, what would it mean for the people that you support out of the 1,300 individuals?

Ms Ryan: The previous point was on creating awareness among survivors of their entitlement to services. It would mean that that would be severely diminished. The professional network that we have built with various survivors' support agencies in Britain would certainly be impacted on. We have a good working relationship with my opposite number in the Republic of Ireland, Special Advocate Patricia Carey. We have a network of really productive engagement with agencies in Britain, working across the wider Irish community in welfare. That would be at risk. I spoke to you before about reaching out to those agencies in Britain, and, because we had so little budget, we had to rely on their channels and communications to highlight the issue and try to reach victims and survivors from Northern Ireland. That would, obviously, be impacted on.

We have established credibility with survivors. This report speaks to the value that we can offer in research. One of the key areas would be to take aspects of this report and, to go to your earlier point, do a deep dive into those core areas and find out what survivors' experiences are again and then speak to the stakeholders involved. I highlight to you the fact that survivors tell us that they have real concerns about going into residential care as they age. Those fears are real. Having had such negative experiences of being institutionalised as a child, you can imagine what that would mean for you as an older person. Also, there is the whole aspect that has not even been looked at: transgenerational trauma and the impact on survivors, their families and their relationships. That research capacity would be somewhat diminished as well.

I would like to think that, over the past five years, we have amplified the voices of victims and survivors and have brought to your attention, as a scrutiny Committee, the key issues that are being shared with us. Even from the very start, in my first few months as commissioner, I brought to the Committee's attention what was shared with me about the challenges that victims and survivors were experiencing with redress. As commissioner, I have sought, over the past five years, to bring to your attention what I understand to be the key issues coming forward, so, yes, there would be a gap.

Mr Gaston: Thank you.

Ms Murphy: Fiona, it is brilliant to have you here. Some of the testimony in the consultation report is absolutely harrowing, as are some of the statistics. You said that you sought a meeting with the Health Minister to discuss some of the ongoing health and social care issues.

There is a lot of testimony and statistics in the housing section of the report. One survivor stated:

There are statistics on how difficult it is for people to access home adaptations and housing itself. Have you engaged with the Minister for Communities on that?

Ms Ryan: I have engaged with the Housing Executive but not with the Minister for Communities to date. I wanted to gather the information, evidence and data and then use those as a platform to engage with Ministers. We have engaged with Department for Communities staff on other aspects of service provision to victims and survivors, primarily around welfare provision and social protection. That again highlights the systemic responses that are needed.

Survivors exist, as we all do, in relationships with different parts of the state that they interface with. Trying to pick one and ignore the others means that you miss something. In the time left to me as commissioner, I will certainly use that consultation as a platform to have those important conversations. A core principle of the trauma-informed approach is that we recognise the widespread prevalence of trauma and respond appropriately and resist retraumatisation. Those are the key points that I will repeat.

Ms Murphy: That trauma-informed approach is taken and mirrored in health and social care. I suppose that it even goes back to people having to self-declare to the Housing Executive when engaging on housing.

Another point that I want to touch on, which I have asked other victims groups about, is the Capita assessment. Have you had feedback from victims and survivors about how their engagement with that process made them feel?

Ms Ryan: Survivors have engaged with other assessment processes. I really need to stress to the Committee that, if your earliest formative memories are of unjust authority and if every interaction you had resulted in a bad outcome for you, then, even if it is the most trauma-informed and victim-focused process, it will still cause massive potential anxiety for a survivor to engage in that assessment process, because their earliest formative experiences are that it would be unfair. We would like to have conversations — with some DFC staff as well — to explain, which we have done, just what it is like to be a survivor engaging with the state and authority and how that might look in reality. As a commissioner, I have a responsibility to encourage the provision and coordination of services, and having those important conversations is a starting point at the very least.

Ms Murphy: Thank you.

Ms Morgan: I would like to add one wee point to that. As Fiona rightly says, it is really difficult for survivors. Sometimes, having our office to facilitate them in engaging with services — there can be trauma around the memories of the first experience — just helps them over the threshold to move that forward.

Ms Ryan: To clarify, we do not provide direct services, but we can signpost survivors. We can also have systemic influence. For example, we would not necessarily take a case on behalf of an individual survivor, but we can highlight for the relevant service provider or authority the systemic issues that are emerging.

Ms Murphy: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. I have one question on the memorialisation programme, which has not been touched on. Do you have any thoughts on what the next steps should look like? There was a really nice atmosphere at the unveiling in the Great Hall and very much a sense of camaraderie. As I said, it was a wonderful event. What are the next steps in that process?

Ms Ryan: At the memorial, I said that some survivors were not happy with the memorial for various reasons. There is a spectrum of reasons. Some people will say that no apology or memorial can compensate them for what happened. As you are aware, there were also specific issues. Some time ago, I advised the Executive Office to engage in a memorial programme; in other words, a programme of different types of memorial that would allow survivors to access the memorial that would have the most meaning for them. People can go through a collective experience, but the reality is that the experience can be individual to them. Therefore, the more we consult survivors and ask them, "What memorial is most meaningful to you?", and the more opportunities we give them to engage, the better. We can then see what programme we can develop around that. That is what I advocated: a memorial programme based on widespread consultation. That is one of the ways forward. You cannot guarantee an outcome and say, "We want this form of memorial", but you can talk about the fidelity of the process, ensure that people's voices are heard and develop the programme from there.

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

Ms Ryan: You are welcome.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We really appreciate your time today and look forward to having you back to the Committee at a later stage.