Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I welcome Mr Justice McAlinden, the president of the Victims' Payments Board (VPB); Paul Bullick, the board's secretary; and Anthony Bowman, the board's head of business transformation. Thank you so much for returning to the Committee. It is a year since you were here last. We are really looking forward to engaging with you today. Thanks for providing your submission in advance. I invite you to make some opening remarks.

Mr Paul Bullick (Victims’ Payments Board): Thank you very much, Chair. It is almost a year to the day since we were previously here to give evidence. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for the invitation to provide an update to the Committee today.

As you know, the victims' payments scheme opened on 31 August 2021, and it is scheduled to close on 30 August this year. I remind you that the key purpose of the scheme was to provide those living with a permanent disablement caused by injury, through no fault of their own, in a Troubles-related incident with a payment and an acknowledgement of the acute harm that they have suffered. It was also to provide them with a measure of recognition of the implications of living with a disablement caused by a serious Troubles-related incident and the associated impact that that has on carers, who are often family members, as well as a recognition of their coping with that permanent disablement throughout their lives.

I will provide an update on the current position of the scheme. At present, we have 72 judicially appointed board members. There is an equal mix of legal, medical and lay experience members. The board's independence is essential and crucial, and it provides assurance to victims on the decisions on the entitlement to payments under the scheme.

As of this week, around £139 million has been paid out to eligible applicants since the scheme opened. We have received 13,223 applications to the scheme, with approximately 950 of them being received from outside Northern Ireland. Around 6,000 cases have been listed for consideration to go in front of a panel for a determination, and those are at various stages. To date, approximately 4,800 determinations have been made. Of the determinations that have been made, around 3,000 have been determined as being eligible, with the remaining circa 1,800 being determined as not being eligible.

We have Anthony with us today, who will be able to say a lot more about business transformation, but I will provide a quick run-through. You will recall that, when we previously briefed the Committee, we had commissioned the independent review of the end-to-end application processes from Innovation and Consultancy Services (ICS). That review identified a number of opportunities for how we might streamline things and improve the experience of applicants.

Since then, the business transformation project (BTP) team has made strong progress. It has completed detailed mapping of the full applicant journey, with input from staff, board members, support groups and other stakeholders, and developed a phased programme of incremental changes. Those improvements are already being made across the piece to enhance the quality of the applicant experience and the overall efficiency of the scheme.

The team has also been working closely with a digital provider to strengthen and enhance the functionality of the current case management system. The enhancements will provide operational resilience, speed up case handling and provide a much more robust platform for future-proofing ongoing payments and the longer-term operation of the scheme. Phased implementation has already begun and continues. Over the coming months, as further process improvements continue to be rolled out, we expect to see additional gains made operationally and a more streamlined experience for applicants.

I will provide a couple of lines on communication and awareness. With the scheme due to close for applications in August, we have continued to work with our media partners to ensure that the messaging is pushed to as wide an audience as possible, particularly in Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and further afield. An awareness campaign was run in September 2025 to advertise the scheme to a wide range of stakeholders, political representatives and welfare groups throughout the UK, the Republic of Ireland and further afield. More recently, from February 2026, we have issued information kits. The kits were prepared and distributed to a wide range of stakeholders and representatives of victims' organisations, as well as to healthcare settings, Church settings and so on, throughout the UK, ROI and further afield.

We also prepared and issued a number of press releases across constituencies to raise awareness and to encourage victims who may be eligible to get their application in ahead of the closing date in August.

The difference that the scheme has made to victims and their families should not be underestimated. We know that it has changed the lives of those who have received a payment for the better and provided them with much-needed support and financial security. That concludes our opening remarks. We are very happy to take any questions that the Committee may have.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you, Paul. Last year, as you said, you talked to the Committee about the end-to-end review and said that a project manager had just been appointed. Is that you, Anthony?

Mr Anthony Bowman (Victims’ Payments Board): Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): If it is appropriate for you to respond, Anthony, how effective have you been in implementing the recommendations of the review over the past year?

Mr Bowman: As Paul mentioned in his opening remarks, we have so far completed the end-to-end review of all the processes in the scheme. We have strengthened the ICS review recommendations, which were to be acted on at a fixed point in time. As the scheme progressed, our teams were making improvements as they went along. We therefore had to make sure that our information was up to date. We have designed a programme of incremental changes so that we can implement the ICS review recommendations without impacting on the scheme's business-as-usual activity.

The recommendations for the digital system are being progressed. We were awaiting a contract extension negotiation with the digital supplier, and that has now been completed and is moving forward. Some of our preliminary work on the digital system has therefore been implemented, but the bulk of that work will be happening over the next year. As for the staffing and structure of the scheme, we have made our recommendations for its resourcing to meet the ICS recommendations.

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

Paul, your paper states that over £138 million has been paid out to date and that determinations have been made on just over a third of all applicants' cases. Are you able to forecast what the overall allocation will be once all the applications have been assessed and processed? How does that compare with the original expectation or estimation of what the scheme was going to cost?

Mr Bullick: At the moment, I do not have the figures for the overall costs from the start of the scheme to the end of the scheme. It is very much a demand-led scheme. I can say, however, that the number of applications that we have received is broadly in line with what was forecast at the very beginning of the scheme, before it opened, when we set up a project team to establish the board and the structures. The Government Actuary's Department (GAD) had helped us make that forecast.

As I said, just over 13,000 applications have been received. If we profile based on the same trends, we expect a small spike before the scheme closes. That would be natural with any scheme as it was coming to an end. That forecast is broadly in line with the median for the GAD figures at the time. There are so many variables to consider with the costs. I am not able to provide the Committee with that information today. We can tell you the total amount that has been paid out to victims, but there are then board costs and staffing costs to consider. There will also be a bit of a tail to those costs. Anthony can say some more about how that tail will be influenced by the business transformation project.

We close for applications in August, but there could then be five years of processing them. Most of the applications have still not gone through the full process. Evidence has to be gathered, and those applications then have to be determined. There is then a 12-month period from our final determination on any case so that applicants can appeal under the regulations.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): You predicted my follow-up question. Thank you for that. It will therefore be almost 10 years between setting up the scheme and the end of the scheme.

Mr Justice Gerry McAlinden (Victims’ Payments Board): When the scheme was proposed, senior civil servants from the Executive Office, the Department of Justice and so on asked me how long I thought that it would trundle on, bearing in mind the statutory framework that had been proposed. I was quite clear in my view at that time that around 10 years was a conservative figure. The likelihood is that the management of regular payments and the transfer of entitlement from a beneficiary to the next of kin will be required. In some shape or form, the administration of the scheme will probably go on beyond my lifetime.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. The previous time that you were here, you talked about accessing GP records, and we all recognised the pressures that there are on GP practices. Has the process improved? Has the memorandum of understanding (MOU) been augmented to help the flow of information?

Mr Bullick: We have seen an improvement in the information that is coming through from GPs. We also have an arrangement with the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG) to gather information from secondary care, and that has greatly assisted us. There are complexities and difficulties with evidence gathering, and that is because of the period that we are looking at. In some cases, we are going back 50 years. In some cases, there can be up to 50 different incidents. The range can be from one or two incidents to multiple incidents. There are therefore still difficulties, but we have noticed a marked improvement. We regularly meet the representatives of GPs, the SPPG and Capita, and Capita reports that the returns from GPs have steadily improved and increased.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Good stuff. Finally from me, during your previous appearance at the Committee, you mentioned possibly engaging with people who had been through the process so that they could feed into the transformation work and improve the processes. Is that ongoing? Have you received any feedback?

Mr Bullick: I will let Anthony say a bit more about engagement through the BTP, but, yes, we have reached out to the support groups at various stages to see whether we can get people who have been through the process to engage with us. Part of our press and media outreach work was to get some personal stories from the groups, but it was not as easy as we thought it might have been to get them. Some people were willing to come forward, and they had stories to tell. Our efforts will continue, however. That engagement will probably continue through Anthony's work.

Mr Bowman: Yes. The feedback from the welfare groups has informed the work on business transformation.

Mr Justice McAlinden: We have communication with the various support groups through regular meetings. I make it my business to engage with the leaders of the support groups on a one-to-one basis to hear about any issues they are keen to raise directly with me.

On engaging with individuals who have gone through the process, however, it has to be accepted that part of the process is for them to put things behind them, so I do not want to put pressure on people to re-engage with the board once they have been through the process and are out the other end. There is therefore a difficult balancing act to be engaged in between getting feedback from those who have been through the process and, in a sense, burdening those individuals with further requests for information.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you.

Mr Dickson: Thank you very much for coming back to the Committee today. As the Chair said before the session, it was very helpful for us to be able to look at some of the comments recorded in Hansard last year.

You have had a business transformation project in place since we commented on the systems and the organisational structure last year. From listening to what you have said today and reading about it, I note that transformation has taken place and continues to take place. Are you therefore able to say that there has been a change since last year?

Mr Justice McAlinden: There has definitely been a change. I look at those things individually and systemically. There are systemic issues, and we need to have policies in place to address them. All the policies in the world, however, do not make a difference unless the right people are in place.

I always keep an eye on individual input. I am hard to please, but I am impressed by this guy.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Good. [Laughter.]

Mr Justice McAlinden: His background is in the Inland Revenue, so he does not take any prisoners. [Laughter.]

He looks at problems, analyses them and, thankfully, comes up with solutions. I am genuinely impressed by the solutions that he has proposed.

Mr Dickson: Compared with where we were at some time ago, that is heartening to hear.

The scheme will close in August of this year. You and your board, as well as all of us, have a real desire to ensure that everyone who is eligible for the scheme has had an opportunity to come forward. Undoubtedly, you will redouble your efforts on advertising, communication and working with organisations. Do you expect there to be a rush of applications as the closure of the scheme approaches?

Mr Justice McAlinden: I remember when the issue was one of whether the backdating and so on would be extended. One reason that we expected a big rush was the deadline. That was removed, so we did not receive the glut of applications that we otherwise might have expected. There may be some form of blip with the closure of the scheme, but, in essence, the scheme is known about pretty widely, and those who have valid claims will, by now, have brought them to the attention of the support groups or directly to the board.

Mr Dickson: Yes.

Mr Justice McAlinden: The statistics for applications that are coming in now show that they are more speculative. They are more about pushing the boundaries of the scheme to include issues that may not previously have been considered to be in its scope. I do not think that there will be a massive blip. There may be a blip, but the longer that the scheme remains in place, the more imaginative the applications will be that are submitted. There must be a cut-off point if we are to have the resourcing that is required to deal with those issues and the benefits that are to be provided to the community as a result of the processing of applications. It is a balancing exercise, and the balance has probably been struck in the right place through having the scheme close in August. Bear in mind, however, that, under the legislation, there is always the potential for a late application to be considered on exceptional grounds. Submissions are not utterly prevented by the scheme's closure, but it will have to be demonstrated that there are exceptional grounds. We take a victim-centred approach, so the rationale for exceptional grounds will be interpreted sympathetically.

Mr Dickson: That is useful to know. If there were to be a small increase in people coming forward or, as you suggested, slightly more speculative claims being submitted, what resources would you have in order to counsel individuals that their application is not going to be successful but that you understand their trauma and the difficulties that brought them to the point of saying that they might be a victim? How do you work with those people whose application does not fit the scheme? That in itself could be quite traumatic.

Mr Justice McAlinden: This could be described as buck-passing, but the support groups need to be funded beyond the closure of the scheme. It is about funding them not to process fresh applications to the scheme but to provide general support for people who come to them about the scheme and associated issues.

There is also the issue of the very valuable support from the work in which Professor Ciaran Mulholland and the Regional Trauma Network (RTN) have been engaged. To my mind, one of the wins in the whole process has been the development of that support mechanism for our scheme. The RTN will have to survive in some shape or form beyond the closure of the scheme. As a society, we still have a duty of care to those people who have genuinely developed trauma, regardless of whether they fall within the scheme. It is therefore about how we can build on the work that has been carried out under the scheme to maintain the level of support that the support groups, Ciaran Mulholland and others have provided in order to ensure that those in need receive help for the trauma that they have suffered, regardless of whether their application falls within the scheme or whether the scheme is closed.

Mr Dickson: As the scheme draws to a close, you will presumably raise those comments, areas and issues with the appropriate —.

Mr Justice McAlinden: We have asked for a meeting with the Secretary of State. I have not received a response, but I have asked. Whenever I get a chance, I am never shy about asking.

Mr Dickson: That has been very helpful. Thank you.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you very much for coming back to the Committee. Anthony, you were described almost as being a tax collector, but I remind you that Jesus loved tax collectors. [Laughter.]

It is good that the independent review of the end-to-end application processes has been done. You are now sitting here as a result. The three areas that the review identified were the process, digital systems and the organisational structure. We are all very sensitive to the fact that, when we talk about the process, we are talking about people at their most vulnerable who are applying for support. How has the end-to-end review helped people not only to apply but to deal with the trauma of going through the application process? How has the process been made better for people who are really vulnerable?

Mr Bowman: The biggest change that has been implemented to benefit applicants is the adoption of making eligibility determinations before the medical assessments take place. That means that, if people are ineligible for the scheme on non-medical grounds, they do not have to go through a medical assessment with Capita that, ultimately, would have been unfruitful anyway. Part of our ongoing work is to expand that, as, at the moment, it encompasses quite a small scope.

Ms Ní Chuilín: May I interrupt you? Sorry. Are medical grounds physical issues rather than psychological issues?

Mr Bullick: No. Non-medical grounds are what is in the legislation. It is about meeting the requirements of it being a "Troubles-related incident" or the person being "present in the immediate aftermath". Medical grounds relate to physical and psychological issues.

Ms Ní Chuilín: OK. Sorry.

Mr Bowman: The idea is that we will expand that so that we essentially eliminate unnecessary medical assessments being undertaken as much as is possible.

The second thread that directly impacts on applicants will be the speed of determination. We are looking at a substantial increase in the rate of determinations. That means that determinations will happen at an earlier point and that the overall rate of determinations will increase. That should significantly reduce the uncertainty in the period during which applicants are involved.

Ms Ní Chuilín: OK. Is there an appeals mechanism at that stage?

Mr Bowman: Yes, people will have the same right of appeal that people with a full determination have.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I will come back to that. Justice McAlinden, you stated that the need for support will go on beyond your lifetime. We are therefore really talking about the next generation.

Mr Justice McAlinden: I think so.

To go back to what Anthony said about the journey through the process: we have looked at this; we have had five years to look at it. Over those five years, there has been a learning process, and I hope that we have been open to learning. One thing that really struck us was that, in a number of cases, individuals had gone right through — they had put in their forms and had a Capita assessment, which is intrusive in that it asks the individual to revisit horrors that they lived through many years ago — and, then, gone to a panel, which decided, "Yes, we appreciate you went through that and suffered all that trauma, but we don't think it is a Troubles-related incident", or determined that there was some other reason for not approving payment, such as previous involvement or something like that. We have tried to make sure that all the issues that could be relevant to whether a person is entitled are determined, or precisely clarified, before the person has to go through that medical assessment. We think that that will reduce the potential for trauma.

Another thing is that the board has 72 members. There are risk committees and business committees. There are a number of subcommittees of the board that look after various aspects of the management of an organisation of that size. What I basically said was, "Look, we're in the last period of this scheme being open. We need to make sure that, beyond that, applications are dealt with as quickly as possible, because delay is an enemy of healing and has the potential to prolong trauma". I basically said, "Look, we've got our structures in place. We've Anthony in place. He's going to look after the management of this structure. Let's close down those committees. Let's minimise the work that is done by those committees of various board members. Let's transfer those board members and have them spend less time on committees and more time on hearing cases". I think that we will see a dramatic increase in the number of cases being put through each month, which will shorten the time span between somebody putting in an application and getting a determination. We are constantly reviewing with a view to minimising trauma, shortening the timescale and promoting healing if we can.

Ms Ní Chuilín: My final question is in two parts. You said that the need for support will go beyond this scheme, and that there is a need to ensure a positive outcome — it will be part of healing but not a full healing process. What do you recommend should happen with the groups that provide the much-needed support? That is the first part. Secondly, I am content that the governance seems to be gripped by a focus that is more on the outcomes for people than on the process that people have to go through, because that process was and is traumatic. How will that continue beyond August this year?

Mr Justice McAlinden: The closure date just stops the applications coming in, apart from the exceptional ones. It does not stop the work of the board, which will then focus on speedily determining the applications that are in place within a reasonable timescale. I say "reasonable timescale": current estimates see determinations continuing to take place for four or five years and appeals stretching it out a bit more.

To ensure that trauma is minimised, we will try to deliver decisions as quickly as possible in order to truncate the time between closure of the scheme and all the determinations being made. However, as I will say to whomever holds the purse strings — we know who does holds the purse strings and who makes the decisions — in my experience over the past five years, the work of all the support groups in this area has been vital. They have, in essence, their own constituencies; they have people who prefer to go to them rather than to other groups. The support groups have made a genuine difference in helping applicants to process their applications and to deal with the issues that they have presented with. The role of the support groups is vital, and it is vital to fund them beyond the closure date.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you.

Mr Brett: Colleagues, thank you very much. I was not a member of the Committee when you appeared previously. I read the Hansard report of that evidence session. Mr Justice McAlinden, in your comments to the Deputy Chair, you said:

Could you unpack that for me, sir?

Mr Justice McAlinden: I have been in this from the start. I was asked to be the first president of the board because Declan Morgan assigned me to deal with the judicial review, which was about why the scheme had not been implemented or funded. I dealt with the judicial review and made a decision. That went to the Court of Appeal, which backed me up but it then went further than that. In essence, the scheme has been devised by the Northern Ireland Office — the Secretary of State — because the Executive did not see it as being within their capability to agree a scheme that suited everybody in its definition of "victimhood" and of who would be entitled to payment under that scheme. The Secretary of State has imposed a scheme that we, as a board, and I, as a judge —.

Mr Brett: Sorry to interrupt, but the Secretary of State did not impose a scheme; Parliament passed a scheme.

Mr Justice McAlinden: Right. Parliament passed a scheme, but it was devised by the Northern Ireland Office — the Secretary of State. It went through the UK Parliament, but it did not receive unanimous support in this jurisdiction, where it operates.

Mr Brett: It was not imposed; it was passed by the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Mr Justice McAlinden: If you want to get into constitutional law, we will have a constitutional law argument —

Mr Brett: I want to get —.

Mr Justice McAlinden: — but what I am telling you is —

Mr Brett: You do not need to tell me —.

Mr Justice McAlinden: — that it was imposed.

Mr Brett: Sorry. I am going to finish.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Gentlemen, please.

Mr Brett: If I could just finish —.

Mr Justice McAlinden: It was imposed.

Mr Brett: It was not imposed. It was passed by Parliament; that is a fact, sir.

Mr Justice McAlinden: Right. Well.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Do you have anything else?

Mr Brett: I will read other comments. You went on to say:

Mr Justice McAlinden: There would have to be agreement on a redefinition of the concept of "victimhood". That is a politically sensitive issue. That is not for me to comment on; it is for the Executive and the Assembly to agree that. The issue that is crying out for improvement is the inclusion of the bereaved in some form of scheme. The present scheme does not include the bereaved.

Mr Brett: With all due respect, your comments did not refer to the bereaved. You said:

Mr Justice McAlinden: Right. What that means is this: to improve the scheme so that it has universal support in Northern Ireland, one would have to change the idea — the concept — of "victimhood". Is that possible? That is not for me to say, but, if you were to want it to appeal to and to meet the desires of all of the population of Northern Ireland, a redefinition of "victimhood" would be required. It would mean that what you were doing at the time when you were injured etc would have to be looked at. Are people who were injured when they were engaging in certain activities still victims of the Troubles who are entitled to payment? That would be an issue for the Executive and the Assembly; it is not an issue for me. However, what I recognised, still recognise and am adamant about is that the definition of "victimhood" in the legislation has not attracted universal support in our society, and I have to operate a scheme knowing that that is one of its limitations.

Mr Brett: Your remarks did not have that preface. You said that they could change:

Is —?

Mr Justice McAlinden: I am not advocating a change in the scheme. You were not here; I was here, and I know what I was —.

Mr Brett: You seem to be getting very angry, but I am just reading your words back to you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Please be respectful.

Mr Brett: I am. I am reading back —.

Mr Justice McAlinden: No, you are not actually.

Mr Brett: Pardon?

Mr Justice McAlinden: You are not being respectful.

Mr Brett: I am. I am reading your words back to you.

Mr Justice McAlinden: Yes, well, what I was intent on saying and what I meant by those comments is simply the following. I have had a difficult enough five years engaging in and trying to run this scheme, as well as running my job as a High Court judge. I am doing that entirely voluntarily — without one cent of payment — because I was asked to do it by the former Lord Chief Justice. I do my best to ensure that that scheme is operated in accordance with the legislative provisions that I have. That is my duty as a judge. However, I operate in the real world, and I know that the scheme and the definition of "victimhood" are divisive in our society. That is —.

Mr Brett: As a victim who lost a family member to terrorists —.

Mr Justice McAlinden: I know that you are. I know that your brother was —.

Mr Brett: And I understand the work that you have done. However, I want to put on the record that your remarks the last time, when you, perhaps, misspoke —

Mr Justice McAlinden: No, I did not misspeak.

Mr Brett: — were:

My party's position will remain that, if you blew yourself up, sir, you did not injure yourself and should not be entitled to receive compensation.

Mr Justice McAlinden: Did I say that I —?

Mr Brett: I tried to quote your words back to you. You said:

Mr Justice McAlinden: I said that, if we had a scheme that was acceptable to everyone —.

Mr Brett: That would not be acceptable to everyone.

Mr Justice McAlinden: Yes, but, for it to be acceptable to everyone, that is what would have to happen. In other words, there has to be significant movement from everyone to try to get reconciliation and healing in this society. There are issues around people not being prepared to move forward or engage with each other meaningfully and to put wrongs of the past behind us with a view to moving forward and making a success of our society. Those are all issues that I cannot address: you, as elected political representatives, have to address them.

Michael Portillo was on TV recently with a programme about rail journeys through South Korea. Look at the history of South Korea. It was absolutely destroyed prior to World War II because of occupation by Japan. It was then the subject of a war between North Korea and South Korea after the Second World War, during which millions were killed. However, since that time, South Korea has developed a burgeoning economy and a successful society. It has moved forward. It has not forgotten the past, but it has been able to move forward. My worry is that we, in this society, tend to drag each other back and are unable to embrace each other and move forward.

Mr Brett: I have no problem embracing people. All that I have a problem with is trying to put on the same level somebody who was blown up in a bomb and someone who blew up —.

Mr Justice McAlinden: I am not —.

Mr Brett: All that I was doing, with all due respect, sir, was quoting back to you your remarks, which were recorded in Hansard and covered widely in the media.

My only other question, which is for someone else —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes, please.

Mr Brett: — is about the 1,800 people who were not eligible to make an application. I have put in a number of Assembly questions for written answer about the reasoning behind their not being eligible. I warmly welcome the fact that there is a no-fault clause in the legislation that disbars from applying people who blew themselves up. I was trying to get the details of how many of those 1,800 were not eligible as a result of that. Do you hold that data?

Mr Bowman: No.

Mr Justice McAlinden: It is a relatively small number.

Mr Bullick: It is definitely a small number. At least one in three of our cases has multiple incidents — two or three at a minimum, up to 40 or 50 — so the reason for someone being ineligible is not strictly recorded as one reason. It could be presence; it could be that it is not a Troubles-related incident; or it could be because of regulation 6, which brings in convictions. We hope that the upgrades to the current case management system will capture much more detail. We still have a lot of cases to process, so, down the road, there will be real benefits from the upgrades.

Mr Brett: Thank you.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you to the panel for the answers, and thank you, Justice McAlinden, for your service. My question is about the appeals process. All of us will have been contacted in our offices by people who did not get the answer that they wanted and feel that their rights have been denied, because they were turned down. Will you talk us through that process and what help or support you can give to such victims?

Mr Justice McAlinden: The appeals process is part of the statutory framework. In order to try to reduce the risk of trauma, we have operated a system whereby the first-instance hearings are mainly done on paper, unless the applicants wish to make oral submissions even to the first-instance panel. In essence, after an applicant puts in their application, they go through the Capita process, they go to a panel, and the panel decides whether they are entitled to a payment and the quantum of that entitlement. If an applicant is unhappy with the determination on eligibility, or if they are unhappy with the level of payment or the level of disability that is assessed, they have a right of appeal.

Under the legislation, at the first-instance hearing, the panel members cannot challenge the Capita assessment of the percentage of disability, whereas, on appeal, the panel can look behind the Capita decision and make its own assessment of the level of disability. In order to give applicants the best shout under the scheme, we have implemented a system whereby the default position is that appeals are heard in person. The person is entitled to come along, or be represented by a support group or whatever, and give oral evidence. Having heard a number of appeals, I must say that the impact of the evidence about what individuals went through — what exactly happened to them after their being caught up in a Troubles-related incident and its impact on them — is striking. It is very difficult not to be incredibly moved by the evidence that you get face to face. Although we do not compel people to give oral evidence at the appeal stage, we certainly encourage it. Hearing the appeals that I have dealt with has really affected me. I think that it has also helped those who give their evidence, because they feel as though they have a listening ear. The appeals process is a vital part of the scheme. It can work effectively towards the goal of some form of healing. I am very closely involved in that part of the scheme, and I see the benefits of it. I see the benefits of having a fresh panel, which has had nothing to do with the application previously, looking at it afresh and giving the victim the chance of an oral hearing.

Ms McLaughlin: Yes. I am sure that that is a very traumatic part of the process, but, in many ways, it can have value, as you said. What percentage of applicants who go through the appeal process are successful?

Mr Justice McAlinden: Maybe I am just too soft, but I think that everyone who has appealed before me has succeeded. There are a good number of appeals, but we have to recognise that a lot of them are speculative when it comes to eligibility, because they clearly fall outside the scheme. Those cases do not get any real traction on appeal; they get a hearing, but they are pretty pointless. Paul probably has some figures, but my gut feeling is that approaching 50% of the appeals are successful.

Mr Bullick: Sinéad, as of earlier this week, of the appeals that have had an appeal determination, 204 were successful and 211 were unsuccessful. Therefore, as the judge said, approximately 50% are successful. That trend has remained quite consistent throughout.

Ms McLaughlin: The scheme is coming to a close, and you said that you anticipate a spike in applications towards the end. Is there any clarification in the figures of where the victims and survivors come from? Is it mainly Northern Ireland? Are there areas, perhaps on the mainland, in which you need to start a marketing campaign in order to get people to come forward? Are there areas into which you need to put resources, so that people become aware of the scheme's imminent closure and come forward?

Mr Bullick: We have already targeted areas throughout England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland, and anywhere outside Northern Ireland. We have worked with our media partners to hone in on areas where incidents happened, but we cannot focus solely on doing that because we find that a lot of people who apply to the scheme no longer live in the area where the incident took place or, perhaps, never did. We have a strong focus on that in our press releases. We did press releases by constituency area across the country and in ROI. We have tried to reach as far as possible. We attend roadshows where we can, and we offer to give information sessions either in person or via Teams or Zoom. Anything that we can —.

Ms McLaughlin: Have you identified any constituencies from which you have had very little applicants and find that strange given the history of the Troubles? Are there areas in which you need to work with councils and other stakeholders to ensure that no person is left behind?

Mr Justice McAlinden: One of the interesting statistics is the limited number of applicants who are ex-service personnel. One of the main explanations for that is that, under rules 19 and 20, "other payments" can be taken into account. Pensions that have been provided for injuries sustained while on duty etc could, in some cases, swallow up any potential for an award. Therefore, former service personnel may — I am just saying "may" — take the view, "It's really not worthwhile going through this whole process, because, at the end of the day, we'll be told that our present payments take account of, and basically obliterate, the entitlement to any payments under the scheme". That could be an explanation. We are certainly making every effort, through contact with veterans' organisations etc, to ensure that people do not feel put off from making applications. The scheme is for them as well. If there are issues in relation to deductions from other payments etc, we will face those issues. We have to address every issue under the scheme with a victim-centric focus.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Sinéad, we have to move on.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Can I ask that those windows be opened, even just the top of them, if Phillip and Pam do not mind? I am melting. It is awful for the people in the gallery as well. Thank you. Sorry about that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That is no problem.

Mr Gaston: I start by declaring an interest: I am party to a case before Justice McAlinden, which will be aired here shortly. I put that on the record. It does not impinge on today's proceedings, but I wish to be clear and transparent.

Welcome along. I will focus on some of the figures. Your briefing paper states:

That makes up 7%. When I was doing research ahead of today, a couple of murders outside the UK and ROI caught my attention. Australian tourists Stephen Melrose and Nick Spanos were murdered by the IRA while on holiday in the Netherlands. That was 36 years ago this month. An RAF corporal and his six-month-old daughter were murdered by the IRA in Germany. I use those two examples to show that this was not confined to the British Isles. On that basis, can you give us more of a breakdown? I am really looking for an assurance that we are capturing those people. If 7% of applications have come from outside Northern Ireland, that is a relatively low uptake. Are we sure that what we have done has captured as many people as possible?

Mr Bullick: We started our outreach before the scheme. We have continued that outreach throughout the past five years. We had targeted approaches around backdating before its due date for ending after three years of the scheme. Obviously, we had a targeted approach last September, and, this year, we are taking a targeted approach from February until August.

Mr Gaston: When you talk about "media partners", which media outlets are you talking about? Is GB News one of them?

Mr Bullick: No. We have a contract with a media company that we engage with and it distributes it worldwide. We have analysis that shows that it is being picked up by media in America and Australia, and you have mentioned Australia. It is released to various newspapers, websites and other outlets. Our awareness-raising press stories have been picked up throughout the world.

Mr Gaston: Has GB News picked it up? After all, it is the biggest news broadcaster.

Mr Bullick: I do not have that information in front of me, but I imagine that it probably has picked it up.

Mr Gaston: I would be very keen that it does. There is another avenue that I do not believe we utilise to its full potential. There were elections last week in England, Scotland and Wales. Will communication go out to each new Member of the Welsh Senedd and to MSPs in Scotland to make them aware of the scheme?

Mr Bullick: Yes, that is on our engagement plan. Communication went out to all pre-existing Members in all the Parliaments and the Senedd, and that will be repeated. That information kit is ready to go. It is a very simple task. Our comms team is updating that, and it will be issued in light of the elections.

Mr Gaston: How do you determine the targeted areas? You mentioned the poor uptake by the military. Do you look at areas, such as military bases, where there was a high concentration of military personnel in the past? Are those the sorts of things that you look at when you target areas?

Mr Bullick: That is part of it. We look at areas where Troubles incidents took place. We also engage with every network that we can. We have engaged with women's centres, health centres, Church networks, political networks, victims' groups, the Victims' Commissioner, veterans' groups and the Veterans Commissioner. There is a long list of various support organisations. We have an extensive list of organisations that we have engaged with throughout and continue to do so.

You mentioned the elections. We update the information on the back of the elections, and fresh information kits will be passed out to those people as well.

Mr Gaston: There were 4,700 cases: 3,039 of those were determined to be successful, and 1,710 were determined to be ineligible for payment. What is the main reason that you have found for cases not being eligible?

I have a real concern that somebody who was kept away from a body or did not see an atrocity because they were protecting themselves from trauma is having that used against them all these years later. Are you finding that that is a common cause for their being turned down?

Mr Justice McAlinden: It is. That is why I am keen to emphasise that the work of healing in respect of the Troubles is not over in any sense. The bereaved and bereavement really need to be looked at. Something has to be done for the bereaved. Every effort is being made to try to shoehorn the bereaved into the scheme, but the scheme was not designed for the bereaved. The support groups are trying to shoehorn those cases in, but the bereaved are being used, in a sense, and they are being retraumatised in an attempt to expand the scheme, which is not about the bereaved, to deal with the bereaved issues. It is unfortunate for everyone.

It is another nettle that has to be grasped by politicians to deal with a problem that remains unsolved: the recognition of hurt and harm caused to people whose relatives were killed. The scheme, or a scheme, needs to be constructed to purposefully deal with that.

To come back to the two Australian tourists, and to give you an example of how precise the definition is, regulation 5(1)(c) states:

So, yes, obviously, that would include the RAF individual and the child. Unfortunately, the two Australian tourists, unless they had some linkage in terms of citizenship, would probably not be entitled.

Mr Gaston: Even though the two Australians were a case of mistaken identity?

Mr Justice McAlinden: Yes. The scheme says that you have to be a British citizen or a person born in Northern Ireland, and having at the time of their birth at least one parent who was a British citizen, an Irish citizen or otherwise entitled to reside in Northern Ireland and on the business of the Crown. Those two people were tourists. That is the scheme that I have to operate. I cannot change it. I cannot do anything other than faithfully interpret the legislation. However, when I am doing so, I do know that the scheme has its limitations and that it does not please everybody.

I am convinced that the scheme had to be put in place by the Secretary of State with the UK Parliament because, locally, it could not be agreed. It is unfortunate that it could not be agreed, but it could not be agreed. That is the scheme that I have to operate? That is the difficulty that I face, day in, day out, operating the scheme. It causes me great upset, let us say, to think that there is a whole category of individuals, namely the bereaved, whom I cannot do anything for.

Mr Gaston: How do we address that?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Timothy, you have got only about a minute left.

Mr Gaston: I will ask you a quick question about the bereaved. If somebody came across an atrocity that happened up the street but were kept away from it, they do not qualify because they did not see a body. Are you saying that the definition means that such a person is part of the bereaved group? You used the term "used" —.

Mr Justice McAlinden: They are, yes.

Mr Gaston: Victims' groups are not "using" them. It is a case of highlighting whether they have been asked —.

Mr Justice McAlinden: They have been highlighting the issue. Correct, yes.

Mr Gaston: We have a group of people who should qualify and should be recognised, but the scheme does not do that. How do we cater for that group?

Mr Justice McAlinden: My worry is that pushing them forward into the scheme raises expectations and risks retraumatisation. What it requires is an acceptance that the scheme does not cover the bereaved. We need a scheme for the bereaved, so let us work together to construct a scheme for the bereaved. Things can be achieved when people work together. It is not beyond the wit and wisdom of the combined resources in this room or in the Assembly Chamber to work together to the benefit of all in Northern Ireland. That is all that I am saying.

Mr Gaston: Briefly, may I ask —?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): For the final time, because we have other sessions to come.

Mr Gaston: It is about your comments about victims and survivors. You believe that they have been catered for in this scheme. However, the bereaved have been left out. There is no opportunity for them to avail themselves of the scheme. To me, that is a massive failing, and it is a challenge. We need to do something for the bereaved.

Mr Justice McAlinden: If a bereaved individual suffers an injury as a result of an act of violence — in other words, if they fall under the definition of the legislative scheme — or if, having come upon the immediate aftermath, they see the deceased person in a condition immediately following an injury, and they suffer a psychiatric or psychological reaction as a result, they fall within the scheme as a primary victim of an act of terrorism, not as a bereaved person. That is how some people who are relatives of those who have been killed fall within the scheme. Others who, let us say, do not see the horror there and then, but have to live with the trauma of the bereavement for the rest of their days, unfortunately do not fall within the scheme.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK, thank you. I am sorry; we have another session.

Ms Murphy: Paul, my first question is about some of the stats that you gave us earlier around the appeals process. As of this week, there have been 204 successful appeals.

Has there been any commonality to successful appeals? Have there been any common trends? Has any of the learning from them gone on to inform the approach taken?

Mr Bullick: There are a number of reasons why an appeal would be successful. Justice McAlinden referred to personal testimony and making a personal appearance. If somebody provides oral evidence, it can make a difference. That is additional evidence that was not available at the time of the first hearing, so additional information could be provided. If somebody is appealing on certain grounds, they usually provide additional information to corroborate their case.

Another reason can be that they make a good, robust challenge. If there is learning to be derived from that, it can be shared. We have an operational committee and a business assurance committee. Along with the board's senior management team, those committees constantly review the outcomes not just of appeals but of cases. If there are learnings from appeals or even from adjourned cases, it goes into the development of guidance for panels. That guidance is provided and signed-off by Justice McAlinden. It is just that: guidance, where lessons can be learned from appeals. It is usually additional information or somebody coming along to tell their story — their personal testimony — that can make a —.

Ms Murphy: Difference.

Mr Bullick: Not all successful appeals are in cases where a submission was deemed to be ineligible; some successful appeals could relate to the percentage level of disablement. Somebody who maybe got 30% might provide further information such as medical evidence on appeal, and the level may go up to 40% or 50%. It does not automatically mean that someone was unsuccessful the first time; it may be an appeal of the level that they were awarded.

Mr Justice McAlinden: It is important to highlight the fact that we keep an eye on all panel decisions. We look for consistency. If wee see trends, such as specific provisions being interpreted differently and resulting in some people getting in and some people staying out, they are referred up to me. I then look at the trend and hear one of those appeals so that I can give a definitive decision on what I interpret the scheme to mean. That way, I have a sort of supervisory role to ensure consistency. That should mean that the number of unnecessary appeals is reduced. Obviously, we want to reduce trauma, and an appeals process could lengthen the process so it should be avoided if at all possible. Consistency of decision-making is key. We now have an online database of all decisions, categorised by all aspects of the legislation, so that, if you were looking, for example, at the importance of convictions in relation to excluding someone, you could interrogate the database and see all the decisions, including appeal decisions and guidance on that issue, and make a decision that is consistent with the body of decision-making in the scheme.

Ms Murphy: How long has that online database been operational?

Mr Justice McAlinden: It has been operational for two years.

Ms Murphy: Thank you for that.

I will circle round to the assessment process that many people will have to attend. Are community-based venues looked at or used for assessments, especially for applicants who may, for various reasons, feel uncomfortable going to —?

Mr Justice McAlinden: If there are reasons for an assessment to take place in a person's home, it will take place in their home, OK? If there are reasons why an applicant feels that they cannot travel to Northern Ireland to have their appeal heard because of the risk of retraumatisation and memories of what happened when they were last in Northern Ireland flooding back, we would travel to hear that appeal. It is about making sure that the journey is as trauma-free as possible but recognising that we cannot cut out every form of trauma.

We trialled telephone assessments to ensure that people could chat to someone on a telephone line, but some people thought that that was impersonal. Face-to-face assessment is used where that is best. If an applicant requests some form of assessment in the support group's office, we will do that — we have done it in the past — and we will do it in the home. We will do it wherever we can make the applicant feel most comfortable and most able to tell their story.

Ms Murphy: That is the most important element. I am heartened to hear that that approach is being taken. Based on what you have said, the assessments seem to be on a case-by-case basis, and, obviously, one size does not fit all.

I have a final question about records and evidence gathering. Due to the nature of our conflict, there has been historical mistrust in the nationalist community about coming forward to institutional and state bodies. Would the board accept any community-based records along the lines of parish records, where someone may have approached a priest?

Mr Justice McAlinden: We will draw upon every piece of material that we can get. We have used newspaper cuttings, for instance. We have tried to avail ourselves of every piece of information that we can get our hands on. There is no hierarchy of truth here. If there is compelling evidence, whatever the source, it will be looked at.

First, I want to reassure people that the material that they provide is provided in confidence and will not go outside the board. We have strict structures in place to ensure the confidentiality of information that is provided. Secondly, there is no bar on the source of that information. Relevance is key. If it is relevant, we will listen to it or read it. It does not matter where it comes from.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Pam, I think that you wanted in for a question.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much for your attendance. I was not here last year either, so it was useful to be able to go over the Hansard report from last year's session and get a better grip of all the issues.

It is clearly very important work. I welcome the fact that a third of applicants have been through the process successfully. That is positive. It would be useful to hear more testimonies, but I fully get the point that it is the individual's choice. If they have come through a great trauma and got to the other end successfully, they may not want to relive it by talking about it further. That is important.

Is there support, or access to support, for those in the organisation who are dealing with other people's trauma and experiences and are having to process those? Clearly, it is difficult and sensitive, but those who are at the listening end of it, and who have to process the applications and listen to the testimonies, will be affected. Is there an outlet for those people?

Mr Justice McAlinden: We have been careful in that regard. Capita, which deals with the assessment of disability, probes issues of the trauma and harm that have been caused. It has its own structures in place to ensure the well-being of its staff. We do not look at the well-being of the Capita staff, other than to reassure ourselves that Capita has systems in place to deal with it.

A key issue that the board has been keen to address is the provision of trauma training to those who are exposed to this, day in, day out, in the processing of applications. A lot of the staff are quite young and had no personal experience, so they are coming to this afresh. Others remember it first-hand. I have tried to ensure that, for those who are coming to this first-hand and for whom it is new, the support mechanisms are in place to enable them to ventilate, talk about their experiences and express how it is impacting on them.

The senior members of the board — Paul and Alan, etc — are experienced individuals who have been through the Troubles and who are alive to signs of staff not being able to cope with the deluge of information in applications. Counselling is available. The board is very aware of the need to keep an eye out for signs of people not being able to cope with that information day in and day out, especially those coming to it afresh. I have heard people from that age group say, "I couldn't believe that that happened. I couldn't believe that that took place in our society", yet it did. Therefore, we have to be careful in dealing with those individuals. We try our best on the board to give them the support that they need.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Justice McAlinden, Paul and Anthony, thank you very much for coming today and for all the work that you do. I had not realised, Justice McAlinden, that you were doing this voluntarily. That is very noble of you. As you can understand and appreciate from the Committee, the welfare of victims and survivors of the Troubles is something that we care about passionately. The work that you are involved in is important, so thank you. Good luck over the next few months in processing applications. We may see you again before the end of the mandate, but thank you for now.