Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Are members content that the session be recorded by Hansard?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I welcome Mr Andrew Walker, chief executive, the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS); Ms Emma Dargan, head of community partnership, the Victims and Survivors Service; Mr Joe McVey, commissioner in the Commission for Victims and Survivors (CVS); and Ms Tina McCann, director of policy development, research and engagement, Commission for Victims and Survivors. You are all very welcome, and thank you for submitting your papers in advance. I thank the commissioner for the recent correspondence about his letters to the Executive Office.

Can you make some opening remarks? I will start with Andrew, because you were very accommodating in expanding the panel. We appreciate that we have asked you to cover a number of areas today.

Mr Andrew Walker (Victims and Survivors Service): Thank you, Chair and members of the Committee, for the opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of the Victims and Survivors Service.

The Committee has asked me to cover three areas of work in this session. First, to comment on the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme (TPDPS); secondly, to address some of the matters raised by members at the recent Committee meetings about how we manage therapy sessions when clients do not attend, known as DNAs; and, thirdly, to provide some information on the outcome of the recent victims' support programme (VSP) funding call.

VSS does not administer the TPDPS, and we have no role in the eligibility policy or determinations. The determinations are made by the Victims' Payments Board (VPB). Our role is to coordinate application-related support, health and well-being support, to release relevant information from our records and to fund five community and voluntary organisations that provide direct, practical day-to-day support for applicants throughout their journey.

As of 31 March 2026, just under 13,000 applications had been submitted to the scheme, with over 68% of those supported by the five community and voluntary organisations. The VPB has repeatedly acknowledged that those applications are more complete, better evidenced and easier to progress, as that reflects not only the professionalism of the staff but the trust that victims and survivors place in those organisations.

VSS has also processed over 2,700 individual information requests, which often involve complex and historical records, with an average turnaround time of 13 days. That is an important contribution to the system, and it helps to avoid duplicate evidence gathering and reduce the resulting risk of retraumatisation. Whilst the system is making determinations and delivering payments, there are some clear and ongoing challenges for applicants. The issue raised most consistently is the timeline because applications take time due to the inherent factors in the scheme, such as records going back decades, multiple incidents and many applicants who are undergoing a mental health assessment or diagnosis for the first time.

The impact on individuals can be profound, particularly where a difficult process concludes with a negative determination. We also regularly hear concerns around eligibility for those who are bereaved, a historic lack of diagnosis of psychological injury and growing pressure as we approach the final closing date of 30 August 2026.
Despite those challenges, relationships across the VSS, the Victims' Payments Board, Departments and the community and voluntary sector remain constructive and solution-focused. As we move into the final phase of applications, and then into several years of determinations and of appeals, continued resourcing and partnership working will be crucial, including sustained support for those who could not apply.

I will turn now to the second area of discussion for today. I will set out briefly the context around the issue of "did not attend" — DNA — therapy sessions in the victims' support programme. VSS funds a wide range of community and voluntary organisations to deliver therapies, which are a core part of our support for victims and survivors. Each year, more than 21,000 talking therapy sessions and 17,000 complementary therapy sessions are delivered, primarily through sessional therapists working with community partner organisations. As with any therapeutic service, some sessions will not proceed because a client does not, or cannot, attend for very understandable reasons. At present, the practice for dealing with DNAs varies widely across our funded organisations, with payments to sessional practitioners ranging from 0% to 100% of the normal sessional rate and different thresholds for how many DNAs can take place before considering a pause or end to treatment.

Through co-design discussions with our community and voluntary sector partners ahead of the recent funding call, there was broad agreement that a more consistent sector-wide approach would be beneficial. Demand for services has grown significantly in recent years. Clients report that legacy developments and the TPDPS are key factors in the increasing need for support. The victims' support programme has been heavily oversubscribed as a result. Against that backdrop of funding pressure, VSS initially proposed three key changes. First, we would better support victims and survivors to remain engaged by increasing the maximum number of funded DNA sessions per client from two to three. Secondly, we would better support therapists by significantly increasing sessional therapy rates by 13% for talking therapies and 17% for complementary therapies. Thirdly, we would introduce a consistent DNA payment rate of 50% for late or no-notice cancellations, which aligns with common practice both within the current VSP and across similar public-sector contracts. Views from community partners on that proposal were mixed, reflecting the existing variation across the sector. I respect that range of experience. As a result, implementation of the proposed approach has been paused. Existing arrangements remain in place. We are actively engaging with partners to seek consensus on a way forward.

Finally, I will set out briefly the context, approach and outcome of the recent funding call for the victims' support programme, which is the third area. The previous VSP was awarded in 2017 as a three-year programme. Since then, funding has rolled forward on several occasions. With the new victims' strategy now in place, and aligned with good practice, VSS opened a funding call in 2025 for a new two-year programme. That provided an opportunity for existing organisations to seek continued support and for new organisations to come forward. In preparation for the funding call, VSS engaged with our community and voluntary partners, including through consultation events that were undertaken jointly with the Commission for Victims and Survivors (CVS).

That engagement, along with analysis of service delivery data, costs and projections, generated a range of funding scenarios and resulting impacts to inform the departmental business case for the programme funding. In total, 44 applications were received in response to the funding call. Following a robust assessment process, 35 organisations were approved for VSP funding. Demand significantly exceeded the available funding. Bid values of over £11 million per year across those 35 organisations were assessed as representing value for money, with an available indicative budget for allocation of around £8 million per year. The VSS board therefore considered a range of options by which to allocate funding in a way that maintained community access and choice, geographic spread and organisational sustainability. As a result, almost all funded organisations in 2026-27 will receive an allocation that is higher than their opening 2025-26 position. Funding has been set aside to cover inflationary pay increases for all community and voluntary sector staff within the next two years. That is a significant achievement in the current financial environment across the public sector. Access for victims and survivors has been secured and experienced staff within the sector retained.

We know, however, that demand for services will exceed supply, leading to waiting lists and growing pressure on community and voluntary sector partners. The VSS will continue to work with funded organisations in the coming months to help to address unavoidable pressures, and we remain committed to seeking opportunities for additional funding for the programme where possible. All activity delivered through the VSP will contribute directly to the implementation of the strategy for victims and survivors 2024-2034. I look forward to reporting positive outcomes for victims and survivors that will be delivered within the programme over the next two years.

There was quite a lot there because of the three areas, and I know that Joe has some comments before we take questions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you very much, Andrew. Go ahead, please, Joe.

Mr Joe McVey (Commission for Victims and Survivors): Thank you very much, Chair and members of the Committee, for inviting me back. I was conscious that I had invited myself,

so I appreciate your good humour. I am also conscious that I am following an accountant, a judge and a tax collector, so I am in good company.

I want to introduce my colleague, Tina McCann, the director of policy development and research. Mr Justice McAlinden is not in the room, but I want to acknowledge his comments in your previous evidence session, which were helpful in setting out the context. If I may, Chair, with your permission, I acknowledge some of the people sitting behind me who are victims and survivors. Having met a few of them before lunchtime, if we ever need examples of the diversity of victims and survivors, and the pain that people have suffered, they are in the room.

Most people here are aware that we attended the Committee on 11 February, and, in the following week, we were joined by some key organisations. There were a number of areas of consensus at both sessions. One was the impending funding crisis, which people were very concerned about. There was also concern about what is going to happen in two years' time with the potential end of Peace Plus and what that will mean for victims and survivors. In short, the concerns that we raised on that day and on 18 February have come to pass. Once the funding decisions were made, I was inundated with phone calls from groups and individuals who are very concerned about the outcome and its implications for victims and survivors and for groups. Since then, I have convened many meetings with groups just to get a sense of their concerns and what the implications are. Picking up on Andrew's point, the impact will be very much in the short term with reduced services, withdrawal of services, additional waiting times, longer waiting times, increased demand for services and a weakening of the infrastructure.

In these situations it is sometimes easy to point the finger and ask "What has happened?". It is important to acknowledge — and Andrew referred to it — that we have, thanks to the Executive Office, a ring-fenced budget. I am very mindful of that. A number of weeks ago, colleagues from the voluntary and community sector were here, and were facing difficult times. It is important to acknowledge that, and the work that Andrew and the team in VSS have done in putting together the programme and delivering it efficiently. In the centre of that work was the work done by all the groups, which gave of their time, energy and very much their hearts in the hope that, this time, what they were identifying would be reflected in the funding outcome.

Very simply, we have faced a big increase in demand over the past 10 years from victims and survivors and a changing nature to the demand. That will come as no surprise to members, who have constituents in their offices weekly. We have groups facing increased costs. It is an incredibly changing legacy landscape. If we had been in this room 10 or 15 years ago, people might have said that demand is likely to go down. That has not been the case at all. Mr Justice McAlinden was impressive in talking about the work of the Victims' Payments Board and the Regional Trauma Network (RTN). Those are tremendous parts of the infrastructure, but they have caused and continue to cause increased demand for services because individuals coming through those services need wrap-around support from the voluntary and community sector partners.

People watching the news today — I did not watch it — may have seen that the King's speech mentioned the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. The Troubles Bill itself and all the discussions around legacy are triggering for a lot of victims and survivors, and there are discussions among families and communities as to what it means. We have the, hopefully reformed, Legacy Commission, as and when that is ever up and running properly. However, it is causing demand in the sector when families and individuals go to it for support, and, in turn, those individuals need support from voluntary and community sector partners.

With the Troubles Bill going forward, we will also have a new information recovery body, which will work through oral history and memoralisation. All those things are causing increased demand, yet we are left with infrastructure that is sitting on a flat budget. In essence — I know that this is not an accountancy term — if my needs are x, and I am given y, I will face a shortfall or a deficit, and I will have to try to manage that.

We, in partnership with the VSS, have two very simple asks today. First, we ask the Committee for the Executive Office to seek the support of Ministers and Executive colleagues in addressing the urgent need for that shortfall to be met. Primary responsibility for that lies with the Executive, but there is also a responsibility on other Departments. As you know, the victims and survivors strategy is an Executive strategy, but we expect all Departments to contribute to that. On a more strategic level, it is important that we have intergovernmental discussions, because the causes of this work do not sit simply with the Executive here in Northern Ireland; there is a responsibility on Westminster and the Republic of Ireland Government to try to come together and support victims and survivors and support the infrastructure.

Our second ask, which underpins the first one, is about the need to ensure that we are not sitting here in the same place in two years' time. There is a need for collective agreement on the fact that we need proper research, insights and work so that we are able to say, very clearly, "What are the needs of victims and survivors now? What are the needs going forward? How do we fill the gaps and ensure that, through supporting victims and survivors, we build a better future here?".

Chair, I thank you again for the opportunity to be here today, and I thank you for allowing us to shoehorn ourselves in. I welcome any questions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Is there anything from the ladies before we go to questions? No. OK. Thank you for that.

Andrew, you are aware that we had a session before this. I am not sure whether you were in the Public Gallery and heard what was said.

Mr Walker: No, I was outside, but I heard a little bit of it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. It was mentioned that, even though the deadline for applications is 31 August, it will possibly take five years for those to be processed. You said in your opening remarks that you are supporting five organisations to make applications. Will that support change over the five years? Do you anticipate those groups continuing to be engaged?

Mr Walker: Very much so. It has always been known that the groups will need support with not only the application process, which will come to an end when the scheme closes, but the post-application process. Over past years, significant assistance has been provided to victims and survivors in the areas of applications and appeals. Support in those two areas will continue for a number of years yet. I am not sure whether there was a timeline provided earlier.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That was an estimation.

Mr Walker: Yes, but it will continue for a number of years. On the welfare- and application-type support, we have been very clear that the teams that are in place will be required for a number of years to come. Within a couple of years, they may start to be scaled back slightly, because there will be fewer new applications and more determinations. Appeals will then start to ramp up in future years. Those teams absolutely need to be in place going forward. There is wider wrap-around support, which touches a little bit on what Joe said. The TPDPS is one of the things that groups tell us has brought most people to their door in the last number of years. That will continue to be the case, particularly as the scheme continues to make determinations and as people go through difficult decisions and potentially difficult appeals processes. It is not just about explaining and helping with determinations, attending oral hearings and responding in that way; it is also about the wider impact of that on people and on those who have not been able to apply for the scheme. I am sure that the bereaved were mentioned a little bit. It is not that the bereaved, as a group, are completely excluded from the scheme; there will be many bereaved who find that they are included, but a greater number are probably not eligible for the scheme under the rules. In the longer term, health and well-being support needs to continue for those people as well.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. I want to move on to that second point. We were advised that there is a need to manage expectations over the next few months, because the scheme is closing. People may put in applications, but as legislators we know that the board can only work with what is in the Bill and the regulations about who is and who is not eligible. Is the guidance on that robust enough so that applicants or those who support applicants do not feel that they are eligible when they are not?

Mr Walker: The welfare staff in those five organisations have supported so many applications through the process that they have a really good feel for that. However, with every appeal, there potentially comes a new outcome and a new understanding of what can meet the criteria and what does not. That will be a continual learning process, but applying with the support of the staff in those five organisations absolutely gives people the best opportunity to understand where the boundaries are in the scheme. Those staff and organisations will be very reluctant to tell anyone that they should not or cannot apply, because it is worth testing individual cases. So many cases are unique, and I do not think that we want to be in a place where we are saying, "You cannot apply". We are trying to share some of the knowledge of what has come out of the cases. A considerable number of cases have gone through original application, determination and appeal, so we have been able to build that knowledge.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I will drill down into that a bit. I am very aware of the sensitivities around this. When somebody is clearly not eligible, will there still be support for that person to make an application? Is that what you are saying?

Mr Walker: Well, define "clearly not eligible", because there are so many areas of this that are being tested, some through the courts, so it is a difficult one. I accept that some people —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I suppose that it is not your place to do the assessment.

Mr Walker: Yes, you have to let that process run its course, but staff in those organisations will very clearly be giving their experience of what has and has not been successful to date to help people make the best choice for them.

Mr McVey: I can build on the issue of infrastructure and staffing. As you will appreciate, it can be quite difficult for the staff who are sitting with people, listening to very difficult stories. I will pick up the point that Mrs Cameron made earlier about support for staff who are dealing with that. Inevitably, when people come and tell their story, that opens up so many other stories and so many other needs for support, whether that is counselling, complementary therapies or any type of support. The organisations are facing this question: how do we provide those supports? It is about that wrap-around with the Victims' Payments Board, RTN and the Legacy Commission. There are so many unintended consequences of saying, "We want to engage. We want to be part of this". For the victims and survivors and the staff, it is causing increasing demands on their time and resources.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you. I will stick with you, Joe. Again, thanks for sharing those letters. As a Committee, we agreed to write to the Executive Office, and that happened on 22 April, but we have not received a response. Have you received a response from the Executive Office yet?

Mr McVey: We have. Sorry, in relation to the First Minister and deputy First Minister?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): In relation to the funding levels for groups.

Mr McVey: We have. Again, I think that we have written to everybody, including Committee members, which is great. Thank you for your responses. We had a meeting with the deputy First Minister, the First Minister and the junior Minister on 28 April. I was delighted to have that response. My read of that meeting was that there was a sense of trying to find a way to meet the short-term issue that we are facing. Again, all credit to the deputy First Minister, the junior Minister and the Executive Office team for that support. Unsurprisingly, we do not want to lose that sense of urgency. We want to build on that. Getting a meeting was great, and having the session with the Committee is very helpful, but we are now encouraging the Executive Office officials to translate that into action, because we do not want to move into June or the summertime with organisations facing having to withdraw or reduce services. I was very pleased at the very positive response, and now we hope to see some action.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. Thank you. This is the last question from me. You mentioned the new Troubles Bill. We covered it the last time that you were here. It is about your engagement with the Northern Ireland Office on making sure that there is a voice for victims and survivors in that legislative scrutiny process. Can you speak to that? What has been happening in the past few months?

Mr McVey: Again, we have been actively engaged with the Northern Ireland Office to try to put on the table the point that, when it comes to a number of the mechanisms and proposals, victims and survivors, in our view, do not appear to be at the forefront. There is a lot of emphasis on the bureaucracy and all the rest of it, so we are saying to the NIO, "You need to look at the processes that you are putting in place". The Government will table amendments to the Bill, and we will scrutinise them very carefully to make sure that victims and survivors are included.

Our primary focus at the time was the victims and survivors group that was proposed by the Secretary of State. We made it clear in correspondence and meetings that we do not think that that is appropriate or that it will work. We are very mindful of that. If I may, I will ask Tina to comment on that.

Ms Tina McCann (Commission for Victims and Survivors): We discussed a couple of areas in particular. We raised them with the NIO and consulted victims and survivors. One of those areas was clause 8 of the Troubles Bill, on the victims and survivors advisory group. The other area relates to Part 4 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which was never enacted but is still in statute. That bit speaks to measures to do with reconciliation and memorialisation. As well as that, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee (NIAC) has launched an inquiry into reconciliation. We have looked at those areas in particular. We meet with it regularly, but our understanding is that it was carried over. We were kept apprised of that. However, we constantly hear from victims and survivors about the delay. It is being pushed and pushed. We also hear about and are aware of issues with the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) and the review that it will undergo.

Mr McVey: As with all such things, our focus is on victims and survivors and on what builds their confidence. Unfortunately, that process is having the opposite effect.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I am not sure whether you were in the room for this, but, at the start of the meeting, we agreed that we would invite the ICRIR back and write to the NIO about the May review, which was published this week, to speak to that point. We will keep you posted about the date of that meeting.

Mr McVey: Thank you.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, again, very much for coming and sharing information with us. I thank you particularly for your work with the range of groups that deliver those services to those who seek them.

I will ask a couple of questions. Within the scope of the scheme, what work do you do? We talked to Justice McAlinden about how the Victims' Payments Board draws people into the scheme and identifies them. What work do you do, including work with voluntary groups, to identify people who are eligible for the scheme? At the same time, what is your experience of the groups that you work with? What difficulties do they face? As we approach the hard or, perhaps, soft end of the scheme, are they still working with people who need encouragement or support to take the step of making an application?

Mr Walker: Certainly, when it comes to difficulties for the groups as we approach the deadline at the end of the scheme, we have some experience of that from the scheme's slightly earlier deadline for the backdated amount, which, ultimately, did not come into force, but, in all the months leading up to it, it was assumed that —

Mr Dickson: You were in that space, yes.

Mr Walker: — that deadline would kick in. Obviously, the groups have waiting lists of people for their support, and all the groups have taken steps to ensure that no one is left on that waiting list without having submitted an application, whether that means prioritising certain applications or sharing information about other support that is available from other groups that may have shorter waiting lists. It is absolutely a person's choice to decide from which group they want to avail themselves of support, but we want to make sure that they are aware that there might be other options for them. That is something that could be done, and it has been done.

Also, at that time, the Victims' Payments Board helpfully said — something similar is happening with the end of the scheme — that an application may have to come in a little bit less complete than it would otherwise have been. One example that was given recently related to the certification of ID documents not being completed. The board has said that people should get the application in as long as that certification follows fairly promptly thereafter. That is a really helpful, practical thing that can be done to make sure that no one is left on a waiting list at the end of the process.

There could well be another spike in requests for support, which may lead to a spike in applications. That happens naturally towards the end of any scheme. The groups all have pretty good levels of staffing now. There have been times when staffing has been below the full complement, but we are pretty close to the full complement with those staff teams now. That is another positive.

When it comes to making people aware of the scheme, the groups are really best placed to do that. It is about information flowing down from the board to the groups so that they can disseminate it throughout all those networks and ensure that it reaches many people. The Victims and Survivors Forum is probably another route for reaching those people who might not be connected with the groups, because not everyone is connected to them. Of course, we also had the leaflet drop, which happened around 2023, so there has been reasonable coverage. There are probably areas from which fewer applications have come forward. Responsibility for promotion of the scheme rests with the Victims' Payments Board, which will take steps on that, but we and the groups have done everything that we can to amplify the message, and we will do so again in the coming weeks.

Mr Dickson: What research is being done? What analysis has there been of payment and support and all of that in the period that we have just come through to see whether we have identified everybody who is eligible? Is research going on in the background? Is this all being verified as having achieved something?

Mr McVey: I will pick up on that, if I may. There are two points. I agree with what Andrew said about promotion through the groups. It is very effective. Our experience is probably slightly different. In our work, we meet, as Andrew does, a lot of the groups and the people who provide first-hand support for those who go through the scheme. Justice McAlinden and the team were really good at speaking to the statistics and the transformational effect of the scheme, but, for a lot of people who go through it, it is incredibly traumatising. It is really important to emphasise the cost of that, regardless of whether people are supported in their interview or their appeal — appearing before boards — given the toll that it takes on people, and the staff time that is required to meet that need. We are interested in tracking that experience as well. If people have got a result, that is marvellous, but what about everyone else? How do they experience it? I will pass to Tina on the research, because we are being asked whether it is a good idea to close the door at the end of August.

Ms McCann: We engage fairly regularly with the Victims' Payments Board to build a picture. The difficulty with the scheme was always that there were very specific eligibility criteria. It is about knowing the type of disability and where people were if they had been displaced. We know from our population surveys and research how many people were injured, but we did not know the degree of their injury or where they are. Allied to that, there is a large population of service personnel who are not here, and there are people who were displaced to the Republic. We have to build a picture and then try to understand why people have not come forward. Figures from the Government Actuary's Department (GAD) provided a rough indication, but we need to understand them. Take, for example, the figure of 950. We may think that that is fairly accurate; others might think that it is not.

The board has been good at sharing the intelligence that it has gathered from roadshows, engaging with veterans' representatives about why people choose not to apply, and, if it identifies a barrier to access to the scheme, working to find solutions to increase people's confidence in coming forward. The groups are good because they have local knowledge; they are in the communities. We are trying to build a picture of what that looks like as the scheme comes to the end that was indicated in the regulations.

Mr Dickson: That is very helpful. I have a final question — you touched on this in your first comment — about where we go with all this when it comes to reconciliation and memorialisation. Reconciliation has been an ongoing part of our Troubles. Since their very beginning, probably, people have been working to reconcile our communities. Where are we now on the work that that requires, given the difference in time, distance and space since the raw, early days of people working together? I am thinking of the Peace People and others who worked incredibly hard on the ground to deliver that while the Troubles were happening all around us. Where are we on the questions of how we genuinely reconcile this community to what happened in the past and how we educate and encourage it in order to make sure that that never happens again?

Mr McVey: It is an incredibly important question and one that sits at the heart of why all of us, including the people sitting behind me, are involved in this work. Unless we try to look at that question, we will not make any difference. People's answers to that question will be personal and very subjective. I will give you an illustration. I got a lift here this morning from somebody who is from north Belfast, and it was the first time that he had been in the grounds of Stormont. When I asked him why that was, he shared his family's story and their experience of the Troubles and what they had been through. He feels that he and his family have come such a long way. I take such examples as anecdotal evidence that there is change, and we need to look into that. Fundamentally, as part of that, we need to be clear that we are listening to the voices of victims and survivors, and we are mindful that legacy is not in the past; it is with us at the moment. We need to be very mindful of those individuals and their needs. Part of why we are here today is because, without that work and the infrastructure, there is a danger that things could go badly wrong. I would not take it for granted.

Mr Walker: The 10-year strategy for victims and survivors has references to memorialisation and education pieces, and both areas will be fleshed out and developed in the strategy. We see huge collaboration between the community and voluntary groups that we fund, including between their memberships, on delivering activities and engagement. In many case, they do so together, particularly in some of the resilience work in the Peace programme. It is all there, and it has to be continually delivered over the course of the strategy.

Mr McVey: There are people who know a lot more about memorialisation than I do. Memorialisation and oral history can bring people together, but they can also be incredibly divisive issues. Therefore, it speaks to investing in the sector.

Mr Gaston: For me, politics is about priorities; not about the non-binding motions with which we fill Order Papers. It is about how we spend our money. On that basis, I am greatly concerned that we have a shortfall of £3·3 million against an evidenced need of £11·2 million. We have heard time and time again, as Andrew mentioned, that demand has grown significantly. Joe said that listening to the voices of victims and survivors is key and that the shortfall, given that increase in demand, will mean a reduction in services. It is all very concerning. It is concerning that a number of delivery partners have come to Stormont today to protest. That is how seriously they view the shortfall. There is an evidenced need, not just a number in a spreadsheet to say what a group needs. There is an evidenced need of £11·2 million and a shortfall of £3·3 million. What will that mean for groups? We have heard today that 68% of the applications have been supported by the five groups. We are all saying nice, warm words, but my fear is that we are leaving people behind. I fear that we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg. When we talked about victims and survivors back in 2000, the talk was very much about a group whose size would decrease over time. I would argue that the services that the bereaved require will increase over time as they age. As well as that, we are seeing generational trauma coming through. If we are really putting victims and survivors first, we need to pay for it. It needs to be funded. What will the shortfall mean? What is the feedback?

Mr McVey: Again, I cannot overemphasise this, Mr Gaston: if we listen to what the groups and individuals have said over the past three weeks, we know that they are incredibly concerned. I am mindful of the fact that people have taken the time to be here today. As I indicated earlier, the shortfall will result in a reduction and withdrawal of services such as talking therapies, complementary therapies and counselling. Those are incredibly important in trying to build support and resilience. If you do not provide support at that level, what will be the impact on the health service or on people's mental health? That will be seen very quickly — certainly in August or September — so it needs to be dealt with now.

The investment is a question for the Executive and the wider Assembly. You used the phrase "the tip of the iceberg". The identified need is only the tip of the iceberg. In a sense, we are looking at the individuals who work and engage with our groups. I met somebody today who has not engaged with any of the groups for over 30 years. In our work, all of us will come across people who have not engaged. There is a whole silent group out there that we are not touching on. I think that those people will come forward. All of the things that we touched on earlier — the Troubles Bill and all of the various mechanisms — will increase the demand.

In saying that — this is not a contradiction — I am very mindful that there are so many demands on the Executive and their Budget. That needs to be acknowledged. We had a very positive response to our meetings with the deputy First Minister and the junior Minister, but I agree wholeheartedly: it needs to be tackled now. If we do not do it now, we will just store up trouble. We could be sitting here in 24 months' time looking at the end of the PEACE PLUS programme. At this point, none of us knows whether that will be replaced. If we do not have that, where is the investment in the sector? I think that, when I was here most recently, I acknowledged the success of having the victims and survivors strategy, but having a strategy without the proper level of investment is simply a wish list.

I will pass over to Andrew, but we need to see the investment now. It is also, if I may say so, about looking at other Departments around the Executive table. In addition, as I mentioned earlier, it is about looking to Westminster and the Government in the Republic of Ireland. It is important that all Governments play their part. It is so important that you have the evidence to ask, "How's this going to play out over the next five years?", rather than simply asking, "Can we do something about plugging a hole in the ship at the moment?". It is great to see mechanisms such as the Victims' Payments Board and the Legacy Commission, but it is about the impact that they have. Frankly, I argue that they are not playing their part.

Mr Walker: I repeat what Joe said about being mindful of the pressures across the public sector. We are not alone in that regard. We have had a protection in cash terms, but, of course, when everything else is increasing in cost, that squeezes what can be delivered with the budget. We talked about the demand for services increasing, for the reasons that Joe outlined, but the cost of delivering those services goes up every year. The cost of paying for the staff in the sector goes up every year. The community and voluntary sector is absolutely central to the model. That is the delivery mechanism for all of the support services, so it is crucial that we support those groups as well as we can.

Some 140-plus staff are funded in the victim support programme. Any support that can be provided has to come in a multi-year format, because it is supporting staff to continue to deliver those services over a number of years. An injection of cash that does not come back the following year just moves the problem to the following year.

Mr McVey: I will provide a quick illustration, if I may. There has been a lot of talk this week about the review of the Legacy Commission. There was a reference in the report to a budget of £60 million that has been spent so far. Compare that with our ask of £3 million, which, I think, is 0·05% of that budget. What we are talking about when it comes to investment in infrastructure in Northern Ireland is miniscule.

Mr Gaston: It is very much an investment. If the services were depleted and the same services were not offered by the groups, how much would that cost the health service? Has anybody done any work on assessing the value of work that is being done by those groups? Is there a figure for that? We heard earlier from Justice McAlinden, who said that, essentially, the bereaved, as a group of people, have been left out. They need help and support. Warm words will not point them in the direction of where to get help and support. If they have to join waiting lists, that will create more of a bottleneck.

Mr Walker: Very much so. The whole idea of the shift-left agenda to keep people out of statutory healthcare is important. The sector plays a key role in that for victims and survivors. A lot of the programmes that we have around social isolation and loneliness are keeping people well. They obviously provide a significant saving for the wider health service, so it is crucial that they continue.

The bereaved are included in the strategy, and that group needs to be addressed at some point during the period of the strategy. What can VSS do for the bereaved? We still have an open scheme for a much more modest level of financial support each year for the bereaved. We have reviewed all of our frameworks to ensure that the bereaved see themselves in some of those areas of support and that as many doors are opened as possible. Within our gift and within what we can do, we are very conscious of the bereaved. Some of the research that we do in PEACE PLUS will focus on the bereaved, and that might lead to more recommendations or actions.

Mr McVey: Very briefly, to be fair, we approached the Minister of Health. It is important to note — you will know, Mr Gaston, of the support of Health through the regional trauma network, which is very effective — that, from the point of view of health economics, investment in that work would save millions for the health service.

Members will be aware that we raised the issue of payment for the bereaved on 11 May. We left evidence with the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and we will pursue that. In the last conversation that we had, we were asked whether we would update that evidence and then come back to the Executive and the Committee to do that. You will be aware of that. When members were listening to the groups on 18 February, they will have heard consensus amongst all of them that something needs to be done to support the bereaved as part of the acknowledgement. Further to the point about reconciliation, it is part of the jigsaw that has not been addressed so far.

Mr Gaston: In last year's budget, the Department said that there was £85 million that was not ring-fenced, £22 million of which — that figure can change every year — had to be repurposed because it was not needed for victims' payments and different things. I fail to see how, in a budget the size of TEO's and when it has £85 million that is not earmarked, it cannot find £3 million somewhere. As I said, politics is all about priorities. Surely, if you are serious about protecting and helping that sector, you need to put it near the top of the list.

Joe, you mentioned the Republic. The Irish Government have a responsibility. I have said many times at this Committee that they were an active participant. To date, they seem to have almost slipped through the net. They have not taken any responsibility for how they facilitated the IRA during the Troubles, nor have they contributed their share for what they permitted to go on in Northern Ireland for years upon years upon years by creating a safe haven for terrorism over the border. More needs to be done to challenge the Irish Government on what they allowed to take place in Northern Ireland, including the ethnic cleansing along the border. I am astounded that we are sitting here today with a shortfall against an evidence-based budget. We have groups protesting up here today, and you are saying very clearly that that shortfall will lead to reduced services. It is shameful that we are sitting in this position because of a failure to prioritise.

Mr McVey: Without commenting on the political dimension, for us and for victims and survivors, it is a simple issue. If you are told that you are to go on to a waiting list for six to nine months or that you will be placed with groups that are trying to but cannot support you, you will look at the money that is being spent elsewhere, whether it is across the Executive or, in particular, in this area. You look at legacy mechanisms and legacy bodies. You look at figures of millions of pounds being thrown around and you say, "But I cannot get on a waiting list". Maybe that is being simplistic, but there is a need for some joined-up thinking and joined-up discussions if we are serious about investing in victims and survivors. We cannot, as we have at the moment, have the issue being bounced between Westminster, here and the Republic of Ireland, because what happens then is that nobody takes responsibility or accountability.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK. I have to move things on. There are a few other members to come in.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Welcome back to the Committee. Joe, you raised the issue of the ICRIR, and I will expand on that. The ICRIR has 240 staff, and £60 million has been spent on it, but there has not been one report from it. Victims and survivors have been let down. What is your view on that? As commissioner, what do you have to say about that publicly?

Mr McVey: I have read the report, and it is very disappointing and very damning. I will say two things. First, the Commission for Victims and Survivors was not aware that a review was going on, which is incredibly disappointing, nor were we aware of the amount of money that had been invested, which is equally disappointing. We have written to the Secretary of State to ask for an explanation. I appreciate that some of the staff are doing incredibly difficult and challenging jobs. My reading of the report is that it focuses on governance, financial management and all the things that you would expect when a rapidly growing start-up business has gone from nothing to having 270 staff and is going through money at a rate of knots. Secondly, the publicity around that type of report does nothing for the confidence of victims and survivors who might have considered saying, "We will engage with this body" and will now ask, "Why?".

Ms Ní Chuilín: The Committee has agreed to write to the British Secretary of State and, indeed, to Sir Declan Morgan about coming before the Committee. I am incredulous that, when such groups are asked, rightly, to provide proper governance and oversight, there is a gap of £3·3 million — that is for now — and that £60 million has been spent. Have you made arrangements to meet the British Government and the British Secretary of State on the issue?

Mr McVey: As I said, we —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I appreciate that it is early days, but will you meet them?

Mr McVey: We will.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you.

Mr McVey: Our concern is about the victims and survivors who are at the heart of this. They will look at that report, read the news and ask, "What's going on". At a simple, personal level, that is hard to explain. It seems to me, as it will to anybody here who has been involved in any sort of governance review, that there are so many things going on with the culture of the organisation and bringing people together. That must be very challenging, but that is not the point. The point is that victims and survivors do not feel that they are being looked after.

Ms Ní Chuilín: There are 54 staff in the VSS and 140 staff across all the groups. There has not been a problem with any of those staff. That is the point that I am making, Joe: that is what happens when people are focused on what the outcome should be for individuals and their families, and you are doing that.

I appreciate that the report on the ICRIR came out only yesterday. It is quite big and very intense, and it deserves time to be taken on its careful study, but I would like you to go to the British Government to ask for more money for us. I have no doubt that the First Minister and deputy First Minister will do their best. It is an Executive strategy, and they have the responsibility to try to plug that gap, but the fact is that the British Government are funding this place at well below need. As Justice McAlinden, Paul and Anthony said in our previous evidence session, the connections between all of you are now so deep, and there is a prediction that the needs of victims and survivors will extend into another generation. That needs to be projected and costed. As the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, would you consider going to the British Government to ask for more money?

Mr McVey: That is the responsibility of politicians and political leaders here, but the commission would have no difficulty at all in seeking that support, in the same way that we had no difficulty in seeking support from the Government in the Republic of Ireland. Our view is that it is about investing in the sector. I appreciate that there are discussions at a much higher level, including political discussions, but the reality is that we cannot say to victims and survivors, "We can't find the money to support your needs now", when they are reading in the press about millions of pounds being spent elsewhere. I would be very happy to follow up on that.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Joe, that is why I am asking the questions.

Mr McVey: Yes.

Ms Ní Chuilín: They look to you as their advocate. They look to us as well, but you are the commissioner.

Andrew, I appreciate that the approach to DNAs has been paused. I felt that it was a retrograde step, particularly for people who are living with trauma. They wake up one day and might not feel like going to an appointment or even have the ability to cancel it. Furthermore, the sector is mainly made up of professional women who were going to lose money. How will that co-production and co-design with your five community partners go forward in the future?

Mr Walker: You mention five community partners, but there is a much larger sector. There are probably another 10 or 12 organisations that deliver talking therapies —

Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes, that is right.

Mr Walker: — which is central to that discussion. There is also the widest possible lens of the 35 organisations. One of the things that we are keen to do, now that we have allocated the funds that we have at the minute, is to re-establish the victims' practitioner working group, which brings together key staff from those organisations to talk through those kinds of things and co-design any changes and anything that needs to be brought forward. It is a difficult circle to square because there is such a variation of practice within the sector. Maybe we just have to accept that that is a variation. We were trying to avoid a displacement of therapists who might gravitate towards a particular group in a particular area because the terms and conditions were slightly more generous there. We listen and learn from what those on the ground tell us about the approach. We will take those views on board and try to find a way forward that we can all work with.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Am I right in saying that the payment for victim and survivors will not impact on their benefits?

Mr Walker: Which bit are you talking about? Are you talking about the TPDPS?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes.

Mr Walker: As far as I am aware, all of the benefit disregards are in place for that. The same applies to the more modest payments that VSS makes within its self-direct assistance scheme.

Ms Ní Chuilín: This is the strategy, and it needs to be funded. What other asks are there, apart from the £3·3 million?

Mr Walker: The strategy goes into the slightly longer term. The most important thing on the horizon, as Joe mentioned, is what will happen after PEACE PLUS. In addition to our funding from the Executive Office, we have €25 million of Peace programme funding, which runs for about four and a half years. That will run out for us in late 2028. It funds 25 advocacy staff and about 30 health and well-being caseworkers. It is the glue that holds a lot of this together. It connects people with services; it is crucial to the functioning of the Regional Trauma Network; and it funds the research that we have mentioned, resilience activity — that activity is getting started now and is great to see — and significant trauma education. It is a huge gap to fill and a large amount to find.

Ms Ní Chuilín: How much is it?

Mr Walker: It is €25 million over four and a half years, so about €4 million to €5 million a year. When we are looking at a budget of £8 million a year for the sector as a whole, through our victim support programme, another £4 million is a significant amount. We are hopeful. I understand that there is provision that there can be a future Peace programme. That is what happened last time as well, but you end up with a gap between two programmes. PEACE PLUS will probably end around the end of 2028. It is likely that there will be a little bit of time before a new Peace programme will be operational. Last time, we had the support of the Executive Office to take us through that gap. The conversation is already starting about the need for support in the gap between PEACE PLUS ending and the beginning of another Peace programme or the programme that replaces it. That is right at the centre of that 10-year period.

There are all sorts of other things. I mentioned the bereaved, education and memorialisation. Many of those things will come with a cost, which is probably outside of our remit and budget, but that is what is being discussed collaboratively by the Executive Office, the Commission and us. We meet regularly to work our way through that strategy. You are right to say that the budget will be crucial.

Mr Brett: First, I join previous contributors in welcoming you. However, I must also say that politics is about choice. I will continue to join others in ensuring that we get a fair funding model, but it would be remiss of us not to recognise the fact that the Committee has made a choice in relation to other Bills and has proposed amendments that will cost £37 million. This is £4 million, which would be much more impactful than a decision that the Committee has already made. We are responsible for the decisions that we make and some of the budgets that are allocated. We cannot just abdicate that responsibility to others.

I want to get into the detail of the organisations, some of which have joined us today. Thirty-nine that were previously funded applied again: is that correct?

Mr Walker: Let me run through the chronology. We had 45 organisations in the previous programme, which ran until the end of March 2026. Six of those chose not to apply this time.

Mr Brett: Thirty-nine applied.

Mr Walker: Five new applicants came in, which brought the number back up to 44. One of those applications was deemed ineligible at the first stage, which is a sort of pass/fail based on whether an applicant has the required background in supporting victims and survivors. That was one of the new applications that came forward, and it did not pass the first hurdle. Five organisations, which were a combination of new and existing applicants, did not reach the required minimum score threshold to receive any funding allocation.

Mr Brett: Which were the current ones?

Mr Walker: The three current organisations were County Armagh Phoenix Group, South and East Tyrone Welfare Support and South Tyrone Voluntary Welfare Group. That brings us back down to 38, of which three are not part of the central victim support programme.

Mr Brett: Are they small groups?

Mr Walker: It is not that they are small groups but that they are Peace partners. The only requirement that they have is a bit of overhead support to help them to remain in the Peace programme, not to deliver activity in VSP. That is how we got from the previous 45 organisations to 38, with 35 going forward.

Mr Brett: You fund the five support groups for pension applications.

Mr Walker: No. Phillip, those five groups are also in VSP, but it is a separate allocation from the TPDPS pot to fund the staff to deliver those application supports.

Mr Brett: Are you aware of any of the organisations that you fund being investigated currently by the Charity Commission?

Mr Walker: I know of one organisation that has had engagement with the Charity Commission. I understand that that has concluded with a letter being sent back to the organisation.

Mr Brett: What did the letter say?

Mr Walker: I do not have it in front of me. I can come back to you on the detail. If I remember correctly, it included some self-review points and some recommendations.

Mr Brett: Joe, you said that you met the deputy First Minister and the junior Minister: is that right?

Mr McVey: Yes, the meeting was to be with the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. Unfortunately, the First Minister could not attend because she had to go to another meeting. At very short notice, the junior Minister took her place, which was great.

Mr Brett: That was on —.

Mr McVey: It was on 28 April.

Mr Brett: Have you had any engagement with or follow-up from the First Minister since then, given that she was unable to attend that meeting?

Mr McVey: No. We have been engaging with officials. Again, I am not a civil servant, but the language is about being minded to find a solution.

Mr Brett: When you were here previously, I raised the issue of payment for the bereaved, which the previous commissioner developed. The recommendation had been that the Northern Ireland Executive would pay for that. I asked you whether you had sought contributions from the Republic of Ireland. Having read the Hansard report, I note that you gave a very good politician's answer.

Mr McVey: Thank you very much [Laughter.]

I will regret saying that.

Mr Brett: Now that the First Minister and deputy First Minister have asked you for an updated report/request on that, has it been updated to include contributions from the UK Government and the Irish Government?

Mr McVey: I am glad that you raised that, Mr Brett, because it will and should be updated.

Mr Brett: When will that process be finished?

Mr McVey: We are starting to look at that. From memory — Tina will keep me right — we also have meetings set up with the Tánaiste's office —

Ms McCann: The Taoiseach's office.

Mr McVey: — in June. Following on from the Chair's question, we will also raise the matter in our meeting with the Secretary of State. We are very keen to pursue payment for the bereaved.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That is everybody who indicated that they would like to ask questions. We appreciate your time. We will discuss some follow-up actions now. Thank you so much.