Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We will have our first oral briefing on the delegated legislation and the shadow redress service for the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill. I seek agreement for Hansard to record the evidence session.

I advise that Trevor will be required to excuse himself from the session due to a potential conflict of interest, and Fergal will clerk the session.

I welcome Martin Carey, the truth recovery programme director; Francesca Murray, head of the inquiry team; Elaine Allen, the head of the redress team; and Angela Stevens, the secretary designate for the truth recovery redress service at the Department of Justice. Martin, do you want to start your presentation?

Mr Martin Carey (The Executive Office): Yes. We want to cover four areas. Angela will talk about the redress service, and I will cover the delegated powers. I will walk through some of the inquiry's rules and redress, which will take 10 minutes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That is OK.

Ms Angela Stevens (Department of Justice): Good afternoon, Chair and Committee members. I am grateful for the opportunity to provide an update on our work. A written update has been prepared, and I can ask for it to be sent to the Committee if that would be helpful. However, I will focus on the key points.

The redress service will be established as a body corporate, and its role will be to receive, process and determine applications for a redress payment in accordance with the requirements set out in the Bill once enacted. The Justice Minister has confirmed that she is content in principle for her Department to take on operational responsibility for the redress service, and that will be delivered through the Courts and Tribunals Service.

I assure the Committee that we recognise that the redress service is an important element of the wider truth recovery programme, and we are committed to delivering the legislation in a way that treats victims and survivors with respect and sensitivity. Overall, we are making good progress, and I am confident, subject to the legislation being in place, that we will be ready to accept applications. We currently have five staff in post and a recruitment plan in place to bring further staff on board over the summer. I am satisfied that we will have the necessary resources in place when the legislation is passed. At present, the team is located in the Headline Building in Belfast city centre until the end of the year, and work is under way to secure longer-term accommodation.

I will highlight the engagement that we have with support organisations and victims and survivors. I was very keen to engage directly with victims and survivors before the scheme opened. I attended my first meeting with the consultation forum in November, and, since then, the deputy secretary and I have continued to attend forum meetings. We have also met adoptees, birth mothers and children. The engagement has been extremely valuable. It has provided an opportunity for victims and survivors to meet some of the people who will be involved in handling their applications and to hear how the process will work.

Applications will be accepted by the redress service both in hard copy and electronically through the online portal. Through the engagement that I have just mentioned, we have shared drafts of our application forms and guidance with the support organisations and victims and survivors, and we have received 115 feedback points. The majority of the feedback was concerned with the language and the layout of the forms, and we have made amendments to that and to the guidance. The feedback that was not taken forward broadly related to misunderstandings or queries that were clarified with no further action being required.

The application process has been designed to seek only the minimum information necessary to allow the service to process applications effectively. We will not ask applicants to provide evidence of harm or personal experience. The online application portal is at an advanced stage. The system underwent an IT health check in March, and remedial work and subsequent retesting are scheduled for completion by the end of this month. We intend to share updated versions of the application form and guidance with the support sector and victims and survivors soon, and we will also demonstrate the online portal and how to make an application electronically. We have also been working closely with TEO, the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS), the Wave Trauma Centre NI and Adopt NI to develop a model of support for applicants from the pre-application stage. Those support organisations will be critical in supporting applicants in gathering relevant information and making an application, but it is also important to note that the redress service itself has an important role in supporting applicants. Our guidance will clearly set out what the eligibility criteria are, what information should be provided, how to submit applications and what the process is. If there are challenges with an application once it is received, we will engage with the applicant to see where we can help, if we can.

I assure the Committee that the service will focus on being efficient, so that applications are progressed as promptly as possible and, as I said, on engaging with victims and survivors with respect and sensitivity.

Mr Carey: I turn to the slides. I will quickly recap the primary legislation, which, we hope, will get through its Final Stage by recess. Its Further Consideration Stage is planned for 15 June, and Final Stage is planned to take place by 23 June. There is potentially a week there during which we will have to consider any other amendments that may be tabled. That is the intention.

To recap what is in the primary legislation, there are eight elements of delegated legislation. There are two key aspects: the inquiry rules, which Francesca will walk us through, and the redress regulations, which Elaine will walk us through. Those two things are colour-coded on screen.

There is one final thing to mention about the process. Over the summer, we will have an opportunity to share and consult on regulations. That will go through the Assembly process, so we will be back in September to talk through the SL1, SL5 and the processes around those. I will hand over to Francesca to talk about the inquiry.

Ms Francesca Murray (The Executive Office): Thank you, Martin. The rules supporting the Bill will be rooted in and informed by the Inquiry Rules 2006. The purpose of the rules will be to set out the procedural and operational systems that will support the Bill. It is estimated that there will be around 25 to 30 rules in total, with six main themes. The inquiry procedure rules will set out the methods by which information relating to the inquiry will be provided and received and the procedures for handling documentation and materials when they are received.

Rules on designation and participation will establish the chair's formal role in relation to the designation process, including, for example, the designation of core participants and the provision and appointment of any legal supports. Rules on evidence and hearings will set out the procedures in relation to receiving and hearing evidence, including the collection of oral and written evidence. Rules on disclosure and confidentiality are intended to outline what protections are in place in relation to information that is received or provided. Rules on reporting and records will cover the procedure for the keeping of records in the inquiry and the archiving of such records at the conclusion. It will be about indexing and how appropriate records should be kept for the inquiry. Finally, rules on cost and awards will set out the roles and processes concerning the making of awards, how they are assessed and how they will be paid to whomever the bill is submitted from.

Mr Carey: Thank you, Francesca. I hand over to Elaine.

Ms Elaine Allen (The Executive Office): There will be somewhere between 10 and 20 redress regulations. They will basically build on what is in the primary legislation and give detail on what is required to make an application. They will be read in conjunction, as Angela said, with guidance from the redress service. It will be easy to read, not legal text. It will not be necessary to go to the regulations to make an application.

Angela mentioned how an application can be made. The regulations will set out things such as how an application can be made and what exactly happens when it comes in. The eligibility criteria have already been set out in the Bill, but the regulations will give people a bit more information.

Regulations on notice and verification will set out how the redress service will notify the relevant record holder in order to verify the information that has been provided in the application form and what happens if that information is not available.

As regards case management and time frames, there are general time frames that the redress service has in which to receive information or to process certain things. There will be a bit of flexibility to allow the service to manage cases so that it is efficient. Obviously, the Bill allows the service to prioritise applications.

I will move on to evidence and information requests. There may be a need to go to other places or people to ask for information if the original institution or organisation cannot provide that information. The regulations will set out exactly how that will work. In some cases, it might be necessary to ask the applicant, but, again, that will all be detailed in the regs and, in more detail, in guidance. There will be an easily understood explanation of how that will work.

The regulations will set out how the determinations are made, as well as how payment will be made, in what format and that it will be in one payment.

I will move on to appeals, withdrawals and costs. There is detail on appeals in the Bill, but the regulations will build on that and set out the circumstances in which an applicant might want to withdraw their application or their appeal, how that works and what costs the redress service will reimburse for certain things. As I say, the redress service will be crucial in providing guidance. The redress service, together with all the organisations that Angela has mentioned that we are working with to provide a support model, will be crucial in making sure that the process is trauma-informed and as simple and efficient as possible.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Thank you.

Mr Carey: That was a bit of a whistle-stop tour, but we are conscious that we will probably consider a lot of detail with the Committee as part of the scrutiny of the SL1 in September. We just thought that it would be helpful to provide an overview.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I have a couple of questions. Thanks, everybody, for what you have contributed so far. I appreciate that, when it comes to support for the applications, it is admissions-based so not a lot of background information is needed etc. Will there be emotional support through VSS and WAVE? How will people be supported?

Mr Carey: Angela, do you want to start, or do you want me to say something?

Ms Stevens: I can add to what you say.

Mr Carey: The model at the minute is that WAVE and Adopt NI provide core services. That is a whole range of services, from general support to specific individual needs assessment. This is a key design decision. For application support, you could have a legal model or a support model. We have rooted it in a support model so that if individuals with literacy issues, technology issues or just general support issues want to make an application, caseworkers with WAVE and Adopt NI will be able to support them to make an application. A large part of that role may, in the first instance, be about information retrieval. Do you have anything to add, Angela?

Ms Stevens: Yes, if I may. Not all applicants who make an application to the redress service will know about VSS, WAVE and Adopt NI. If an application is made to us, we will be on the lookout and will be open to that. If we identify that an applicant might need support, we can make a referral to the support model.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): That makes sense. Thank you. I have another question. When it comes to time frames, the presentation talks about managing applications "efficiently". I appreciate, as Elaine said, that some information may not be available, but are you defining "efficient"? Are you trying to turn it around in three months? How are you determining what "efficient" looks like?

Mr Carey: I will provide the first response, and Elaine can come in. When it comes to the regs, there will be set time periods for certain stages and certain information requests. Those will be in statute, in secondary legislation. When it comes to a target time frame, the way that the primary legislation is developed is trying to be — Angela can speak to this — as simple an admission process as possible with the least amount of information required. There is maybe a change. A large volume of people might come into the process in the first six months, so it might take a bit longer, but, as we get into the more routine process, we would like to be processing payments in a matter of weeks: that is the target.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): One other question came to mind, although it might be totally inappropriate. Is there a code of ethics or a charter or something that will sit over the process so that people know what standards they should expect?

Mr Carey: Is that about the service level?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Yes, the service for redress.

Mr Carey: We have been careful in defining what a trauma-informed policy looks like and have built in some criteria for safety and trustworthiness. That is the structure for how the redress service should operate in practice. There are safeguards around support, appeals and trying to make sure that it is a supported model for applicants, as opposed to what has been shown in the feedback from some of the other redress services, which is that it felt like a legalistic process rather than a human process. That is what Angela and her team have been trying to build into the model. There is —

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I appreciate that. It is just about having a defining document so that you could say, "Look, there is what you can expect from the service".

Ms Stevens: The current staff have received some trauma training from WAVE. Part of our new staff induction process will be for them to undergo appropriate training. That will not be just one-off training but a continual process that looks at need. One of our current staff members has been designated as our trauma-informed champion, and she is undergoing particular training at the moment.

Our processes, policies and the way that we work will be assessed through a trauma-informed lens. Being the body corporate, the redress service will have its own annual report and business plan. Those will be documents in which we can quite safely set out our principles and values.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): OK, I appreciate that. Deputy Chair, have you any questions?

Mr Dickson: No, I think we have covered a substantial part of it. You are at this stage of planning all these things at the moment. It practically follows the other models that are out there. I guess that it will be when you get down to the fine detail of the regulations by September that we may have more questions. At this planning stage, however, it sounds reasonable.

I will ask a question on one area. If someone uses a solicitor or another legal representative, rather than making a direct application, will there be any additional payment for the person using that service, as there will have been a charge for it?

Ms Stevens: Yes. That is a little bit for me, and a little bit for the regulations. I understand that the regulations will address legal representation and legal costs, but the process has been designed to be very straightforward and non-complex if somebody chooses to use a solicitor, but we are designing it in a way that we do not see that as being necessary. Also, the agreed support model will be in place to support individuals from the pre-application stage and in making the application itself. I think that the legal costs will be addressed in the regulations.

Mr Carey: In principle, we would like to think that 95% or 99% of our applications could be completed through the support model, without the aid of a solicitor. There may be exceptional cases, in which the regulations will say that some costs could be provided to legal firms, but that would be on pre-approval and, I would say, in very exceptional cases. I am trying to think of how it might be on appeals in a very difficult or —

Mr Dickson: It could be a very complex capacity issue or something.

Mr Carey: Yes, exactly.

Mr Dickson: OK. That is helpful, but I think that we will want to keep an eye on that area because the principle behind all of this is that it should be a plain, simple and open process with lots of assistance to get people through it and no requirement for legal support.

Mr Carey: A key principle is that individuals should not have to go to a solicitor. It is their right to do so, if they choose to, but the support model should be there for people.

Ms Stevens: It is important to note that it is the redress service itself that will confirm the admission on behalf of the applicant, so the redress service will support the applicant during the application process.

Ms Ní Chuilín: The regulations will come out in September. When is the Further Consideration Stage?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): It will be 15 June.

Ms Ní Chuilín: OK. When is the Final Stage?

Mr Carey: We hope that it will be 23 June, which is six days later. The Royal Assent should come over the summer. The intention is that —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: We will have the regulations as soon as we come back after the summer recess.

Mr Carey: Yes.

Ms Ní Chuilín: That is one of the things that some of the witnesses asked the Committee about. We are not being awkward; we are trying to be respectful. For example, we will have sessions about different aspects later, but it was made clear to us that the regulations could not be made at the same time as the legislation. We understood and accepted that the regulations should be made after all the consideration and the stages of the Bill, because it was impossible to do both at once.

Will the regulations cover everything that is passed in the Bill?

Mr Carey: Going back to the —.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Francesca said that it relates to the Inquiry Rules 2006, and we understand that. However, hopefully, it will take the modular approach.

Mr Carey: The primary legislation provides for the modular interim or final reporting. The secondary legislation will provide more provision for what that will look like in practice. Ultimately, it will be for a chair to decide how they wish to segment the analysis, but the Committee heard good evidence about the value of a modular approach. A lot of inquiries do modular reporting, and there are a lot of advantages to having timely access to reporting rather than having a large tome at the end of the process. The principle is that the secondary legislation will allow that provision.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Will the regulations also include the ability for survivors and victims to be part of the inquiry? That was very clear to us as well.

Mr Carey: The primary legislation already provides for an advisory panel, and the regulations will deal with the second element — we heard about it from Francesca — which is about the core participant status and what that affords people. In effect, it is both legal representation and access to certain information in advance of its being in the public domain. The core participant status will be a decision for a chair, but it is a key principle that will be outlined in the secondary legislation.

Ms Ní Chuilín: The chair will decide who gets core participant status.

Mr Carey: That is right.

Ms Ní Chuilín: OK.

Mr Brett: I have a couple of points. Colleagues, thank you again for all your work on this important issue.

Martin, where are we with the agreed amendments by the First Minister and deputy First Minister following the Consideration Stage?

Mr Carey: The Assembly passed six amendments proposed by Gerry Carroll. We met him earlier today to walk through the policy intent around that. The Department intends to bring six alternative amendments, but they have the same policy intent, and they are generally technical and tidy-up amendments. The amendments still have to go through a process, and, once they are published, Gerry can consider them. I am sure that the Committee will also want to consider them. However, they are technical in nature, and they do not propose massive changes to what was agreed on 19 May. The amendments are basically tidy-ups. Those are the six main amendments.

In the past week, when doing a final check of the Bill, we noticed one or two very small points. Clause 5 mentions whether there are panel members, but there will be multiple members, and that is a typo. We have picked up a couple of typos, and there will be six or seven amendments to tidy that up.

Mr Brett: Apologies, can you remind me of the date for the Further Consideration Stage?

Mr Carey: We hope that it will be on 15 June.

Mr Brett: When do you hope to have the amendments with the Committee?

Mr Carey: We hope that it will be in the coming days; ahead of next Wednesday anyway.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We will have legal advice on our amendment later in the meeting.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Is that not very tight?

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): We may decide that we have to have an additional Committee meeting on Monday or Tuesday to get our amendments finalised. I agree with you.

Mr Brett: We need to get them ASAP so that the Committee can take a position.

Martin, I raised one of the issues with Gerry's amendment, which was around publishing information. I cannot remember the amendment now, but my concern was that, for example, even if a survivor did not want to come forward, under Gerry's wording, their details would be put into the public domain. He may not have intended that, but that is my reading of it, which may be incorrect.

Mr Carey: Yes. We have walked through that one, Phillip, from a drafting perspective. We have a revised version, and we are content. That was about the powers to compel. In practice, it would mean that, if an inquiry chair provided a notice to an individual and their information was not provided, they absolutely had to report that. There are a couple of legal principles involved. Frankly, if court proceedings were ongoing at that point, and if the information related to a specific thing, such as whistle-blowing or information about a survivor, there would be some safeguards or some discretion for the inquiry chair. We are confident that the draft that we have still meets the original intent, which is, in effect, to name and shame individuals or organisations that have not complied, and that there are some safeguards for those cases.

Mr Brett: OK. The regulations are obviously subject to a draft affirmative procedure.

Mr Carey: The inquiry rules are subject to negative resolution. I think that the redress rules are negative resolution as well.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): Some of them were amended to draft affirmative.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Our amendments are draft affirmative.

Mr Carey: The redress ones are draft affirmative. OK.

Mr Brett: You probably cannot put this in regulation, but I encourage you to listen to some of the testimony that the Committee and Members have given on the application process for the victims' pension scheme. Carál and I, along with others, are on the record as saying that the process was meant to be simple and straightforward, but it was the opposite. It was retraumatising and really difficult for applicants. You probably cannot put that in regulation, but learning needs to be taken from it.

Ms Stevens: Phillip, as you know, this scheme will be designed to be more efficient and less complex. We will not hold a lot of complex information, evidence or statements on behalf of the individuals. It will be as little information as possible. Possibly unlike other schemes, we will not hold additional complex material or evidence.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much for the work that you have done on this. You have been at Committee a number of times and have sat outside the door for hours while waiting for us to finish other business. That is very much appreciated.

My concerns are about what will be in the regulations. Until we get to that point, who knows what they will contain. I hope that the people who are drafting them have paid close attention to the Committee. I am sure that there are things that you can say and things that you cannot say about what is said between the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, but has there been any reflection on the Committee's opinion, even though it is divided, and on the sense of shock that the amendment was not selected? In light of the Speaker's comments in the Chamber yesterday — I think that it was yesterday — when he explained about the posthumous date, has there been any discussion between the First Minister and the deputy First Minister about potentially tabling their own amendment to include a different date?

Mr Carey: Timothy, we have not had the opportunity to reflect on the Speaker's statement. It was helpful in providing some clarity around the decision. From a survivor perspective, that was helpful, as, I am sure, it was for the Committee. We need to reflect on what he said and what that means in practice for Ministers, the Executive and the Committee. I do not have much more to add today, but I know that it will be a focus over the next week.

Mr Gaston: The fact that the Speaker went further — indeed, he referenced this — than any other Speaker would have done is an acknowledgement of the widespread concern among victims and survivors. I thank him for putting that on the public record. It would be helpful to know in the next week whether there has been any movement in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, because that potentially impacts on what the Committee will do. You mentioned the date of 15 June. Obviously, that depends on the Justice Bill getting through, so it might be pushed back, in which case I would share others' concerns about a tight time frame to get this finished before recess.

Mr Carey: We appreciate that 15 June is tight, particularly in light of the Speaker's statement yesterday. The question is whether putting it back by a week would provide us with enough space to get to Final Stage by 30 June. To be completely honest, it is vital that we get to Final Stage before the end of June. That is the trade-off — we do not want to miss our slot between now and the end of June — and discussions on that will probably have to be had over the next few days.

Mr Gaston: Is there a commitment to our having the revised amendments in Friday's pack?

Mr Carey: We will try our best.

Mr Gaston: That is the six amendments.

Mr Carey: That is the six amendments. Yes, we can, I think, commit to that.

Mr Gaston: Will you be in a position at that stage to advise us on whether any additional conversations on the posthumous date are going on in the background?

Mr Carey: Yes; I will try my best.

Mr Gaston: That is all I ask.

Ms McLaughlin: This is on the back of what Timothy said. I appreciate the Speaker's statement yesterday. He was minded to say that, at this stage, it would be best for significant amendments to be tabled by the First Minister and deputy First Minister. That was the direction. He did not say, "You can't do it", but it would be preferable for amendments to come from that direction, so it is imperative that we know very soon what is happening. We do not want to miss any deadlines. Once we have got to Final Stage, you will have a lot of work to do during the summer in order for us to be ready for the SL1s and SL5s etc in September, so we are on a countdown, and it is really important that we know that. We on the Committee have ideas about the posthumous date, and it would be good if we were all of one mind.

Mr Carey: Yes. I understand.

Mr Dickson: I will follow that through. My interpretation of the Speaker's intervention is that it was intended to give the Executive Office a genuine opportunity to consider the issue — that is why you are being asked about it today — and, further to that, to say that the Executive Office's not doing or reaching agreement on something would be a trigger for him to say to it, "I may wish to consider other amendments, but your amendment would be in first place for consideration". We must respect that from the Speaker.

Ms Ní Chuilín: That is not my interpretation of it. The Speaker said that it would be "preferable" for amendments to come from Ministers, but I would prefer us simultaneously to prepare our own amendments, because, frankly, we may not get the word on that in time, and I do not want anybody winding the clock down. That was my interpretation, Stewart. The other thing is that the Justice Bill will, I imagine, go on for at least another day; we did not even get through group 2.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I know. I will move this on a wee bit, if you do not mind. I will read the relevant part of the Speaker's remarks and then make a suggestion. He said:

I am going to propose, members, that, off the back of the meeting — obviously, we have Stephen and the legal advice coming up later — our action would be to put in writing our request to be able to engage. It is fine that we raised it with you and your team last week, Martin, and we are raising it again today. However, I think that we need to raise it formally with the Executive Office.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes. Agreed.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I am really conscious of time, members. Is there anything else that you would like to raise, Martin?

Mr Carey: I suppose that, obviously, while that is a matter for the Executive Office, it is also part of an Executive process.

The Chairperson (Ms Bradshaw): I appreciate that. That is why we need to move at pace.

OK. Thanks very much, everybody.