To ask the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on securing contributions from religious orders and institutions towards the financial redress scheme and specialist support services for victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister)

Victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse (HIA) have endured unimaginable pain and suffering over many years. We are committed to ensuring that they get the redress that they deserve. Payments have been received from the Good Shepherd Sisters, Barnardo’s, the De La Salle order and the Diocese of Down and Connor in respect of the De La Salle-run homes. Engagement with those institutions will continue in order to finalise their contributions. Constructive discussions are ongoing with the Irish Church Missions, the Sisters of Nazareth and the Sisters of St Louis. Details of the amounts received will be published once the process is complete.

Mrs Little-Pengelly

I thank the Member for her question. It is incredibly important that we learn everything that we can from this process and roll that forward. There have been some significant successes in the process across many areas. I would have liked the institutions to have stepped up to make contributions earlier, but we are where we are, and we continue to work with those institutions. The Member is absolutely right: there is a lot of commonality in the issues of HIA and those of mother-and-baby homes. We are acutely aware not just of the importance of contributions from the institutions in light of their part in the harms that were caused but of the strong message that it sends about an acknowledgement of wrongdoing by those institutions. Such an investment is required to support people with redress and, as you rightly pointed out, for services to meet their needs today. As you will know, the junior Ministers are taking that work forward. They are, I understand, engaged in reaching out not just to the Irish Government to talk to them about their experiences of trying to get contributions but across the UK. We will take that learning and ensure that we maximise the opportunity to get contributions.

Miss Brogan

Is the deputy First Minister able to provide an update on a memorial to victims and survivors?

Mrs Little-Pengelly

Thank you. Yes. I am pleased to say that we are making positive progress on that important issue. We are trying to maximise consensus among victims and survivors. We acknowledge that victims and survivors do not speak with one voice; that is completely understandable. However, we want to move forward with the maximum consensus that we can achieve. I have previously extended my thanks and do so again to the Speaker's Office for all of the help and support that has been given to us to identify a suitable location for the plaque. We are working with a range of individuals and organisations to ensure that they are content with the draft wording of the plaque. We are making significant progress on that, and we hope to be in a position to place the plaque very shortly.

Mrs Cameron

The deputy First Minister will, I know, agree that there is a moral responsibility and not just a legal responsibility on the institutions to step forward and provide contributions. Does she also agree that voluntary contributions by the institutions would be seen as a sign of good faith?

Mrs Little-Pengelly

I thank the Member for her question. I record my huge thanks to Pam for her work as a junior Minister. She was involved in a significant number of meetings and engagements and on the detail of these matters. You were key in pushing the process forward and getting it to where it is, and I thank you for that work. You are absolutely right. Discussions are ongoing with the mother-and-baby homes about how we can legally require institutions to give contributions. I believe that they should. The Member will be aware that, internationally, there are no examples of other places being able to legally require institutions to make a contribution. The moral obligation, however, is at the heart of this. It should not take legislation to force the hands of the institutions. Those institutions should step forward and step up, acknowledge their role in the significant harms that were caused and come forward with those contributions as soon as possible to avoid us having to take action to force them to do so.

Mr Gaston

This issue has been a real frustration for me and, indeed, the Committee. Victims are wondering whose side the person appointed by the Executive Office to carry out the negotiations is on. Are they on the side of protecting the institution, or are they there to get value for money for the state? If money is not forthcoming for redress, will the Executive consider going after assets so that victims get money out of the institutions that caused the problem?

Mrs Little-Pengelly

Important issues are at play. At this stage, we have paid out just over £108 million in compensation to well over 5,000 applications received. The scheme is now closed, and only a small number of those applications are left. Those are being assessed, and it is anticipated that the panel will finish that work by November, when the assessment of those remaining applications will be completed. That is the aim. Discussions with the institutions have been ongoing. There are legal challenges, there is no doubt about that. I assure the Member that we have pushed as hard as we can to make it clear that we believe that the institutions must contribute. We believe that there is an absolute moral responsibility as well as an acknowledgement of fault. There are real legal challenges, however, which is why, internationally, no other state has been able to legislate to compel institutions to make contributions. I asked specifically about assets and was advised that asset transfer can sometimes be a liability for the Government due to contamination or the state of premises. Therefore, we need to be careful, if we are to go down that route, that it provides value and additional resources for victims and survivors. Of course, all that is underwritten by the state, and that is the challenge. That £108 million is rightly recognising what people went through. That is going out through the state at the moment with a small contribution from the institutions. We continue to pursue that, but it has been a challenging situation legally.