Minutes of the VSS Board Meeting No 115

Board Meeting Type: Quarter End Board Meeting      

Wednesday 7th August at 09:30am  (Members only) and 10.00am (All attendees)

MS Teams

Board Members Present:

Sandra Horley (SH)                        Board Member (Interim Chair)

John Cahill (JC)                               Board Member

Brian Gilfedder (BG)                        Board Member

Catriona MacArthur (CMA)             Board Member

VSS Staff in Attendance:

Andrew Walker (AW) Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

Tara Lewsley (TL)                         Head of Learning and Growth

Victoria Murray (VM)                        Acting Head of Corporate Services

A      Apologies

Emma Dargan (ED)                         Head of Community Partnerships

Nicola Nugent (NN)                         Head of Health and Wellbeing

B      Minutes of Previous Meeting

Minutes of the previous meeting on 21 May 2025 were approved.

C       Action Points

Action Points remaining open from previous meetings:

- 22.05.24 AP1: No change, an invitation to Louise Warde Hunter (CEO, ICRIR) be extended to attend a Strategic Board session later in 2025/26 dependent upon ongoing prioritisation of matters for Board discussion.

- 25.01.24 AP2: Draft Board Operating Framework provided to members for review and discussion as agenda item J2 of this meeting.

- 22.01.25 AP1: One member suggested that the Board should consider extending an invitation to Gareth Johnston to attend at a future date.  No decision taken at this point.

- 30.04.25 AP3: BG provided an update on the AI training attended by himself and CMA in July 2025. The training was useful and raised a number of important questions for consideration by the Board and management, including whether the organisation has an AI governance framework in place. SH noted that consideration should be given to training for the remaining members. TL advised that VSS has established a working group to explore the use of AI within the organisation, associated risks, and the governance structures that will need to be put in place to manage these. The working group is also considering training needs across all levels of the organisation. It was agreed that management prepare a briefing for the Board on AI considerations within VSS and this has been recorded as 07.08.25 AP1.

- 30.04.25 AP4: VSP call assessment planning included as agenda item J3 of this meeting.

Action Points arising from 7 August 2025:

- 07.08.25 AP1: Management to provide a written briefing to the Board on AI considerations within VSS and schedule review at a future strategic session.

- 07.08.25 AP2: Extend an invitation to the new Victims Commissioner to meet the VSS Board.

- 07.08.25 AP3: Provide further information to the Board on RTN, including KPIs where appropriate.

- 07.08.25 AP4: Management to produce a summary KPI dashboard for Board members to provide them with an overview of key organisational matters and aid identification of areas for more detailed review.

D       Conflicts of Interest

No conflicts of interest were noted.

E       Chair’s Report

The Board noted this paper.

F    Quarter 1 Reporting – June 2025

F1   CEO Exception Report

AW presented the report and highlighted items of note.

VSP Planning

Following confirmation of approval of a budget for programme funding in early July, the VSP call is planned to open on 1 September 2025.

AW explained that VSS had provided cost estimates for three options to be assessed within the VSP business case, for essential, desirable and optimal scenarios. Disappointingly, approval has only been provided for the essential level of costs, which largely represents a flatline budget provision for 2026-27 and 2027-28. Failure to obtain funding above baseline levels may now result in a lower number of groups being able to be funded than is currently the case, and an associated increased reputational risk to VSS arising from the outcomes of the call assessment process.

CMA queried why approval has not been able to be obtained for the additional funding contribution from the TPDPS programme. AW explained that the proposed apportionment approach has not been rejected outright, however has failed to obtain approval so far on the basis that TEO has not yet accepted that there is a robust case for additional funding. In particular, the TEO Finance Director is of the view that programme overheads are already funded within the VSP programme. VSS is still working with the Victims Unit in TEO to review and refine the proposal paper provided, with a view to resubmitting this for further consideration in the coming weeks.

At this point in the meeting, it was agreed to move to consideration of agenda item J3 – VSP Call Assessment Planning before reverting back to the continuation of item F1.

J3   VSP Call Assessment Planning

AW outlined the background to planning for the new VSP funding call. The last time VSS undertook an open funding call of this scale was in 2016, when both VSS and organisations within the Victims sector were at an earlier stage of their evolution. VSS is now a mature organisation with experienced teams and governance structures in place. Other key factors which have been considered when planning for call assessment are the fact that the new call effectively represents the continuation of an existing programme, and the application process has been designed to bring clarity and consistency in the responses that will be received, through the use of standardised forms and templates.

As a result of the above, Board involvement in the process will be different this time. Rather than forming one of the application assessment levels, the Board will undertake the following key roles:

- Hearing of appeals at relevant stages during the process

- Consideration and approval of the allocation of funding across successful applications

TL took the Board through a presentation on the call assessment process and associated timetable. The Board were asked to consider two key points for agreement:

- Their proposed role in the assessment process

- The proposed appeals process including timeframes and resourcing

Discussions were held regarding the detailed process set out in papers J3.1 and J3.2. BG sought clarity regarding the pre-qualification checks at stage 1 of the process. TL confirmed that all applicants will be subject to the same eligibility requirements, and only the mechanism for evidencing these will differ depending on whether an organisation is currently funded by VSS. BG queried the procedures in place for challenging the validity of information contained within application forms, and TL outlined the Value for Money assessment procedures and pre-contract checks that have been built into the process to test the accuracy of each organisation’s application. Discussion was held around whether there is a need for independent assessors to participate in the process, and SH noted that it is normal practice for organisations such as VSS to run competitions of this nature without using independent resources at the assessment stage.

BG confirmed that he was satisfied with management’s responses as to how applications will be effectively adjudicated prior to decision making.

TL then outlined the process for appeals and the associated timeframes. Appeals will be permitted at two stages of the assessment process – appeal of eligibility decisions, and appeal of scoring (where applicant does not meet required scoring threshold and is ‘unsuccessful’). Appeals will not be offered at the funding allocation stage, as these decisions will be subject to other internal VSS criteria such as geographical spread and representation of victims choice. Discussion ensued around the subjective nature of the allocations process and the importance of robust Board review at this stage. AW confirmed that management will now develop a reference framework for allocations, for review by the Board prior to commencement of the assessment process.

Discussion was held around the timing of the appeals processes and the composition of appeals panels. Due to the current low VSS Board complement and member availability, it was agreed that appeals panels be established as follows:

Appeals against applications deemed ineligible: Two panels of two members plus one independent member with responsibility for administrative tasks.

Appeals against applications deemed unsuccessful: Three panels of one member plus one independent member with responsibility for administrative tasks.

It was noted that should new board members be appointed prior to the assessment process, the composition of appeals panels would be reviewed.

The Board confirmed their agreement to their proposed role in the call assessment process and the draft process presented by management. The Board confirmed their agreement to the proposed appeals process and the panel composition discussed. Management will now move forward to refine the draft process and recruit the external independent members for appeals panels.

The order of business reverted to consideration of the remaining contents of item F1.

2025-26 Budget Allocation

VSS received a small amount of additional budget allocation in the June monitoring round to meet internal salary pressures arising from the agreed NICS pay award from 1 August 2025. Following review of budget commitments, VSS has been able to distribute £468k of additional funding to organisations for HWB/programme costs out of the TPDPS ringfenced budget.

AW highlighted that actual expenditure on INP frameworks is higher than budgeted at the end of June, and award rates have not slowed over the summer months. These are being kept under review by management and action may be required to cap or restrict frameworks if no additional budget allocation is received.

PEACEPLUS

AW noted that the project is forecasting an underspend position largely as a result of delays to recruitment of project staff. VSS is now considering ideas for utilisation of this underspend, although SEUPB may not be open to an extension of the project end date.

The project cashflow position is now improving with the commencement of controller verification activity. Specific SEUPB concerns around the procurement of the Trauma Education programme have now been resolved.

HIA

The five year review of services is now underway and VSS are engaging with TEO regarding business case cover for the next four years of service delivery. AW noted that as a result of wider discussions this week, VSS are now going to work on an apportionment model for WAVE’s staff costs which will have an implication for the costs included in the HIA business case addendum. Resultantly, TEO has agreed to a revised timetable for completion which will likely see the HIA funding call opening in early 2026.

BG noted that the use of the name ‘Historical Institutional Abuse’ for this funding programme is not viewed as appropriate by individuals who have experienced childhood sexual abuse, a view shared by the Commissioner. AW concurred that this view is shared by the Commissioner, and provided some background to the source of the name from the original public inquiry and its use within wider government functions. AW also noted that victims and survivors were consulted with during the co-design of service delivery in this area. It was agreed that further consideration of terminology will be incorporated within the planned VSS branding review.

MBMLW

Subject to the passing of the inquiry and redress bill, it is now anticipated that redress will commence in mid-2026. VSS is now working with the newly established Truth Recovery Redress Service (TRRS) on planning how to support individuals coming forward to engage in the redress process.

Victims Commissioner

It was noted that the new Victims Commissioner has now been named as Joe McVey, and he will take up position in October 2025. It was agreed that the Commissioner should be invited to meet the VSS Board later in 2025/26, after he has commenced engagement with VSS via the recurring bi-monthly VSS/CVS meeting (07.08.25 AP2).

F1.1   Budget Report

VM presented the budget report and detailed the expenditure for each programme funding area at the end of June 2025.

VM noted in particular the pressures on INP frameworks outlined by AW in the CEO Exception Report.

VM noted that the October monitoring submission is due in the next week. VSS will be submitting bids for inescapable overhead pressures and additional funding requirements for INP frameworks and funded organisations overheads, however for context, the commissioning letter states that only purely inescapable bids will be considered. VSS will update the Board on the status of the monitoring round bids at the next meeting.

F1.2 Organisational Risk Register

VM summarised the Organisational Risk Register. Seven risks remain open – three scored as red, and four amber.

No new risks were added this quarter. VM provided a summary of key changes across the open risks:

STG71: This risk will be reviewed and challenged in the next quarter. VM and AW noted that the ongoing presence of this risk reflects the fact that when the RTN is not functioning effectively, VSS is not adequately supported to deliver on its organisational objectives. BG requested more details on RTN and associated KPIs to be provided to the Board, and this has been recorded as 07.08.25 AP3.

STG75: Risk score reduced in the quarter, and it is hoped that this risk will be able to be de-escalated once controller verifications are happening in line with the 12 week cycle specified in the PEACEPLUS programme manual.

STG77:This risk has been de-escalated post quarter end following confirmation from TEO of an approved budget for programme funding from 1 April 2026 – 31 March 2028.

STG80: Score escalated to maximum this quarter to reflect ongoing lack of additional budget allocation to the Victims Support Programme.

STG81: This risk is de-escalating as progress is made with the Truth Recovery programme timeline. VSS has not experienced any notable reputational issues following the introduction of the redress and inquiry bill. Consideration will be given to further de-escalation in the next quarter.

F2   Quarterly ALB Report

VM advised that TEO did not require a quarterly ALB report to be submitted for Q1 2025/26. Management has provided a Headcount Report as item F1.2 and are content that all information contained within the ALB report is captured across other meeting papers.

F2.1   Headcount Report

TL provided an overview of the current sickness absence position. Absence peaked between March and April 2025 and has now decreased significantly. The reduction in absence rates is due to individual factors associated with each case, coupled with ongoing management by VSS HR and continuing engagement with occupational health where appropriate.

F3   Quarterly Assurance Statement

VM advised that TEO did not require a quarterly assurance statement for Q1 2025/26, however internal assurance processes were completed for Accounting Officer review and approval. The Board noted this position.

F4    Delivery Plan Monitoring Report

The Board noted the report. All targets are currently on track or broadly on track at Q1 2025/26.

G    Board Sub Committees

G1    Audit and Risk Committee

JC provided an update and noted that due to scheduling over the summer the Q1 ARC meeting would not take place until after the Board meeting, on 13 August. JC noted that the ARC members had reviewed the draft Annual Report and Accounts, and these would be approved at the upcoming ARC meeting for submission to NIAO for audit.

G2    Health and Wellbeing Committee

SH provided an update and noted that there had been two meetings of the Health and Wellbeing Committee during the quarter, the second of which provided an opportunity for the detailed review of service delivery in Q1 2024/25.

CMA thanked management for their efforts in recruiting a new independent member with clinical expertise and it was noted that this individual would commence attendance from the next meeting.

H    Board Workplan and Development

H1  Board Attendance and Workplan

The Board noted this paper.

H2 Board Training Questionnaire

BG noted that the AI training course he undertook did not cover potential opportunities for the future use of AI, and requested that management investigate further training for members in this regard. It was agreed that Board training would be included within the scope of the AI working group discussed during the action points at Item C of the agenda to ensure the organisational training plan was effectively co-ordinated.

H3 Board Self-Assessment Update

VM led the Board in a review of the self-assessment actions for 2024-25. The following key points were noted:

- A review of the appraisal process will be undertaken once all appraisals for 2024-25 are complete.

- Management should proceed with skills gap analysis to establish the current position, rather than continuing to await the appointment of new members.

- Member comments have been incorporated into the draft induction plan.

I    Standing Agenda Items

I1  Compliance Update

VM provided an update and noted that one additional suspected fraud item had been notified to TEO after the end of the quarter. VM noted that the number of GDPR incidents declared in the quarter has reduced from seven to three, and the VSS Data Protection Officer is currently reviewing

SH left the meeting for a pre-arranged appointment, and in agreement with the other members AW managed the agenda for the remainder of the session.

I2 Client Risk Update

The Board noted this paper.

J    Any Other Business

J1/J2  Corporate Governance Framework/Board Operating Framework

AW introduced the draft Corporate Governance Framework and Board Operating Framework and noted that members had been sent these during July with a view to taking their opinion at this meeting as to the requirement for further discussion and/or review.

AW invited member comments. BG welcomed the updated documents. BG noted that in considering the documents, he wished to request the creation of a KPI dashboard for Board review as a standing agenda item, to provide a high level organisational health check to members. It was agreed that this be recorded as a separate action 07.08.25 AP4 and did not require amendment to the frameworks as drafted. CMA noted a number of proposed amendments which were accepted by management.

It was agreed that comments would be sought from SH and the documents brought to the September meeting for final approval.

K   Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting will take place in person on 17 September 2025 at Equality House, and will include a presentation from the TEO Truth Recovery team.