Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I refer to the people with whom there is no mutual agreement. They have come to us and, possibly, every Oireachtas Member to say they have gone forward and: "They said they met my needs. I was informed that there was a limit on the services that could be received ... told that there was no hope in hell Caranua would pay for it ... told "wasn't entitled". They said they have dealt enough with me and I had to make an appeal ... said I had reached my limit ... said they were prioritising first-time applicants". I do not wish to interfere with any board decision, but I would like to see decisions based on some evidence that a fund is in trouble, which it is not, and a justification for a change in policy on a number of occasions, I believe, retrospectively. However, I take Ms Higgins' word that it was not retrospective and that it did not happen, but there were different changes of policy over a number of years. How is that communicated to the applicants who believe their needs have not been met, despite having received a payment or two or more? There was no policy in the beginning. Applicants came forward and their needs were met in respect of the initial application. They then came forward with others. At some stage, Caranua's policy changed and officials decided that they were in trouble and would limit the money, notwithstanding the fact that the number of applicants was reducing and there was €50 million in a fund, presumably plus interest as a result of investments.