Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ms Higgins and Mr. O'Callaghan. In my Dáil speech on the last Private Members' motion I said that, generally speaking, State bodies can be assumed to be doing a good job and should generally be given the benefit of the doubt. However, I am disappointed with Ms Higgins's statement today. It has substantial similarities to the statement given to the Committee of Public Accounts a few weeks ago, although it is not identical. Different committees have different functions so I was expecting something different. The statement completely fails to recognise statements of varying levels of dissatisfaction with Caranua in the Dáil, from the Minister and other Deputies, myself included. I also said I hoped Caranua was listening to what Deputies were saying. We may not all be right but I would have thought some of the charges would have been answered today as it was a perfect opportunity to do so. We did not need to know about the set-up of Caranua as the Oireachtas passed it but it is always important to remember the victims and to keep them central.

There have been a few issues of controversy in the past few weeks. First were the various expressions of dissatisfaction by Deputies. Can these be responded to? I assume the leadership of Caranua watched the Dáil debates. There was some confusion at the Committee of Public Accounts about the issue of rent. It is a matter for that committee, of course, but there is a chance to clarify matters today and we need that information too, so that we can ascertain what rent has been paid, what has to be paid and what efforts have been made to look for office accommodation at the lowest price. At what point did it appear necessary to the board and the witnesses to use the survivors' fund to pay the rent? I accept that offices have to be paid for but these are important issues and there has been a lot of confusion.

I am also surprised that the €15,000 limit was not mentioned in the statement as it is a matter of some controversy, with some people alleging that this was an illegal decision. I am not saying they are correct but I would be very grateful for the witnesses' view of the allegations. What is the position of Caranua on winding up the fund and spending the money? What is the objective? There have been suggestions that the €15,000 limit was not brought in for administrative reasons or reasons of fairness. I believe an auditor had recommended some kind of limit but there have been suggestions that it was brought in to keep the thing going for as long as possible, despite the fact that this particular State board does not have such a function.

The question of eligibility is a matter for the Oireachtas and not the witnesses but I wonder if they have any views on it. The other important issue, on which I have also put down parliamentary questions, relates to the legal requirement for contracts to be approved by the Minister for Education and Skills. There has been a suggestion that it was not done in the case of rent. Can the witnesses clarify that, and whether Caranua has entered into other contracts which were not put before the Minister for Education and Skills as they should have been?