Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will look at four key areas. Can the witnesses give some clarity on the prioritisation policy? What was the reasoning behind it and what was taken into consideration when adopting it? Do they think the policy, when applied to subsequent survivor applications, has the effect of ignoring the merits and the ongoing needs of the survivor? If they are kept in limbo and their applications parked because they are repeated applicants, it ignores the merits of their applications. Can the witnesses comment on that? Did the board receive legal advice as to whether the adoption of the policy would go beyond its statutory powers? This is important not only from the point of view of the remit of the board, but also the rights of the applicant.

In relation to the €15,000 limit, Caranua said in the Committee of Public Accounts that the figure of €15,000 as a cut-off point came from the survivors. Given that there was no consultation, I would like to get clarification on the point that it came from the survivors.

It was stated in the Caranua financial statement for 2015 that the reason for the €15,000 limit was based on the concerns of internal auditors. What were those concerns? Some have reported that it was the fact that the money was reducing and some applicants had not yet applied. According to information I received following an FOI request, as of 30 April 2017, Caranua has just under €33 million still in its account. I question the setting of the cut-off point when there is still such a large amount to be spent, especially given that we are dealing with an ageing population. As Deputy Byrne said, it is really time to wrap up the fund and spend the money that is there. The limit of €15,000 undermines the principle underlying the setting up of Caranua, namely, to meet ongoing needs. Ongoing needs do not have caps but a cap of €15,000 has been introduced and that will not address the ongoing needs of the survivors. It was also stated in correspondence I received that a representative from Caranua said that the policy had been introduced because, to paraphrase her, she strongly believed some people just got too much.

In terms of section 23 of the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Act 2012, I understand Caranua has now received legal advice on whether the board has the authority to disclose confidential information if it so decides under section 23(3)(a). I think it was Mr. O'Callaghan who recently responded to me but I might not be correct in that regard. I got a response to the effect that the legal advice had been received but Caranua had not disclosed what that legal advice was in response to the inquiry that came into its office during the week. The witnesses might be able to give an update on that.

One of the principles underlying the setting up of Caranua relates to advocacy. How do the witnesses feel Caranua has advocated on behalf of survivors? For four to five months I have received consistent weekly and sometimes daily phone calls and emails to my office from survivors and none of them has been positive. The only common denominator is Caranua and their experience of Caranua. Given the language that was used in the article in The Irish Times, to which Deputy Catherine Martin referred, I do not understand how a board continued to support a CEO that used such language in relation to the vulnerable people for whom they are there to advocate. I was disgusted.

I read another letter that was sent out by Caranua on the cut-off point stating:

"As you know, you have received significant support from Caranua since you first applied to us. We are delighted that we are able to respond to your needs and we hope that [this is the worrying bit] you will continue to enjoy the benefits of what you have received."

I question the language, the wording and the communication used to communicate with survivors of institutional abuse, for example, the reference to "enjoying the benefits" as if it is a gift, something additional to their lives. If Caranua really sees itself as an advocacy body and it was concerned about the dwindling funds in its account, the two best pieces of advocacy that I would consider as the only option would be either for Caranua to advocate for the survivors so that the fund increased or that it would go back to the religious orders and say it is continuing to try to meet the ongoing needs and that more funds are needed. I would not want anybody who spoke of institutional survivors who used language like that advocating for them. I believe Ms Higgins should step aside from her position so that somebody who is more compassionate-----