Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Is that still the position? I address my questions to Mr. O'Callaghan as somebody who has been re-appointed. Obviously the Minister has faith in him and he has put him back in charge of this. I expect a response to my questions now. A total of 80 sessions was the cut-off point and Mr. O'Callaghan has said that is still the position. I understand that the cut-off point is 40 sessions and that is in the report published online by Towards Healing. The figure was changed to 40 sessions as far back as January 2016.

Why does an organisation which was described as a shambles in March 2014 and presided over by the chairman, who was reappointed, still have a waiting list of eight to ten months? Can that be clarified? On the figures for January 2016 onwards, I understand that very few applicants have applied. It is in the hundreds. As such, how can there be a waiting list?

On the refurbishment of new premises, what premises were refurbished, what was the cost and did the Minister give permission? Talbot Street and other new premises were mentioned. On the breach of data protection legislation, I understand the board had in-house legal advice. How was this not pointed out? How did it come to the survivors to highlight the breach of legislation? On the money going to the children's hospital, why that was being discussed at one of the board meetings? What was the concern around that? Am I completely wrong if I interpret that as the board worrying that there would be money left or not left? I hope I am wrong but can I be told?

On contracts, I understand the Minister for Education and Skills has not given permission for a lease. Has he or has he not? Has Caranua sought permission? Is there a list of all the other contracts? There seems to be an awful lot of them with Lazars, Capita and a whole lot more names I do not have. Having gone through the minutes, there was a new contract practically every month or every second month. Contracts were on client awareness, corporate branding, and a bonding exercise in Carlingford. Did the Minister give permission for those? On funeral expenses, I understand from the minutes that a very outspoken member, who I do not know, raised funeral expenses at a very early stage, but it took quite some time to say they would be allowed. Even when they were allowed, it has been applied in a most inconsistent way. Some people who apply get their funeral expenses while others do not. The witnesses might clarify that for me.

According to the minutes, concern was expressed continually about the level of expenditure, which was rising. What the chairman was referring to was the actual payout to clients. I do not think that was expenditure, it was what they were entitled to get. However, Caranua referred to it as expenditure rather than to use that term to refer to the expenditure on private contracts or rent, the refurbishment of new buildings or a bonding exercise up in Carlingford. There are a lot of questions there.

I turn to the matter of rent. The CEO has apologised since in a written letter to the Committee of Public Accounts that what was said in this regard was incorrect. He clearly said Caranua was not paying rent. The chair was there as well and heard the question "Are you paying rent?". The answer was "No". Subsequently, it transpired that Caranua was paying rent from May 2016 onwards. It is over €100,000 and Caranua has paid half of it. Can the witnesses clarify how they did not know they were paying rent and why Caranua was paying rent when it was there for three years without doing so? I have asked this of the Minister and the Office of Public Works and I am asking it of the witnesses now because there was a constant thing about premises. What was wrong with the premises where Caranua was? Did it ever get permission for any of the proposed moves? There was talk of going to Talbot Street and somewhere else. Why was there a need to move at all when there were free premises? What has the Office of Public Works said to Caranua or the Minister? Who is putting pressure on Caranua to leave?

Caranua brought in a priority system and a limit. I put it to Caranua that while both were certainly worthy of discussion at board level, the manner in which they were introduced is flagrantly in breach of the Act. Caranua has built in an unjust, inconsistent and inequitable system.