Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

That should be enough. When I read the documentation I understood the need to look forward but we should also acknowledge the treatment of survivors throughout the process. I am keen to get a bit more understanding of the witnesses' experience of being survivors on the Caranua board. It is first-hand experience and not just part of a process. Will they elaborate on what that experience was like? I acknowledge that the consultation must be survivor-led and survivors' voices must be heard. My questions will be very much on how this is done.

When I read the report of the witnesses I contacted the Department to ask how it envisaged the consultation process would proceed. I have been back and forth with the Department in the past six months about the consultation process. Another group suggested having consultation processes but the issue went back and forth. When I contacted the Department this week to ask how it would ensure that survivors could be part of developing the agenda of the consultation process, it indicated it would set up an online element and a free telephone service. Perhaps the officials present will correct me if I took that up wrong.

That element is intended to set the agenda for how the face-to-face consultation process will take place. I can provide the witnesses with the Department's full response if necessary. Apart from feeding into the consultation process and the free-phone and online channels to be provided in that process, what else do survivors need to become part of the process of setting the agenda for consultation talks, or consultation and review? Why will the involvement of survivors at an early stage be so important to getting the next phase of redress right? What must be put in place to get survivors to re-engage with the process? They trusted the process when they engaged first. To be oppressed and ignored all over again is hard and people become tired of fighting their way through a process that has not been easy to access. What do we need to do to re-engage them at this point? How can we acknowledge the value of what survivors bring to this process? How can we best reclaim and preserve the survivors' narrative throughout this process and in the future?

I will follow up with the Department on another issue that struck me while reading through the documents. It relates to who will be appointed to the interdepartmental committee. The witnesses can correct me if I am wrong but I understand their document refers to concerns that Caranua could be part of that process. The Department confirmed to me that Caranua will not be involved and that the interdepartmental committee will comprise officials from the Departments of Education and Skills, Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Health and Justice and Equality. As such, it will be an in-house exercise involving Departments rather than Caranua. I will ask the Department to confirm that Caranua will not inform the process, given the view that the organisation failed miserably and should not be part of the process.

The other concern I have relates to the extension of eligibility criteria and the decision not to take new applications from 1 August onwards. When the consultation has concluded and the interdepartmental committee completes its work, will a new body be established to consider eligibility criteria and do things right from that point onwards? Is it acceptable that to have such conditions in place considering that the process is so flawed? Must we first fix the process and then readjust the eligibility criteria and reopen applications? There is no point in establishing a consultation process and an interdepartmental committee if a new redress scheme and new supports and advocacy are not provided for the survivors who have engaged with Caranua.