Mr. Ned Costello:

On behalf of myself and my colleagues I thank the committee for giving the Department the opportunity to come before it today to discuss issues relating to Caranua and the needs of survivors of abuse, including the long-term supports that might be available to survivors into the future. Today’s meeting follows previous engagements with the chair and the then chief executive of Caranua last year and more recent meetings with two former members of the board of Caranua.

With regard to the role of the Department and the historical background, it might be useful if I summarised at the outset the Department’s role in respect of supporting survivors. This role extends back many years and arose from the fact that, historically, the Department had a statutory role in respect of the operation of industrial and reformatory schools. Thankfully, those institutions are no longer in existence. When the issue of abuse in those institutions became the focus of public attention 20 years ago, the Government gave the Department the task of implementing a number of measures, including the establishment of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, the Residential Institutions Redress Board, and the Redress Review Committee. These bodies have virtually completed their work and we expect they will be dissolved in the near future.

A fourth body, the Education Finance Board, was also in existence but was dissolved and, in effect, replaced in 2013 by the residential institutions statutory fund, also known as Caranua, which has a wider mandate than the finance board and significantly more funding available to it. That funding derives from a commitment by religious congregations to provide funding of €110 million for additional supports to survivors who have received an award from the redress board, equivalent court awards or settlements. Having been in receipt of such an award is a key criterion for applying for and receiving assistance from Caranua. As regards the funding available, to date almost €102 million of the €110 million has been received, as well as an additional €1.3 million in interest associated with contributions. There is clearly an outstanding balance. The Christian Brothers have written to the Department to say that they expect to provide the balance of the funding by the first quarter of 2019.

Under its founding legislation, Caranua is statutorily independent in carrying out its functions. With regard to the services provided by Caranua, its board is responsible for strategy, policy, governance, oversight and control, with the executive of the body reporting to it. For example, the board is responsible in law for determining what services are approved services. These must fall under the four classes of services set out in section 8 of the 2012 Act. Those classes are: mental health services, health and personal social services, educational services, and housing support services. The board also determines the criteria by reference to which decisions are made on individual applications, but it does not make decisions on them.

In the context of the 2012 Act, the Minister’s role relates to matters such as the appointment of board members, the appointment of the independent appeals officer or officers, the approval of contracts and consultancies, and certain staff matters. The Minister is also responsible for managing the process of receiving contributions from religious congregations and making those contributions available to Caranua via the National Treasury Management Agency.

With regard to applications and expenditure, since Caranua began accepting them in January 2014, it has received in excess of 6,500 applications, and by the end of October it had expended some €78 million on supports for former residents. To date, 5,000 individuals have benefited directly. The supports from Caranua have made a tangible difference to the lives of many people. Some of the case studies both on the website and in the recent annual report are illustrative of this.

The Department is, of course, aware that there is a degree of dissatisfaction with the quality of the service provided by Caranua. We suggest that some of that dissatisfaction should be seen in the context of the fact that Caranua had to be established from scratch from a greenfield site. There was no previous body doing equivalent things. It has to be said there were teething troubles in its formative years. Ultimately, however, while Caranua must speak for itself on these issues as an independent agency, there is strong evidence that it has and is continuing to address the concerns expressed about its operations. For example, following feedback from survivors, the following additional services were introduced: the provision of household goods such as cookers, fridges, floors and home decoration; contributions towards funeral costs; contributions to the cost of reconnecting with family members and home place, from which some 180 people have benefited; and active listening to the stories of survivors.

As regards making an application for support from Caranua, each survivor is assigned an application adviser to assist him or her through the process of applying for services. The length of time it takes to process applications very much depends on the specific needs of the individual survivor, consistent with the person-centred approach taken by Caranua. Caranua has two dedicated call line operators who are the first port of call for those who contact the fund by phone. If a survivor does not get a response and chooses to leave a voicemail, the policy is to call that person back within 24 hours. Three further attempts will be made if the call line operator or adviser does not get through to the survivor on the first attempt.

It is also proper that there should be a right of appeal against Caranua's decisions. That is enshrined in the legislation. That appeals mechanism is independent of Caranua. With regard to the structuring of the appeals mechanism, initially one person served in this position.

When that person stepped down in 2017 two appeals officers were appointed. The Minister made these appointments cognisant that a backlog of 140 appeals cases had built up. In May 2018, one of the two officers stepped down for personal reasons. However, as the matter of the backlog had been addressed, the Minister decided to revert to the original arrangement of one appeals officer. We understand that there are currently 45 appeals cases on hand. We are keeping the matter under close review and should there be a question of a backlog arising again, the Minister will think of appointing a second appeals officer.

Concerns have also been expressed about the length of time taken to conclude appeals. However, to observe due process, the appeals process requires that the views of all parties be sought on the matters under appeal and as a result, inevitably it takes a certain length of time for appeals to be processed.

I would also like to clarify that since mid-2016, applicants to Caranua whose applications are not approved are notified in writing of their right to appeal and how to go about the process of making an appeal. Sample letters are included in the background briefing submitted to the committee, along with a range of statistical information on the appeals. In addition, I would note that since 2016 there has been a sharp downturn in the number of complaints in respect of Caranua. We have provided a graph to illustrate that in the additional material we submitted.

I would like to address a number of policy issues bearing on the recent and future operations and future of Caranua. First, it will be recalled that the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund, RISF, is a cash limited fund. Any cash contributions from the congregations in excess of the €110 million statutorily provided for in the fund are statutorily required to go towards the costs associated with the development of the National Children's Hospital.

Some survivors and advocates for survivors have expressed their view that the cap of €15,000 which the Board of Caranua introduced in 2016, has resulted in an organisation that is not sufficiently responsive to the needs of survivors, or catering for them sufficiently. I must stress that the application of the limit is a decision for Caranua. However, it might be observed that issues relating to the equitable treatment of the cohort of survivors do arise when decisions of this nature are to be made, and the balancing of an equitable spread of assistance across the population of survivors. It might also be observed that Caranua has to strike a balance in the need to engage as flexibly and compassionately with survivors as possible and its obligations as regards its fiduciary obligations and other accountability requirements. While procedures may be seen by some as too bureaucratic, the fact is that it has been necessary for the organisation to respond to the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General in this regard.

By end October, Caranua had expended €87 million of the €110 million in funds. Cognisant of the rate at which the fund was being expended and the applications on hand, Caranua in May 2018 announced a cessation date for new applications, save for extreme hardship cases. Caranua set the date of 1 August for that. Unlike the earlier experience of the Residential Institutions Redress Board, where there was a large spike in the applications when that board announced the cessation date for new applications, this has not happened in the case of Caranua. This is notwithstanding the fact that Caranua engaged in an extensive publicity campaign including advertisements and engagement with survivor groups. Caranua is still engaging with survivors both in respect of applications on hand, of which there remains a significant volume, and in its support and advocacy function which aims to assist survivors in engaging with other State providers of supports.

The objective underpinning the work of Caranua was that it would address the critical needs of former residents. Those needs were identified by former residents themselves in a consultation process undertaken in 2010 as being in areas such as housing, health and related supports. That consultation process informed the drafting of the 2012 Act.

The Department is continuing to engage on the future needs of survivors. While conscious of time, I would like to mention three areas. First, we are undertaking a post hocreview of the various redress schemes under the aegis of the Department, including looking at relevant international experience. The purpose of the review is both to reflect on what has happened over the period we have been providing redress and also thinking about what we have learned and what lessons there may be for the future across the whole of Government where issues of redress arise. Second, we are planning to hold a number of consultation sessions which would serve as a forum for former residents and others with close personal involvement to reflect on their experiences, on the State’s response to redress and the issue of institutional abuse and to make any recommendations they wish to make.

These sessions will be externally facilitated and we propose to shortly issue a request for tender for the services of a facilitator, who will assist in the process of planning and scoping the sessions. Let me stress that the sessions will be independently facilitated and will be independent of the Department. We are conscious that survivors want the sessions to be delivered by survivors for survivors.

Third, we have convened an interdepartmental committee recently to examine how existing mainstream State services can best meet the needs of survivors into the future. The committee met for the first time on 5 November and will meet again in December. We are compiling an inventory of all of the various State services and supports that may be of relevance to survivors and also look at issues such as signposting, and whether the services are sufficiently attuned and how survivors can best be directed to the services and benefit from them.

I thank the committee for its attention and that concludes my statement.