Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Chairman, in the event I have to leave the committee, it is because I must move some amendments on the Greyhound Racing Bill 2018 but I will return and look at the responses.

I thank the witness for the presentation. Let me respond to the point made about teething problems, things not working out and changes made. It is very hard for me to hear Mr. Costello refer to the downturn in complaints when the experience of our offices dealing with and offering supports to survivors paints a very different picture. I wonder why there is a downturn in the number of complaints. Perhaps people are fed up waiting between 18 months to two years in some cases trying to get white goods for their kitchen. They probably have given up and some may have passed away. We do not know the reason for the downturn. It does not necessarily mean it is positive. When I hear of the concept of a person-centred approach, I think of a man who not only has a social worker advocating for him, he also has me stepping in trying to advocate for him and, after years of going through this process, the most he has managed to get is a skip. He has not been able to get simple white goods for his kitchen because when he goes to PowerCity, he is told he cannot get them because of the need to pay through bank transfer or cheque. Then he is sent somewhere else. After all the years, he still cannot get simple white goods for his kitchen. That is not a person-centred approach. I would not put myself through that degrading treatment - of having to beg for a washing machine or a cooker. That is what it feels like when one has to keep coming back with more information. I do not believe this is a person-centred service.

I have a number of questions that are focused on the Department's role and I welcome the consultation with survivors. That will be extremely important. It would be great if the Department were to keep the committee updated on the process and if we on the committee can support that process in any shape or form. We need to ask for an independent investigation into the operations of Caranua and its treatment of survivors, whether that feeds into the process of consultation or whether there is an independent investigation into the operation of the scheme. What is really crucial is that we look at the role of the current chairman and chief executive. While there is a consultation process and there are still applications that have not been met, maybe we need to bring in an independent chairperson. I know it has been said that Caranua is independent, but it would help if the Department were to find an independent chairperson and independent acting CEO while we are trying to process some of the applications that are getting lost in the ether.

On the Department's role, in what way is the Department supervising Caranua, particularly given the widespread reports of poor treatment of survivors? How would it describe Caranua's performance over the past four years, particularly bearing in mind the objective of the fund, which is to help with the recovery of survivors? What measures did Caranua use to come up with its 90% performance rate? We are accepting this 90% but nobody really knows what the measurement was and no one has seen a report. I know the past board members were not part of any sort of survey or report that came up with that 90% rate of satisfactory performance.

Caranua committed to a review of the impact of the 2016 changes to services, including the impact of the introduction of the limit of €15,000 by June 2017. Has that review been carried out? What were its conclusions? There is also evidence that the imposition of a cap has had devastating consequences for the applicants with the greatest need. Does the Department wish to comment on that? In giving evidence to both the Committee of Public Accounts and the Joint Committee on Education and Skills, Caranua committed to improvements in communication. These improvements included reaching out to applicants where they lived and the provision of interview facilities at the new premises. Of concern to the committee is whether Caranua has successfully reached out to the most vulnerable such as those in hospitals, in prisons, or on the streets, which it said it would do in past meetings, as there is no evidence of this so far.

The residential institutions redress unit, RIRU, is the unit tasked with providing support to Caranua in redress issues generally. The RIRU is reported to be in the process of winding down its operations with a view to closure in the very near future. Given Caranua's imminent closure, is this the best time to close the RIRU? Might it be better for this team to remain to ensure that any post-Caranua measures are embedded and to help ensure that Caranua's closure is achieved with the minimum of disruption to survivors?