Catherine Martin (Dublin Rathdown, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses very much for coming in today. I was struck by something in Mr. Costello's opening statement which said "The Department is, of course, aware that there is a degree of dissatisfaction with the quality of the service provided by Caranua." There is much more than a degree of dissatisfaction. It was said in a meeting of this committee earlier this year, and I will repeat it, that the State has failed. Worse still, it continues to fail and that is to our shame as a State. Before I ask my questions, I commend and refer to all of those who have advocated and who continue to advocate so courageously for the survivors. They have never given up and they have been so resilient against all the odds. What has been done by the survivors for the survivors has been incredible.

My questions centre around the issue of the appeal process. What are the Department's concerns regarding the very different number of appeals granted by the former appeals officers, of which only 8% were successful, and granted by the two appeals officers appointed in April 2017? Under these officers 43% of appeals were successful. How have the officials satisfied themselves that the former appeals officer was not overly harsh, looking at the difference in those statistics? How does the Department explain the very low number of appeals submitted by applicants to the fund? There were 399 over three years. Is the number low because of Caranua's failure to tell applicants they could appeal, which is again a symptom of poor communication? Considering the very high number of appeals won by applicants since 2017, how has the Department ensured that Caranua's refusals are fair and in line with the Act, particularly as we have reports of this not being the case?

Similarly there have been allegations of abuse of the appeals process on the part of Caranua, for example the introduction of new reasons for refusal once the appeals process has commenced and refusals on grounds not contained in the Act or in the criteria. Is the Department aware of these allegations? If yes, what has it done to look into them? Has the Department ever seen a list of the reasons given by Caranua in the determination letters or further reasons for refusal only being given after the appeals process commenced? If the Department has not seen the letters, perhaps it would like to ask to do so and to consider that information.

We have also heard of several applications for services made in 2015 by applicants who have serious disabilities, who urgently need help, and who are still waiting. In these cases we believe Caranua initially refused to issue a determination letter and then only agreed to issue the letter 12 months later, after investigation by the appeals officer. The applicants were then refused the services. The applicants successfully appealed in 2017, having waited 18 months for the appeal decision, or still have not been provided with the service. Is the Department aware of these particular applications? Does it have any information on them? Is that the case?

I believe some applicants who were recently interviewed on radio are now considering legal action. It is estimated that the cost of these cases could exceed €500,000 and that this money might well come out of the fund. Has the Department received reports of this? If the cost was to come out of the fund, at what stage would the Department step in to prevent the fund suffering such losses? What does the Department think of such cases and what do they tell us about the operation of the fund by Caranua? What can we, as a committee, and the Department do to improve matters for survivors in the time the fund has left? The service really has failed to provide survivors with a service.