Fiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The purpose of this part of the meeting is to engage with officials from the Department of Education and Skills in respect of the operation of Caranua, the State agency under the aegis of the Department which is responsible for the administration of the residential institutions statutory fund. On behalf of the committee I welcome Mr. Ned Costello, assistant secretary general, Ms Catherine Hynes, principal officer, and Mr. Aongus Ó hAonghusa, assistant principal officer. The format of this part of the meeting is that I will invite our stakeholders to make a brief opening statement of no more than three minutes' duration, which will be followed by engagement with members of the committee.

Before we begin, I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the Chair to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Any opening statements made to the committee will be published on the committee website after the meeting. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

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.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Costello. I call Senator Ruane.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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?

Catherine Martin (Dublin Rathdown, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the witnesses for coming in. I want to start, if I may, with a quote from Tom Cronin, who appeared before the committee just a few months ago. He is a former board member of Caranua. It is important to remember the people we are talking about here and what they have gone through. Mr. Cronin said:

What happened to us as children was a shame on the nation but what has been done to us since is a greater shame. As a survivor, I have experienced the anger, hurt, despair and frustration of engaging with the redress commission and other State-established resources. As a survivor advocate for more than 20 years and a former board member of Caranua, I have personally witnessed many survivors experiencing the same. These schemes and the State’s response to our past have failed on an ongoing fashion for one reason, namely, they never listened to survivor needs.

As one can hear from that quote, the testimony of Mr. Cronin on that day was absolutely powerful, as was that of Dr. Mary Lodato. I suspect we have unanimity across all parties here because all parties have received representations telling us of appalling experiences at the hands of Caranua. Only this morning I heard that someone who physically handed in an application received a dressing-down; "How dare you come down to our offices". How can anyone imagine that is an appropriate response? This happened in the last month, by the way, to someone who suffered abuse. What kind of culture is there in the organisation Caranua that makes it okay to act like that? It is absolutely shocking. I appeal to the Department because we have to work together. We are not here to give it a hard time. We just need to make sure that Mr. Cronin's request is followed up on and that survivors are listened to. We have to recognise that.

I echo my colleague, Senator Ruane's call for an independent investigation. We need that because we are unable to produce a report. We are told that we cannot produce a report as a committee because of conflicting evidence. We cannot leave it as it is so we have to have an independent investigation. Otherwise, we have failed to listen again. I do not believe any of us, including the witnesses, would want to leave it in that position. I call for an independent investigation. I also call for a new management structure to be put in place as a matter of urgency to make sure that things improve from here on in.

I have a couple of questions. I am going to rattle through them. I am conscious that the Department's representatives have a lot of questions to answer here today so I will briefly get through as many as I can and then hand over to our colleagues. My questions are around the processing of applications. I am sure the Department will agree that Caranua's primary role is to accept and process applications, applying the criteria to each case, and to either pay for the service or to give the applicant a written determination letter giving the reason for refusal. What can the Department tell us about the 2016 appeal officer's investigation of Caranua and its refusal to process applications?

We believe that at the time Caranua put these breaches down to an "oversight" on its part.

What has been the Department's reaction each year to the "serious concerns" raised in each of the appeal officer's annual reports published in 2016, 2017 and October 2018? Caranua still refuses to process applications, fails to issue written determinations and fails to give information about the right of appeal. Last month, the Taoiseach said he wanted evidence of this, and we assume he has been directed to these reports. I am somewhat concerned by what Mr. Costello said in his opening statement about people now receiving written determinations, because that is not what the appeals officer told us in the report he produced last month in which he said there continue to be cases on this issue. I do not understand, therefore, how the Department included that line when the appeals officer's report told us that is not the case.

The evidence from the appeals officer and the other reports demonstrate these failings are widespread and affect hundreds, if not thousands, of applicants. How has the Department responded to the reports of this? Given these practices have been ongoing for four years, in the Department's estimation how many applicants may not have had their applications properly determined and thus denied a right of appeal? It is important to know that and, in fairness, if we do not know, that again tells us why we need this independent investigation. Under the Act which concerns Caranua, the Minister has power to direct it and, while it would be improper for him to give directions in respect of an individual case, it would be appropriate for him to issue a direction to Caranua to compel it to act in accordance with the Act and to stop the unlawful policy of delaying or refusing to process and determine applications. In the context of these widespread abuses, why did the Minister not direct Caranua to act in accordance with the statute at any point in the past three years?

Fiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, the Senator may not ask public servants to answer for the Minister.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Chair is right and I apologise. It is a fair point and I withdraw that question.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator also may not use the term "unlawful".

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that. Many applicants to the fund will not have read the Act or the appeals officer's report. They will not know, therefore, that their application was denied unfairly. How does the Department ensure that survivors who are illiterate, who have only limited literacy or who are in institutional care receive the service to which they are entitled, given these breaches which have been ongoing for four years?

I am conscious there have been many questions. I thank the witnesses for their patience and I will finish with this. We understand a request was made to Caranua and the appeals officer for information to be made available to applicants of agencies that may be able to help them, such as Free Legal Advice Centres, Citizens Information or One in Four. It appears, however, that Caranua refused to do this, which is shocking. What is the Department's view of Caranua's refusal to make that information available?

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses. I begin by responding to some of Mr. Costello's points. I note the Department acknowledges the problems, which is important, and my colleagues have asked a number of specific questions about the problems. Mr. Costello said there was a commitment to call people back within 24 hours and subsequently to repeat the phone calls. Does that actually happen? I was told the freephone operates only on landlines but most people nowadays operate through mobile phones. Will people be called back on their mobile phones if that is their preferred form of contact? Most people are not there to take a call on their landline.

Will Mr. Costello clarify what he said about people being notified in writing of their right of appeal? I think he said this was the practice since a date this year. Many of the complaints we received were from people who did not know they had a right of appeal. Will that practice apply to historical cases or is it only for current cases that have been turned down? People who had previously been turned down should certainly be notified of their right to appeal because many of them may not know about it.

I accept Mr. Costello said the limit of €15,000 was Caranua's decision rather than the Department's, but as people get older and more disabled, they may need an extension to their house that will cost more than €15,000. There are specific cases around that. Mr. Costello and Caranua have both stated that, given the reduction in the level of applications, Caranua can concentrate in its strategic plan on improving the quality and impact of its interaction with survivors. What evidence is there of that? There are probably people in the system who need more than the €15,000 limit.

On the problems people have in getting what they looking for, such as the white goods that Senator Ruane mentioned, people are being asked for several quotes. It is not only about the price and description of the work but also the materials to be used. I do not know how much guidance the Department can give but if one applies for any kind of grant with a local authority, one must get quotes but there is no need for that level of detail. Is it the case that there are preferred suppliers which are chosen by Caranua? That does not seem to be the norm under procurement rules. These are some of the difficulties people have in getting what they need.

The forms, in general, are difficult. Senator Gavan raised the issue of limited literacy, which leads some people to have difficulty with the forms. The independent appeals officer said the applications process is extremely complex. Is help with these complex forms available?

Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To avoid repetition, I will confine my contribution to questions. On issues with governance and management, from reading the board's minutes it appears to focus more on governance than trying to improve the services. Will Mr. Costello comment on that? How does the Department ensure the Caranua board achieves the correct balance between governance and the fund's objectives? On the face of it, based on the minutes and discussions with survivors, the board does not appear to consider greatly the needs of survivors. Does it work effectively? How did the Department react to the concerns raised by two survivors who resigned from the board earlier this year over treatment by the other, non-survivor board?

There has been much negative feedback on Caranua's treatment of survivors. How did the Department react to those reports? What steps were taken to improve the service delivery? Caranua published a report on feedback earlier this year which claimed that 90% of the feedback was positive. Judging by recent Dáil debates and comments in this room, one would have to question that claim.

Will the Department comment on findings of an independent survey carried out in 2017 which showed a different picture? Some 68% of survivors rated their experience with an adviser as either terrible or bad, some 61% rated their experience as extremely negative, while 21% rated their experience as negative. Will the Department comment on those results from an independent survey?

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief because nearly everything has been covered. Senator Gavan has done much work on this matter on behalf of our party. It is hard to find the words to describe the history of these people. They have been badly failed by the State, first in these institutions and then in this process. It is as though Caranua's attitude is that people do not deserve this money, not least as there is a cap which it sets. Money is not unlimited but surely the amount should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

People have varying and different needs and the fact that there is a single cap shows that there has been a very begrudging attitude from the start.

I want to make a few brief points on appeals. I have had conversations with people in Caranua who said there was no appeals process. As such, there are huge questions to be asked about the fact that Caranua is now writing out to people to say there is one. I have dealt with a great many people who have been told there was no appeals process and had follow-up conversations with people in Caranua in which it was confirmed that there is no appeals system. I would like to know a bit more about that. As to its closure, although I do not think Caranua is fit for purpose and it is not doing a good job, what will happen to those who have slipped through the cracks and not applied for funding? People may have been abroad or otherwise unaware of Caranua. What will happen to them and who will decide issues of hardship or exceptional circumstances? People do not seem now to be able to get the very basic things they are looking for. What makes anyone believe Caranua will grant anything or deem there to be hardship or exceptional circumstances?

I refer to supports going forward. I welcome the consultation which is a great idea. However, one of the supports mentioned was the HSE's national counselling service which is completely overstretched as it is. People who are literally suicidal cannot access that service. One is looking here at a very vulnerable group of people and there is no way they will be able to get access to the HSE service. If Caranua is winding down, I suggest as part of the consultation that a specific counselling service is made available free of charge through some system. Directing people to a national HSE counselling service which is completely overstretched and which will not be able to meet demand is not recommended. I see there is a division in the Dáil.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will add a comment myself before I have to suspend for voting. I am sorry about that. While I accept that there will be a post hocreview on redress schemes in general, I agree with my colleagues here that there should be an independent investigation into the operation and management of Caranua. That should be commissioned and carried out by the Department. I would be interested to know if there is scope for such a review and, if so, what the likely timeframe would be.

The survivors in question have been in very vulnerable situations and they have been let down and failed. I anticipate certainly that when Caranua is wound up, extra supports will be needed for them. Can the witnesses indicate what supports will be put in place? There was €18 million available in the investment account by the end of September 2018. That is a great deal of money to have in the account while there has been a hold-up in making payments to survivors. Is that kept there because of the backlog or is there another specific reason?

The cap of €15,000 seems quite low. Caranua says the decision came from survivors but there was no consultation with them. I accept that it was Caranua that set the cap not the Department but the witnesses might give us a sense of why that might be. I ask the witnesses to excuse the suspension for voting. As soon as we come back, we will carry on.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for having to suspend the meeting but, as Dáil members, we were under an obligation to vote. All of the members had an opportunity to put their questions to the Department officials and I propose that we start with Mr. Costello.

Mr. Ned Costello:

I shall answer the questions thematically because there are many common threads in the themes.

I will first deal with question about the failure of State. There is no question that State failed all of those who were incarcerated in residential institutions. That has been made abundantly clear in the Ryan report, which does make for harrowing reading. The Taoiseach did apologise, on behalf of the State, to all survivors of institutions. That was clearly significant. There can be no question that the State failed and that has been fully acknowledged. It was partly on foot of that that the Residential Institutions Redress Board was established and the payments of approximately €1.2 billion of redress payments made to survivors; approximately 15,000 survivors received a payment from that board. The Caranua funding is in addition to the redress payments that were made.

I mentioned in my opening statement that the fund is finite and statutorily limited. That is significant because a significant amount of the tensions that arise derive from the fact that the fund is limited. I will talk about some of the issues that have been raised because a lot of them centre around the €15,000 limit. If one were to consider the population of survivors, and if this matter had been approached in a different way and a flat payment had been given to every survivor who already got an award from the redress board, that would have involved a payment of approximately €7,000 per survivor. It was not done that way. The initial approach was to have an entirely openended fund that was entirely needs based. There is an inevitable tension between that kind of an approach, a limited fund and a population of survivors who have received their redress payments already but might need further assistance from the fund. Again, I must stress that these decisions are statutorily independent by Caranua. That did result in, as one would understand, concerns about proportionality. That is the reasoning that underpins the €15,000 limit. The organisation would have been conscious of the fact that there were cohorts of survivors who had not been reached to date, in the context of the balance of the fund remaining and the need to take as equitable an approach as possible. It is clear that there are different views on that aspect.

I might touch on the issue of legal cases that was raised. Yes, the Department is aware that there is a legal challenge. It is complicated and I would possibly confuse things with the detail. Essentially, the legal challenge relates to the €15,000 limit and the application of the €15,000 limit. We have to see where the legal challenge goes.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the challenge is not concluded I will not allow any further comment on the matter.

Mr. Ned Costello:

I thank the Chairman.

There is a balance, as we would understand it, that the organisation is trying to seek between a needs-based approach and the fact that it has a limited fund and is trying to get to as many survivors as possible who may have a need. This matter is addressed in the most recent annual report produced by the organisation. There is a specific focus on trying to get to survivors who have not benefited from the fund so far. Many of the organisation's outreach efforts are being directed in that regard. Before the cessation date, it picked up a number of survivors that it had not reached.

I shall talk about some aspects of people who are waiting a long time. That issue is somewhat contextualised by the fact that it is not a one-shot application process. A number of clients of Caranua have made a number of applications and, therefore, may still have applications in process. That situation is reflected in the statistics. The latest statistics to the end of October show that Caranua had received 6,526 applications and of those 5,936 were deemed to be eligible but Caranua also has 2,365 open applications. There is still quite a volume of applications that are open. That does not mean that a client has not already received a payment from Caranua because he or she could have a second, third or fourth application submitted. There are quite a number of applications that still require to be worked through. That situation raises the question of why would money be held back, which the Chairman asked. It is because Caranua needs to ensure that it has adequate funds to cater for the applications that it has on hand. It is also why Caranua instituted a closing date for applications because it did not want to take applications and run up a bill that it would not be able to discharge subsequently.

Some questions were raised about the making of applications in terms of literacy issues and so on. That is why Caranua operates with application adviser support. That means that when a person makes an application he or she is assigned an adviser. It is not simply a paper-based process and there is a person to assist them.

Again, without exceeding the role of the Department and commenting in detail about the operations of Caranua, the operations of Caranua are funded by the fund. There is always a balance to be struck between the amount one spends on operations and the amount one spends on payments to individuals.

That is a balance that the organisation and its board have to strike.

In terms of the general area of applications and the process, some questions were raised about the preferred supplier issue, quotations, etc. On the preferred supplier piece, Caranua did pilot two projects in 2014-2015 with the Clúid Housing Association and then with the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI. The projects were piloted based on feedback given by survivors on the difficulties in sourcing appropriate suppliers to provide quotes. However, the organisation found that fewer than 100 survivors participated in both of the schemes. The schemes were an attempt to assist but there was not a great uptake and, therefore, they have not been pursued.

As regards applying quotes, survivors are asked to provide quotes as follows: Where the cost of the work is less than €1,000 only one quote is asked for; where the cost of the work is between €1,000 and €5,000 then two quotes are required; and above that three quotes are required. A proportionate balance has been struck between the cost of the works and the quotations being sought. I commented on this matter in my opening statement.

The issues of regulatory impropriety and so on have been raised in terms of Caranua. The organisation has to have regard for that. It is understood that this is a vulnerable population of people and a balance must be struck. Clearly, if there is an entirely laissez-faireapproach to that type of issue then it raises the question of that process not being respected, which creates other issues.

On the question of customer satisfaction, a number of specific issues have been raised about specific applications. We cannot comment on them as Caranua is a statutorily independent body. Inevitably, as a result we would not have the information.

In terms of respect for the independence of the body, it would be inappropriate for us to query specific applications. However, Members of the Oireachtas can contact Caranua and there is a dedicated Oireachtas email address. I know that the body will be very happy to pursue any specific instances that Deputies wish to raise with it and to take those up.

We are aware of the survey that was mentioned. It was a survey of a relatively small number of applicants out of the 6,500. Caranua's statistics are somewhat more broadly based but are not comprehensive. There is a question of customer satisfaction surveying. Again, there is a question of balancing how much one spends on such work. A survey costs money versus providing the supports for survivors.

My colleague, Ms Hynes, will comment on the questions on appeals.

Ms Catherine Hynes:

When we realised that a backlog was building up on the number of appeals outstanding we decided that the best course of action would be for the Minister to appoint two appeals officers. In May 2017, two appeals officers were appointed. In May 2018, two appeals officers were offered reappointment. One person accepted the offer and the other person could not because of personal reasons but at that stage the appeals backlog had been eliminated. Our statistics at the moment show that there are 45 appeals of which eight have arrived in the past week. The Department provides administrative support to the appeals officer which is why we can monitor and keep a close eye on the situation. If the appeals backlog starts to build up again then remediation measures will be taken.

The appeals process is not straightforward. Let us say a person lodges an appeal. Caranua has the right to respond on the basis of that appeal. We know of one particular case where the applicant was written to over a year ago but the appeals process has not been concluded yet on the basis that information is being sought. We also know that when all of the paperwork has been completed and the appeals officer gets the completed file that his decision, on average, has taken just five weeks to conclude. Unfortunately, because of the backlog and legacy issues, the statistics skew the length of time people must wait to hear the determination of an appeal. We are very conscious that the population of the people out there have particular needs and are an aging population. What no process wants to do is cause further distress.

Mr. Costello mentioned the issue of applicants being assigned to an application adviser. That is the way Caranua operates. When Caranua receives an application and an application adviser is available then the applicant will be assigned to a particular individual who will take over the case.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan mentioned phone calls. We have been assured that whatever phone number the person chooses to use is the one that Caranua will use to communicate with the person. The volume of phone calls is such that the preferred method of communication is by phone. Again, returning to the literacy issues that people have mentioned, there is a realisation that for people with literacy issues their preferred method of communication is the phone.

When Caranua was established it was designed in order that it would complement not replace State services. In terms of an aging population and the mainstream services such as housing assistance and whatever, our job in setting up the interdepartmental committee is to consider how mainstream services can support people as they age and whether existing services, such as the adaptation of bathrooms, for example, are sufficient to enable survivors to continue to live in their own homes for as long as they wish.

The staff of Caranua have continually offered us, as the Department, the opportunity to sit in and listen to how they deal with people. Indeed, an invitation has been extended to Members of the Oireachtas; if they want to visit Caranua and see how staff deal with survivors, on an individual basis, then they would be more than welcome to do so. Obviously the arrangements would have to be cleared with survivors beforehand.

Again, because we have no access to and cannot access the personal data that is held on individuals, if there are instances, which Senator Gavan has mentioned, where an individual was treated ignorantly by Caranua staff at their premises then I ask the member to raise the matter directly with Caranua. I am sure that Caranua would be very anxious to correct any mistreatment of people.

Mr. Ned Costello:

A question was raised about the future of the residential institutions redress unit. The so-called RIRU is a unit within my division in the Department that deals with anything concerning institutional abuse or other cases of abuse, for example, in day schools, which arose in the past. Obviously due to the structure of the Department there are political decisions involved. There are no plans to close down the residential institutions redress unit, to the contrary. We have a large work programme, an interdepartmental committee, the post hoc review and continued oversight of Caranua, which are all major issues. We also have the Retention of Records Bill, for which we were before the committee for pre-legislative scrutiny. We hope to bring the legislation forward in the course of next year. We will actively consider the question of memorialisation, which is of concern.

As members of the committee will be aware, a memorial was planned a number of years ago for the Garden of Remembrance but it did not get planning permission. Coming up to the anniversary of the Ryan report, there is still very much a live issue around how we commemorate, memorialise and mark what was a very sad period in Irish history. They are all activities on which we will be focusing in the coming year.

On the question around the board of Caranua, investigations are, ultimately, political decisions but we expect that the Minister will shortly fill the two vacancies on the board of Caranua with survivors.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If anybody wants clarification on what Mr. Costello or Ms Hynes said, I will be happy to allow it.

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I had asked a question about the fact that people were told there was no appeals process. What is the situation and where can people go from here?

Mr. Ned Costello:

I apologise for not responding. The appeals process is statutory and provided for in the Act so there are appeals officers. As I said earlier, there was a period, historically, when people were not sufficiently made aware of their right to appeal and this was reflected in the reports of the appeals officers, to which reference was made. That was corrected from mid-2016 and people are now informed in writing. We have provided sample letters to the committee showing the correspondence people receive in the supplementary information we provide. That piece of bad practice has been corrected.

Senator Ruane asked about the volume of complaints. We have attempted to make it clear that we are aware of a significant focus on the part of Caranua, since around the middle of 2016, on customer service issues. There may be other interpretations but we believe there is a correlation between the fact that people are less dissatisfied now than they were in the earlier period of Caranua's operations. The current acting chief executive, whom we meet regularly as part of our governance supervisory role, is absolutely dedicated to customer service. I believe improvements are being seen but there is a legacy period when there were teething or establishment troubles while the organisation was getting off the ground and finding its feet while trying to develop processes on a greenfield site. There continue to be repercussions for people from that period, which we have heard about today.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the witnesses have had many questions to answer but I still do not understand why the statement says 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 this, when the appeals officer himself, in the report published just one month ago, says "we continue to experience cases on this issue". There is a fairly fundamental difference from the appeals officer. I would like clarification on that.

Mr. Costello spoke about customer service and the passion of the CEO but it was the CEO who ran the applicant from the building three weeks ago. I am saying this because there is a huge contradiction here, which is why all of us are asking for an investigation.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is hearsay and we cannot comment on somebody who is not here to defend themselves. I am going to disallow that particular question.

Catherine Martin (Dublin Rathdown, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want clarification on a matter. It was said that the Department had no details on the survey that showed 90% positive feedback and that we had to contact Caranua for it.

Mr. Ned Costello:

No. I said the number of responses to the survey was around 300 in an average year and that it is clearly not a census; it is a survey. I said that, because of the operational independence of Caranua from the Department and client confidentiality issues, the Department cannot pursue individual cases relating to Caranua's decisions but Members of the Oireachtas can pursue any of the cases directly with Caranua.

Catherine Martin (Dublin Rathdown, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It strikes us as quite unusual that there was 90% positive feedback, considering the fact that this is not what we hear. Has it not struck the Department as a little bit strange? The Department has a role in oversight and accountability in matters relating to governance.

Ms Catherine Hynes:

This is the feedback Caranua gets from its client base. Of the feedback it receives, 90% is positive. It looks for feedback on its website and publishes statistics on that feedback.

Mr. Ned Costello:

This is the point I am making. It is not a population survey. There is a frequency, volume and amplitude issue in this, however. There may be people who are extremely dissatisfied but a large body of people who are generally satisfied. That may explain an apparent disjunction.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is something we need to delve into a bit more.

Catherine Martin (Dublin Rathdown, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the freefone number available from a landline and is it free from the UK? I believe 40% of the survivors are in the UK. Is it free from a mobile or just from a landline?

Mr. Ned Costello:

We will check and come back to the Deputy on that.

Catherine Martin (Dublin Rathdown, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is something we need to establish.

Mr. Ned Costello:

In response to Senator Gavan's question, our belief is that it refers to the legacy period. This is because, in addition to the fact that we have the documentation, which I have supplied to the committee, Caranua asked people to come back and let it know of any individual instance where somebody did not receive the information. It has not had anybody come back on that. I am not sure if it was Members of the Oireachtas it asked.

Ms Catherine Hynes:

No. It was advocacy groups.

Mr. Ned Costello:

It was advocacy groups, not Members of the Oireachtas. Caranua is in regular contact with advocacy groups and it asked for those groups to bring forward any cases where somebody had not received the information.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does that include the UK?

Mr. Ned Costello:

Yes.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The number of applicants there is very-----

Fiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Senator to put his questions through the Chair.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The number of applications from Britain is particularly low and this is another indication that Caranua has not succeeded in reaching out to victims over there. There is so much evidence that Caranua is not fit for function. I understand-----

Fiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I reminded the Senator before we started, he cannot make comments like that about an organisation that is not here to defend itself.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I kind of have to.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator cannot.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hear what the Chairman is saying. Someone has to say it.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have had a very interactive session. While not all members will be happy with some of the responses, there is a great deal of food for thought in what has been said. This does not end here for any of us. There is an onus and duty on all members of the committee to think about what has been submitted in writing or stated to us. As a committee, we will consider how we want to progress this but a likely recommendation will involve the commissioning of an independent investigation. We have heard that from a number of members. At a future stage, we will have the opportunity to set out what we would like that independent investigation to cover. A number of members queried whether the Department was of the view that a review would happen but the committee did not necessarily get a response to the effect that it would. It will therefore be incumbent on the committee to make a recommendation to the Minister in that regard.

This is a sensitive and delicate matter and we are very conscious that we are representing thousands of people. By the end of 2017, almost 5,500 people had come forward. There is no doubt that far more people than that are affected. The committee wants all survivors to be dealt with in a very understanding, compassionate and practical way having regard to their needs. Bearing in mind that a great many survivors emigrated to England, there is a particular need to make contact with the population overseas. We appreciate the attendance of Mr. Costello, Ms Hynes and Mr. Ó hAonghusa. We will come back to this matter again. Mr. Costello wishes to make a point of clarification.

Mr. Ned Costello:

I apologise. I may not have made matters sufficiently clear having regard to what the Chairman has just said. One of the things we will be doing in our consultation process with survivors is asking them for their views and feedback on both Caranua and the redress schemes generally. As such, we are going to garner feedback on the feelings of survivors on that issue.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Costello. The consultation is absolutely vital and we appreciate that. We ask that consultation is as full and whole as possible and that it involves all individuals who contacted Caranua, not just a cohort with whom it is easy to engage. Everyone should be consulted. That concludes this part of the agenda. I propose that the committee defers consideration of the private housekeeping matters to next Tuesday. Is that agreed?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Unless it is inconvenient for members, I would like the private session to take place now. If it is not convenient, I will not insist.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A number of members have indicated difficulties.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine. I would like the issue we have just discussed to be included on the private session agenda.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It will be, absolutely. Is the proposal to defer matters to next Tuesday agreed? Agreed.