Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

recognises:— that the statutory body Caranua has, to date, failed a large number of applicants in providing adequate access to the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund;

— the high number of complaints and reports of dissatisfaction and negative experiences from applicants to that fund;

— the poor delivery of service and information to survivors based in the United Kingdom;

— the poor delivery of service and information to survivors in the deaf community in the State;

— that inadequate strategic planning, lengthy delays in the application process and poor communication practices have severely impacted on the experience of survivors accessing the fund;

— that there has been an unacceptable level of turnover in staff personnel;

— that there have been a number of serious and unacceptable breaches of the legislation relating to the fund;

— that the failure of previous Ministers for Education and Skills to carry out an undertaking to review the operation of the fund two years after its establishment has added extra pain to survivors; and

— that there has been no operating board since March 2017; and calls on the Minister for Education and Skills to:— initiate a review of operations without further delay, to be concluded within a three month timeframe, and to consider the following recommendations:

- review of the eligibility criteria;

- review and expand the range of services available to applicants;

- review the inclusion of section 43 of the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Act 2012 to set up a special account in the name of the Minister for Health;

- streamline the application process giving clear timescales for processing and communicating decisions; and

- provide face to face appointments with applicants who wish to avail of them in order to breakdown communications barriers and reconcile with survivors who have had a negative experience during the application process;

— open up negotiations between the Office of Public Works and the Department of Education and Skills to provide office facilities for the day-to-day functions of Caranua, with no cost to be incurred by the survivors' fund;

— draw up a new survivor-led customer charter to be adhered to, without exception, by all Caranua staff; and

— establish and clarify a system of appropriate oversight for the operations of Caranua and to provide immediate and appropriate oversight in the current absence of a sitting board.

I very much welcome the visitors in the Gallery. This is a straightforward motion which arose organically from the upset, heartbreak and anger that survivors and survivors' groups brought to our attention following their interaction with Caranua. That the Fianna Fáil Party proposes to undermine the importance and impact of the motion by tabling an amendment that upholds the status quo is disingenuous to say the least. I ask Fianna Fáil not to proceed with the amendment and instead stand in solidarity with survivors who are, to a person, asking for our support in dealing with an organisation that is simply not fit for purpose.

By way of background, Caranua was established in 2013 pursuant to the 2012 Act with a specific purpose for a specific period, namely, to disburse €110 million provided by a number of religious organisations for those who qualified for payments. Applicants were required to provide simple proof that they had been to the redress board or received a court award or settlement and show they were in need. The service provided by Caranua was intended to be straightforward and effective, with minimum bureaucracy. In the words of its chief executive officer, its purpose "was, and is, to put survivors at the heart of everything that we did". She continued, "Our application process is values-based, needs-led and person-centred." Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. This is a classic example in the 21st century of an institution becoming more important than the people it is meant to serve. Survivors have confirmed that Caranua's mode of service delivery has added to the abuse they have experienced.

The inaugural meeting of the Caranua board, which took place on 27 March 2013, was attended by a CEO-designate and the then Minister for Education and Skills. The Minister committed to holding a review of Caranua within two years of its establishment. Since then, we have had two more Ministers for Education and Skills and a review has still not been carried out of an organisation that has lurched from crisis to crisis.

Among the issues identified at the inaugural meeting was the need for smooth and uncomplicated access to the fund. The first chairwoman of Caranua expressed a desire to have the fund depleted and spent within the four-year term of the board. She also asked that a common-sense approach be taken. At that point, the well-respected Institute of Public Administration made a presentation on governance, authority, decision-making and accountability. The institute was never heard from or invited back again when Caranua opted to take the route of becoming a private company, an issue to which I will return.

The new board had nine months to get its house in order. However, during that time a number of members resigned. The chairwoman tendered her resignation towards the end of 2013 and two survivors also left. This, in itself, should have raised alarm bells, even if the individuals in question ostensibly left for health reasons.

It is worth highlighting that the first chairwoman of the board placed a premium on good governance, openness, accountability and a transparent decision-making process.

At the meeting of 9 July 2013, she stressed the importance of any action outlined in the policy being capable of implementation and that the rule of "what a reasonable person would think and do" would be followed. The board and the CEO have gone so far from that common rule that it is unbelievable. After the situation worsened that year and the next, we had the most serious breach of legislation. An apology was given after the Department made a complaint. Significantly, that apology was only given by a majority of the board.

In 2013, an insidious process of paying private companies out of the limited available funding began. The second chairperson took up his position in March 2014 and had no hesitation in telling the Committee of Public Accounts that the organisation was a shambles. Unfortunately, the shambles continued, worsened and intensified under his watch. Ironically, this happened at the same time that a communications and engagement person was employed.

Applications began arriving in January. This organisation, which had nine months to prepare, was overwhelmed by just 2,134 applications even though it knew from the start that the potential number of people would be 15,500. It is also worth highlighting that no appeals officer was appointed until March.

There were delays and complaints throughout 2014 and more private companies were paid out of the fund. Imagine a private company being paid for a corporate brand. Imagine employing companies to tell Caranua about governance and financial issues, case management and staff recruitment, to conduct an external review and to run a bonding exercise for staff in Carlingford at a cost of €1,967.

We have minutes that, to say the least, do not inspire confidence in their being a true reflection of decisions and discussions. The Minister might check an example - two sets of minutes for 22 April 2016 say different things. There are no minutes at all for 17 September 2015. In November of that year, a reference to a July meeting was seconded by a board member who was not even at the meeting. The minutes of 18 February 2016 were seconded on the very day that the meeting took place. To add to the mystery and confusion, there is a reference in those minutes to a special meeting on 17 December 2015, but there are no minutes of same because we were told on inquiring that it was a workshop.

Throughout the various meetings were constant references to the high rate of expenditure. Those references would be welcome if the expenditure in question was on the bonding exercises and private companies, but no. They were references to the payout to the survivors who were coming forward. The board was worried about the level of payout. It was also worried about the stress that staff were experiencing because of the rate of phone calls, the very reason for Caranua's establishment. Then there was the discussion on whether there would be money left to give to the children's hospital.

A board member distanced himself repeatedly from appallingly punitive language in documents. He has allowed me to say that, even though he reapplied to be on the board, he has not been accepted. It is significant that, throughout the minutes, he stood with a number of other survivors in attempting to say that what was happening was wrong.

Two years after the inaugural meeting, the minutes indicate that the case management system was still not complete and may contain inaccuracies. Rather than deal with the delays in consultation with survivor groups, Caranua changed the goalposts numerous times in flagrant breach of the legislation. It imposed a limit and a priority system. It built in inequity, injustice and inconsistency. It blamed survivors. It sent letters telling them that their cases had been completed but failed to tell them that they could appeal the decisions. In a Kafkaesque scenario, the appeals officer would not hear an appeal on the grounds that no determination had been made notwithstanding the fact that the survivor had received a letter asserting that the case had been completed.

There was no provision for interview facilities. There was a constant changing of staff. There was a memorandum of understanding with the Towards Healing service. In its own accounts, Towards Healing envisaged getting €800,000 from Caranua. To date, it has received €100,000 on the basis of a memorandum of understanding about which the Minister has no idea and seemingly has not approved.

Then there was the rent scenario. The Minister told the House yesterday that he had no say in the matter, but his Secretary General stated that the Minister did have a say. More importantly, under section 7(7) of the legislation, the Minister must give permission for a contract. He has not done that. At this point, €60 million remains in the fund and there is no chance of it running out. Will Members stand over this continuing abuse of survivors who have already been appallingly treated by the State? Now is our opportunity. We in this Chamber are the voice of the survivors. I say to Fianna Fáil, let us stand together and show solidarity.

See this speech in context