Séamus Healy (Tipperary, Workers and Unemployed Action Group) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this debate and confirm my support for the motion. I thank Independents 4 Change, and Deputy Connolly in particular, for bringing forward the motion and I commend them on it. I fully support the motion, in particular the call for a root-and-branch review not just of the criteria and policies of Caranua but also its operation. Based on what we know of the conduct of Caranua and its interaction with survivors, that is absolutely required.

The motion says 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" and "the high number of complaints and reports of dissatisfaction and negative experiences from applicants to that fund". That is the nub of the issue. Survivors with whom I have been in contact have had universally negative experiences in their contact with Caranua. They have encountered a particular attitude, hostility and been subjected to confrontational questioning. They feel that they are treated as a nuisance. In many cases, their contact with Caranua has led to further trauma for them. A significant number of complaints have been made, most of which relate to disrespectful behaviour, poor treatment and dissatisfactory communications with survivors. A survey indicates that 61% of survivors have rated their experience with Caranua as extremely negative and 21% as negative. One survivor commented that dealing with Caranua was like being back in an institution and that at least in the institution one knew who the enemy was, whereas with Caranua the enemy is faceless. That is the type of reaction of survivors who have contacted me regarding their communication and contact with Caranua. There have also been significant delays. Survivors say that the level of service was always poor but has become more negative and stressful. Communication with survivors has been less than adequate. There has been a lack of confidentiality and privacy in that regard. Survivors feel they have been re-abused through their contacts with Caranua.

Clarification is needed on the issue of rent and whether it has been paid. There was some confusion in that regard, although things were somewhat clarified when representatives from Caranua appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts. Was the Minister's approval sought in respect of the rental contract and the payment of that rent? If approval was sought, was it granted? What were the surrounding circumstances?

There have been several serious and unacceptable breaches of the legislation. That needs to be urgently reviewed. The failure to review Caranua after two years of operation was a missed opportunity which survivors have paid for in recent years. Survivors who contacted me regarding this issue gave the impression that there is attitude and hostility in dealing with survivors and also an element of chaos in the operation of Caranua.

There is currently no board, oversight or governance of the organisation. Even when the board was in existence, there was a lack of oversight and governance of the operation of Caranua. The board is supposed to comprise nine members, four of whom are survivors. In the context of the operation of an organisation of this nature and in light of the funds available to it, I am of the view that survivors should be in a majority on the board.

I confirm my support for the motion. I call for an urgent review of the operation of Caranua and the criteria relating to its governance. I ask the Minister to clarify the situation in respect of the rent payment and whether approval was sought and received for that rent.

See this speech in context