Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I wanted to raise the issue of the response we received following the committee's correspondence with Caranua in which we requested further information. It gave us information in response to question No. 5 but I refer in particular to point 11 on the correspondence.

We have discussed the effect that Standing Order 218 has on the work of the committee and how it can be stymied.

Point 11 of the correspondence that we received from Caranua is an apt example of how the committee's work can be stymied. One case in question was raised in the public domain in The Irish Timeslast August. It related to a survivor who had an issue with the colour of her bathroom tiles being the same colour as the tiles in the institution in which she was held. The correspondence that we received was a direct response to questions about that individual. Ms Downes stated that everything named in that is not the full facts of the case. Looking at the correspondence that we received, she stated that she was not familiar with the specific cases but she acknowledged that she was familiar with that case while at the committee.

The correspondence states that committee members did not contact Caranua in advance of the meeting to discuss individual cases but instead opted to voice allegations as fact without giving Caranua an appropriate or fair right to reply. I am aware that at least one of the two survivors whose cases were brought up in advance of the committee meeting emailed Caranua directly before the meeting to give their permission to Caranua to discuss their cases and for Deputies at the committee to discuss the case in a public forum. I have seen that email. That does not fit with what is in the response and I take issue with it.

Caranua claimed in response to previous correspondence from the Committee of Public Accounts to be unfamiliar with the two cases that we are referring to. That does not hold any weight. It said it did not know who the individuals were, yet it went on to contact one of those individuals in person after the committee meeting to apologise and re-engage with the person. The re-engagement did not fully meet the needs of that survivor. We take issue with this. We had permission from at least one survivor to raise the issues at the last meeting when Caranua was present and it transpired that the survivor had contacted Caranua to make it aware of that, yet this most recent correspondence does not refer to that at all. In fact, it is the opposite and Caranua still says it was not aware. I have seen that email. There are many issues involved. We also flagged up the lack of compassion. For a body set up to help survivors, I was flabbergasted at the lack of compassion shown when we flagged up the two cases that were still outstanding and had not been fully dealt with, and the response was what we received. We are still engaging with those survivors and will send on the details to the secretariat to try to ensure they get their full entitlements.

Caranua indicated that it cannot approve applications for more than €15,000. Can we ask Caranua to outline what underpins that limit? Is it primary legislation? Is it Caranua policy? Was it a direction from the Minister or just a policy decision of Caranua?

Other issues relating to that remain outstanding.