We are meeting with Caranua about its financial statements for 2017. We are joined by Ms Rachel Downes, chief executive officer of Caranua. She is very welcome to this first meeting in her role as chief executive officer. We are also joined by Mr. David O'Callaghan, chairperson, Ms Sinéad Dwyer, director of services, and Mr. Michael Fitzpatrick, director of finance and corporate governance. From the Department of Education and Skills, we are joined by Ms Aoife Conduit, Ms Catherine Hynes, Mr. Aongus Ó hAonghusa and Ms Ann Gorman. I remind members, witnesses and those in the Public Gallery that all mobile phones should be switched off or put to airplane mode. Merely putting them onto silent will still interfere with the recording system.

I advise witnesses that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. However, if they are directed to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to 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 asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the provisions of Standing Order 186 that they shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits of the objectives of such policy. While we expect witnesses to answer questions put by the committee members clearly and with candour, witnesses can and should expect to be treated fairly and with respect and consideration at all times, in accordance with the witness protocol.

I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, to make his opening statement.

The Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Board, better known as Caranua, was established in March 2013 under the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Act 2012. Caranua is responsible for overseeing the use of substantial funds pledged by a number of religious congregations to support the needs of survivors of residential institutional child abuse. The Act provides that the funds received from the religious congregations were to be used to pay grants to survivors in order that they may avail of approved services. The types of approved services for which grant funding is available are housing support services, health and well-being services and education, learning and development services. The Act also permits the use of the fund to pay for expenditure incurred by Caranua in the performance of its functions.

The financial statements for Caranua before the committee today relate to the financial year 2017. At December 2017, cash contributions amounting to €101 million had been received into the fund. Interest earned on deposits amounted to €321,000. As at 31 December 2017, the status of the amounts received was as follows: €66.8 million had been paid out by way of grants to survivors of residential institutional child abuse; €7.6 million had been used to fund Caranua’s administration costs and there was a net balance of €26.9 million remaining in the fund. Caranua’s expenditure in 2017 totalled just over €17 million. Almost €15 million was expended in respect of grants to survivors. This included €10.7 million on housing-related grants and €3.7 million on health-related grants. Administration expenditure charged to the fund in 2017 amounted to €2.06 million.

My audit report in respect of Caranua’s financial statements for 2017 draws attention to the statement on internal control, which discloses weaknesses in the board’s control over grant payments, which created a risk that in some cases grant expenditure might not be used for the purposes intended. During the audit of the 2017 financial statements, sample-based examination of the controls over grant payments found that: evidence was not available in respect of 56% of the sample cases examined that required pricing quotations were received by the board in advance of grant payment; evidence was not available in respect of around 50% of the sample grants examined that required invoices and receipts had been presented following payment of grants and; evidence was not available in respect of 55% of a sample of housing support grants examined that claimants had provided the required proof of property tenancy or ownership. These grant control findings are similar to those of previous years’ audits, to which I had also drawn attention. The statement on internal control sets out the steps being taken by the board to resolve the control weaknesses identified. Fieldwork on the audit of Caranua’s draft 2018 financial statements has been completed. I expect that the financial statements will be certified in the coming weeks.

I thank the Chairman and the committee for giving Caranua the opportunity to come before it today to discuss the 2017 financial statements. Caranua was established in 2013 as the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Board, under the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Act 2012. Caranua is responsible for the management of a limited fund to improve the quality of life of people who, as children, experienced abuse and neglect in institutions and who have received an award or settlement as referred to in the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002. To date, €106.9 million has been received from the religious congregations and an additional €1.38 million in interest. There is just over €3 million outstanding in contributions, which is expected to be received in full by December 2019.

Caranua commenced accepting applications in January 2014. Since then, Caranua has received applications from 6,543 people. Of these, 5,987 were survivors who were eligible to apply for funding supports. By the end of September 2019, Caranua had made over 54,000 funding supports payments to the value of €91.3 million. At 30 September, the highest area of provision of funding supports was home improvements at €65.1 million, followed by health at €24.5 million, education at €1.4 million and exceptional needs support at €0.28 million. In carrying out its function, Caranua has tried to distribute the fund provided in the fairest way possible to all eligible survivors. The legislation sets out that all operational costs must be met from the fund. To the end of September, €11.5 million has been spent on operations. The board of Caranua and management have worked determinedly to minimise operational costs and continue to do so during the wind-down phase.

As part of enhanced reporting, we have improved our accountability and transparency through our monthly updates on our website. Our website has information on board minutes, monthly updates on applications and spend, information on complaints and feedback from survivors and other news items are published regularly. Caranua has to strike a balance between working with survivors in a person-centred and compassionate manner and our obligations as a public body with regards to our fiduciary responsibilities. While at times the process can be seen by some survivors as too bureaucratic, it has been necessary for Caranua to respond to the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Following recommendations of the 2017 audit, we invested a lot of time reviewing and improving our internal policies and procedures, aiming to combat the issues raised, while still focusing on delivering an accessible and person-centred service for survivors. Since the beginning of 2018, our internal controls are reviewed at every board meeting and actions are implemented and updated at the following meeting. Our risk register is also reviewed at every audit and risk committee meeting and updates are provided at each board meeting. Since December 2018, Caranua has been at 100% compliance with the code of practice for the governance of State bodies. The board of Caranua has established a wind-down committee to manage the orderly wind-down of Caranua. This committee met the representative of the Department of Education and Skills tasked with drafting the wind-down legislation required. The committee will continue to engage with the Department.

In order to combat discrepancies between the confidential payment system and the case management system, a complete change of practice was undertaken in 2018. Monthly reconciliations are now undertaken and a full report from 2018 shows the two systems are now fully reconciled. Public procurement guidelines are complied with in all instances of purchasing goods and services since 2018. For purchases prior to 2018, where the guidelines were not complied with or documentation was not retained, we have undertaken a process of market testing to ensure value for money. As Caranua is currently in wind-down, a decision was made not to re-tender for the existing suppliers. Since September 2018, we have introduced purchase requisition order documents. Evidence of tax clearance certificates are now obtained for all relevant suppliers. On travel and subsistence claims, supporting documentation is obtained for all claims made. The rate of subsistence for staff is in line with Government circulars.

On prepayment documents, a simplified acceptable quotations document is provided to survivors so they are aware in advance of the standard of quotation required for audit purposes. We have also introduced additional internal checks to ensure the paperwork is of the required standard prior to payment. We implemented a best effort approach with regard to post-payment requirements. During the course of their application, the application advisers ask that survivors send in their receipts for all funding supports received. In addition, we wrote to survivors requesting return of any outstanding receipts from 2018. Caranua has received 66% of receipts from funding supports made during 2018. While this may seem like a straightforward task, receiving the letters was upsetting for some survivors as they felt we did not trust them, which was not the case at all. It can be a challenge to meet both the needs of survivors and the audit recommendations.

Our 2018 audited accounts are currently with the Comptroller and Auditor General and we hope to have them finalised in the coming weeks. As Caranua operates with a limited fund, which is now nearly expended, we are nearing the end of our remit and are currently in the process of winding down the organisation. On 31 May 2018, the board of Caranua announced the decision to cease taking new or repeat applications from 1 August 2018. As legislation prevents Caranua from making first contact with survivors, we were dependent on raising awareness of the cessation date through a variety of methods, including outreach events, poster campaigns, media advertising, word of mouth and working with survivor support and other stakeholder groups.

As a result of this work, Caranua received 289 applications between 1 May and 1 August 2018. After 2 August 2018, Caranua received 378 applications. Except for in exceptional circumstances, Caranua has not provided funding supports to these survivors, but we have offered advocacy supports and some survivors have availed of them. In the past 18 months, Caranua has adopted a targeted approach to outreach events by focusing on a number of specific survivor groups, including survivors who required additional supports in managing their applications and those who had received limited or no funding supports. This targeted approach has proven to have excellent results, as survivors are provided with an opportunity to discuss their applications in person with their application advisers.

I will outline some examples of our outreach work. More than 100 survivors have opted to come to Caranua's offices for meetings with their application advisers. Outreach days have been organised in conjunction with the Christine Buckley Centre for Education and Support, Right of Place, the Cork Deaf Association and in the UK with the Cáirde survivors group, the Coventry Irish Society and the Disabled Survivors Support Network. Caranua commenced a programme of outreach for survivors in prisons across Ireland. In addition, 2019 marked the 20th anniversary of the State apology to survivors and the tenth anniversary of the publication of the Ryan report. I was delighted that the Christine Buckley Centre for Education and Support invited Caranua, along other survivor support and counselling services, to join the organising committee to plan two events to mark the anniversaries. We organised a conference, Facing the future together - Ireland's lifelong responsibility to the survivors of institutional abuse, on 11 May in Trinity College. In the afternoon, a celebration event was held for survivors.

Through our work, we have found that social isolation is an issue for a number of survivors. Many survivors contact Caranua on a regular basis for a chat as this communication is the only social contact they have. Survivors outside of Ireland often mention that Caranua is their only link with Ireland. We aim to assist survivors by linking them with survivor support groups and other organisations that may be able to offer support and befriending services in the longer term.

While working in Caranua, I have had the privilege of meeting and working with some of the most resilient and empowered survivors and I have also met survivors who are still very much impacted by their childhood experiences who will require supports for the foreseeable future. Caranua will continue to work in support of survivors until our closure. I thank the Chairperson and the members for their attention. We are happy to answer any questions that the committee may wish to raise.

I thank Ms Downes. The speakers have indicated in the following sequence. The first speaker will be Deputy Connolly. She will have 20 minutes. The second will be Deputy Munster and she will have 15. The other speakers, Deputies Cullinane, Catherine Murphy, MacSharry and O'Connell, will have ten minutes each.

Cuirim fáilte roimh na daoine a bhí anseo cheana agus roimh Ms Rachel Downes, atá anseo don chéad uair. Our guests are very welcome. Ms Downes was not here before, but the board has been here. I thank her for the briefing documents and the financial accounts. I have read them all. It was indicated on the risk register that money was still outstanding from the Christian Brothers. Is that still on the risk register? Yes or no.

It is. It will be downgraded.

That is okay. It is still on the risk register. I imagine it is very difficult for the board to make decisions because it does not know how much money it has. What has the Department said about when Caranua will get the money? What is the total amount outstanding?

Just over €3 million is due at this stage.

Is it exactly €3 million?

It is €3.3 million.

Was it due last May? It was due at various stages. When will it be handed over?

In November and December. A schedule of payments has been agreed with the Christian Brothers.

Has Caranua come to an agreement? Is it with the Christian Brothers predominantly or is there anybody else involved?

No, it is just the Christian Brothers.

The sum of €3.3 million has been outstanding for quite some time. Is it correct that the agreement goes back to 2009?

That is right. Yes.

From 2009 to 2019 is a period of ten years. Is it correct that Caranua has agreed a schedule of payments with the Christian Brothers and that will be done in November and December?

We received €3.6 million in the past six weeks and there are two further payments to be made, one at the beginning of November and one at the beginning of December.

Will that be it? Will the Christian Brothers be paying more to Caranua than is needed in order to comply with the legislation?

That is right.

Is the excess going to the national children's hospital?

That is right.

Is there something else as well?

The sum of €430,000 will be going to the children's hospital. Caranua can have an upper limit of €110 million plus the interest accrued.

I understand all that. Caranua gets up to €110 million plus the interest.

That is right. It is €1.38 million.

And the other surplus from the Christian Brothers is going to the national children's hospital.

That is right.

Why did it take so long?

The Christian Brothers had said that some of the money was contingent on the sale of lands at Clonkeen and there was a significant delay.

Did the Department discuss with the board the difficulties created by the fact that it did not have the total amount and could not plan?

Yes, the Department regularly meets the board under the performance delivery agreement. There were three meetings this year. Three meetings were held on an annual basis.

I saw all that. My question is how the board and the Department handled that difficulty when they did not know how much money they had. Caranua is in a wind-up situation and it is only getting the money now.

Perhaps I could assist. As chairman of the board, I was directly involved in that. It is true that there were moneys outstanding and I wrote to the Minister at the time in May 2018. We were concerned at that stage but we have got reassurances since. We never reached a situation where we ran out of money.

That is okay. I understand that.

That is why I put it at the top of the risk register.

I am glad he did. I have recognised that. I have read the minutes. I saw that it was discussed and that the board took it seriously. It was a very sensible thing to do, but it is not a good way in which to have to run an organisation. I am not getting a clear answer as to why the money was not paid over beforehand. In any case, that is fine.

My questions to Ms Downes are not personal in any way. The salary and administration costs are all set out. Was there a period when two CEOs were being paid? Can anyone respond to me on that? Did it ever happen that two CEOs were being paid at the same time; the acting CEO and the non-acting CEO.

There would have been a short period of overlap.

What period of overlap?

It would have been for two months, from October to December.

So for two months, two CEOs, one acting and one not acting, were paid.

One was on sick leave.

I am not going into the personal details. I reassure Ms Downes of that. This arose previously. It is none of my business. What is my business is value for money. For a period of two months, two salaries were paid to two CEOs, one acting and one not acting, for various reasons.

Just to clarify, there was no additional salary being paid to the acting CEO during that period.

I did not ask that question. I asked if two salaries were being paid. Perhaps Ms Downes might come back to me when the confusion has been clarified. It is a very specific question about an acting CEO and a non-acting CEO. I am not making any comment on it.

Again, perhaps I could offer to assist.

I want just a "Yes" or "No" answer that I require.

We will send Deputy Connolly a note.

I want just a "Yes" or"No" answer as to whether two salaries were being paid for whatever reason. It is very simple. I am not going into the reasons. The board can come back before the end of the session to indicate whether two salaries were being paid. Mr. O'Callaghan might get that.

We will come back.

Are there any board vacancies at the moment?

Not at this time.

Was there a new appointment?

There were two. Mr. Michael Fitzpatrick is our new director of finance.

How long has Mr. Fitzpatrick been in situ?

Eight weeks.

He is very welcome.

I thank Deputy Connolly.

Was there a period of time with no financial director?

Not since I have been CEO.

After dealing with the board, I will move on to questions specifically relating to the accounts. The board is in a wind-down situation. I will come back to what that means in terms of accountability when I inquire about the accounts. Perhaps Mr. O'Callaghan might clarify in due course if there will be a board to come before us for the 2018 accounts and the 2019 accounts. How do we manage that accountability? When does he envisage that the board will be gone?

I would say June 2020 at the latest, but I am perfectly happy to come back. It is my duty to come back if asked by this committee to answer in respect of the 2018 and 2019 accounts.

I thank Mr. O'Callaghan. I appreciate that. We might discuss it later, Chairman. We need a board so we have accountability to ask about those accounts. Perhaps that is something we can decide. Mr. O'Callaghan envisages the board being gone in 2020.

Yes.

It was noted in the context of the accounts that it should have been a wonderful and positive news story that there was €110 million to give out. I will not go back over that matter because I am here to discuss the accounts. However, there have been many problems with the administration of the fund. Does Mr. O'Callaghan accept that?

There were problems in the early days. There is no question about it, but I am very happy with the service we are providing.

Absolutely, but this was under legislation from 2012 and the first payments were only made from January 2014 onwards. There were many difficulties in the administration. Mr. O'Callaghan accepted that previously.

I have, yes indeed. Does Deputy Connolly remember that we did not open for business until 2014. I was not there at the time.

Absolutely. I have no interest in personalising anything.

That is all right. I know.

I am looking at a board administering €110 million, which is a very positive news story, and how that came to pass.

There were certainly major problems. Mr. O'Callaghan might not agree but he is agreeing there were certain problems.

There were problems in the earlier days; there is no question about that.

Let me quote the Comptroller and Auditor General. The background to this, of course, concerned the previous redress board and all the money. I am subject to correction but I believe the estimated cost of the previous redress board and commission of investigation was €1.5 billion. I am sure the Comptroller and Auditor General produced many reports but I am referring to the one from 2015. My point is for him and also the Department. Page 11 of the summary sets out the setting up of a redress scheme. It is stated that lessons learned should be identified, in addition to improvements that could be applied to any future redress scheme. Redress cost €110 million and we were supposed to have learned lessons.

To what document is the Deputy referring?

I am referring to the Comptroller and Auditor General's chapter on-----

The special report.

It is from 2016.

I am not going to quote it but about what was recommended as a learning exercise prior to what we are talking about. It is stated the design of any scheme should be "to reduce litigation costs", in particular. Reference is also made to "accountability arrangements". This is very important and highlighted. Reference is also made to "expenditure forecasting methodology", to which we will come back. I am referring to the forecasting of expenditure over time. Also mentioned is "effectiveness in meeting intended objectives and outcomes". Did anyone look at those recommendations at board level from day one to determine how improvements could be made?

On the four recommendations, the first was to reduce litigation costs. What were the others?

Accountability arrangements, expenditure forecasting methodology, and effectiveness in meeting intended objectives and outcomes.

I was not there at the start so I cannot answer the Deputy's question on whether they were considered in setting up Caranua but I can tell her litigation has been kept to a minimum. There has been very little.

How many cases are pending?

None.

No cases pending. There is no notice of any litigation or letter to that effect.

No. There is no litigation at all at the moment.

Has there been litigation?

Most recently eight cases were taken against the independent appeals officer. Caranua joined as a notice party because any outcome may affect its operations.

Is that case ongoing or finished?

It would have been completed in May 2019.

The judge found in our favour.

It was in relation to the authority of the board to implement the 2016 guidelines.

I understand that was a settlement. I understand there was an agreement in relation to the-----

There was a judgment.

No. There would have been a previous case, which concerned the independent appeals officer to Caranua. Unfortunately, our only recourse under the legislation if we do not agree with a decision of the independent appeals officer is to take a High Court case.

What are the two cases?

There was a case in 2017 in which Caranua appealed a decision of the independent appeals officer. Following that, eight survivors took a case against the independent appeals officer and Caranua joined as a notice party. That was resolved in May 2019.

Was the original case about the limit being set?

Yes.

And the payments prior to that limit being set were now being taken into the count.

Correct.

That had not been set out clearly at all in the criteria, according to the appeals officer.

That is what the appeals officer felt but when he actually looked into it and took legal advice, it was found that it actually was set out.

I am sorry but that is not correct. What is correct is that there was a settlement and the appeals officer acknowledged, under legal advice, that the previous payments had to be taken into account.

I suppose that led to the next case, in which the judge found that was correct.

The criteria were not set out clearly for applicants. When the cap was set, applicants were not aware of them, nor were they told at that point. It is a matter of accountability.

I think the applicants would have been told. As I said-----

I think they were not.

Every applicant, when working with Caranua, works with an application adviser. Applicants would have that relationship and that conversation would have been taking place all the time.

This occurred prior to Ms Downes' time. What she said is not accurate. There were many problems and the appeals officer was quite strong. In the end, the matter was settled. The point I am making is that accountability was absent in that clear criteria were not set out. Mr. O'Callaghan is fully aware of this because it was dealt with on the last occasion, at the previous relevant meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts.

The judge found in our favour. The judge found that we were quite entitled to change the criteria. That was the core item.

First of all, the judge did not find it was in agreement. I am not going into the specifics of the case. The point I am making is that the appeals officer agreed with the board in the end, in an agreed settlement. Before Ms Downes was involved, a cap was set.

That is right.

Applicants were not told clearly that the previous payments would be taken into account. That is the point I am making.

That is why they then got a letter notifying them of that.

With regard to letters Ms Downes mentioned, when letters are sent out to tell an applicant his or her application is valid or otherwise, is it set out clearly that there is an appeals mechanism?

Yes, every letter sets it out clearly. Applicants also get an attached leaflet with information.

Let me ask the question. Ms Downes will be aware of the background to this. The reason I am asking my question is that what was described was not happening and caused great distress.

There was a case in 2016, yes.

There were quite a number of cases. It did not happen so Caranua had to change its practice. The practice has changed to the extent that every single person who applies and whose application is deemed either valid or not valid gets a letter setting out that he or she can appeal the decision and how to appeal it.

Yes.

I thank Ms Downes.

With regard to page 29 of the accounts, I wish to ask a few practical questions. I am sure Ms Downes will be able to clear this up quickly. Cancelled payments recoverable comprise quite a sizeable sum. Could Ms Downes explain what that means?

This is one of the complexities of Caranua. We provide numerous funding supports on an annual basis. We find that, on average, about €2 million in funding supports actually come back to Caranua again, including through cancellation. A survivor may choose not to go ahead with a certain supplier or may decide, for one reason or another, that he or she no longer wants the service. It can also happen that the cheques provided go out of date. There is a huge-----

Does Caranua have a breakdown of the cancelled payments?

We have that. We keep that on our system.

The Chair might get that for us.

I will check what level of detail exists. Obviously, some of the data are quite personal. What level is required?

The Chair might take a note of this. We might come back to it and decide before the end of the meeting.

I am trying to establish the position on these cancelled payments. Might they be where somebody got a cheque for €1,000 or €15,000 but did not spend it, for one reason or another?

That could be the case, yes.

How many of them died?

I am not be aware of that.

Does Ms Downes have a breakdown? It is a very sizeable sum and its not being spent should be a very positive story.

To clarify, what usually happens is that the money goes back out again. Most of the money, while it would come back to Caranua, would be reissued to the same survivor.

It would be recycled.

Yes, to the same survivor or to another, depending on what is needed.

No, let us be clear. I am talking about the person who gets the money, not about recycling to somebody else.

That would be usual as well.

Very good. Ms Downes will have a breakdown for us. She will be able to see how many people-----

The information we could provide is what we call cancel-and-reissue information. Cheques are sent back to us for cancellation and then reissued.

At this moment, can Ms Downes tell me how many-----

I do not have that information.

If I said €400,000 or €100,000 was not spent, we would not know at this point whether------

I do not have that information. We could provide it, though.

It is important, given the length of time it took to process applications. Would that have been considered?

Regarding the cancel-and-reissue cases?

Yes.

I will outline what we do to make sure that does not happen on a monthly basis. Obviously, cheques go out of date on a six-monthly basis. Every month, a member of our finance team looks at any cheques that have gone out of date and the survivor in question is contacted to find out why it happened. We do that on an ongoing basis monthly.

The breakdown would be very important.

I have a practical question. The 2017 accounts were signed off on 13 December 2018. Is that normal? Why did it take a year to-----

There was a delay.

Why was there a delay?

There was a combination of factors, the main one being sick leave.

There was a combination; sick leave was the main area, to be honest.

When would Ms Downes have expected those to come before the board as a matter of good practice?

I can only speak for this year, in that the accounts were with the Comptroller and Auditor General by the February date which is assigned.

That is what is important, is that right?

We have the financial statements for 2018.

Where did the delay arise in respect of the December meeting of the board approving it?

It was not necessarily that it was delayed at board, I think it was just an internal delay, unfortunately.

Ms Downes will have to clarify for me.

Sick leave unfortunately delayed the accounts for that year.

Again I do not want to go into a personal matter but the previous year, when did the accounts come before the board?

I do not have that information in front of me.

Does Mr. O'Callaghan have it?

As far as I know, they were on time.

They were on time? What time was that?

I do not have that information.

Somebody should have it really, it is financial.

It is obviously back in the office.

What I can say is that we have acknowledged past mistakes in respect of that and we have worked extremely hard to ensure-----

Just one second. Would the Comptroller and Auditor General have any knowledge of this?

I do not have the detail with me but I can certainly get it for the Deputy.

The delay was not on the side of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Partly it probably is because we do not get to all the financial statements when they are submitted to us. Caranua has been providing us with the draft financial statements.

So I am being a bit unfair.

We only get to them in the second half of the year so there could be delays. Once we carry out the audit fieldwork, if there are supplementary queries there may be a bit of to and fro while the matter is being dealt with. Once we clear them, the financial statements go back to the board.

I thank the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is clarified. When he is given the note, the Chair might clarify when the previous financial statements were presented to the board.

Is the Deputy asking in respect of 2016?

Yes.

I would suggest someone here might look up the financial statements on the Caranua website now. That question can be answered in five minutes. Is there a staff member who can do that?

We will find that.

That can happen now in a few short minutes.

On page 5 of the accounts, at the bottom, it is stated that the board commenced a self-evaluation of board effectiveness, an evaluation review, in December 2017, which was to be completed in 2018. Was it completed, is it available and what was the cost?

There is no cost, it is part of the code of governance for State bodies.

The board evaluated itself.

It is a self-evaluation as part of the code, yes.

Is self-evaluation part of it? Did the board evaluate itself or was there an outside influence?

There was not an outside influence.

Was there any cost?

No.

When was it published? When was it completed in 2018?

It is an annual piece of work that is done so-----

Can Ms Downes just answer? I am sorry but the Chair will be stopping me and I just want to ask a number of questions.

No problem.

It is stated here on page 5 that it was to be completed in 2018. When was it completed in 2018, is it available, what showed up on it and what did the board learn from it?

I am not sure when it was completed, it is just part of the normal governance of the board in accordance with the 2016 guidelines. It is done annually. I am not sure when it was done.

This is an important thing, effectiveness and evaluation. Organisations do it and learn from it and highlight what is good and what is bad. Caranua can share that with us. Over the years we have seen different problems in terms of the administration of the fund by Caranua. In fact, the Comptroller and Auditor General in his opening statement refers to the weaknesses in internal control that recurred every year. I am asking a very simple question. Was the effectiveness of the board discussed at board level? What was learned?

Certainly it would have been discussed at board level, I think under the heading of governance, which an item on the agenda of every board meeting.

All right, that is not a good enough-----

As Ms Downes said, we are now 100% compliant with the 2016 guidelines on governance for State bodies.

Caranua may well be. Every organisation that comes in here tells us it is compliant. I am asking when it was completed, if it was discussed, and what was learned. I am not getting an answer so I am going to just leave that for the moment and go on to page 7 of the accounts. At the bottom of the page there is a reference to consultancy costs, which came up in the committee's general discussion this morning. The legal advice went up to €51,000. Why was that?

There were two cases, one was an overhang from 2016, a judicial review that was taken against Caranua and the second one was in respect of the independent appeals officer, which I mentioned earlier.

The next heading is human resources. In 2016 it was €80,000 and then it went down to €16,000. What was that?

In 2016 Caranua received sanction to increase its staffing numbers from ten to 24.6, I think. There was work done on that. We did not have the same output into 2017.

Does Ms Downes see that figure of €80,000? Does that refer to extra staff in 2016 or to what does it refer?

No, my understanding is that there was a review done to determine the number of staff required to give an optimal service to survivors.

I do not know what Ms Downes is saying, I am sorry. What does €80,000 mean spent on HR?

That was consultancy fees. This was in respect of increasing staff numbers and a proposal for that.

Just to be fair, does that mean the €80,000 went to a consultant or that it went to staff? What does that figure mean?

It was not to staff, it was external.

If I may intervene, as I have been around since before Ms Downes was CEO, when Caranua started its operations it was heavily reliant on agency staff. That had issues in terms of very high turnover of staff, a lack of consistency. There were some staff who were possibly only working there for a month at a time. The quality of service that was delivered to survivors was not optimised. Caranua commissioned a firm to carry out a study on workflows, application timelines and so on to see how they could deliver an optimal service for staff. I think the human resources figure referred to for 2016 was that study.

The €80,000.

I think so. I would have to verify that but I think that was the reason.

I would appreciate it if that could be verified.

We might verify that with a note in due course.

We can verify it with a note.

Again it is down to €16,000 in 2017. What was that for? Was it more consultancy?

There was a small amount of consultancy work done and also an internal investigation piece of work that needed to be done which involved an external company.

Again, Ms Downes might get a list and breakdown of all this in due course. I do not see it here. What is business improvement?

This is a piece of work that was done. The Deputy may remember that at the last committee, they were looking for improved and enhanced statistical reporting, so a piece of work was done on our case management system to allow that to happen, as well as some other small pieces.

I am thinking of the sum of €110 million that is there to go to the most vulnerable as a right once they have a valid application. Then I look at the accounts each year. I know Ms Downes is relatively new. I see business money, I see public relations.

I suppose it is one of those things where we have spoken about the difficulty of balancing. At the last committee there was a lot of talk about enhancing our statistics, making statistics more available in our work. This piece of work was done to enable that to happen. It is the balancing between our operational costs and ensuring that the biggest balance goes towards services for survivors.

I want to get the details of that.

I will move on to outstanding cases. The board is going to wind down and will be gone by June, is that right?

June at the latest.

What contingencies have been made?

We are still working with about 300 survivors at this time.

How many survivors is Caranua working with?

With 300.

Is it exactly 300?

In the round. It is about 320.

We will give them a figure. It is very important to be precise in relation to these-----

Some survivors we are working with are not necessarily getting funding supports from Caranua. We are providing advocacy services as well. For some survivors who are working with us, we are looking at other supports they may need outside Caranua.

I ask Ms Downes to stick with me for a moment. How many open applications are there to access what remains of the €110 million, plus interest?

There are 317.

Are they all new applications?

No, there is a combination. Some have beem open since 2014; some are new.

What is the breakdown?

The majority - probably about 95% - are initial applications. Some are repeat applications, which means that the applicants have previously made an application to Caranua and that they have come back with a second.

Some 95% are new.

In the sense that the applications may date from 2018. We stopped taking applications from 1 August 2018. Anybody with whom we are working we were working with prior to that date.

I understand, but they are new applications.

Yes, they are not repeat applications.

Therefore, 95% of them have come forward for the first time to Caranua.

Yes.

What is the oldest application?

We have worked with people aged 26 to 99 years.

No, the oldest-----

The oldest is in his 70s. I cannot give an exact figure.

It is important to know because as time passes people are becoming more vulnerable.

I agree completely.

I am sorry, but I was actually asking what was the oldest application.

I do not have that exact figure, but I can find out.

It is very important as we are looking at value for money from a limited fund. We are looking for effectiveness and to have things dealt with quickly. Of the 317 new cases, what is the oldest?

To put it another way, given the nature of the group of survivors, we cannot rush their applications. We need to give them time. That is why there are people with whom we have worked since 2014. They need that time and space in order to-----

I agree totally with Ms Downes, but I am focusing on Caranua's effectiveness. I understand people need time and flexibility to a certain extent, but I have a difficulty with the Comptroller and Auditor General's insistence on looking at post-work payments, receipts and so on. Of course, flexibility is needed in that regard. However, it is a simple question. Of the 317 new cases, what is the oldest application?

We can get that information for the Deputy.

What is the range of payments to date?

In what way?

What is the range of payments Caranua has made to each applicant? Some receive €1,000, while others receive €100,000.

The average payment is about €13,500.

I did not ask that figure. I asked for the range of payments.

What is the average payment?

It is €13,500.

The average payment is €13,500, but I asked Ms Downes for the range of payments.

I do not understand the Deputy's question.

What are the lowest and the highest payments?

I am sorry. They range from zero to €100,000. Obviously, we have had some cases that have been overturned on appeal. That drives up costs much higher than what we expected.