Vol. 945 No. 3
29. Deputy Thomas Byrne asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will explain the application of the HP Deprivation Index to schools for inclusion of those schools in the DEIS programme; the discrepancies in relation to the recent list of DEIS schools in the programme; and if the DEIS programme was ready when it was published initially. [17091/17]
What I am seeking in terms of this question is information relating to the process for inclusion of schools in the DEIS programme. We have heard a lot about census figures and the HP deprivation index and what it comprises but we have not heard on what basis it was applied to individual schools. There has been a real failing in that regard. Since I last raised this issue in the Dáil, there has been a controversy around schools wrongly on the list and schools that were not included. There has been controversy in the media this week by one of the originators of the HP Deprivation Index, Mr. Haase, in terms of how the Minister is proceeding in this matter. There is huge concern about the roll-out of this programme.
I thank Deputy Byrne for raising this issue. The new identification model is designed to be transparent. Basically, it takes into account the children enrolled in the school and the places where they live and then the HP deprivation index is applied. As the Deputy knows, the variables involved in that index are demographic growth, dependency ratios, education levels, single parent rate, overcrowding, social class, occupation and unemployment rates. This data is applied uniformly to all schools in a fair and objective way to identify the relative level of concentrated disadvantage present in each school.
Full details of the process involved in the assessment of schools are available on my Department's website. It is also my intention to communicate with all schools to provide information on the identification model. Information provided will include details of how the datasets are used to determine a school's level of disadvantage; the importance of data quality to the process and the need for detailed and up-to-date information from schools.
There is no discrepancy in the schools listed for inclusion in DEIS. The only alteration to the lists published involved a change in rural-urban categorisation of four primary schools arising from an improved method of measurement. It is important to note that the urban-rural categorisation of schools relates to geographical location only and has no bearing on the levels of disadvantage identified within those schools. In the case of the schools in question, there was no impact on the overall resources allocated.
As the Deputy will be aware, the DEIS programme has been in place since 2005. The publication in February last of the DEIS plan was the outcome of a comprehensive review process undertaken over an 18-month period and represents an updated action plan for future delivery in this critical policy area.
The Minister stated that the information I am seeking is available on the Department's website. He also said that the schools will be given that information. What I want to know now is how the HP Deprivation Index is applied to schools. In other words, what level of deprivation or areas must children come from for schools to be included in the DEIS programme? Earlier this week, Mr. Haase criticised the application of this index to the DEIS programme and how the programme is being operated. That is very significant criticism. We have heard a lot about this index but the Minister has never explained to schools how it is applied. We all know about formulas. We learned theory in maths class. This is a theory. The Minister has never explained to us or the schools how it is applied to this particular area. There is a huge lack of confidence in this scheme because of the mistakes made. The changes made in this area were made not because of the model being used but because of media inquiries. The Minister purported to put out an approved method thereafter. I put it to the Minister that this scheme was rolled out before it was ready because he was extremely keen to get a good news political announcement out as quickly as possible. It was rushed out, problems have arisen and the details as to why a particular school is included or not in the scheme have never been given.
When Fianna Fáil was in Government and it was addressing this issue it did not use objective criteria. Its scheme was based on random collection of information. Political information was also brought to bear, which was not satisfactory. The current scheme is transparent. I have just explained to the Deputy how it is put together. In other words, the children in the school and their home addresses are taken in conjunction with the deprivation index, which is used widely, to assess a location. That is the composite index.
How many children must there be in a school?
It does not matter how many children are in the school, the same rule applies. In terms of the cut-off point, we use the same cut-off point to find the highest level of concentration. I would have liked to have been able to extend that to more schools but the budget I had available had to be used to support the areas with the highest level of concentration. As the Deputy knows, there was no school included since 2009. We have been able to include 79 or 2% of schools in the country because they were at the highest level of concentration of disadvantage. Those are the schools that we are helping.
This was not rushed. It was developed over an 18 month period when the statistical system was developed. The commentator, Mr. Haase, did not criticise the selection method rather he said that we should be looking again at some of the schools. We did not take any school out of DEIS. I do not know whether the Deputy is advocating that we should remove schools that have had DEIS. If that is what he is suggesting, he should state that clearly.
The Minister has alleged that schools were included originally on a random basis or on a political basis. He will either have to put up or shut up. That is an extremely serious allegation to make. The Minister should name the schools included in DEIS that should not be included. If there are schools included in the scheme on a political basis they need to be removed because they do not deserve to be there. That is the logical consequence. Nobody would disagree with that. However, I believe the Minister is only saying that because he has not been able to explain how the current scheme operates and on what basis schools are included. How many children in a school must come from a disadvantaged area in order that that school can qualify for the DEIS programme? Is it one child or all children? We do not know that. I am asking the Minister for that information.
In regard to the Minister's statement that there are schools in the DEIS programme that are wrongly included, I call on him to prove that.
The Deputy misunderstands how this index is put together. The whole enrolment in a school is taken into account. We do not designate children as disadvantaged. We take the entire enrolment of the school and we develop a composite index for all of the enrolment in the school based on the areas from which the children come. They are based on objective, scientific criteria, including demographic growth, dependency ratios, the education level of parents, the single parent rate, over-crowding, social class, occupation and unemployment rates. These are objective criteria that are used everywhere.
As the Deputy has acknowledged, this was not done in the past because the system was not objective. Some schools applied and others did not. Some principals were very industrious in collecting data and others were not. All sorts of people were involved in collecting data and making submissions. This will now be done on an objective basis that is independent of all political involvement and defined by criteria. Of course we will need to refine and improve it over time. This is an absolutely fair and objective basis for making selections.
30. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the supports that will be available for children with additional needs under the new resource allocation model when these needs have not been captured in the allocations to schools. [16827/17]
As the Minister knows, schools recently received notice of their special needs allocations under the new resource allocation model. There are significant concerns about how this will operate, particularly where the needs of specific children are not captured under the model or where those needs are subsequently identified after allocations have been made to schools. I remind the Minister that such allocations are fixed for two years. I ask him to outline the supports that will be available under the new model to children in the circumstances I have described.
The new model of allocation is designed to more accurately reflect the actual needs in individual schools. It captures a more comprehensive range of needs in schools, including complex needs, measured learning difficulties and social needs, than the previous model. An additional 900 posts will be delivered to reflect this change. This year, more than half of special needs teaching resources will be allocated to meet the requirements of children with complex needs. The new model no longer requires an assessment to be submitted, which means that children who need support can get that support immediately. Indeed, the allocations to the schools are front-loaded so that they are in a position to meet the needs of children without having to get detailed diagnostic tests in respect of them. One of the benefits of this approach is that each school will be able to use its professional judgment and expertise to determine how best to support its students. Schools will be supported by the guidance of the integrated support service in the National Council for Special Education, NCSE. The new model will allow for some additional provision in exceptional circumstances prior to the next review. The NCSE will support schools in managing their allocations in the first instance. If a school's enrolment of new pupils involves a substantially greater level of need than was previously the case, it will be able to seek assistance from the NCSE.
I thank the Minister for his response. This is an issue of huge concern. I have been informed of many cases. Parents are not happy with this. They are worried about their children, many of whom have special needs and are already facing too many barriers in areas like speech therapy and occupational therapy. I am one of a number of Deputies who have raised this issue on the floor of this House. The new resource allocation model has the potential to create another insurmountable barrier for these parents.
I would like to give an example of what is happening. I have been made aware that a child with special educational needs was refused admission to a school because of a lack of resources. This is concrete evidence of what children and parents are facing in this day and age. I sent the details of another case, in respect of which my office has been contacted by the parent of two children with special needs, to the Minister last week and I hope some action will be taken on foot of that. One of the children in this case has autism and is transferring from an autism unit to a small rural mainstream school, which is good. If we truly believe in inclusion, such children should not be encountering barriers. Resources should be made available in such cases. None of the children to whom I refer, including the child who is transferring to a mainstream school, has been captured under the new resource model. Parents have very real concerns that schools will not be in a position to support their children. I ask the Minister to consider that such cases will arise under the new approach.
I would like to clarify that no school will lose out. No school will see a child with complex needs lose any of his or her support. No diagnostic tests are required by the parents described by the Deputy to get supports from schools for the learning needs of their children. As the allocations are front-loaded, the big financial barrier that was in the way of parents is being removed. The Deputy has raised the issue of schools' admission policies. We will look at such matters in the context of the new admissions process we are introducing, which will give the NCSE the power to require schools to accept children with special educational needs. Schools will not be allowed to refuse children in these circumstances. As I said in my initial reply, if a school's new enrolment exhibits a far greater level of special need than the level among the children who are already in the school, the NCSE will be able to examine that issue upon the demonstration by such a school of a substantial increase in the level of special need among the new cohort.
I am aware that no school will have its hours cut. My point is that there is no flexibility and there are no additional resources for children. The fact of the matter is that children will lose out because of the manner in which schools will have their resources fixed for two years under the new model. It is extremely worrying that some relevant features, such as the inclusion support service and the model for identification of future complex needs, have not yet been put in place. The Minister needs to take this on board. I know from the response to a parliamentary question I have received this morning that 519 schools have appealed their allocations under this model. This figure is evidence that there are concerns that need to be addressed. It is vital for us to get this right, especially given that the resources to be allocated to a school in two years' time will be based on its current profile. Things are changing quickly. The upcoming admissions legislation needs to ensure children with special educational needs can access their local schools. At the same time, we are introducing a model that fixes the resources given to schools to cater for special educational needs. Will the Minister advise the House of the circumstances in which schools will be provided with additional resource hours that are clearly needed? Does he intend to establish the inclusion support service? Will resource teachers be available to schools under this service?
We are providing 900 additional resource teachers this year at a cost of €54 million. We are putting extra money and extra staff into resource teaching in a way that will ensure no school loses out. Schools that require a high level of support for children with complex learning needs, as identified by these tests, will get more. None of the existing schools will get less. This approach is designed to see more resources going to the schools with the greatest levels of need. That is what we are doing here. We are removing the diagnostic tests. I know the Deputy was sympathetic to the view that the requirement for expensive diagnostic tests to be done before any resources could be allocated in respect of children with special needs was putting an obstacle in the way of the parents of such children. Under the new model, the school will be front-loaded with the resources from day one and will be able to use its own discretion. I have been to Marino College to see where the new model was piloted and I suggest the Deputy should do likewise. The adoption of this approach there created a much better and genuinely integrated service for children with special needs and enhanced the education of all children in the school. I believe this model has many positive aspects, including extra resources.
31. Deputy Thomas Byrne asked the Minister for Education and Skills when the report of teaching supply will be published; and how he proposes to deal with the severe shortage of teachers in key subjects and the surplus in other key subjects. [17092/17]
I have raised this issue previously, but I think it bears continued examination. The Minister is aware that there are key shortages of teachers in certain subjects at second level. I suspect that these shortages are most acute in languages, including Irish. There are surpluses of teachers of other subjects, such as business studies. A report on these issues is sitting on the Minister's desk, just as it sat on his predecessor's desk. We need action now because there are serious concerns in schools about how children are going to be taught some subjects on a continuous and proper basis.
The report of the technical working group that was set up by the Teaching Council to formulate advice on teacher supply focuses on the development of a model of primary teacher supply and outlines the work that will be required in the future to establish a model of post-primary teacher supply. I intend to publish the report shortly. While the Department of Education and Skills has no evidence of an overall shortage of teachers, it is aware of certain pinch points to which the Deputy has adverted. The aim of the Department’s policy is to achieve a balance between the supply of and demand for teachers. When the report is published, the Deputy will see that this is a particularly complex issue at post-primary level because of the absence of a central mechanism for matching the overall subject need requirements of schools with the output from the initial teacher education providers. In addition, schools have significant autonomy in providing a mix of subjects and choices for students. The final report of the technical working group sets out an approach to planning which scopes out the work needed to develop a model for forecasting teacher supply in the medium to long term. Engagement with the providers of initial teacher education programmes will be necessary to ensure supply meets demand and we have the correct balance of teachers in the each of the various subject areas.
The report is of value in regard to building data models for predicting future requirements in the longer term. However, it does not address the short-term issues to which the Deputy referred. In the meantime, I am committed to advancing short-term measures to address teacher shortages, including the employment by schools of retired teachers and those on career break, and an increase in the number of days per school year that a post-primary teacher on career break may work as a substitute.
The citizens and students of this country will be disappointed to hear that the Minister is again falling back on retired teachers, because that has created controversies over the past number of years. If that is the Minister's answer to this problem, it is deeply unsatisfactory and very worrying. This is a serious issue.
The Minister said his Department does not have evidence, but there is significant anecdotal evidence. Any teaching organisation or principal will tell the Minister that there is a major problem. They simply do not have the teachers they need.
Career breaks are being refused left, right and centre. This is not central Government policy, rather it is a practical reality for school principals at second level. If they advertise a career break post, which is temporary, they will not get any applicants, except perhaps for business studies. They would rather have a teacher leave a school completely and advertise a new role.
Things are at crisis point. Principals are engaged in a balancing act. Teachers are not available for key subjects. The problem is very serious in gaelcholáistí freisin, mar nach féidir leo múinteoirí a fháil a bhfuil Gaeilge ar a gcumas acu na hábhair uilig a mhúineadh.
It is a problem throughout the system. The principals to whom I have spoken are worried about what will happen next September.
I acknowledge there is a problem in key subject areas, but there is no problem overall. Training of teachers involves about 3,800 students, which is split roughly half and half between post-primary and primary schools. About 1,600 teachers retire each year. There is a substantial net increase in supply each year. We are recruiting more now than we were. The current levels are far in excess of those of previous years, and we are now moving to match those levels.
The technical working group has not offered any open and shut solution. It said that planning to develop a model is extremely complex and we need to check and develop new data sources and invest in a mini CSO for teaching. This is not a quick or easy fix.
We will consider putting on short-term courses, as happened in the case of mathematics in the past, in order to meet particular pinch points. We will consider initiatives that are put forward. If the Deputy is aware of specific initiatives, we will examine them in order to fill identifiable gaps.
There seems to be a problem with certain business studies teachers. As far as I know, a permanently employed business studies teacher can study a maths course that will bring him or her up to the required level. However, those not in permanent jobs face a difficulty. The retraining of business studies teachers offers a significant opportunity.
The Minister could easily offer a number of solutions. One would be for the Minister to advise students of the subjects for which there is a surplus of teachers. I will not name them on the floor of the Dáil because I would rather the Minister provide official statistics. Perhaps the Minister could encourage people to study maths or provide them with more opportunities to upskill in other subjects in order to improve balance. At the moment, the system is skewed.
Fundamentally, the Minister needs to in some way take control of the second level teacher education system because it is too open. The colleges have too much autonomy. The Minister is supposed to be setting national priorities for key subjects for the national education system and economy. The truth is that the Minister cannot stand over any particular targets on languages, maths, business or coding because he does not know what teachers will be available to teach those subjects.
There is a difficulty because, as the Deputy said, people enter into subject areas without explicitly committing to a future in teaching. It is only when they do a masters that they enter the teaching channel. The working group examined whether it could introduce a model which could identify an objective intake for subjects such as chemistry, physics, maths or business studies that would feed into the system. So far, it has been unable to produce such a model.
I am open to considering specific subject areas where we could have particular interventions. The difficulty is that to say with absolute certitude that we do not need a certain amount but-----
We will always need maths teachers.
We will always need maths teachers. We will produce a response to the report and a specific response to the STEM work done by Professor Brian MacCraith. That is on our agenda for the current year.
32. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will consider re-examining the model for teaching of faith formation in community national schools; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17093/17]
Community national schools were established under the Fianna Fáil Government and their purpose was supposed to be to provide inclusive schools for children of all religious backgrounds. The former Minister, Mary Hanafin, effectively sabotaged that effort by commissioning a curriculum that required the religious segregation of schoolchildren for a substantial part of the year.
Some nine of the 11 community national schools are now refusing to implement that curriculum and are rebelling against it because they consider it to be completely unworkable, unfair and unacceptable, yet the Minister seems to be refusing to commission a new curriculum that would end the unacceptable practice of religious segregation of children in those schools.
As he will see from my reply, the Deputy's depiction of the situation is a little inaccurate. The community national school model is a new model of multidenominational school which is not that well-known among the public. However, I believe it has a bright future ahead of it and a major role to play in providing choice to parents in the future.
Community national schools are multidenominational and provide for belief nurturing during the school day. The aim of the model has been to cater for the diversity present within the community in a single school setting. The philosophy of the community national school as a multidenominational school is based on best practice in this area, and on each child better understanding and ultimately celebrating their and their friends’ belief and cultural identities. Belief identity is explicitly not left at the school gate, but used as a means of enriching the learning experience on the basis of mutual understanding and integration.
Goodness Me, Goodness You is the patron’s programme that underpins the characteristic spirit of these schools. It is a common programme suitable for pupils of all faiths and beliefs and none. In junior infants to second class, the children follow the programme together for the majority of the school year, exploring common themes. There is a belief-specific aspect of the programme. In the junior classes only, children have been grouped for a four-week period during the programme according to their faith or belief tradition, in line with the wishes of their parents. Lesson content was designed specifically for each grouping.
In third to sixth class, children remain in their class groups throughout the year and learn about different faiths and religions together. Belief-specific teaching is integrated for these classes. The manner in which schools deliver belief-specific teaching in junior infants to second class has evolved. The majority of community national schools no longer group children according to their beliefs for the four-week period. Instead, these schools have integrated belief-specific teaching so that all children learn about different religions and beliefs together and all groups remain together throughout.
As I indicated in a recent statement, I see merit in this approach. This model has the merit of responding to the needs of parents who wish their children to be able to prepare for specific events, for example, communion and confirmation in the case of Catholic families, but also respects the best principles of inclusion and mutual understanding that are central to multidenominational education.
The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment is to commence a review of the Goodness Me, Goodness You programme for junior infants to second class, starting in September 2017. As part of that review, the belief-specific teaching aspect of the programme will be examined. The education and training boards, as patrons, are also examining how Goodness Me, Goodness You can be delivered in schools in the most inclusive fashion possible. I look forward to seeing the outcomes of these processes.
Let us be clear. There has been a rebellion against the religious segregation required by the Goodness Me, Goodness You curriculum that was set. The Minister should confirm the programme was not set by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, although the community national schools' brochure claims it was. In fact, it was commissioned to Dr. Clare Maloney of the Marino Institute of Education, probably under the influence of the Catholic bishops at the time. The Catholic Church was the only religious denomination to intervene in the process.
At the time, it said the basic requirement would be that religious instruction and formation of Catholic children in the faith by a qualified teacher during the school day would be a minimum non-negotiable requirement for new multi-denominational primary schools.
No other religious denomination wanted to interfere or felt it was even appropriate to bring this into the schools, but the Catholic Church demanded that. At the time, Mary Hanafin took it away from the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, and gave it to the Marino Institute which came up with a curriculum that required religious segregation. However, those schools are now rebelling, voting with their feet and saying it is not acceptable. Will the Minister rewrite the curriculum or get the NCCA to do it?
The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment took over responsibility in 2012. As I said in my reply, it is currently undertaking a review of that particular patron programme. I also said it is evolving, as the Deputy rightly said too. Increasingly there is no period of the day during which children are withdrawn. However, parents are offered the opportunity, if they wish, to have their children taught in their own faith. That is an option. The class remains intact, but if they wish to withdraw their children for certain elements that can be arranged. The arrangement is evolving and the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment is now undertaking that work. It is moving to a model that will be more appropriate and more welcomed by parents. I value the idea that they invite and celebrate all religions.
I was in Saggart recently and saw it on the ground. It is a really good model. There is an integrated approach to religion and there is great respect for diversity. It is a model that is worth giving impetus for the future.
I have great respect for religious diversity and people's religious beliefs, to which they are entitled. What is totally unacceptable, however, is the religious segregation of young children, particularly in a country where one religious denomination dominates. What was supposed to be a curriculum for multi-denominational schools, which was all inclusive, was then given over to a Catholic college that drew up a curriculum which effectively required segregation. The reason it is "evolving", to use the Minister's nice word, is because nine of the 11 schools established have opted out and have refused to implement the segregation that the "goodness me, goodness you" curriculum tried to force on them.
We need to acknowledge what has happened here and scrap that curriculum. We should get the NCCA to draw up what should have been drawn up 11 years ago, which is a genuinely all-inclusive, non-sectarian, non-discriminatory, non-segregative curriculum that does not involve segregating children on the basis of some requirement to have faith formation within the school. That should be kept outside the school gates.
Perhaps the Deputy is deliberately choosing not to hear what I am saying, but the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment is commencing a review of the very programme the Deputy is talking about. It took over responsibility in 2012 and is commencing a review of that programme. I support the change in practice whereby children in most community national schools remain intact as a group and all religions are considered in a common programme. That is a good evolution of the programme which will fulfil more parents' wishes. I am keen to see more such schools evolve. It will be one element in our promotion of diversity. I am committed to seeing more diversity in schools and this is one such element. I welcome the work of the NCCA and the way in which it has evolved itself.
33. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Education and Skills the steps being taken to improve the administration and to extend the scope of the fund in view of recent comments made by the CEO of Caranua in relation to the administration of the fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17090/17]
I have a specific question for the Minister. What steps have been, are being or will be taken to improve the administration and extend the scope of the Caranua fund in view of the most unacceptable comments the CEO of Caranua concerning the administration of the fund, as well as the hurtful and damaging experiences of many survivors with that board. This has been reported extensively in various print and broadcast media.
First of all, I think that some of those comments were unfortunate and could be open to misunderstanding. However, as regards the substance of the Deputy's question, Caranua is an independent statutory body established under the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Act 2012 to oversee the use of cash contributions of up to €110 million, pledged by religious congregations, to support the needs of survivors of institutional child abuse. The legislation provides that supports may be available in the areas of health and personal social services, mental health services, education and housing. It is a matter for Caranua itself to determine the range of approved services it will support and the criteria by reference to which decisions may be made in respect of applications.
Following its establishment, Caranua determined the approved services to be provided by it and determined the applications criteria. I understand that in 2016 Caranua expanded the approved services it provides and amended its criteria to include a range of additional housing and health-related supports. I have no role in regard to Caranua’s day-to-day activities or matters such as the determination of criteria.
I am aware that there have been concerns raised regarding Caranua in the media and elsewhere. I have met with survivors and I appreciate their concerns. It is vital that in all our dealings with victims of abuse they are dealt with in a sensitive, fair and compassionate manner.
I believe that Caranua has tried to put in place a process that is responsive to the needs of applicants. It has acknowledged the difficulties it has faced especially in the early period when it first began to accept applications. It is required to meet the obligations set out in the 2012 Act and to be accountable. In that regard it should be noted that Caranua will be appearing before the Dáil's Committee of Public Accounts next week.
Caranua's aim is to provide a responsive, friendly and professional service and it has informed me that it takes all complaints seriously. It has a customer service charter, and feedback and complaints policy. There is an independent appeals mechanism and Caranua’s administrative actions are subject to review by the Ombudsman.
It is my intention to carry out a review of eligibility for services provided by Caranua and in that regard draft terms of reference were recently published. A number of submissions were received and these are being considered. It is hoped to finalise the terms of reference shortly and proceed to the review in the near future. Any change in the eligibility requirement would require legislation.
I will be meeting the new board of Caranua when it is appointed and I will be impressing on it the need to ensure that it continues to be responsive to the needs of applicants.
I thank the Minister for that clarification, but can he stand over a CEO on €87,000 making such comments? She reportedly said:
Some applicants will never be happy and grievances suit a narrative. It suits a narrative of the big bad State and the big bad religious congregations, and so on. We have to face the facts that the damage that has been done to these people [these are the words used by the CEO] is so deep that it does not matter what anybody does.
I will not insult the survivors by finishing the quotation because it is simply appalling. I thank the Minister for clarifying that a review is under way on eligibility. Can he tell me when it started and when it will be completed? There has been a 110% increase in appeals since last year. That in itself speaks volumes about the unease that survivors have with the way they are being treated.
We recently discussed Caranua in the House. Deputy Clare Daly put forward a Bill that was supported on Second Stage with a time delay, which gives us an opportunity to conduct this review. It is therefore being done according to a tight timeframe. Obviously, I want to ensure that we hear submissions into the review's terms of reference.
As I have acknowledged, I think the comments as reported were unfortunate and could certainly be open to misinterpretation. I also recognise that Caranua has had a difficult job to do. In its initial phase it had a number of logistical difficulties which gave rise to genuine frustration for many people. Some of its administrative requirements can be irksome for applicants. To be fair to Caranua, however, it made improvements in the processes last year. Clearly, the review needs to look afresh at whether we can do more to improve those processes and make them user friendly, while at the same time ensuring that Caranua can fulfil its obligations to the House and show that the moneys it has spent were incurred as per the criteria set out in the legislation.
This is an important piece of work and I regard it as something that should be completed quickly. I know from other speakers in the House that it is regarded as a priority.
It is important to place on the record that the name Caranua, or new friend, is singularly inappropriate. It is a misuse of the Irish language because the experience of all these survivors is not that they have met a friend.
They have met with delay, obfuscation and the phone not being answered.
There is absolutely no consistency in what survivors get. Sometimes they get a washing machine and sometimes they do not. Sometimes they get a bed which is suited to their needs, and a little bigger than a normal bed, but they do not get the blankets to cover it. This is the level of miserliness with which the scheme has been administered. It gives me no pleasure to repeat this here. I am very familiar with the redress board from a previous life and the survivors, having gone through the board, now having to go through the miserliness of this system, with its total inconsistency and the scale of appeals, speaks volumes. At the very least the CEO on that enormous salary should be asked to apologise.
I have met survivors myself and they have expressed these very concerns. These are the ones who will be subject to the review. Of course there is a customer service charter, a feedback and complaints policy, an appeal mechanism and recourse to the Ombudsman. There are mechanisms in place to try to deal with these inconsistencies. These are standard good practices in any organisation. Part of the review will be to look at why these elements of support are not working in this particular circumstance. This is why it is timely to have a review and ensure we deliver the best we possibly can. I am conscious, having reread some of the Ryan report reviews recently on the way in which the State let down these individuals so badly in the past, that we have an obligation to make sure we support them now in a fair and equitable way. At the same time, I realise Caranua will come before the Committee of Public Accounts and must be able to account for the way it spends its money. There is a balance that must be struck, but I take the Deputy's points and they will be factored into the review.
