The Shame of Ireland
The government will have to pass legislation in 2017 dissolving Caranua so this review is not about survivors its about there government closing down all help to survivors permanently the dail will be voting on it NO wonder there is no response to our emails from the political parties after all there are the ones who will pass the legislation
Other issues arising in the next 12 months include the appointment of a new Board (the term of office of the current Board expires in March 2017) and the need to begin considering the issues involved in the organisation’s dissolution (legislation will be required).
Copied and pasted link provided
Residential Institutions Redress Unit 1. Unit Overview The main functions of the Unit are to manage the State’s response to residential institutional child abuse and to deal with historical day school abuse litigation. Specifically the Unit · oversees the operation of the Redress Scheme, liaising with the Residential Institutions Redress Board and Review Committee and managing the financial arrangements, paying individual awards and related legal costs as instructed by the Redress Board; · liaises with the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, which reported in 2009; · supports Caranua, the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund set up in 2013 to provide support and assistance to certain former residents and provides administrative support for the associated appeals system; · pursues the implementation of the 2002 Indemnity Agreement between the State and 18 religious congregations and the subsequent call for further contributions towards the costs of redress; · deals with the aftermath of the Louise O’Keeffe ECHR decision and supports the State Claims Agency in its management of child abuse cases taken against the State by former residents of residential institutions and former pupils of ordinary day schools; and · pursues the implementation of relevant recommendations of the Ryan Report, such as the provision of a Memorial and the provision of family tracing services via Barnardos. Staffing: The Unit comprises 1PO, 2 APs, 2 HEOs, 5 EOs and 2 COs and is split across Dublin and Athlone, with the PO and 1AP based in Dublin and the remaining staff based in Athlone. 2. Financial Provision Service Outturn 2014 Outturn 2015 Provision 2016 Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse € 7.168m € 1.290m €2.000m Residential Institutions Redress Board € 47.845m € 13.103m € 1.300m 256 Services for Victims of Institutional Abuse (incl €500k for Memorial) € 0.130m € 0.146m € 0.750m 3. Key Priority Issues 3.1 ISSUE: Winding Up of Residential Institutions Redress Bodies and the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Background: The Residential Institutions Redress Board was established in 2002 under the terms of the Residential Institutions Redress Act, 2002, to make fair and reasonable payments to those who, as children, were abused whilst resident in scheduled institutions. In accordance with the governing legislation, the Board is an independent body headed by Justice Esmond Smyth, who was appointed Chairperson of the Board in January 2008. There are 10 other Board members who were appointed by the Minister and these are drawn from the legal and medical professions. The ordinary members have most recently been re-appointed in November 2015 until 31st May 2016 or until such time as the Board has completed its work, whichever is the earlier. The Review Committee, which was also established in 2002, hears appeals from applicants dissatisfied with Redress Board decisions. It is chaired by retired Mr Justice Frank Murphy and has 5 other members who are appointed on the same basis as the Redress Board members. The original closing date for receipt of applications under the Redress Scheme was 15th December, 2005 but late applications in exceptional circumstances were allowed up until 17th September, 2011. Overall expenditure on the Redress Scheme and associated litigation was €1.246bn at end 2015. The Report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (the Ryan Report) was published in May 2009. Since reporting, the Commission has been dealing with the payment of 3rd Party legal costs pursuant to section 20A of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Acts and the cataloguing of its records in advance of it being dissolved. Total expenditure on the Commission to end 2015 was €79.9m. Current Position As of mid April 2016, the Redress Board had finalised 16,649 applications resulting in 15,580 awards plus 1,069 cases not entitled. There are also 10 applications for legal costs for applications to the Board and 1 set of Judicial Review costs. There is 1 new Judicial Review 257 served on the Board in March 2016 and one application with the Review Committee which is the subject of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. At end 2015, the Commission still had a number of religious order respondent third party costs to finalise. Next Steps: There is regular engagement with the bodies regarding their remaining work and there may potentially be a role for the State Claims Agency to deal with any outstanding legal costs issues. When the Minister is satisfied, after consultation with the various Chairs, that the bodies have completed the performance of their functions, he can dissolve them by Order, subject to positive motions of both Houses of the Oireachtas. The enactment of the Retention of Records Bill may also have an impact on the dissolution of the bodies. 3.2 ISSUE: RETAINING THE RECORD OF THE REDRESS BODIES AND THE COMMISSIONTO INQUIRE INTO CHILD ABUSE Background: Dáil Éireann adopted a motion on the Ryan Report on 12 June 2009 which noted inter alia, “the desirability that, in so far as possible, all of the documentation received by and in the possession of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse is preserved for posterity and not destroyed”. In 2013 the Government agreed, in principle, to the Minister bringing forward legislative proposals to allow for the retention of the records of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, the Residential Institutions Redress Board and the Residential Institutions Review Committee. These proposals will include amendments to existing legislation where necessary. Concerned that the destruction of the records would represent a very significant loss while, at the same time, conscious of the sensitivity attaching to the records, the proposed retention will be subject to appropriate safeguards. It is intended that the records will be retained in the National Archives and completely sealed for a period of at least 75 years following which access would be subject to strict safeguards. Under the existing legislation it is a matter for the Commission to make such arrangements as it considers appropriate for the making of as complete a record as is practicable of its proceedings in relation to the custody and disposal of its records. Similarly, the 2002 Redress Act provides that it is a matter for the Redress Board and the Review Committee to determine the disposal of the documents concerning applications made to them. Both the Commission and the Redress Board operated under stringent confidentiality and privacy requirements enshrined in legislation, which allowed the victims of abuse to tell their story in a safe environment. Unauthorised disclosure of confidential information by the relevant bodies constitutes a criminal offence. 258 It is estimated that the bodies have in excess of 2 million records. Current Position: In March 2015, the Government approved the General Scheme of the Retention of Records Bill. The General Scheme was subsequently published and was referred to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Education and Social Protection for pre-legislative scrutiny. The Joint Committee, having considered the General Scheme, provided its comments and recommendations to the Minister. A number of changes were subsequently made to the General Scheme which was then submitted to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government (OPC). A preliminary draft of the Bill was provided by the OPC on 29 September. The Department has had useful discussions with the National Archives (NAI) in relation to the policy issues underpinning the General Scheme particularly in relation to control of the records once archived and future management of access arrangements (i.e. after the 75 year period has elapsed). The General Scheme reflected the views of the National Archives. . Next Steps: The text of the Bill needs to be finalized in consultation with the OPC so as to ensure early publication and enactment. Further consultation will take place with the NAI and other stakeholders as required. 3.3 ISSUE: SUPPORTING CARANUA TO MEET THE DEMAND FOR SERVICES FROM FORMER RESIDENTS Background: The Residential Institutions Statutory Fund (RISF) Act was enacted in July 2012 and provided for the establishment of a Statutory Fund to support the needs of victims of residential institutional abuse. The Act also provided for the dissolution of the Education Finance Board which was established in 2006 and financed by a €12.7m contribution under the terms of the 2002 Indemnity Agreement9 . The RISF was established on 25 March 2013 and a 9 member board appointed, which is currently chaired by Mr David O’Callaghan, former Secretary General of the Department of Defence. The Fund’s role is to use the contributions of up to €110m to fund approved services to support survivors' needs. These services can include health and personal social services, 9 In 2002, the Irish Ministers for Finance and Education entered into a binding Congregational Indemnity Agreement with the Conference of Religious in Ireland, which was then representing 18 religious orders. Under this agreement, the congregations agreed to contribute €128 million in cash, property and counselling services. In exchange, the State agreed to indemnify the orders against any legal actions which former residents might bring against them during the lifetime of the Residential Institutions Redress Board. 259 educational services and housing services. It is intended that the services provided will be complementary to survivors' statutory entitlements. Eligibility for assistance from the Fund is confined to those former residents who received awards from the Residential Institutions Redress Board or similar awards or settlements in court proceedings and who would otherwise have received an award from the Redress Board. Approximately 15,000 survivors are eligible, some of whom live overseas. In response to calls for the eligibility to be widened during the passage of the legislation through the Houses of Oireachtas, an undertaking was given to review the operation of the Fund two years after its establishment. That review has yet to take place. Current position: The Board adopted the service name Caranua in October 2013 and set up a website www.caranua.ie. Having published its approved services and guidelines, Caranua began accepting applications on 6th January 2014. The applications process involves a number of stages and the numbers at each stage at end February 2016 are set out as follows: Total Applications Received 5,180 Stage 1 – Confirm Eligibility (i.e. is an eligible former resident) 4,957 Stage 2 - Confirm Identity (applicant supplies proof of identity) 4,509 Stage 3 - Call from Application Adviser – initial assessment 3,564 Stage 4 - Application Submission and Decision leading to awards 2,927 Over 21,000 payments had issued in respect of the 2,927 approved applicants at end February. At end February total payments amounting to €42.98m had been made (£6.23m of this being paid on behalf of 569 UK based applicants). This expenditure is broken down under the following categories: Health: €10.86m (26%) Housing: €31m (72%) Education: €1m (2%). Since it was established, Caranua has incurred administration expenses of some €4m. Staffing and Contracts A staffing complement of 10 posts was approved for Caranua and all of these posts were filled by mid-2014. By mid-2014, Caranua were trying to deal with a growing backlog of applications and were heavily reliant on the use of agency staff. Its current staffing consists of 24 people (23.8 WTE) made up of 6 core employees and 17.8 agency staff. Appeals Officer 260 The 2012 RISF Act provides for an independent Appeals Officer to consider appeals against individual decisions on applications to Caranua. Mr Pat Whelan, former Director of the Office of the Ombudsman is the current Appeals Officer. having been reappointed on 31 March 2016. He is due to submit his second annual report shortly. The Redress Unit provides administrative support for the Appeals Officer and 190 appeals had been received by mid April 2016. How Caranua is funded through contributions from Congregations Contributions from congregations are deposited in the special investment account opened by the National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA) in accordance with section 29 of the 2012 Act. Some €84.9m comprising contributions and associated interest have been lodged to this account to date. In accordance with section 30 of the Act, expenditure incurred by Caranua in the performance of its functions is met from the investment account. Caranua requests the NTMA to forward sums as required to meet its expenditure. Expenditure incurred in relation to the independent appeals officer is also met from the investment account (to date some €15,200 has been paid to Mr Patrick Whelan) Next Steps: Caranua intends to review the services available for survivors to see if they are meeting the needs of survivors. It is also proposed to reduce the reliance on agency staff by recruiting staff on a fixed purpose contract basis. Other issues arising in the next 12 months include the appointment of a new Board (the term of office of the current Board expires in March 2017) and the need to begin considering the issues involved in the organisation’s dissolution (legislation will be required). 3.4 ISSUE: Pursuing the full implementation of the 2002 Indemnity Agreement between the State and 18 religious congregations Background: Under the 2002 Indemnity Agreement, 18 congregations are providing a contribution of €128m comprising cash, property and counselling services. The cash and counselling portions of the Indemnity have been paid in full. The transfer of 45 of the 61 agreed property transfers has been fully completed. The total value of these properties is €42,650,075, which represents 67% of the total monetary value of all the properties transferring under this aspect of the Indemnity Agreement. The State indemnified the congregations involved in respect of awards under the Redress Scheme and any court awards, settlements and costs relating to child abuse in residential institutions, which would have been eligible for consideration under the Redress Scheme. Up to the end of 2015, a total of €10.2m was expended pursuant to this indemnity 261 Current Position: Work is continuing to complete the legal requirements to finalise the transfer process of the remaining 15 properties under the terms of the Indemnity Agreement. This has proved to be a complex process but the Department expects that a number of properties will be fully transferred under the Agreement shortly. It is likely that, a number of the remaining properties which are transferring either to this Department or to the Health Service Executive, will not meet the standard of good and marketable title required by the 2002 Agreement. In July 2013, the Government agreed that the Minister for Education and Skill may accept properties pursuant to the Indemnity Agreement that may not fully meet the standard of good and marketable title. In October 2015, the Minister agreed to accept 7 such properties where the qualification is technical and does not materially affect the valuation of the property. Their transfer is being proceeded with. Next steps: The Department is continuing to actively engage with the Chief State Solicitor’s Office who liaise with the solicitors for the congregations and the solicitors acting on behalf of the HSE. As the Redress Scheme nears completion, there is ongoing engagement with the State Claims Agency in relation to any potential litigation outstanding which comes within the scope of the Indemnity Agreement. 3.5 ISSUE: Pursuing further contributions towards the costs of redress Background: Successive Governments have adopted the position that the costs of the response to residential institutional abuse should be shared on a 50:50 basis between the State and those who managed the institutions. This position has broad support across Dáil Éireann and it has been argued that there is a strong moral obligation on those involved, to deliver on their responsibilities. The final costs of the redress response are expected to reach some €1.5billion with the bulk of these costs of some €1.25billion relating to the Redress Scheme. A 50:50 sharing of the costs would therefore require a €725 million contribution from those responsible for managing the institutions. However, the contributions offered to date fall well short of this figure and Governments have expressed disappointment that the congregations have not agreed to a 50:50 sharing of the costs. The combination of all contributions offered by congregations to date, both under the 2002 Indemnity Agreement and subsequent to the Ryan Report, amount to €480 million. The shortfall on the target 50% share now stands at €245 million. Current position: 262 In addition to the €128m under the Indemnity Agreement, in the aftermath of the Ryan Report the congregations individually committed to contribute some €110 million to help former residents – this funding is being made available to Caranua. Some €84.9m comprising contributions of €83.54m and associated interest have been lodged to the NTMA account to date. Further contributions of €12m are expected in 2016 and 2017 with a further €2m expected in 2018 by which time virtually the full €110m will have been received. The congregations have also offered properties, which they valued at a further €235.5m to various State agencies and voluntary organisations. The bulk of the property offers comprise Christian Brothers’ school playing fields valued at €127 million and 48 Sisters of Mercy properties valued at €107.5 million. Ministerial approval to formally accept 3 properties under the 2012 RISF Act was given in late 2015 and the final steps are now been taken to complete the transfer of these properties. A number of other properties will be submitted for ministerial approval in the near future. Apart from one congregation that believes its contribution represents its 50% share, the remaining congregations have either declined to comment on the appropriateness of, or disagree with the 50:50 principle. Next Steps: Engagement with the congregations is continuing in relation to property transfers. 3.6 ISSUE: ECHR Judgment in the Louise O’Keeffe Case Background: Ms O’Keeffe is a former pupil of Dunderrow National School, Co Cork where she was sexually assaulted by the school Principal, Leo Hickey, in 1973. She was awarded €53,962.24 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal and then subsequently awarded damages of €305,000 against Mr Hickey in the High Court. The Court held that the Department was not vicariously liable and Ms O’Keeffe appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in December 2008 that the State was not vicariously liable for Mr Hickey’s actions. Ms O’Keeffe complained to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that the State failed under Article 3 to protect her from abuse and under Article 13 to provide her with an effective remedy. Other claims were made under Article 8 (right to respect for private life) and Article 2 of Protocol No 1 (right to education), alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). The ECHR delivered a Grand Chamber judgment in the case on 28th January 2014. It found, by a 11:6 majority decision, that there was a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 3 of 263 the Convention as regards the State's failure to fulfil its obligation to protect the applicant and that there has been a violation of Article 13, taken together with the substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of the lack of an effective remedy as regards the State's failure to fulfil its obligation to protect the applicant. The ECHR held that Ms O’Keeffe should be paid €30,000 damages and €85,000 in respect of the costs and expenses of the domestic and Convention proceedings. The ECHR held unanimously that there has been no violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention and that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaints under Article 8 or under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, whether alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. The damages and costs have been paid. Current Position: The State is obliged to abide by the judgment and it is the responsibility of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers to supervise implementation of Court judgments. Implementation of a judgment requires publication and dissemination of a judgment by a state and may involve the adoption of individual and general measures. Individual measures are those required to put an end to the violation and remedy, as far as possible, its negative consequences for the applicant e.g. the payment of any sum awarded by the Court. General measures are those required to prevent violations similar to those found by the Court coming before it again. As regards the latter, states retain a certain amount of discretion as to how they implement a judgment. Enhanced Procedure In its role of supervising states’ implementation of Judgments, the Committee of Ministers may decide to examine a judgment under the enhanced procedure (as opposed to the standard procedure). The enhanced procedure is for judgments considered to raise complex or structural problems within a State. The difference between the two procedures is that, in relation to the enhanced procedure, the Secretariat (who advise the Committee of Ministers) are more proactive in their contacts with a state. Supervision of Ireland’s implementation of the O’Keeffe judgment is being done under the enhanced method of supervision. States are required to keep the Committee of Ministers informed of all developments as regards implementation of a judgment by way of lodging Action Plans, initially within six months of a judgment, and as necessary thereafter. When a state has taken all the necessary steps to implement a judgment it lodges an Action Report and requests that that the Committee of Ministers terminate its consideration of the case. Once lodged, the Action Plans (and Action Reports) are publicly available. Ireland’s implementation of the O’Keeffe v Ireland Judgment To date, Ireland has lodged 4 Action Plans with the Council of Europe (July 2014, January 2015 and July 2015 and January 2016) setting out the steps being taken to implement the judgment (see below). The last Action Plan was filed with the Council of Europe on 28th January. 264 Next Steps: An Action Plan setting out the steps taken or to be taken to implement the judgement must be lodged with the Council of Europe every 6 months since the judgement was delivered. These steps include both individual measures to put an end to the violation and remedy, as far as possible, its negative consequences for the applicant and general measures to prevent violations similar to those found by the Court coming before it again. The next Action Plan is due to be lodged with the Council of Europe on 28th July 2016. 3.7 Issue: Provision of a Memorial to Victims of Residential Institutional Abuse Background: In recommending the provision of a Memorial, the Ryan Report noted the importance of the State’s formal recognition of the abuse that occurred and the suffering of victims being preserved in a permanent place. A Memorial Committee (chaired by Mr Seán Benton former Chairman of the OPW) was appointed in October 2009, to oversee the design and commissioning of a Memorial and a budget of €500,000 was allocated. The OPW agreed to make a site adjacent to the Garden of Remembrance available should the winner take the form of a physical artefact. However, entrants were not limited to this site and could make a submission for other state owned sites. The Competition Jury unanimously decided to award the commission to Studio Negri and Hennessy & Associates, for the Journey of Light. The Jury felt that the manner in which the proposed memorial integrated with the Garden of Remembrance would provide an enduring symbol of lost innocence to inspire future generations to ensure the protection of all children. With the announcement of the competition winner in July 2012, the OPW applied for and received planning permission from Dublin City Council in May 2013. Following an appeal, An Bord Pleanála refused planning permission for the Memorial in November 2013 on the grounds that it would have an adverse impact on the setting, character and function of the Garden of Remembrance. Current Position: The Memorial Committee recommended that, while any new competition should be open to conceptual and site specific proposals, a central Dublin location be identified on a cost neutral basis with appropriate zoning. Department officials have consulted with Dublin City Council which has identified several potential sites for the proposed Memorial. However, the winning design uses the physical features of the Garden of Remembrance site and the design cannot be created on a different site. Next Steps: The Department is considering how best to progress the project. 265 3.8 ISSUE: Implementing other relevant recommendations of the Ryan Report Background: The Ryan Report contained 20 formal recommendations and an Implementation Plan, with 99 specific actions, was adopted to deal with their implementation. These actions are designed to: address the effects of past abuse; reform service provision, and, ensure that children and young people have a stronger voice. Some of the 99 actions have a specific target date for completion, while other actions are noted as ‘ongoing’. The overall aim of the Plan is to make a difference to children’s lives by addressing past failings and putting measures in place to achieve better outcomes in the delivery of services to children and families. Implementation of the Plan has been overseen by a High Level Group chaired by the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. The Fourth and Final Report on the Implementation Plans has been published by the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. In terms of recommendations to “alleviate or otherwise address the effects of the abuse on those who suffered”, the Report recommends the provision of the Memorial (outlined earlier); that counselling and educational services should be available (these are provided via the HSE National Counselling Service and via Caranua (previously the Education Finance Board) and that Family Tracing Services should be continued. The Unit funds Barnardos to provide the Origins Family Tracing Service which is a dedicated service for former residents wishing to trace family members with whom they have lost contact. Barnardos operates the service pursuant to a Service Agreement with the Department. Access to the confidential service is on a self-referral basis and the overall numbers accessing the service to end 2015 are set out in following table: To end Year Total Requests Received Total Requests Processed Cases to be processed 2015 1,392 1,350 42 The service arranges contacts between a client and any family members identified subject to necessary consents being obtained and it mediates between the client and family members as required. Over 50% of completed cases led to either a reunion or information about the family of origin being traced. Current Position: Barnardos continues to provide the Origins Family Tracing Service and Department officials meet with them at least once every six months as part of the agreed monitoring arrangements. Next Steps: 266 The Department will continue to fund the service and its requirements will be monitored to ensure a continued quality service to those seeking assistance. 4. Bodies under the aegis of the Department Name of Body: The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Established and operating under the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Acts, 2000 and 2005. Main responsibilities: Having published its report in May 2009, the Commission continues to deal with claims for the payment of 3rd party legal costs and with the cataloguing its records. Allocation 2016: €1.3 million Staff numbers: 6 staff (5.4 WTEs) – 2 seconded civil servants and 4 contracted staff. Name of Body: Residential Institutions Redress Board/Review Committee Established and operating under the Residential Institutions Redress Acts 2002 to 2011. Main responsibilities: To make awards to persons who, as children, suffered abuse whilst resident in specific institutions Allocation 2016: €2 million Staff numbers: 7 staff (6.8 WTEs) – the 7 staff are civil servants and there is one contract staff member (0.2WTEs) in the Review Committee. Name of Body: Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Board (Caranua) Established and operating under the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Act 2012. Main responsibilities: To use the contributions pledged by the congregations, of up to €110m, to fund services to support former residents' needs. Caranua approves services across three general areas – Health and General Wellbeing; Housing Support and Education, Learning and Development. Allocation 2014: There is no Exchequer funding to this body. Staff numbers: 6 staff – including 1 public servant and 5 fixed-term employees. 17.8 agency staff to deal with applications and to provide additional administrative support 267 Special Education 1. Unit / Section Overview The Special Education Section is responsible for
Shep, don't you mean, (hold your nose with two fingers)
, peppi la Pu.
We really need to get out and protest as I have said before if this fund was run properly their would be no need for dissolution of the fund!!
I sent in the quote for my teeth cleaning and my reading glasses a couple of month's ago and was told then that it would be month's before I would be considered which I was resigned to anyway. Yesterday I received a letter from, (you all know who) she informed me that, further to your conversation with your advisor ? I dont have an advisor for month's because Patrick my then advisor, (well sort of,) told me to contact caranua direct myself which I did and sent quotes for glasses and teeth cleaning direct, Mary states further, As you know, we require receipts for all payments that we make to you, and I would be grateful if you could return any outstanding receipts to us, using the enclosed envelope. Yours sincerly. Mary.
I do not understand this woman, I always sent quotes and receipts to caranua,Period. My first advisor was either fired or quit, his replacement, Patrick, was a dead loss before they stopped him being my advisor a few months ago. I have PTSD which the head examiner sent them, they have done nothing regards to that, I asked them to.
try and locate my sisters grave, she died whilst I was caged up, she was 13, nothing done about that . There are less than 100 survivors here in Canada, figure that out. I need a lawyer.
She then ends the letter, I started laughing, We are delighted to have been able to respond to the needs that you presented to us, ha ha, and hope that you will be able to enjoy the benefits of the assistance you have received into the future ha ha,
Hope I don't run anyone over whilst driving the 20 miles to the grocery store and my teeth fall out. Now, that letter should bring you a morning smile, hope your teeth don't need cleaning.