Ms Mary Farrell:

There is always the possibility that the fund will run out or be insufficient to meet a ward's needs. This issue arose in one high profile High Court case last year. The judge was very critical of the fact that families would have to put funds into risky investments in order to get the return they needed to provide for the child that was going into wardship.

She insisted that it would be linked not to high-risk investments but to what would be available on the average gilt market. That is where it is at. There is no way that these people can be treated as the new entrants will be treated because all of those things are now known and considered. With this group, the only way to do it is to look at what that fund was like when it went into this system or certainly prior to 2007 and to then look at what the normal transactions on that would have been, as in payments for maintenance and so on and what earnings should have accrued. It must be determined what those funds would have earned since then if they had not been lost and that must be replaced. The amount that was lost and the earnings on that amount should be replaced, at the very least. Families like ourselves have been back and forth to the Courts Service, to various committees, including the Committee of Public Accounts and this committee, are struggling with this. It is very unfair that older people, some of whom are in their 70s, should have to come in here today to fight this battle for their children who are now in late middle age and whose needs are increasing as time goes by. No resolution has been found to date. Indeed, there has been not even been an acceptance of the actual issues involved in that particular investment. Until that is acknowledged and accepted, nothing can be planned going forward. That is the crucial part of this.

What was the second part of the Deputy's question?