Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Dáíl schedule changed as a result of Liam Cosgrave's death last week, which meant that there are items for discussion in the Chamber which are clashing with this. That should not have happened, and I am going to have to exit fairly soon. I will leave some questions for others and make a couple of very quick points. Our key task is the formulation of our report. The Committee of Public Accounts, PAC, which looked at this issue already, was strongly of the view that there needed to be a contingency plan for the individuals that had been flagged as being in the danger zone or at risk of running out. It said that the plan should contain steps that would be taken by the State agencies to assist wards of court before they become total dependants. The first step of that was for the Office of the Wards of Court to identify the cases at risk and throw up a plan in respect of this category to cover health care and accommodation. It also possibly included legislative change. What have the Department of Justice and Equality and the agencies done to bring about change since then?

The funds are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The PAC recommended that the new office of the public guardian should be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and that there was a potential role there. This will require legislative change. Has the witness been involved in any discussions on that?

Can the witness deal with the issue that was highlighted by Ms Farrell in the earlier session - which I found quite shocking - that despite the commitment given that there would be regular annual statements about the financial transactions of the funds no such statements have been furnished, and that the families or committees of wards have to ask a particular question. My heart went out to them; it was like Deputies asking a Minister a question and only getting back a limited answer. Why is that? Are there any plans to change that? It is completely unacceptable. Would the witness accept the points made by Justice for Wards, and indeed Ms Justice Mary Irvine when she said that a seriously injured child cannot be equated with an ordinary investor for the purposes of deciding what is a prudent investment? Decisions like putting everything in strategy four into equities was actually wrong. I am not saying that anybody should be blamed but it was wrong, and the fact that the policy changed afterwards would indicate that should not have happened. There does not seem to be a comparative corrective action for the families that were affected.