Mr. James Finn:

The point about communication was made. We have recognised that improvements had to be made and they are being made.

The point about inconsistency in communication was also made. Maybe I could point out, because Ms Mary Farrell raised the issue, the default position when a person is a made a ward of court is that a family member, if possible, is appointed committee. The committee's role is very important. They are involved in both the affairs - the property - but also, of course, the personal welfare. Where there is no one suitable, where there is no one available or where a potential conflict of interest might arise, or, indeed, in a very small number of cases, where there are concerns about financial abuse, the Solicitor General is appointed as an independent committee. Our communications are always with the committee and sometimes it causes difficulties.

Sometimes we have a decision to make we prefer not to make which is that our communications are with the committee and not necessarily with the family. The reason for that is a legal one. When a person is an adult, the fact one is a family member does not necessarily make one have the right to all information. That is not a feature of wardship. It is also, for example, in the other legal framework that currently pertains - the enduring powers of attorney. In the same way, an attorney - the courts have found this - has no obligation to give information to persons other than, for example, a committee. I would say that the difference arises from the fact that most committees, but not all, are family members.