Ms ?ine Flynn:

I have no better information than the Senator on her first question. The DSS is not involved in the process of the ratification of the optional protocol. I am aware that earlier undertakings were made that it would be ratified when - the particular contingency identified was - the 2015 Act was commenced. I am not aware of any changes of plan around that. That is a matter for the Government, I presume in consultation with the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and I suspect with the advice of the Attorney General. I hope it will not be delayed. We would certainly welcome its ratification.

I will turn to the Senator's other questions, if I may. The second one was about wardship. The 2015 Act abolishes wardship under the 1871 Act. There will not be any new applications for wardship and that will follow immediately on commencement. One of the latter amendments to the Act provides that if an application for wardship has been initiated at the time of commencement, it may be pursued to its conclusion. However, a more recent additional amendment states that should not inhibit a person who is the subject of such an application having access to the framework under the new Act. All current wards of court will become immediately eligible to commence the process to come out of wardship. There are approximately 2,200 adult wards of court at present and the largest category is older adults who have some form of dementia. All will be immediately eligible to move an application under Part 6 of the Act. That falls under the responsibility of the wardship court and the Office of Wards of Court has been doing preparatory work. All must have their cases heard and exit wardship within three years at the latest. They may have their property and autonomy fully restored to them or the court may find they require one of the supports offered under the new Act.

The Senator's third question about wards who have had negative experiences of wardship and the particular contention that money, which under wardship is always invested in court, was lost is outside the remit of the DSS.

I am aware it was the subject of an inquiry at committee level some years back and the Office of Wards of Court participated and I understand commissioned their own independent report as well, so it did get some attention some years ago. Beyond that I am not free to comment.