Ms ?ine Flynn:

I think the balance of questions were for us. Deputy Tully's questions concerned the review of those existing wards of court under Part 6 of the Act and her first question was a practical one about legal aid. I am not able locate the actual amendment at the moment but I am confident that an amendment contained in the amendment Bill does extend the provision of legal aid to those wards who will have access to the discharge process under Part 6. As I said in the opening statement, the position of wards of court is improved by amendments to Part 6 generally in terms of representation and access to the court to have their voices heard, as well as the removal and entire repeal of section 57, which proposed an abbreviated process for current wards of court and which referred to "a class of wards", which I think was objectionable language.

The Deputy's second question was why people are still being admitted to wardship.

The DSS is not party to those applications; we will not be a party to Part 6 either. Wardship should currently only ever be applied for as a last resort. It is an archaic process and its repeal is overdue. Petitions are brought because there is a perception that a decision or set of decisions needed to be taken and that the support of wardship is required. I know nothing about the case to which the Senator referred, but I presume it was in those exigencies that the application was brought. She is quite right that the person admitted to wardship will immediately be eligible to apply to come back out of wardship.