Ms Mary Farrell:

On behalf of Justice for Wards, I thank the joint committee for giving us the opportunity to make a presentation. I particularly thank those members who have petitioned on our behalf. I am accompanied by members of Justice for Wards who are in the Visitors Gallery with other supporters. We are here to address the matter of wards of court and, in particular, their investments. The average person would know little about the wards of court system, unless he or she worked in the area, was affected by it or involved in some other way.

Wards of court are among the most vulnerable in the State. They are deemed to lack the capacity to manage their affairs. The Office of Wards of Court is governed by the archaic 1871 lunacy regulations which are in violation of the UN Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Under the current system all wards are deemed to lack capacity. There are no degrees of capacity. For example, wards of court cannot marry or leave the country without permission, or make decisions about medical treatments. When a person becomes a ward of court, his or her property is taken under the care of the court and all major decisions will be made by the Office of Wards of Court or the President of the High Court who has responsibility for wards. This may happen for many reasons, including that the person concerned may have old age related dementia, neurological disabilities, mental health disabilities, brain injuries and so on. There are 20,000 beneficiaries in the system, including 2,800 wards of court with funds of €5.65 billion held by the Courts Service on their behalf. There has been much discussion and debate in the past ten years about changing this system, but it is only now that a process has begun with the recent appointment of the director of the decision support service under the Mental Health Commission. We welcome this long-awaited development, but we are told that it will be some time before all processes are in place to allow wards of court to be discharged from wardship into the decision support service. In the new system capacity is assumed and varying levels of supports will be provided. However, the Government has not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

We are here to discuss the current system of wards of court and, more specifically, the role of the Courts Service in the investment and management of wards’ funds. Wards of court will have a committee appointed to look after their every day needs under the supervision of the Office of Wards of Court. Parents may be the committee for their child's person and estate. A husband, wife or partner may be the committee for their wife's, husband's or partner's person and estate. This can be an onerous task, depending on the needs of the ward and the extent of the work involved in his or her care and so on. Some wards come within the remit of the Office of the General Solicitor which acts as the committee for their estate or property for various reasons which will be discussed during the debate. If this happens, the family loses all control over how funds are spent and cannot obtain the information they need. They are virtually cut off.

We are unaware of how many wards come within the remit of the Office of the General Solicitor. In 2001 the figure was 40% of wards, but today the figure is unknown to us. Generally, it appears that this happens when a ward does not have a family member to take responsibility for his or her financial affairs, but it also happens for other reasons which are not clear. I hope they will become clear during the debate. As neither the ward nor his or her family has any control over the money once it is taken under the control of the Courts Service, families rely heavily on the expertise of the Courts Service in the investment of the funds. That has become a central issue for many wards since the financial crisis during the years 2007 to 2009, inclusive, when the funds of many wards were seriously depleted, to the point where many of them lost their entire funds. Some of them were left to depend on social welfare payments when their funds were depleted owing to the downturn in their value.

The Courts Service set up a new investment scheme in 2003 after computerisation had been introduced. Prior to that year funds were held in individual accounts and manual ledgers were used. We understand it received advice from the NTMA and Mercer on the type of investments which would meet the needs of this very vulnerable group of citizens. In due course the fund was set up and families received a letter stating this had been done, with an information booklet. One had to assume that with all of the expertise involved, the funds would be well managed and secure. We believe due diligence did not take place, which is why we are here to debate the issues involved. We hope to find solutions to the problems. The committee has been provided with extensive material on these matters, including our written submission, various reports and other relevant documents. It is our contention that some wards have lost considerable amounts of money, that the investments did not meet their needs and were not fit for purpose. It is also our contention that the expertise required to make decisions on these investments and appropriate risk avoidance strategies was not in place. The people in question are not ordinary investors. They are the most vulnerable and cannot be consulted. Their families and-or committees are not consulted on decisions made about investments. The investments cannot be equated with average citizens' investments, people like us who make decisions or take risks and expect a return but lose funds. They did not make any such decision, nor did their families. We hope the meeting will prove fruitful and that this matter can be opened up for further discussion and clarification with a view to resolving the matters under discussion.