Mr. James Finn:

I will take that question. We have identified cases. With regard to the question that came from the Committee of Public Accounts, we identified as many cases as we could where the funds are being depleted. These consisted of a range of cases, including cases 30 and 40 years old, not necessarily cases where serious personal injuries had occurred. We tried to identify every ward of court. We have identified those. Our position, however, is that a change of legislation is a policy matter. We will engage with that but it is not primarily a matter for us to engage in.

I was asked about statements. We have recognised that we were never satisfied ourselves that we were not in a position to give them. We have always been willing to engage. Any questions that were asked were always answered as thoroughly as possible. We have started. One hundred and twenty statements went out with explanatory material, including fact sheets, in addition to a letter stating how people should take the next step if they want more detailed statements. They will all be sent out to all committees over the next few months.

Ms Justice Mary Irvine of the Court of Appeal was quoted. To clarify, that was not a comment looking back on investment performance or the investment policy of the Courts Service. The case was essentially a game-changer in regard to persons who suffer catastrophic injuries. In fact, it was an appeal of a High Court decision that did examine the manner in which wards of court funds were managed. It was not the job of the court to pass judgment but, in so far as the performance and policy of the Courts Service was concerned, there was no criticism. What the courts have said in that case is not that the Courts Service should not have been treating the sufferers of catastrophic injuries as prudent investors. What they were saying is that, in the future, they should not be treated as prudent investors but as persons whose investments should be as risk-free as is reasonably achievable.