Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the Deputies for their contributions and I thank Deputy Ó Caoláin, in particular, and his colleagues for their work on this most important issue.

A number of very serious allegations have been made, in particular by Deputy McGuinness, and I am keen that they would be dealt with. It is not the first time I have heard Deputy McGuinness make these allegations. The Deputy spoke of the need for accountability, with which I agree, but I challenge him on the basis that such accountability is in place. The Deputy also spoke of the need to involve the families. I agree and again I point to such procedure and practice being in place. The Deputy alleges poor investment. I say, "Not so". I ask him for evidence and I point to the Mazars report. Deputy McGuinness did not give the evidence. I have heard him make these allegations time and again. I ask him to engage with information that he seems to have. I expect that a responsible Deputy would have evidence and information to back up allegations of a very serious nature, which Deputy McGuinness continues to make. He makes allegations of bad management. Again, I say "Not so" and I point to the investment performance. I reiterate that the Courts Service is happy to engage and keen to be apprised of evidence which Deputy McGuinness, or any other Deputy who has raised this issue, are in a position to provide, or indeed any information. As Minister, it is my expectation that the Courts Service will engage. It wishes to engage and it is happy to engage. I would regard it as a function of the Courts Service to engage having regard to its involvement in the matter.

Deputy O'Callaghan is right in his commentary on the Mazars report and the review. The 63 cases identified are cases that had been identified by the Committee of Public Accounts and the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality. The need for engagement was also implied in Deputy O'Callaghan's contribution. I would ask people who remain dissatisfied and upset to engage to ensure that a process of information can be provided and that questions can be answered, because I believe they should be answered.

I say to Deputy Fleming - I am sure he will understand this - that it is not the judges who manage the court funds. There is an engagement on the part of professional fund managers. They act as advisers and they are appointed by the Courts Service. Again, they are people who are engaged in a thoroughly professional capacity. This is a point that was also referred to by Deputy Catherine Murphy. On fund governance and performance, I see no reason we cannot be satisfied that the management, governance and performance compares favourably with international best practice. I do not accept Deputy Fleming's criticism of the Courts Service. It is not only unfounded, it is somewhat unfair. The Deputy mentioned, as did Deputy Catherine Murphy, the role of the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA. Both Deputies will be aware that there is a representative of the NTMA on the Courts Service investment committee, who brings a certain level of expertise and experience. On the role of the NTMA, again, I would point to ensuring best practice in the performance of appropriate duties.

For the benefit of Deputy Sherlock and anybody else who may not be clear on this issue, the 63 cases which form the subject matter of the Mazars report were those cases which sold units from the growth fund during our financial crisis. If any cases were to incur losses, I believe they would be captured in this group. Again, I would refer people to the Mazars report and the independence of that report. However, as well as the 63 cases which were captured, I would remind members of the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality that requests were also made to interested parties to identify any other cases that might be the subject matter of questions or that might be appropriate for a further review. If there were issues by way of further supporting information and documentation, my understanding was that they would have been dealt with had the information been forthcoming. I would ask people to engage. I would ask Deputies who have been engaged on this issue for some time to engage with the appropriate authorities.

I want to assure Deputy Catherine Murphy that preparations are well under way in respect of the new regime. I am keen to ensure that the timeframe within which the appropriate new structures are to be set in train will be as minimum as possible and that every effort will be made to advance matters. In this regard, I point to the high level steering group that has been established. Deputy Fleming is right that there is a role for a number of stakeholders and Departments, including the Department of Justice and Equality and the Department of Health, the Mental Health Commission and the Courts Service. Recently, my Department funded a number of researchers for the National Disability Authority, NDA, to do work on codes of practice and arrangements. The Mental Health Commission has engaged a consultancy firm to develop a detailed costed plan to operationalise, as soon as possible, the decision support service. In June of last year, my Department engaged an external legal expert to assist in the preparation of the draft regulations. That is an important body of work.

The issues that Deputy Connolly referred to will be addressed in the context of the new regime when the new Act is fully operational. Work is under way to ensure that will take place as quickly as possible. It is important that the new regime be specifically designed to meet the needs of people with age-related conditions, intellectual disabilities, acquired brain injuries and mental health issues. The Act offers an appropriate range of services to allow for support options to assist people in maximising their decision-making capacity.

I regard the issues raised in this debate with the utmost seriousness. I thank the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality and the Committee of Public Accounts before that for engaging on this issue. Having listened to Members and acknowledged a measure of dissatisfaction on the part of some, notwithstanding the preparation of the new regime and the Mazars report, I am keen to ask the Courts Service to consider if a further review might be warranted because I need to ensure that we have a system that families have confidence in, especially people who are dealing with wards of court, all of whom are in a position of great vulnerability. I ask families of those involved who still have a grievance if they would be in a position to provide evidence and details on the matter of the depletion of funds. I will ask the Courts Service to continue to engage to ensure that outstanding issues can be dealt with.

See this speech in context