Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and colleagues who have participated in this important debate. I would like to reflect on a number of points. I welcome the initiation of Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Liability (Amendment) Act 2017 last October, providing for periodic payments, which I believe is an important development that could constructively help to avoid some of the more serious situations that have given rise to the committee's address of this issue.

In his opening remarks, the Minister went through a series of recommendations in the report. The first of his remarks related to an independent third party carrying out an examination of the particular committees or committee funding for certain wards of court. The Minister referred to the appointment or engagement by the Courts Service of Mazars. It is important that, in the Courts Service's attendance and subsequent correspondence with the committee, it advised us that it would take this step. On behalf of the committee, I wrote to the Courts Service and requested that it would not proceed but that it would allow the committee to complete its deliberations and formulate its recommendations, whereupon appropriate steps could be pursued. We would have, at all times, believed that it was essential that the identification and appointment of an independent third party to carry out such an examination would be by agreement between the Courts Service and the individuals represented by Justice for Wards. There was no such engagement or consultation; there was only exclusion. That is not what the joint committee wanted.

It was regrettable and the committee found it unsatisfactory that the Courts Service proceeded as it did, ignoring its appeal, which was still in the process of considering this issue. The Courts Service acted unilaterally and with disrespect to the wishes of the joint committee, which it had only a short time previously appeared before as a witness on this issue. I do not question the professionalism of Mazars in carrying out its work but the process was flawed. It was contrary to the wishes of the committee and it excluded the Justice for Wards families. We believe that exercise should still be carried out and that the families should be fully involved. The Minister is asking for evidence to present but that request can best be made and fulfilled in the context of the full implementation, to the spirit and the letter, of the first recommendation in our report.

On the recommendation on the issuing of financial statements and, following on from the presentation of the Courts Service at the committee, the issuance of annual financial statements, my understanding is that these are not statements so much as a statement of a figure or balance. In some instances, many of which apply to the families concerned, it does not include the full detail of activity over the relevant period, whether for 12 months or more frequently. That simply does not provide the transparency and information that the aggrieved families feel should be proffered. Statements are now being provided but more detailed information must be shared, showing full activity, deductions, taxes and so on that may apply in any period covered, at least annually.

In the third recommendation, we talk about those wards who are in a perilous financial position with funds almost exhausted. I believe that it is not good enough to say that a State agency will respond to the needs of those affected. There needs to be a more proactive person or persons who have been identified to go to about the matter. Those people should have the necessary knowledge and skills to address those needs properly and assuage the fears of that body of parents and siblings who, moving on in life, have a real fear for the future of their loved one who does not have the capacity to speak up or provide for their own needs.

It is fine for those who can, but we are looking at people who do not have the capacity in the first instance, and we are looking at those around them who are concerned because of their time of life and who have given of their best years in the service of our society and in support of their loved ones. We need to simplify and to make things happen for them in a proactive way and there is no evidence of that.

Our view is that recommendation 4 on the new decision support service must be established and fully operational as soon as possible. The Minister states that most of the provisions of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act will be rolled out in 2020. That suggests to me that not all of the provisions of the Act will be rolled out in 2020. It is at the core of the appeal, which I make again on behalf of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice and Equality, that we see real prioritisation to ensure the speediest possible progress of the introduction of a decision support service. That is at the very core of it. The Minister referenced in the course of his opening remarks that there was a Revised Estimate with an additional provision of funds to assist that project to move forward. The great fear is that in spite of the date for the introduction of the critical element at the core of the decision support service, it will not happen before the end of 2020, and like so much else it will drift on beyond it. We should not forget that there is a further delay period in terms of the transition from the wardship scheme into the decision support service that can go on for at least another three years. We are talking about at least another four and a half years down the road before some of the families will find themselves in a new situation and engagement. That is not good enough. The matter needs to be addressed with the speed and urgency that their time in life and the needs of their loved ones clearly demand.

I wish to respond to what was said in response to recommendation 5 and the Attorney General advising that wardship funds are not public funds and that involvement by the Comptroller and Auditor General could undermine the independence of the courts and Judiciary. I noted that the Minister stated in his closing remarks that the fund managers or advisers are professional and outside the core functions of the Courts Service. They are not judges. I wonder at the advice of the Attorney General. The people who make the decisions on all of this are not members of the Judiciary. They are professionally employed to carry out specific functions, albeit by the Courts Service. I question the Attorney General's opinion that for the Comptroller and Auditor General to have oversight over the process would in any way undermine the independence of the courts and the Judiciary. That does not stand up and it really-----

See this speech in context