Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I listened with interest because as public representatives, this issue has come to the attention of all Members, namely, the awful devastation when people get a statement and make a discovery about money they believed to be absolutely secure and people will ask how much more secure can it be than when the courts are minding it for them.

However, we are moving away from a court system and that is why the amendments are not relevant. While I understand perfectly what the Senator is saying, as soon as this Bill is enacted everyone will be out of wardship within a three-year period. Their funds will be returned to them to manage as they please, in some cases with co-decision-makers, and with the advice of people such as their bank manager, a financial adviser, their parents or perhaps a friend who has knowledge of these matters.

I commend the Senator's foresight because the Government is moving away from a court-based system. While the Bill was being debated in the Dáil, one amendment proposed the extension of wardship should be done within six months and the argument was put to the Government that this could not be done because some people are ready right now to exit wardship. Some people will not be ready even at the end of the three-year period, I refer to the need to put together the security package that gives them the freedom to make those decisions for themselves, but on exiting wardship, their funds will be returned to them. The Government has asked for advice on the three amendments and in particular, has sought advice from the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, because its staff, as Senator Norris rightly observed, have more expansive knowledge in this regard and they worry that perhaps it would not be beneficial to the individuals involved, except for people who get enormous sums. Moreover, even this will change in the future, in terms of how payments will be made.