Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

182. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality the reason the legislative proposals to establish a central funds office to provide for the audit of wards of court funds by the Comptroller and Auditor General have not been progressed in view of the commitment made in the Report and Financial Statements of the Office of the Accountant of the Courts of Justice for year ended 30 September 2009 (details supplied). [11646/19]

Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy will be aware that section 5(1)(a) of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993 expressly excludes the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) from auditing a fund under the control of the courts.  While my Department has examined the proposal to amend the 1993 Act to allow wards of court funds to be audited by the C&AG, I am advised that it is considered to be incompatible with the Constitution’s architecture and not consistent with Article 33.1.

Article 33.1 provides “There shall be a Comptroller and Auditor General to control on behalf of the State all disbursements and to audit all accounts of moneys administered by or under the authority of the Oireachtas”. The fact that the wardship funds are not public funds and are subject to the control and supervision of the High Court are considered to be essential obstacles to providing that the C&AG may audit such funds. In addition, it is considered that legislating for C&AG oversight of these funds could also undermine the independence of the judiciary and the administration of justice under Articles 34.1 and 35.2 of the Constitution. 

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

183. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality further to Parliamentary Question No. 177 of 24 October 2017, if he is satisfied that the court is responding to requests for summaries, specifically that it is the position that the committee of the person is entitled to seek a summary of the overall amount of funds in court in view of reports that persons seeking them are not being responded to. [11657/19]

Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Deputy is aware, the High Court has jurisdiction in wards of court matters and management of the courts is the responsibility of the Courts Service, which is independent in exercising its functions under the Courts Service Act 1998. 

However, in order to be of assistance to the Deputy, I have had enquiries made and the Courts Service has informed me that when a person is taken into wardship, the President of the High Court appoints a Committee, usually one person, and that Committee has an important role in relation to the ward's personal welfare and property. In approximately 75% of all cases the ward’s Committee is a family member or a trusted friend. However, if no suitable or willing relative or friend is available, or if there is a conflict of interest between the ward and the person who would otherwise have been appointed, the President of the High Court can appoint the General Solicitor for Minors and Wards of Court to act as the Committee. 

The Courts Service has advised that statements as to the valuation of funds held in court are sent to the Committee of the Estate who has responsibility for property and affairs of the Ward. In a small number of cases a family member is the Committee of the Person only and his or her role is limited to matters of welfare of the ward. However, where a Committee of the Person seeks a summary of the overall amount of funds in court, that summary will be provided to them.

The Courts Service has further advised that if such a request has not been responded to, details should be provided to the Registrar of Wards of Court and he will ensure that the matter is dealt with promptly. 

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

184. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality the steps he will take to remedy the situation that the wards of court system is in conflict with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the EU Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [11658/19]

Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Deputy will be aware, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and more broadly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, address the right to equal treatment before the law. The UN Convention provides that people with disabilities should have the same rights as everyone else and should be provided with the practical supports to make that a reality. 

As the Deputy will also be aware, the legal framework for persons who are deemed to lack capacity is currently undergoing significant reform with the current system of wardship being phased out and replaced with a more modern system focussed on assisting and supporting persons who may lack capacity. This new legal framework is provided for under the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 which was enacted in December 2015.   

The 2015 Act provides a modern statutory framework to support decision-making by adults with capacity difficulties. It will repeal the Marriage of Lunatics Act 1811 and the Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act 1871. The current adult wards of court system will be phased out and replaced by a less intrusive system which offers a continuum of options to support people in maximising their decision-making capability.

Part 6 of the 2015 Act provides for the phased transition from adult wardship to the new support framework. It provides for the review by the wardship court of the capacity of all current adult wards within three years of the commencement of that Part of the Act.  Following a review of his or her capacity, the ward will be discharged from wardship and depending on the outcome of the review the wardship court may:

- Declare that the ward does not lack capacity and immediately discharge the ward from wardship and order that the property of the former ward be returned to him/her.

- Declare that the ward lacks capacity unless a suitable person is made available as co-decision maker to make one or more decisions. Once a co-decision making agreement is registered the court shall immediately discharge the ward from wardship and order that the property of the former ward be returned to him/her. If there is no suitable person to act as co-decision maker or the co-decision making agreement has not been properly registered within a period set down by the court, then the court shall make orders as appropriate under Part 5 to appoint a decision making representative and order that the property of the former ward be returned to him/her once a decision making representative has been appointed.

- Declare that the ward lacks capacity even if a suitable person is made available as co-decision maker to make one or more decisions.  The court shall make orders as appropriate under Part 5 to appoint a decision making representative and order that the property of the former ward be returned to him/her once a decision making representative has been appointed.

The 2015 Act provides for the setting up of the Decision Support Service within the Mental Health Commission. New administrative processes and support measures, including the setting up of the Decision Support Service must be put in place before the substantive provisions of the 2015 Act, including Part 6, can be commenced. A high-level Steering Group comprised of senior officials from the Department of Justice and Equality, the Department of Health, the Mental Health Commission and the Courts Service, together with the Director of the Decision Support Service, is overseeing the establishment and commissioning of the Decision Support Service and this work is ongoing.

The key preparations are being put in place under the oversight of the Steering Group to allow for commencement orders for the substantive provisions of the 2015 Act to be made when the Decision Support Service is ready to roll out the new decision-making support options.  Ms Áine Flynn was appointed Director of the Decision Support Service on 2 October 2017.  The Director is working in a very determined way to get the necessary staff resources, processes, IT system, expert panels, codes of practice and regulations in place in order that the Decision Support Service can be up and running as quickly as possible. There are many complex strands to this work, including involvement of multiple organisations. Every effort is underway to ensure that the Decision Support Service has all necessary capacity to open for business as soon as possible.

The Decision Support Service is not yet operational but every effort is underway to ensure that the Decision Support Service has all necessary capacity to open for business as soon as possible.  While the Decision Support Service has been working towards being operational and ready for the commencement of the main provisions of the Act in 2020, the situation is being kept under review as the preparatory work on implementation moves forward.

The 2019 Revised Estimates Volume provides for an allocation of €3.5 million in the Justice and Equality Vote for the establishment of the Decision Support Service.