Joint Committee on Justice and Equality debate

Wards of Court: Discussion

Chairman

I thank the Deputies and Senators for their attendance. I am sure others will join us. I ask everyone present to switch off all mobile phones, please, as they interfere with the sound recording system in the committee rooms.

The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss the wards of court system in Ireland. I welcome Ms Mary Farrell, the representative of the Justice for Wards Group.

Ms Farrell is joined in the Visitors Gallery by Ms Sarah Lennon, Ms Yvonne O'Sullivan, Mr. Niall Lennon, Ms Noelle Curtis, Mr. Jim Curtis, Mr. Terence O'Grady, Ms Eilis Laughton, Ms Stella Meaney, Mr. Jim Meaney, Ms Anne O'Sullivan, Mr. Chris O'Sullivan, Mr. Stephen Kirwan and Mr. Patrick Farrell. I hope I have mentioned all of the names. I apologise if I have left anybody out. We also have the representatives of the Court Service with us in the Visitors Gallery and I will acknowledge each of them in the second session.

The format of the meeting is Ms Farrell will be invited to make an opening statement which will be followed by a question and answer session with committee members. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded that under the salient rulings of the Chair they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Ms Farrell to make her opening statement.

Ms Mary Farrell

On behalf of Justice for Wards, I thank the joint committee for giving us the opportunity to make a presentation. I particularly thank those members who have petitioned on our behalf. I am accompanied by members of Justice for Wards who are in the Visitors Gallery with other supporters. We are here to address the matter of wards of court and, in particular, their investments. The average person would know little about the wards of court system, unless he or she worked in the area, was affected by it or involved in some other way.

Wards of court are among the most vulnerable in the State. They are deemed to lack the capacity to manage their affairs. The Office of Wards of Court is governed by the archaic 1871 lunacy regulations which are in violation of the UN Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Under the current system all wards are deemed to lack capacity. There are no degrees of capacity. For example, wards of court cannot marry or leave the country without permission, or make decisions about medical treatments. When a person becomes a ward of court, his or her property is taken under the care of the court and all major decisions will be made by the Office of Wards of Court or the President of the High Court who has responsibility for wards. This may happen for many reasons, including that the person concerned may have old age related dementia, neurological disabilities, mental health disabilities, brain injuries and so on. There are 20,000 beneficiaries in the system, including 2,800 wards of court with funds of €5.65 billion held by the Courts Service on their behalf. There has been much discussion and debate in the past ten years about changing this system, but it is only now that a process has begun with the recent appointment of the director of the decision support service under the Mental Health Commission. We welcome this long-awaited development, but we are told that it will be some time before all processes are in place to allow wards of court to be discharged from wardship into the decision support service. In the new system capacity is assumed and varying levels of supports will be provided. However, the Government has not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

We are here to discuss the current system of wards of court and, more specifically, the role of the Courts Service in the investment and management of wards’ funds. Wards of court will have a committee appointed to look after their every day needs under the supervision of the Office of Wards of Court. Parents may be the committee for their child's person and estate. A husband, wife or partner may be the committee for their wife's, husband's or partner's person and estate. This can be an onerous task, depending on the needs of the ward and the extent of the work involved in his or her care and so on. Some wards come within the remit of the Office of the General Solicitor which acts as the committee for their estate or property for various reasons which will be discussed during the debate. If this happens, the family loses all control over how funds are spent and cannot obtain the information they need. They are virtually cut off.

We are unaware of how many wards come within the remit of the Office of the General Solicitor. In 2001 the figure was 40% of wards, but today the figure is unknown to us. Generally, it appears that this happens when a ward does not have a family member to take responsibility for his or her financial affairs, but it also happens for other reasons which are not clear. I hope they will become clear during the debate. As neither the ward nor his or her family has any control over the money once it is taken under the control of the Courts Service, families rely heavily on the expertise of the Courts Service in the investment of the funds. That has become a central issue for many wards since the financial crisis during the years 2007 to 2009, inclusive, when the funds of many wards were seriously depleted, to the point where many of them lost their entire funds. Some of them were left to depend on social welfare payments when their funds were depleted owing to the downturn in their value.

The Courts Service set up a new investment scheme in 2003 after computerisation had been introduced. Prior to that year funds were held in individual accounts and manual ledgers were used. We understand it received advice from the NTMA and Mercer on the type of investments which would meet the needs of this very vulnerable group of citizens. In due course the fund was set up and families received a letter stating this had been done, with an information booklet. One had to assume that with all of the expertise involved, the funds would be well managed and secure. We believe due diligence did not take place, which is why we are here to debate the issues involved. We hope to find solutions to the problems. The committee has been provided with extensive material on these matters, including our written submission, various reports and other relevant documents. It is our contention that some wards have lost considerable amounts of money, that the investments did not meet their needs and were not fit for purpose. It is also our contention that the expertise required to make decisions on these investments and appropriate risk avoidance strategies was not in place. The people in question are not ordinary investors. They are the most vulnerable and cannot be consulted. Their families and-or committees are not consulted on decisions made about investments. The investments cannot be equated with average citizens' investments, people like us who make decisions or take risks and expect a return but lose funds. They did not make any such decision, nor did their families. We hope the meeting will prove fruitful and that this matter can be opened up for further discussion and clarification with a view to resolving the matters under discussion.

Chairman

We thank Ms Farrell and Justice for Wards for the written submission and documentation which has been referenced. I commissioned a report on this issue from the Oireachtas Library and Research Service and it has also been circulated to members. On my own behalf and that of committee members, I thank the Oireachtas Library and Research Service.

Deputy Jack Chambers

I welcome Ms Farrell and all of the members of the Justice for Wards group. When vulnerable and innocent members of the public have empowered a public entity to manage a fund on their behalf and the fund has been depleted to the detriment of an individual, it has a serious long-term impact on his or her life. I was taken by one of the remarks made by Ms Farrell, that there was no due diligence process carried out by the State entity.

I thank Mr. Farrell for her responses.

Deputy Clare Daly

I apologise to Ms Farrell for being a little late. The rain in Dublin city makes everything grind to a halt. Perhaps some of our questions will be put to the representatives of the Courts Service because Justice for Wards has outlined very clearly the problems facing wards.

On reading the documentation, I was struck by the point that it is unfair to compare the management of the funds with the management of pension funds, for example, because this is a unique situation in which one is dealing with the lifetime needs of wards of court. In that context, the issue around strategy 4 arises. While the delegates would accept the position on exposure in any financial dealings, as implied in the views of the independent assessment commission previously and by the Courts Service, the point they are trying to make is that this is that their funds were subject to full exposure. In that sense, what remedy is being put in place for the delegates' loved ones whose funds are being depleted? Around the time the delegates' money was being invested, or whatever one wants to call it, the system changed and amounts were held in cash. What corrective measures were put in place to deal with the fact that the money of the delegates was not treated like that?

It struck me that the delegates have never or have hardly ever - I am not fully sure which - been given any statements of accounts from the Courts Service over all the years in respect of how the money was handled. They do not get any statements and are not consulted on how the funds are managed.

Ms Mary Farrell

It is not fair to say one could not get information. The problem is that there are over 2,600 wards, many of whom are older people who would not have somebody who would be an active committee member or who would be involved in the day-to-day management. They oversee everything. They would go to the Courts Service in regard to funding they need, consideration of a medical matter or services, for example. With regard to sending out accounts, in our experience over 27 years we have never received a statement we have not sought. That would be the case with the other members also. What I desire has been promised many times along the line. Included in the members' correspondence is a letter dated 2009 that claims that statements would be sent out annually from then on, after the crisis and the discovery that the value of the fund had dropped in 2009. Since then - I cannot remember all the dates but certainly in 2016 - it was promised that all these statements would come out. It was said a new system would be introduced to enable this. We were promised it again by the end of September of this year but the members who would expect to receive statements have not received them. Not in 27 years has that happened.

If one requests information, one gets exactly what one requests. If one just looks for a note on the funds, one may receive the balance. That would be just one single sheet. Unless one seeks more detailed information about the performance of the fund and the folio of the payments and receipts during the year, one will not get it. It is not fair, across the board, that committee members who are very active regarding their ward can get the information simply because they do that sort of thing. Other people would not even know who to write to for the details; that is a fact.

Deputy Clare Daly

The annual statements, despite their having been promised, have not been furnished.

Ms Mary Farrell

No.

Deputy Clare Daly

Some of our questions will really be for the Courts Service. Consider the cases highlighted before the Committee of Public Accounts and which were flagged. In one case, it was anticipated the funds would run out in two years. I believe there were six wards at the time in question in respect of whom the funds had fallen below €10,000. Fifteen were identified at that stage as potentially not having enough funds to provide for lifetime needs. What has been done since then that the witnesses know of to provide for the contingencies that were highlighted some years ago?

Ms Mary Farrell

We do not believe anything has been done. On the question what has been happening since the recommendation was made at the Committee of Public Accounts that something would be done to enable the transition, some wards have lost funds because of the financial crisis. Others have lost funds because they had a very meagre fund to start with. There are all kinds of reasons. One might have been using a fund over a very long period. There are all sorts of reasons funds may be running out. Having said that, the structure we envisage is that the Office of Wards of Court would be tracking these accounts, as it were, and would notice if funds were running low, or would run low in a year, say. If one applies for a medical card or for a social welfare payment, it takes an awful long time to get it in place. One has to submit all the relevant documentation, and there is a lot going on. There is no preparation for it so one can suddenly find oneself without funding.

That has happened to people we have spoken to including some of those here today.

Deputy Clare Daly

That is helpful. I thank Ms Farrell.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

I thank Ms Farrell for coming before the committee along with her colleagues. Today we are largely dealing with financial issues but it is important to remember that behind every ward of court is a very painful story for the individuals concerned. The committee is very conscious that each case relates to someone who is incapable of looking after themselves for the rest of their lives.

From Ms Farrell's answers to my colleagues, I am aware of her concern about the depletion in the fund, and as Deputy Clare Daly said, we will raise this issue with the courts service. Is it Ms Farrell's contention that the wards and their families should have a greater say in the moneys available and how they are invested?

Ms Mary Farrell

The decisions support service which is coming down the tracks will change everything and that will be the case. That is not the case now. We have come across anomalies in the system where some people have been able to manage their own funds. Recently, newspapers reported a case of a family of a ward of court which was suing a firm of stockbrokers which had gone out of business. Those kinds of anomalies arise in the current system. It is not clear why it would be determined that one family would be better placed to manage a fund than another or what sort of interventions take place to allow that to happen. We contend that these people need their funds to be safe and they need support and a structure, not the office of ward of court structure because that is too archaic, but there was not an alternative.

Ms Mary Farrell

When a person goes into wardship the State takes responsibility for the person and his or her estate. That is huge and means that the State is fully responsible for the person. Some responsibility is then delegated to the person's committee and if the person is lucky, that will be a family member who will be active on his or her behalf.

The report of the Committee of Public Accounts from 2015 made recommendations around exemptions. It recommended, for example, that wards whose funds are running low would be exempted from the normal qualifying criteria when they apply for a medical card or other State benefits. Some groups of people who have received compensation, such as the hepatitis C group, have had the earnings from their funds disregarded when they applied for a medical card or other State benefits. We certainly believe that the wards should be treated in a similar fashion. There is no linkage between the wards of court system and any other services such as health or social welfare. Such a linkage could bring about a change in that regard and help or support wards of court in terms of what they are trying to do.

A ward of court is assigned a case officer. We have had many case officers over the years, having been in the system for 27 years. We found some of the Courts Service personnel to be very courteous and helpful. They came to meetings with the HSE and so forth. We found others who were not helpful at all. One might have to write to the President of the High Court to get a reply to a letter or a response to a query. One could be waiting for a year. Some people are held up.

There is another element to this. Can I digress?

Chairman

Please do.

Ms Mary Farrell

The Office of the General Solicitor is part of the wards of court system. Many people do not have a committee to act on their behalf so the General Solicitor will act as committee of their estate. Once that happens, from that point onwards the family is excluded. They are provided with no details or information. They do not have phone calls returned or letters answered. Things like applications for medical cards are held up in the system, sometimes forever. We know of one such application that has been held up for over a year. I am sure there are others out there that we do not know about. Our group is small, without funds and operates informally. We were just set up for the purpose of supporting wards of court and trying to move this into a better position.

People coming under the General Solicitor are treated particularly badly and they have no come back at all. These may be families who have fought in the courts for years. One reads about such cases all of the time or hears about them on the news. The story is a familiar one. Afterwards they are interviewed and they say that they have been fighting their case with the HSE for ten years or more and so on. The individual is then taken into wardship and soon after, the General Solicitor, for some dubious reason, takes over committee of the estate. Thereafter, the family does not know how much is in the fund. They are, on the one hand, committee of the person and are trying to manage the person's well-being, their care and to organise all sorts of things in their lives but on the other hand, they do not even know how much money is in the fund. In the middle, there is a service provider who is sending accounts regularly to the Office of the General Solicitor. All of that is happening without any reference to the family or to the person who took the case, usually the parent of the child. This is what is happening. There are very questionable practices in this area. There is a lack of transparency and accountability. Transparency and accountability are problematic across the board, but particularly with regard to the Office of the General Solicitor. There are serious questions to be asked in that regard.

Chairman

Deputy Wallace is next.

Deputy Mick Wallace

I thank the witness for her presentation. I apologise that I do not know as much as I should about this issue. Ms Farrell has painted a pretty bleak picture of the whole system. On her last point about a lack of transparency and accountability - this will not be of much comfort to her - that seems to be a predominant theme in how we do things in this country. I get the impression from what Ms Farrell has said that from a financial perspective, wards are at the mercy of people who play with their money but who do not take responsibility for it. The wards and their families do not really know what they are doing with the money.

In terms of investing the money, does the Courts Service farm that out to private investors to do as they see fit with it?

If so, who gets the opportunity to invest the money? I get the impression that Ms Farrell has no say in how the money is invested. Am I right in believing she does not find out how it is invested? Is that true?

Ms Mary Farrell

No. I will explain how it worked. The courts became the Courts Service in the period 1999 to 2000. A lot was changing around that time and, apparently, it came to light that no accounts had been sent in from the Courts Service overall for over a decade. We had been in the system even at that point. There was a Committee of Public Accounts meeting about that, and there was a lot going on. In the end, it was agreed that the whole system would be computerised and that the National Treasury Management Agency would be involved in advising how these funds should be invested. Mercer was involved initially as well. The computerisation was set up and they advertised for financial investors to take on the investment of these funds. That is re-advertised I believe every five years but State Street Global Advisors are the people who manage it. They are the fund managers.

The Deputy will find all the Courts Service financial statements online and they will tell him much more than I can tell him but there is an investment committee which is comprised of judges and various people from the Courts Service, the Office of Wards of Court and so on. The last time it was mentioned in the Committee of Public Accounts was on 13 July last and questions were asked about the expertise of the investment committee. It is my recollection that it transpired that only nine of the 11 people on that investment committee had any expertise in this area of investments. That is a sorry story.

The Courts Service says it has independent experts on the investment committee as well. That was discussed and it was asked how it acquired this person. It was said that the position rotated. The expert was named and the position rotated but when we looked at our records we could see that this person has been in situ since 2008, and this is 2017, so I do not know where the rotation is occurring or how it is occurring. All kinds of questions like that arise.

As I said earlier, if one looks for the information one will get it if one knows what to look for. That means information about the investments, how they performed over the year, the folio statement showing what came in and what went out, and what is currently in the fund. They would be the three documents I would look for, but we have to remember that very few people are able to do that. That is a fact. It is very difficult to say this but there are very few people who can keep up with the care of this ward. Some people are caring for them at home, in institutions or in various situations but the care is still there. It does not matter whether someone is caring for them on a daily basis. They are still involved, still a committee, still engaged and still working on their behalf. As the members can see here today, they are doing various things on their behalf and the last thing they want to be doing is chasing up investments.

When we come down to the actual investments, they are not explained very well. The Deputy would have to look at the report online to find out the detail of that. He would not get it anywhere else. If one were to track those reports from year to year one would see how they have changed over the years and become more transparent in that they give more information every year, but it is interesting that they say that the Wards of Court Office acts in place of a prudent parent. I do know any prudent parents who behaves like this, but what would I know? One would have to go to a lot of trouble to find out the information Deputy Wallace is discussing. It is not always open to people to get that information or to understand it. It is not provided in a format.

As for auditing, they will say they have external and internal auditors and that all these things are well managed, yet there is a proviso that states they may not get everything right in their online report. We have to wonder if everything is all right and who is checking it. There is no external scrutiny.

I will make a small point that might shed a little light on this. The Comptroller and Auditor General's role is in regard to the expenditure of public moneys. These are private moneys and we have got to try to find a way to overcome that obstacle that is part of the difficulty.

The Comptroller and Auditor General is, of course, working very closely with the Committee of Public Accounts. It is an impediment in terms of it addressing this matter.

Deputy Mick Wallace

The NAMA legislation is somewhat vague. NAMA claims a certain private status in its work, yet everything it has done can be scrutinised by the Comptroller and Auditor General despite that fact. It is one of the reasons it felt no obligation to provide a social dividend.

Chairman

It is a precedent which we could address and try to build on.

Senator Frances Black

I thank Ms Farrell for attending the committee meeting today and for her presentation. I agree with my colleague, Deputy Wallace, regarding the lack of accountability and transparency being a common thread throughout many matters that come before us.

I am not a legal person. I have a problem with the term "ward of court" and people being called that. It seems a somewhat inhumane term. The term does not afford people the respect and dignity they deserve. It seems as if all their human rights have been taken from them. I wish a different term was used.

Ms Farrell referred to the UK model and said it was way ahead of us in Ireland. Would its system be the perfect scenario? Is it something she would like to see introduced here? I ask her to provide more detail on that and the comparison between the two jurisdictions.

Ms Farrell mentioned the ratification of the UN convention. Does she think that would help the situation in some way? How would it help? I do not know how Ms Farrell feels about the term "ward of court".

Ms Mary Farrell

I try to-----

Senator Frances Black

I work with family members who are dealing with the trauma of addiction. They are in very traumatic situations. I heard what Ms Farrell said about the requirement for scrutiny and the need to look for certain things. It is very hard to do all that when people are firefighting as a family. It is very hard to have a clear head. What Ms Farrell is doing is fantastic. I thank her for the great work she is doing.

Ms Mary Farrell

As we said, the ward of court system is governed by the 1871 legislation. It is old English legislation. Successive Governments have known that the UK system was going to change and it was ahead of ours. It has introduced a court of protection. We did not change anything.

In fact, even though the structures and plans are in place, nothing has changed because wards have not transferred into the decision support service. People will no longer be referred to as "wards of court". We do not know when that will happen. A director was recently appointed, but a lot of work needs to be done and it may be some years before the wards transfer out of the system.

As far as we understand it, until that time they will continue to be referred to as "wards of court" and there is no other term we can use. We are stuck with the term, and none of us is mad about that. That is the current situation.

I would not hold up any particular system as being a perfect model. In Ireland we researched all of the models and what was happening elsewhere, and picked the bits that best suited our situation. That work has been done and the pieces are in place, and we are happy that changes will be introduced.

We thought the decision support service would be established as a separate entity, but it will come under the auspices of the Mental Health Commission. We have high hopes. What was the Senator's other question?

Senator Frances Black

I asked about the ratification of the UN convention.

Ms Mary Farrell

That is part of the same thing because until all of this is in place, the UN convention will not be ratified. It has been signed, but we have been waiting years for it to be ratified. People demonstrated outside the Houses yesterday about that. We have all protested about that and have said it is disgraceful that it has not been ratified. We are all disappointed. Ratification is very important to the people we care about and to us.

Senator Frances Black

I refer to families who are firefighting and trying to keep going on a daily basis. Does Ms Farrell feel that because people have mental health issues or are very sick, perhaps they do not receive as much care or thought as others? They cannot have a voice and are not challenging anything because they are in a very traumatic place. Does Ms Farrell think that is part of the problem?

Ms Mary Farrell

One report outlined the different categories of people coming into wardship. Some are older people with dementia and others are in more traumatic situations. Some children have been injured at birth, some people sustained brain injuries following accidents and others have neurological disabilities. We deal with a wide range of people. Not all are in the same situation, but they have one thing in common which has brought them into wardship, namely, the lack of ability to make decisions about their affairs.

Having said that, the current system is peculiar in that a ward can apply to be discharged from wardship, but if one lacks capacity or needs support to do so, one will not have it and will not apply. It is a chicken-and-egg situation and people go around in circles.

Most people feel these people need some protection. They are very vulnerable. They are exposed to all sorts of situations. One could be in any setting with them and find they are vulnerable to exploitation, coercion or any other form of abuse. This can happen in settings where one would not expect, such as those involving professionals. It can be very difficult for families to keep track of all that. As Senator Black said, families are firefighting and taking care of people physically, ensuring they have the services they need and fighting with the HSE or other bodies to get services. It is a constant struggle.

Just because people are wards of court does not mean they will get anything more. In fact, there is an assumption that because a person is a ward of court, he or she has a lot of money and can afford to pay for all sorts of things. That may be the case in some of the higher awards. The situation is also very different for those receiving periodic payments.

Courts can be very frustrating for those who do not have access to a lot of funds. Sometimes accounts have to be shown to demonstrate that money is not available to pay for something. It is a constant loop of fighting an overall battle about funds, caring for people or being caught up in a situation which has occurred through a person's vulnerability. It is a constant struggle.

The concern for older parents is that when they are gone, the system will not have been set up properly. It is very difficult for us to pass information on and make plans for the future in the current circumstances, given that the wards of courts office still exists, the decision support service is not in place and funds are running out.

All of those factors make it impossible for us to plan for our child's future.

Chairman

My understanding is that the officer corresponding to the Comptroller and Auditor General in this jurisdiction, north of the Border and in England and Wales does have that oversight power.

Ms Mary Farrell

Yes.

Ms Mary Farrell

We would like if the committee could speed up the decision support service and have that in place as quickly as possible so that the wards can transfer out of the Wards of Court system into the new service and ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. Wards and families need to be supported in resolving this issue rather than our saying this happened and the Courts Service saying no it never happened. It has asked for evidence of funds being lost. The evidence we have are the accounts they sent us. It is there. The committee has copies of it. Does the Courts Service want us to send those back to it? Is that the evidence? I do not understand why it cannot see this. Is it wilfulness? I could not believe that intelligent people, which they are, cannot see this. I do not know whether it is denial or a blind spot but there definitely needs to be that first acknowledgement that there is an issue here before we can move on. Then there is the question of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s role, retrospective and in the future.

We have been trying to have the level of heating reduced. For a change, the heat is not generated by heavy debate.

We will continue our discussion on the wards of court system with the witnesses from the Courts Service. I welcome Ms Geraldine Hurley, head of superior courts operations directorate.

She is accompanied by Mr. Seán Quigley, head of resource management and accountant of the Courts of Justice, and Mr. James Finn, registrar for wards of court. They are joined in the Public Gallery by Ms Marie Ryan. We are also joined by two officials from the Department of Justice and Equality, Mr. Conan McKenna, assistant secretary, and Ms Yvonne Walsh, assistant principal officer, who can deal with any issues within the remit of the Department.

The format of the meeting, as I indicated to our first set of witnesses, is that witnesses will be invited to make an opening statement. I understand that Ms Geraldine Hurley will be making that on behalf of the Courts Service. This will be followed by a questions and answers session.

I draw witnesses' attention to the situation relating to privilege. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Ms Hurley to make her opening statement.

Ms Geraldine Hurley

We thank the Chairman for the invitation to appear before the committee and we look forward to discussing the role of the Courts Service in relation to the wards of court system and the management of funds on behalf of wards of court. This matter has been the subject of consideration by the Committee of Public Accounts since 2001, most recently in July of this year. At all times, the Courts Service has engaged and co-operated with the Committee of Public Accounts and with Members of the Oireachtas in addressing matters raised. We have also responded to queries for information from individual members of the Justice for Wards group, in their capacity as committee for wards of court.

The Office of Wards of Court is an office of the Courts Service attached to the High Court. The Courts Service is responsible for the management and administration of this office. However, as the committee is aware, the administration of justice is a matter for the Judiciary and is outside the scope of the functions of the Courts Service. The committee will appreciate therefore, that in our discussions with it today, we are precluded from commenting on any matter relating to the exercise by a judge of his or her judicial functions or on individual wardship cases. We are also precluded from commenting on matters of Government policy.

The wards of court system allows for substitute decision making. The court, usually the High Court, may make decisions necessary for the protection of both the person and the property of persons who do not have full capacity to manage their affairs. Wardship jurisdiction is vested in the President of the High Court and accordingly he has overall responsibility for the management of the affairs of wards of court. The Office of Wards of Court, headed by the registrar of wards of court, manages the day-to-day administration of wardship cases. A committee, usually a member of the ward’s family, is appointed by the court and is asked to make recommendations in relation to matters such as the ward’s welfare, property and future residence. The General Solicitor for Minors and Wards of Court is also a court official, attached to the High Court, who is appointed by the President of the High Court to act as a committee for a number of wards. This usually occurs where there is no family member who is willing or suitable to act in that capacity. Approximately 25% of cases fall into that category.

Over 2,600 wards of court cases are managed by the Office of Wards of Court and the Office of the Accountant of the Courts of Justice. People may become wards of court as a result of dementia or other age-related illnesses. Approximately 75% of cases fall in this category. Approximately 10% of cases are the result of damages awarded by the courts for catastrophic injuries. In 2016, there were 311 new declarations of wardship. As previously outlined, the legislation governing persons who are wards of court dates back to 1871. It has been recognised for some time that the law in this area needed update and reform. As a consequence, the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 was enacted to provide a reformed legislative framework for persons who lack capacity. The Act provides for greater individual autonomy by minimising external intervention in the life and affairs of the relevant persons. From the date of commencement of the Act, no new wards of court will be declared. All existing adult wards will be discharged from wardship within three years by order of the court. After the transitional period of three years, the Office of Wards of Court will no longer have a role in managing the affairs of wards of court, other than minors. During this three-year period, the Office of Wards of Court will continue to exercise its existing functions in respect of persons who are wards of court, while at the same time reviewing the files of all wards and consulting with wards and their committees.

Primary responsibility for implementing these new statutory provisions rests with the Department of Justice and Equality and the Department of Health. Work is ongoing in establishing the new assisted support service which will be responsible for managing the new decision-making regime under the auspices of the Mental Health Commission. The Courts Service is represented on the interdepartmental steering group working on the establishment of the decision support service and is working with the steering group and closely with relevant Departments in the transition to the new system.

On the provision of annual financial statements to each ward, which was mentioned previously, up to now, in all cases where committees request information, comprehensive financial information issues from the Office of Wards of Court or the accountant's office. More recently, in addition, we have now commenced issuing annual statements to committees of all wards of court. Some 120 statements have issued in recent weeks. All committees will receive statements over the coming months and these will issue automatically thereafter. I ask my colleague, Mr. Sean Quigley, head of resource management and accountant of the Courts of Justice, to deal with matters relating to the investment of wards' funds.

Mr. Seán Quigley

For the information of the committee, the Office of the Accountant of the Courts Service manages some €1.8 billion - maybe a higher figure was mentioned earlier, though that is not to say it is an insignificant amount - on behalf of more than 20,000 beneficiaries. Those include the 2,600 or so wards of court. There are currently six investment strategies reflecting the different investment requirements of everyone within the remit of the accountant's office. My main focus will be on the growth fund, because that is where certain wards of court funds are invested.

We are fully aware of the concerns of the Justice for Wards group and indeed individual committees and their families, where there is a possibility that funds related to those they care for are being depleted and could in some cases run out in the years ahead. However, the group's singular focus on the investment performance of the growth fund, as the main factor causing the depletion of funds, is misguided and is not factually correct. I will come back to this point in a moment.

Court funds are invested in line with the provisions of the Trustee (Authorised Investments) Act 1958 and subsequent orders. The funds we invest in through our fund managers are regulated by the Central Bank. When deciding where and how to invest court funds, the overriding objective is the achievement of an optimal total financial return, having regard to the need for liquidity and capital security, taking account of income generation and capital growth requirements. Where there is a requirement to generate a high return to sustain the value of the funds for the longest period possible, such funds will be invested in the growth fund.

I will refer to the governance arrangements which were mentioned earlier. These arrangements were put in place in 2002 following two comprehensive external reviews, one by the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, and the other by Mercer Investment Consulting. It may also be of interest to note that, in a completely unsolicited review carried out by Key Capital and PricewaterhouseCoopers, PwC, in 2014, they found that the approach the Courts Service has taken to having a balanced portfolio for wards of court who require protection from inflation associated with long-term care was an example of best practice. I will not go into those governance arrangements in detail but they include the investment committee, independent advisers, fund managers, publication of our annual financial statements and the audit of financial statements.

I will now deal specifically with the growth fund. The investment objective of the growth fund is primarily to achieve capital appreciation over the medium to long term. This is necessary, in certain cases, to provide for expenditure over the projected lifetime of the ward of court. It is claimed that substantial losses have been suffered by wards of court in this fund. As far as we can establish, the only basis for this is an article in a Sunday newspaper, in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis. We find that article misleading and inaccurate.

We have reviewed all ward cases in the growth fund during the financial crisis. The vast majority of cases actually realised gains when units were sold during this period. This was possible as in the majority of cases sufficient gains had been accumulated since the funds were first invested in the growth fund. In a minority of cases where losses were incurred the amounts were quite small and have to be viewed in the longer term which this fund was designed for.

The Aon Hewitt report of 2016 which was commissioned by the Courts Service in response to the Committee of Public Accounts report of July 2015, found that the Courts Service adopted a “least risk” approach to investment. The level of risk taken was prudent and consistent with ensuring that the value of the funds available for the care of the ward was enhanced to provide for their care over the longest period possible. It also found that the growth fund was an appropriate strategy for those with long-term care needs.

The decision to focus on investment performance as the sole factor that could contribute to the depletion of funds, and within that the narrow period of the financial crisis in 2008, ignores a range of other factors that actually have contributed to the depletion of funds. There also appears to be a presumption that the compensation awarded by the courts is intended to provide for all of the ward's care needs for his or her lifetime. This may not be possible in all cases. Factors such as contributory negligence or the nature in which the award is determined can result in an amount that will not meet the lifetime care needs of the ward. Furthermore, awards made 30 or more years ago may well prove to be inadequate. It can be quite difficult to predict what will happen over an extended life period. The person may live longer, or there may have been unforeseen expenses such as medical inflation. The shortcomings in that system have been recognised by the Law Reform Commission, which has produced a number of reports, including recommendations about the introduction of periodic payments. Legislation is awaited to deal with this matter. However, as has been recognised, this will not be applied retrospectively.

It should also be noted that the Courts Service has no input whatsoever into the judicial process which determines the amount of damages awarded. It has to deal with the outcome of the court case and, taking all circumstances into account, make investment decisions that seek to prolong the value of the sum awarded in the best interests of the ward. The level of expenditure, very often requested by the committee or family, and incurred to care for the ward, will obviously reduce the available funds over time. However, what we can say is that the investment performance of the growth fund has not been a contributory factor to the depletion of court funds. In fact the opposite is the case. We have never denied that the growth fund, which has an equity element, experienced a drop in value as a result of the financial crisis during 2008. However, just because there was a drop in value in the unit price does not mean that an actual monetary loss arose. That would only arise if units were sold at that time at a price below which they were purchased. It is also necessary to take account of the performance of cases invested in the growth fund over the longer term, and not solely focus on the period of the financial crisis in 2008.

Appendix A shows that there has been a cumulative growth in that fund of almost 90%, which is an average return of 6.5% over the past 14 years. This includes the impact of the financial crisis. It shows that when the fund dropped in 2008 it was still 22% or 23% up on what it was when it was established. This explains why losses would not have been realised in a number of cases. The performance, even at the lowest point, was above the performance of other funds which might have been regarded as less risky. That has to be taken into account. The recovery of the unit price since 2009 has been quite extensive. The drop in value in 2008 was fully recovered long ago.

The implication in some of the points raised by the Justice for Wards group is that wards of court funds, which have been invested in the growth fund, should not have been exposed to the type of fluctuations experienced by the growth fund. The alternative would have been to place the ward's fund in a fund made up of a combination of cash and bonds, perhaps with a much lower level of equity. We have funds like that, and over the equivalent period the performance would have yielded approximately 35%. There is a significant gap between the growth fund and another fund that might have been regarded as less risky. If the money had gone into the less risky fund we would have achieved 35% over the past 14 years as opposed to 90%. That has to be a relevant factor as well. We have looked at a number of cases, and if the money had been invested in the lower risk and lower return fund the funds probably would have been depleted long ago. By placing the funds in the growth fund the growth achieved has extended the purchasing power of those funds.

The Justice for Wards Group has claimed that a number of individuals have suffered very significant losses. We have looked at all the cases, and we can find no evidence of very significant losses. There were a small number of cases where there were small amounts of loss. It has been mentioned that there are statements available that support the significant loss. We have not seen those. We are happy to provide individual statements to the committee, if the members are happy for us to do that, that prove over the longer period how well this fund has performed.

Thank you for listening and we are happy to take any questions.

Deputy Clare Daly

The Dáíl schedule changed as a result of Liam Cosgrave's death last week, which meant that there are items for discussion in the Chamber which are clashing with this. That should not have happened, and I am going to have to exit fairly soon. I will leave some questions for others and make a couple of very quick points. Our key task is the formulation of our report. The Committee of Public Accounts which looked at this issue already, was strongly of the view that there needed to be a contingency plan for the individuals that had been flagged as being in the danger zone or at risk of running out. It said that the plan should contain steps that would be taken by the State agencies to assist wards of court before they become total dependants. The first step of that was for the Office of the Wards of Court to identify the cases at risk and throw up a plan in respect of this category to cover health care and accommodation. It also possibly included legislative change. What have the Department of Justice and Equality and the agencies done to bring about change since then?

The funds are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Committee of Public Accounts recommended that the new office of the public guardian should be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and that there was a potential role there. This will require legislative change. Has the witness been involved in any discussions on that?

Can the witness deal with the issue that was highlighted by Ms Farrell in the earlier session - which I found quite shocking - that despite the commitment given that there would be regular annual statements about the financial transactions of the funds no such statements have been furnished, and that the families or committees of wards have to ask a particular question. My heart went out to them; it was like Deputies asking a Minister a question and only getting back a limited answer. Why is that? Are there any plans to change that? It is completely unacceptable. Would the witness accept the points made by Justice for Wards, and indeed Ms Justice Mary Irvine when she said that a seriously injured child cannot be equated with an ordinary investor for the purposes of deciding what is a prudent investment? Decisions like putting everything in strategy four into equities was actually wrong. I am not saying that anybody should be blamed but it was wrong, and the fact that the policy changed afterwards would indicate that should not have happened. There does not seem to be a comparative corrective action for the families that were affected.

Chairman

I want to indicate, before the witness answers, that if the representatives from the Department would like to come in on any particular point raised they can indicate to me and we will follow on from the Courts Service respondent.

Mr. Seán Quigley

The Courts Service was before the Committee of Public Accounts in 2001, and we accepted at that point that the Comptroller and Auditor General would audit these funds. The problem is that there is a legislative barrier in that the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993 specifically precludes it. The legislation has to be changed. That is not something that we control. We do not control changing that legislation. My colleague from the Department of Justice and Equality may want to elaborate on that.

On the issue of lower risk and the comments by Ms Justice Mary Irvine, a feature of a number of cases is that the courts have taken a significantly different approach to determining the levels of awards, and a much lower rate of return has been applied. That has been the case only in recent years, and it is predicated on the requirement to introduce legislation for periodic payments. That is a position that has been taken relatively recently in determining awards but that was not the situation prior to 2015, I believe, when the Gill Russell case established the practice.

Deputy Clare Daly

What about the contingency plan and the commitment given to identifying the cases at risk?

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 that were 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.

Chairman

Before coming back to Deputy Daly, would the representatives of the Department of Justice and Equality like to pick up on the point on the Comptroller and Auditor General and legislation?

Mr. Conan McKenna

The audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General is a very live issue with the Committee of Public Accounts. As members will probably know, the Comptroller and Auditor General legislation specifically bars the Comptroller and Auditor General from auditing court funds in this particular area. All I can say about that at the moment is that we have brought together the stakeholders, including the Courts Service, the offices of the Attorney General and the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. While there seems to be no serious policy objection around the table in regard to the Comptroller and Auditor General becoming an auditor for these funds, there are logistical matters that the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General itself will have to examine, but we are awaiting a view from the Attorney General as to whether the Comptroller and Auditor General can constitutionally and legally become involved in this area. As the Chairman mentioned, the Comptroller and Auditor General's remit is very specifically rooted in the Constitution and relates to oversight of funds and moneys that are the subject of Oireachtas Votes. The funds in question are private funds held in trust by the High Court on behalf of the wards. Nobody is saying that what was suggested cannot be done, but we cannot move forward until we get a definitive view from the Attorney General as to whether it is possible. We expect that very soon.

Chairman

I thank Mr. McKenna. Was there anything else he wanted to mention?

Mr. Conan McKenna

On periodic payments, as mentioned by Mr. Quigley, extensive work has been done on the matter by this committee. That legislation is awaiting Report and Final Stages in the Dáil. It has already gone through the Seanad. We hope it will happen very quickly and that the legislation will be in force in the new year. That will do an awful lot for victims of catastrophic injuries.

Deputy Clare Daly

This committee is well aware of the changes behind the scenes that are dictating many of these circumstances. Some of the decisions, rulings or opinions expressed in the court reflect the new situation but I do not believe the witnesses should be as defensive as they are. We are making these points not so they can be taken out and shot as a result but to say that the Courts Service has to recognise that, given the new thinking and the fact that there is now recognition of how these things should be treated, we have to take corrective action and recognise that the needs of people who were in the system before and who have had negative experiences need to be taken into account. That is why we are raising this. We know the circumstances have changed.

Mr. Seán Quigley

Taking into account the point on reducing exposure to risk, the courts are giving much bigger awards. One can afford, therefore, to invest those awards in a lower-risk environment whereas in the past this was not the environment in which those awards were determined. Therefore, the Courts Service was left in circumstances in which there was an amount of money that would not last unless it sought to grow it. The only option to do that was to put it into a mix of equities and bonds. The proof is that this has been successful in maximising the value of the funds.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

I thank the witnesses for attending. We all appreciate it is a difficult job when one is managing other people's money. If I were managing other people's money, I would be adopting a low-risk approach. I would not like to be exposing their capital award to considerable risk. Ms Mary Farrell gave a number of answers at the end of her presentation. She would like to see the Courts Service speeding up the change to the new system. The witnesses said in their presentation that there is an interdepartmental steering group working on the establishment of the decision support service. When will it be up and running for people such as Ms Farrell and others in the room?

Ms Geraldine Hurley

The Courts Service is working very actively with the two lead Departments that are responsible for implementing the new legislation. We will put additional resources into the office over the coming while to ensure we can do everything possible to assist in the transition to the new system.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

When will that happen?

Ms Geraldine Hurley

I will pass that question to the Department.

Mr. Conan McKenna

It has taken longer than anyone would have liked to make significant progress on the decision support service. One of the two items of good news on the service is that the director, Ms Áine Flynn, is now in place. She is a solicitor with some considerable experience in this area. She was recruited by the Public Appointments Service, with the Mental Health Commission as a client. She has been in place for the past couple of weeks. As one will have seen in recent days, the budget has now been confirmed for the service to get it up and running and give it the money it needs for start-up purposes during 2018. In fairness to the new director, who has only got her feet under the table in the past two weeks, she needs to be given a chance to examine everything herself in light of the very substantial budgetary allocation and take a view on exactly when things can happen. It is hoped the service will be up and running at the beginning of 2019 but, as I have implied, there are many things to put in place.

Why is that?

Mr. Seán Quigley

First, there is a resourcing issue. We work within the constraints of the public sector and both the accountants' office and the wards of court office have been subject to significant reductions in staffing.

Mr. Conan McKenna

Some of those issues were addressed. There was the minute of the Minister of Finance in response to the Committee of Public Accounts 2015 recommendations. The statutory minute of the Minister of Finance provided information to the Committee of Public Accounts. It addressed issues under the then Department of Social Protection and the HSE. I cannot put my hand on it now and I do not think I would bore members of the committee with reading it out to them.

I have just located it and could read it out. Chairman, I am at your disposal. I could either refer to this or we could send on a copy to the committee.

Chairman

Mr. McKenna might want to make a prescient indication or to send it. Deputy Ó Laoghaire, would you like to-----

Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire

If it is brief.

Chairman

If it is brief.

Mr. Conan McKenna

It stated:

In the case of social Insurance payments, such as Invalidity Pension, means are not assessable. As such, this issue only arises in cases where a person is claiming a means-tested scheme. In the case of means-tested payments, claimants are assessed on any cash income, property other than the home, and investments... This means that a Disability Allowance claimant with €50,000 in savings (and no other means) can be assessed as having nil means and, as a result, receive the maximum rate of Disability Allowance.

I think the Department was trying to give some comfort there in cases of wards with depleted funds when coming out of wardship. It further stated that the then Department of Social Protection's view at the time was:

Many of the Department’s customers are vulnerable. From the Department of Social Protections perspective, there is no justification in treating a person who is a Ward of Court differently to others in relation to means assessment.

Regarding the HSE part of it, it states:

The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform is informed by the Department of Health and the HSE that the HSE can award medical card eligibility where undue hardship arises for a person in arranging health services. In relation to the medical card assessment process where persons have or receive significant income - e.g. pension or redundancy lump sums, compensation awards through court proceedings etc. such funds are not treated as income under the medical card assessment process but as savings, Savings up to €36,000 for an individual and €72,000 for a couple are disregarded and only interest earned on any savings above these thresholds are reckoned for medical card assessment purposes.

It is probably easier to give the material to the committee.

Chairman

The witness may furnish it to the clerk as that would be helpful.

Deputy Mick Wallace

I would like to ask a related question before I invite Mr. Quigley to respond. The figure I have mentioned is the net aggregate realised gain. There has been no mention at all of the actual realised losses that were incurred over the same period. We are not able to get that information. At least, I have not been able to get it. My understanding of the net position is that the aggregate of losses and gains happened to present a very small overall return on the significant moneys that were entrusted. Is information on the realised losses over the same period available? If it were, we could do the maths and work out the exact gains and losses. We have been given the net figure only in the information that has been released.

I have a further point to add to this tranche of questions. I understand very well the difference between "realised" and "unrealised". It is recorded that a temporary and unrealised loss of -34% was recorded in the case of a ward or wards invested in the spectrum growth fund. I know it was not realised. I know the situation has changed. If I were a parent or guardian of somebody, I would be alarmed to learn that such a huge potential loss - I emphasise the word "potential" - could have accrued over that period of time from the moneys entrusted for the maintenance and support of, and provision of services to, my loved one going into the future.

Mr. Seán Quigley

The background to this was we put this work, both the investment advice and the independent review, out to tender. The reality is that the market in Ireland, in particular, in Dublin, for the level of expertise needed for a fund the size of what we have - €1.8 billion and 20,000 beneficiaries - is quite small. There are only two firms over the years that have consistently applied - Aon Hewitt and Mercer. Aon Hewitt was the only one that responded. If Mercer had responded, it would have been precluded because it was the investment adviser. We were satisfied that they were independent. They are governed by the regulatory authorities themselves and they cannot come along and say what suits us. This was one of the reasons I referenced this other review, which we did not even know was happening, as evidence that here is something completely unsolicited which stated that what we were doing there is good practice. We would be satisfied that there was not a conflict of interest.

Chairman

On that note, on my own behalf and on behalf of the committee, I thank James, Geraldine and Seán from the Courts Service for their participation and engagement with the committee, and to Conan and Yvonne from the Department of Justice and Equality for their attendance and engagement.

The points I made, in summary, at the conclusion of the first session, still stand as issues of concern and address. We, as a committee, will deliberate on all of that in terms of the construct of our report. It would be fair to say, with the Justice for Wards representatives in the committee room with us as we speak, that we intend as a committee to continue to monitor the issues that we have addressed. Our report will not close our interest going forward and we would like to hear that some of what they have reflected on will be the new experience of the families concerned in the future. It is up to the Courts Service, primarily, and the Department in its role and how it impacts, to help ensure that there is a new day and a new relationship in the future.

I thank everyone for their attendance. We will suspend briefly before going into private session. I appeal to the members not to vacate the committee room as we have some work to conclude.

The joint committee suspended at 11.58 a.m., resumed in private session at 12 noon and adjourned at 12.20 p.m. until 9 a.m. on Wednesday, 18 October 2017.

Joint Committee on Justice and Equality debate - Wednesday, 11 Oct 2017

Wards of Court: Discussion

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Mary Farrell

Ms Geraldine Hurley

Mr. Seán Quigley

Mr. Seán Quigley

Mr. James Finn

Mr. Conan McKenna

Mr. Conan McKenna

Mr. Seán Quigley

Ms Geraldine Hurley

Ms Geraldine Hurley

Mr. Conan McKenna

Mr. Conan McKenna

Mr. Seán Quigley

Mr. Seán Quigley

Mr. Seán Quigley

Mr. James Finn

Mr. James Finn

Mr. Seán Quigley

Mr. Seán Quigley

Mr. Seán Quigley

Mr. Seán Quigley

Mr. Seán Quigley

Ms Geraldine Hurley

Ms Geraldine Hurley

Ms Geraldine Hurley

Ms Geraldine Hurley

Mr. Conan McKenna

Mr. Seán Quigley

Mr. Seán Quigley

Mr. Seán Quigley

Mr. Seán Quigley

Mr. Seán Quigley

Mr. Seán Quigley

Mr. James Finn

Mr. James Finn

Mr. James Finn

Mr. James Finn

Joint Committee on Justice and Equality debate -
Wednesday, 11 Oct 2017