Pressure from the Dail Public Accounts Committee has resulted in the establishment of an investigation into how, precisely, court funds amounting to £575 million have been managed and invested in the past, and into how such practices may be improved for the future. It is a considerable achievement, given the traditional sensitivity of the judiciary to any involvement by the Oireachtas in its affairs arising from the doctrine of the separation of powers. But, in the modern world, accountability and transparency are vital elements if public respect and confidence is to be maintained.
A working group involving representatives of the Departments of Finance and of Justice, along with the Courts Service and the Attorney General's Office, will now conduct a detailed examination of the system and report back within three months. Reforms have been delayed for far too long. A lack of information about how court awards are handled; whether there are delays in lodging them to various accounts; how investment decisions are made; the adequacy of financial returns and an absence of auditing procedures, all give rise to concern.
The Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr John Purcell, is excluded by law from carrying out an audit on these funds, amounting to more than half a billion pounds. And he has expressed persistent concern in recent years about the adequacy of the record system in operation. A total of 34,000 accounts, mainly involving awards of damages to minors and wards of court, are involved. Of these, funds held for wards of court amounted to £260 million, with a further £75 million in equities. Awards held for minors amounted to £195 million. These accounts are all operated on a manual basis and, in spite of statutory requirements, no official audit has been conducted for the past twenty years. Returns on investments made, even within the constraints laid down by law, are said to be on the low side. And complaints have been made about delays in responding to requests for funds on behalf of their owners.
Since the establishment of the Courts Services, about two years ago, efforts have been made to modernise and improve the system. Last year, the National Treasury Management Agency was invited to examine the situation and it recommended that the accounts should be computerised; that expert investment advice be secured and that an annual audit of the funds should be conducted. Computerisation of the accounts has since been put out to tender. The lack of public accountability in relation to the management of the funds, the absence of an audit and the inadequacy of a record system involving 34,000 accounts are all reasons for public concern. And moves by the Courts Service to address these inadequacies are to be welcomed. However, the need to secure the best possible returns on such investments is an important consideration because the monies involved belong to minors and wards of court, potentially the most vulnerable groups in society. And the fact that the Rules of the Superior Courts - which require annual reports to be made in relation to court funds - were ignored for 20 years, emphasises the need for reform.