[Senator Jim Walsh   ]
 1 o’clockI welcome the amendments changing double jeopardy. I will address some reservations. Regarding acquittals, when new evidence comes to light subsequently, through advances in technology and science, the Garda Síochána has greater technical capacity to mount a successful prosecution than heretofore. Where such evidence comes to light in the case of serious crime, such as those carrying a life sentence, this is appropriate. I have some reservation that crimes that do not carry a life sentence but which may be serious crimes, with tremendous impact on victims, are excluded from this. I refer to serious sexual offences, which may carry long sentences but not life sentences. It is a pity they cannot be included. This is a step in the right direction and I hope it will advance in time. Where it subsequently comes to light that someone has committed perjury or where witnesses were intimidated or bribed, there can be an application for a retrial. The Minister has included precautionary measures with regard to this function. The DPP is now empowered to bring a with prejudice appeal against an acquittal where an error on a point of law has been made by the trial judge where that error has resulted in an acquittal. That is essential. Why do we have laws? We have laws to protect society and to ensure people in society conform to a required norm. Where that is breached and it has an impact on others, people must be held to account for such actions. At its simplest, those who are guilty must be brought to trial and where they have escaped in the first instance through error, that can be corrected. The Minster has pointed out that there cannot be retrospective implementation of these measures for constitutional reasons. We have had serious crimes in the past and where people have not been brought to justice and where evidence is available that would have a high probability of success, we should not be beyond proposing constitutional amendments to allow this. Where people committed crimes, were brought to trial and were acquitted, they should not necessarily escape the hand of the law. Senator Feargal Quinn: I welcome the Minister, the Bill and the effort to ensure there is respect for legislation. I was in the House in 1993 when the Criminal Justice Act 1993 was passed. Repealing section 5 is clearly necessary because there is a danger that the respect on the side of victims is in danger of being damaged. This Bill will end the ban on retrials of those acquitted even where important evidence emerges about involvement in the offence. I welcome the fact the DPP can order a retrial where the original prosecution was “tainted”, a very good word that had not occurred to me, due to the intimidation of jurors or witnesses or where it emerges a witness committed perjury. In addition, the DPP can apply to the Court of Criminal Appeal to seek a retrial in cases where a trial judge has given a mistaken ruling on a point of law, leading to the acquittal of an accused person. These are the points that disturbed victims and brought law into disrepute. The proposed legislation will provide for a number of exceptions to the standard convention of international law that an accused person cannot be tried twice for the same crime. This is double jeopardy. I had not realised the differences in many cases between civil and criminal law. I thought of the OJ Simpson case in the US but also the civil case in Northern Ireland, which reminds us of the double jeopardy rule that could apply. The Bill will also reform rules on the use of victim impact statements in trials and expand the range of persons who can make a victim impact statement in court to include the relatives of murder victims. Judges will be allowed to impose bans on the broadcast or publication of all or part of those statements. I welcome the part of the Bill that allows the DPP to reopen cases concerning offences that carry a mandatory or potential life sentence. That is a necessary change. If new, reliable evidence comes to light that implicates the person concerned with a high degree of probability after the trial, the opportunity for justice should not be passed up. I am concerned at the changes to the delivery of victim impact statements. Calls for reform of the legislation governing victim impact statements were made after those several instances to which I referred, including one where evidence that did not come out at the trial was conveyed in the victim impact statement. I will not refer to the specific case but we know what we are talking about. This Criminal Procedure Bill repeals section 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, to which I referred, which currently governs the use of victim impact statements and substitute and alternative frameworks. The category of persons allowed to make such a statement is extended to the family of the deceased — a parent, guardian or other person acting in loco parentis where the victim is a child and unable to give evidence — or a family or guardian of a victim who has a mental disorder and is unable to give evidence. In addition, the general scheme sets out the boundaries for publication or broadcast of a victim impact statement. I read a recent article by Ms Deirdre Duffy, entitled “‘Balance’ in the Criminal Justice System: Misrepresenting the Relationship between the Rights of Victims and Defendants”, which appeared in the Irish Criminal Law Journal. She indicated that guidance is required on the weight to be attributed to a victim impact statement and it remains unclear who has responsibility for the victim impact statement. She makes the point that it is not apparent who should guide the victim through the preparation of the statement. The problems posed by victims who stray outside the boundaries of the victim impact statement are not addressed. Having learned the lessons of past use of the victim impact statement, I am concerned about these drawbacks, particularly that the boundaries of the statement are not addressed. I suggest that certain constraints to the statement be firmly set down in the Bill. Perhaps there is a need for an amendment to the Bill in this regard on Committee Stage. It must be remembered that diminishing the rights of the defendant will not advance the rights of the other side, and both sets of rights must be protected in full in terms of European law and international rights. Ms Duffy states: It is clear from the overview of European and international human rights standards that the advancement of the rights of crime victims can be achieved without restriction on defendants’ rights. Legitimate reforms to the victim impact regime have been plucked out and tagged on to a host of criminal procedure reforms in order to dress up a package of measures as victim-centred.
I mention this quote because it is necessary to draw attention to the matter. With this Bill it seems we are tampering with fair trial rights founded on our Constitution, as Senator Bacik referred to. I am reluctant to support it wholeheartedly until the Minister of State is able to put my mind at rest with regard to the area of which I spoke. The legislation certainly is needed and we must act on it. The main objective of this is to ensure the law is held in high regard. If this has not happened, it is because these flaws in this area have yet to be looked at. Senator Bacik referred to some of the new technology being introduced, such as DNA analysis, which enables more evidence to come about at a later time. It would be a shame if we could not use that technology which enables us to discover something we did not know when a trial originally took place. It would provoke frustration and outrage in victims who could feel that evidence has come out but not been used because the law as it stands prevents this. I welcome the tenor of the legislation and its objectives. On Committee Stage we, along with the Minister, should cover any of those areas that elicit concern. Senator Paul Bradford: I am glad to have an opportunity to say a few words which I suspect will be relatively uninformed where this legislation is concerned. It is an important proposal being brought forward by the Minister and from what I have heard from previous speakers, there is a general welcome in the House for it. I am at one with the previous speaker, Senator Quinn, in welcoming the proposal while appreciating that we must tread carefully and examine the Bill’s detail fully. In that regard, Committee Stage will be of much more interest to us. The primary duty of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, or the government of any state, is to protect and defend the state and its citizens. In that regard, this legislation is a step in the right direction as it will give a further possibility of justice to those who feel they have been denied it. The part of the legislation which interests me most is the proposed modification of the rule against double jeopardy. It would be inappropriate to quote particular cases in this House but very many of us know of cases where acquittals did not seem to be the fair or just decision of a court. Up to now, once a decision was made in that regard, it was final. In a number of relatively high profile cases over recent years, including murder cases, the acquittal of the accused left a deep sense of injustice in the community and the family of victims. In this regard, the possibility of new evidence and a new scenario emerging where a retrial could happen is very welcome. People contacted me about this legislation whose loved ones were victims, with one being a murder victim. Such people are concerned and disappointed that the legislation apparently is not retrospective. Will the Minister of State clarify that? From when will this legislation, if approved, apply? Could it apply to cases which have taken place and where family members feel justice has not been done? I look forward to the Minister of State’s initial reply to that and a further teasing out of that aspect on Committee Stage. We all appreciate that the criminal justice law in this country is based on fairness and the absolute need for the State to have the necessary evidence to convict the guilty. That is correct and must always be the case. We are also aware of cases where for various reasons, such as the non-presentation of evidence or the intimidation of witnesses etc., a fair and just result to a trial does not seem to occur. This legislation, if it would allow reflection and the re-entry of particular prosecutions, should not be feared. We should never fear justice or the opportunity to allow the vindication of people’s right to a fair trial, and we should not fear the possibility of ensuring guilty people who have walked free are brought back into court and have the charges put against them again. In that regard, the issue of double jeopardy has been a major bone of contention and I welcome that it is to be addressed. I look forward on Committee Stage to ascertaining when the possibility of retrials in this regard will commence and if there will be retrospective application to cases which have received adjudication. I also note the proposed changes on victim impact statements. There have been a few controversial cases involving victim impact evidence and we must be very cognisant of the rights of victims and their need, where they so feel, to have their feelings made known in court. For many, although not all, it can be a way to deal with suffering, bereavement and anger if they can state their feelings in front of the court. Any expansion of that particular entitlement should be welcomed. I will leave my remarks at that as the Minister of State would recognise that I come to this legislation with no legal expertise whatever. I am purely reflecting what constituents are saying to me, especially constituents who feel the acquittal of the person charged with the murder of their sister was incorrect and wish the case to be reopened. Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy John Moloney): The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, apologises for the fact that he could not remain for the conclusion of the debate. I will bring the issues raised by Senators Quinn and Bradford to the Minister’s attention. I thank Senators for their contributions to this useful and informed debate. The Minister may wish to consider Senators’ points with a view to amendments on Committee Stage, where appropriate. Meeting the needs of victims of crime is a major objective for the Government. This Bill contributes in a significant way towards meeting that objective. The importance victims attach to impact evidence cannot be underestimated. The significance of the proposals on the quashing of acquittals will also come to be seen to be important. Although legislation has an important role to play in this regard, much can also be achieved by other non-statutory means. For example, the victims of crime office was established as an executive office in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform under the justice for victims initiative, launched by the Minister in June 2008. Its main role is to promote and support the development of services for victims of crime. It is engaged in a major review and revision of the victims’ charter, first introduced in 1999. This work is expected to be completed in the autumn. Similarly, Cosc, the National Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence, supports and works closely with State and non-governmental organisations. Its mission is the delivery of well co-ordinated services. It has no direct role in the delivery of services but its co-ordination role is vital to ensuring the effectiveness of the initiatives taken by those organisations concerned with victim support. Other agencies attached to the Department also provide a broad range of services and supports to victims of crime. The Garda has developed its charter for victims of crime with protocols on the information to be given to victims. Garda family liaison officers are appointed in more serious investigations. The Courts Service has taken several steps to make the experience of being in court less stressful for victims. It provides training to volunteers to accompany victims and their families to court. Liaison officers have been appointed at every court venue where court staff are based. There have been many improvements in the facilities in courts buildings, including secure and private spaces for the victims of crime. Special seating is provided for victims’ families in murder and manslaughter cases. The courtrooms in the new Criminal Court complex are designed to minimise the proximity of victims and their families to defendants and accused persons. The Prison Service also has victim liaison officers who enter into direct contact with victims to inform them of any significant developments in the management of the perpetrator’s sentence as well as any impending release. The liaison officer also provides victims with information on the prison system, for example, remission on sentences and parole, including the operation of the parole board. The probation and welfare service devotes much time to assisting offenders but is also active in assisting victims. The preparation of victim impact reports provides one example. These written reports for the court were referred to by the Minister with the first or mandatory element of the structure. The Department supports restorative justice projects through the probation and welfare service. It currently provides funding to two projects, in Tallaght and Nenagh. Restorative justice gives the victim a voice and the offender an opportunity to take responsibility for his or her actions. I wish to refer to the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions in the area of victim support. The director is independent and has a primary role to bring prosecutions, but his awareness of victims is evident from the development of the reasons project. It applies to cases where a death has occurred. Reasons for decisions not to prosecute, or to discontinue a prosecution, are to be given on request to parties closely connected with the deceased. Court procedures also recognise the position of the victim by, for example, allowing them to give evidence via television links in cases of sexual offences. Several provisions are in place to protect victims’ anonymity. I was pleased to see that the proposals on acquittals were well received and the Minister’s measured approach was acknowledged. The proposals represent a major break with existing procedures but, in practice, they will be applied on an exceptional basis. The important point is that such cases can now be dealt with and the outrage and frustration felt at the occurrence of an undeserved acquittal will be a thing of the past. A remedy will be put in place. The Bill adds to the developing awareness of the needs of victims. I commend it to the House. Question put and agreed to. Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 16 June 2009. Sitting suspended at 1.25 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.  Nursing Homes Support Scheme Bill 2008: Second Stage.
Question proposed: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.” An Cathaoirleach: I welcome the Minister of State to the House. Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy Áine Brady): I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce to the House Second Stage of the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Bill 2008. The Bill will put in place a new scheme of financial support for those in need of nursing home care. It aims to ensure that care is affordable for each person and to be fair to all. Before detailing the provisions of the Bill, I wish to begin by examining the wider policy vista and the reasons for introducing this Bill. Government policy on older people long has been to support older people to live in dignity and independence in their own homes and communities and, when this is no longer possible, to support access to quality nursing home care. At present the State supports people in public and private nursing homes very differently. In a public facility, the State meets approximately 90% of the cost of care, while in marked contrast, the State effectively meets only 40% of the estimated average cost of care in a private facility. This discrepancy is wholly at odds with the principle of equity endorsed by the Government. It also is unfair to individuals and their families. At present, an individual who obtains a public nursing home bed may be charged a maximum of up to 80% of the non-contributory State pension towards the cost of care. By contrast, the same individual availing of a private nursing home bed may be entitled to a subvention but is otherwise obliged to meet the full cost of his or her care. This can amount to as much as €1,200 per week. In addition, applicants for subvention are subject to stringent means testing and may be deemed ineligible for subvention based on the means test. This is in marked contrast to the current public system under which an individual may never be charged more than 80% of the non-contributory State pension, regardless of his or her level of means. The capped public charge is also regressive since better-off people pay a much lower proportion of their income towards the cost of their care. The net result is that many people in private nursing homes face uncertainty and unaffordable care costs. Some must sell or remortgage their family homes to pay for the cost of nursing home care, while others must turn to family and friends for assistance in meeting care costs. In short, the present situation is unfair and unsustainable. It is deeply unfair that people of the same means face radically different costs for nursing home care, depending on where they live or whether their nursing home is public or private. It is deeply unfair that one person and his or her family with modest means could face very high bills to pay for care, while another might pay relatively little even though he or she had substantial means and assets. It is deeply unfair and unsettling that so many people and their families had no other option but to sell the family home to pay for care. All that will change with this legislation. The genesis of the legislation may be traced back to 2005 when my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, in conjunction with the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, established an interdepartmental working group on long-term care. The group examined the range of benefits, services and grants relating to long-term care for older people and examined policy options for a financially sustainable system of long-term care. It reported to the Government in January 2006. The group’s recommendations informed the current social partnership agreement, Towards 2016. That agreement reaffirms Government policy to support older people to live with dignity and independence in their homes and communities and to support access to quality residential care when needed. It also contained the following principles to guide the development of future policy on long-term care for older people. All relevant public services should be designed and delivered in an integrated manner centred on the needs of the care recipient and based on a national standardised needs assessment. Care needs assessments should be available on a timely, consistent, equitable and regionally balanced basis. The use of community and home-based care should be maximised and should support the important role of the family and informal care. When community and home-based care is not appropriate, quality residential care should be available. In addition, there should be appropriate and equitable levels of co-payment by care recipients based on a national standardised financial assessment. The level of State support for residential care should be indifferent as to whether that care is in a public or private facility and no current resident of a nursing home, public or private, should be put at a disadvantage by whatever new co-payment arrangements for residential care are introduced. The proposed nursing homes support scheme, a fair deal, is consistent with the aforementioned principles. It will put in place one transparent system of support towards the cost of nursing home care. For the first time, there will be a uniform system of financial support for individuals in public and private nursing home beds. In short, its key objectives are to equalise State support for public and private long-term care recipients, to render private long-term care affordable and anxiety-free and to ensure that no one must sell his or her home during his or her lifetime to pay for care. These objectives have informed the approach taken throughout the Bill. The Government announced the fair deal in December 2006. At the time, it gave a number of basic commitments regarding the new scheme, which I will outline. Individuals will contribute towards their cost of care based on their income and assets. The HSE will meet the balance of cost in nursing homes approved for the purpose. Individuals will not be obliged to sell or mortgage their house or borrow to pay for their care. Individuals will not experience unaffordable care costs. An individual’s family will not have to find money for his or her care. As with the overall objectives, these commitments remain in place and underpin the provisions in the Bill. I propose to briefly outline the main provisions of the Bill. Section 3, which sets out the scope of the scheme, defines certain terms used in the Bill. I draw the attention of the House to the definitions of “long-term residential care services” and “approved nursing home”, which essentially circumscribe the scope of the scheme. “Long-term residential care services” are defined as maintenance, health and personal care services provided in designated public and voluntary facilities and approved private nursing homes. Services must be provided for not less than 30 consecutive days, or periods aggregating not less than 30 days, within a period of 12 consecutive months. For the sake of clarity, the definition explicitly excludes certain services, such as respite care services. To qualify as a designated facility, a public or voluntary facility will have to be designated in writing by the HSE as being a facility that is predominantly for the care of older people and will have to provide 24-hour rostered nursing care. To qualify as an approved nursing home, a private facility will have to the do the following: be registered under the appropriate legislation, reach an agreement with the National Treatment Purchase Fund on the maximum prices to be charged for care under the scheme, be tax compliant and provide 24-hour rostered nursing care. Another key term used in the Bill is “financial support”. This encompasses straightforward financial assistance towards nursing home costs — such assistance is referred to as “State support”. It also encompasses the option to defer payment of certain contributions during one’s lifetime — this is referred to as “ancillary State support”. Section 4 of the Bill defines a “couple” for the purposes of the scheme. A couple is defined as a married couple or as a heterosexual or same sex couple who have been cohabiting as husband and wife for at least three years. In each case, the couple must have been habitually living together at the date of applying for State support or at the date of beginning to receive care services. Section 5 establishes the nursing homes support scheme and stipulates that the scheme is resource-capped. Therefore, the scheme is premised on the principle of eligibility rather than entitlement. Section 6 provides that eligibility for the scheme extends to those who are ordinarily resident in the State. In other words, the scheme is not limited to older people. Section 5 also enshrines the principle of patient choice in the legislation. Applicants who are deemed to require long-term residential care shall be informed of the names of all public and approved private nursing homes. They may select their home subject to its suitability to meet their needs and the availability of a bed at the home. Sections 7 and 8 provide for the arrangements for care needs assessments. Section 7 provides for a care needs assessment to be conducted to ascertain whether a person needs to be provided with long-term residential care services. It stipulates who may carry out such an assessment and what factors may be taken into account in the assessment. These factors include the person’s ability to carry out the various activities of daily living and the medical and social supports that are available to the person. Section 8 sets out the basis for unsuccessful applicants to seek a review of care needs. The regulations governing financial assessments are set out in sections 9 and 10 and Schedule 1. Sections 9 and 10 provide for an application for State support and a subsequent financial assessment of means to establish the contribution an individual may have to pay towards the cost of his or her care. Section 10 stipulates that the assessment shall be carried out in accordance with Schedule 1. Parts 1 and 3 of Schedule 1 set out the rules for calculating the contribution payable by a single applicant. In summary, a person will make a contribution of up to 80% of his or her income and up to 5% of the value of his or her assets, after deductions and safeguards have been applied. Parts 2 and 3 of Schedule 1 outline the rules governing the contribution to be paid by a member of a couple. In this case, the assessment is based on the principle that each member of the couple owns 50% of the couple’s combined means. Therefore, a person who is a member of a couple has an annual assessed contribution of 40% of the couple’s combined income, or 80% of half the combined income; and 2.5% of the couple’s combined assets, or 5% of half the combined assets. The Bill contains a number of safeguards to protect the income and assets of care recipients and their spouses or partners, as well as the residual value of the principal residence. The use of the “minimum retained income threshold” will ensure that a person entering care will retain at least 20% of the maximum rate of the State non-contributory pension, while his or her spouse or partner who remains at home will retain at least the maximum rate of the State non-contributory pension. The “general assets deductible amount”, or asset disregard, will stand at €36,000 for an individual or €72,000 for a couple. The cap on the principal private residence will ensure that contributions based on the residence will be payable for the first three years of care only. This is often referred to as the 15% cap. A new provision that was inserted on Report Stage in the Dáil will extend the three-year cap to farms and businesses in certain circumstances. This will apply to a person who has suffered a sudden illness or disability that caused them to require long-term residential care; if the person or their partner was actively engaged in the daily management of the farm or relevant business, as the case may be, until the time of the sudden illness or disability; and if a family successor certifies that he or she will continue the management of the farm or relevant business, as the case may be. Sections 11 to 14, inclusive, set out the basis for determining applications and paying State support. They provide that, subject to resources, the State will pay the full difference between the total cost of care services and a person’s contribution. This State support will be paid directly to the relevant nursing home on behalf of the person. In the case of existing residents whose nursing homes are approved under the scheme, State support will be paid from the date of full commencement of the legislation. Sections 15 to 18, inclusive, and 28 provide for ancillary State support, which is another important feature of the scheme. Ancillary State support is an additional support that is designed to ensure that people do not have to sell assets, such as their homes, to meet their care costs. It enables people to defer contributions payable on Irish land-based assets for the duration of their lifetimes. It may be thought of as a loan advanced by the HSE and recouped at the settlement of the person’s estate. The payment of ancillary State support is subject to a charging order being placed against the assets of the person to secure the amounts advanced. The HSE will register the charging order in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Registry, as appropriate. Section 28 provides for the discharge of such charging orders as soon as the amount advanced as ancillary State support has been repaid. The Bill provides that ancillary State support will be paid directly to the relevant nursing home on behalf of the person and that it may be paid to a person even though that person does not qualify for State support. Sections 19, 20 and 26 relate to repayment. Section 19 of the Bill stipulates the events which trigger the repayment of ancillary State support. These are termed “relevant events” and principally include the death of the person or the sale or transfer of the asset concerned. Section 20 provides for a further deferral of the repayment of ancillary State support in the case of the principal private residence. Those who can avail of such a deferral are the spouse or partner of the original applicant and, in specified circumstances, certain relatives referred to as “connected persons”. People in the latter group can avail of a deferral if the asset in question is their only residence; if they have lived there for not less than three years preceding the original application for ancillary State support; and if they do not have an interest in any other property. Those classified as “connected persons” include the following: a child of the original applicant, or their spouse or partner, who is under the age of 21 or whose assets do not exceed the asset disregard; a sibling of the original applicant whose assets do not exceed the asset disregard; relatives in receipt of certain State payments or with income below the State non-contributory pension; and any person who cared for the applicant prior to the latter entering the nursing home. This is defined by reference to relevant caring-related State payments. Where a person avails of section 20, repayment will be deferred for the duration of his or her lifetime, unless he or she ceases to qualify as a connected person or the asset in question ceases to be his or her principal residence. Section 26 provides that the Revenue Commissioners will be the collection agents for the repayment of ancillary State support. Part 4 of the Bill provides for an innovative new feature within the scheme. It provides that a person may apply to the Circuit Court to be appointed as a care representative of a particular person. The appointment of a care representative is only necessary where a person does not have full capacity and wishes to avail of ancillary State support. However, a person appointed as a care representative may assist with any matter relating to the scheme. The Bill adopts a function-based approach to determining capacity which is consistent with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. Under section 21, a person is considered to lack the capacity to make a relevant decision if he or she is unable to understand the information relevant to the decision, retain that information, use or weigh that information as part of the process of making a decision, or communicate his or her decision by any means. A person must be certified by at least two registered medical practitioners as lacking the capacity to make a relevant decision in order for a care representative to be appointed. The individuals who may apply to be appointed, either singly or jointly, as a care representative are the spouse or partner of the person; a parent, child, brother or sister of the person; a niece, nephew, grandchild, grandparent, aunt or uncle of the person; a person appearing to the court to have a good and sufficient interest in the welfare of the person, other than the proprietor of a nursing home in which the relevant person resides or is likely to reside. Section 22 is a technical provision. It amends the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995 to allow for the appointment of care representatives by county registrars in uncontested cases. Sections 23 to 25 provide for the notification of certain specified matters, including the death or discharge of a nursing home resident, the death of a resident’s partner or a connected person or a material change in the circumstances of a resident, his or her partner or connected person. Section 27, concerning the schedule of assets, applies to a deceased person to whom financial support was provided or to whose partner financial support was provided. The personal representative of such a deceased person must provide the HSE with a written notice of his or her intention to distribute the deceased’s assets and a schedule of such assets at least three months before beginning to distribute the assets. The HSE has the authority to request that sufficient assets be retained to repay any amount due to it. This is consistent with social welfare legislation. Section 29, on joint ownership, is a technical provision that ensures a charging order in respect of ancillary State support shall not cause the severance of a joint tenancy or be rendered void due to the absence of the prior consent of the other joint tenant or tenants. The section seeks to protect both the interest of the HSE and the other joint tenants. |