Ms Áine Flynn:

In terms of the timescale, I hope I have conveyed the impression there was rather a lot to do. Quite honestly, when I came into the post, which was two years post commencement of the Act, I may have underestimated the sheer scale of what was involved. The Act is dense and complex legislation. It is ambitious and attempts more than comparable legislation in other jurisdictions. There literally was a lot to do and the direction from early days was to do it all at once. Some other Acts might be more amenable to an incremental roll-out but the decision had been taken, which was correct, that everything should come together and be green lit at once.

Having said that, we did hope it would be quicker. There were funding issues, which we have been open about. The direction was to do it quickly. We had a plan and presented budget proposals relating to that but we did not get what we sought in terms of our allocation in either 2019 or 2020. There was also some delay in achieving approval for our ICT project. Again, that was linked somewhat to budget allocation. There was a concern we would be committing to a vision for ICT without the funding to back it up. There were delays of that nature.

Things stepped up, improved and had a much better sense of momentum and political will at the beginning of last year when we were asked to present a 24-month plan to commencement. Ideally, we would have presented a 12-month plan to commencement and been resourced accordingly but it was considered at that point that a 24-month plan was realistic. That plan was presented, endorsed and we got the budgetary uplift we sought for 2021. A budget is only a year's budget so it will need to be backed up by a budget allocation in the coming year. We will be entering into the Estimates process shortly having regard to the fact that, for the second half of next year, we will be an operating service with all of the associated costs, including fees for panel members.

The Deputy asked about the three tiers and the possible complexity of having to engage with our service. We are very keen to ensure this is very much an accessible, public-facing and person-centred service. Accessibility is going to be key and it is with that in mind that we have engaged with focus groups to try to get a sense of how well we will be able work with them and so we will be properly alert to their needs. The CRPD would require that. The codes of practice will help with that but we are also producing easy-read guides and other guidance materials on which my colleagues are hard at work. We hope the engagement with us will be as straightforward as possible, and I can say a little more about that, if the Deputy wishes.

The Deputy asked about particular sensitivities family carers might have. We are aware of those. My colleague, Ms Fitzsimons and I have recently engaged in workshops with Family Carers Ireland and its concerns can be distilled down to this: life is hard enough, and it is. The task and ask of a family carer is no small thing. We are very sensitive, therefore, to their apprehension that this might create a further burden and create undue formality, costs and complexity, and that they have always been the decision-makers and now they are being asked to do so in a formal and regulated way.

Our message is that we will work with them on that. We are not setting people up to fail. At the same time it is to bring home that message that where they may have thought they had a formal and authorised decision-making role up to this, they really do not because next of kin does not mean anything. You do not have legal authority merely by virtue of that family relationship. Our message is that, with this Act, you have the opportunity to step into a formal, recognised and unarguable legal role, so you have security of tenure so nobody can argue about your right to be in the room, to access information and, if necessary, to be the decision-maker.

The Deputy asked whether, at that upper tier of support, it would be appropriate for a family member to be the decision-maker, and the answer is "Yes". The Act specifically spells out the court must have regard to the value of subsisting family relationships and to not interrupting those, as far as possible, having regard always to the wishes and value, the will and preference of the relevant person, himself or herself. There is a very clear role and a preferred role for the trusted family member or friend.

The Deputy asked about, and this is to be anticipated, whether there could be problems within the family dynamic, whether one family member will think a certain thing and the other will disagree. The Act sets out notice requirements so that it is not possible for one family member to get in there ahead of other siblings, shall we say. If we imagine a situation where siblings might have different and competing views about what is best for an elderly parent with age-related cognitive impairment, if one sibling were to attempt to apply to court and to step into that decision-making representative role, he or she cannot do so without putting other family members on notice. Those other family members have an opportunity to input or to object, and they can do it on the lower tiers of support as well.

There will be decisions to be taken. We will have to deal, perhaps, with objections that come our way, or the court might have to deal with objections to try to resolve difficulties. Those difficulties could arise post the registration of the arrangements in terms of complaints and investigations. Perhaps Ms Fitzsimons might want to say a word about how there will be provision for dealing with complaints and investigations, including alternative dispute resolution, which would be key to our processes.