Ms Áine Flynn:

I thank the Senator for the question. Review mechanisms are built into the Act, so we act within that statutory remit and they vary depending on the support in question.

When it comes to codecision-making agreements - we have registered something like 150 of those - these are voluntary arrangements that people opt into and can reverse back out of at will. That describes a process of joint decision-making. They are reviewed by the DSS between the ninth and 15th months after registration to ensure they remain fit for purpose and we can dispatch people called our general visitors from our panel to engage with the parties and to satisfy us that the arrangement is still operating properly. In addition, that codecision-maker reports to us annually, providing a template report setting out how they are delivering on their functions. There is a particular set of requirements they have to meet and that is outlined in the Act, which sets out what the functions of a codecision-maker are, including what is called a duty of acquiescence. That means if they disagree with what the person wants to do, they still have to give way to the person unless they apprehend serious risk to themselves, to that person or to another person.

You can only have one codecision-maker in an codecision-making agreement with you.

Turning to the decision-making representative at the top tier should always be a last resort. They are court-appointed following an assessment by the court about who is suitable. As I have mentioned, they report to us at the three-month mark in respect of property and affairs and thereafter annually. They are subject to our ongoing supervision. The relevant person, as they are called, can bring the matter back before the court. They are free under the Act to do that. The court itself keeps its declaration in relation to the person's capacity under review, so those periodic reviews have also been happening.