Dr. Alison Harnett:

Circling back to the unintended consequences, an example we have given is that there are many people – we have done a survey so we know there are many hundreds – who were institutionalised because the State many years ago thought and informed people that the best solution was an institutional life. We now know that is not the case but, unfortunately, many people were brought into that situation and sometimes were brought quite far away from their families of origin. Many of the arrangements that people are living in have been quite isolated from the natural circles of support.

Under the Bill and under the Act, paid staff members are not permitted to be decision supporters. There could be a person who has very few people in their life from their natural support networks of family and friends or, perhaps, somebody for whom an elderly family member would find much of the onerous reporting requirements more than they would wish to take on under the Decision Support Service. Those people might have the capacity to make decisions about, for instance, their finances, with a decision assistant, who would just be gathering the relevant information and making it understandable, or as a co-decision-maker, who would be alongside the person, supporting him or her in making his or her decision. Under this amendment and Act, the only option open to a person who does not have a natural support network person who can take up the decision supporter role is to have a decision-making representative, which is someone who makes decisions on such a person’s behalf. Even if someone has the capacity to make his or her own decision on finances, as an example, because it is time and decision-specific, but needs to make a large decision, he or she would have the capacity to make that decision with an assistant or a co-decision-maker. This Act is only providing that person with a decision-making representative. Therefore, we are very worried that the spirit of the Act, which is meant to help someone to be as independent as possible in making decisions, will actually not be reflected in the practice because a decision-making representative is at a higher level than needed. Therefore, there needs to be a deep reflection on what that potential impact might be for people supported and defined. Not being a legal expert, I am not sure what would be the right way around it would be. Perhaps it could be made possible to have decision assistants or co-decision-makers within the Act from a panel. That part perhaps would be for other people to have a view on how to fix it but certainly, we can see how that would not be working.

If it is okay. I will refer back to a previous question and Mr. Lowndes’s comments in relation to Deputy Dillon’s query around the information needed. Mr. Lowndes was talking about the need for staff to have time to work with people. In our submission, we have also called for an impact assessment for the resources that are required to make this real. It is not possible to support people in their decisions without having ample and adequate time to do so. We need to understand people’s will and preference. Often, people have communication challenges or particular support needs around their communication and it is not a trivial matter. Therefore, we feel there is need to look at the resources that will be required to do this properly in order to make it meaningful. What Mr. Lowndes is talking about is that people need time to be listened to. I fully support what he was saying on that.

I thank Deputy Bacik for her question and I hope that answers it.