Ms Áine Flynn:

I will start with the codes. I read today the Centre for Disability Law and Policy's detailed submission on the codes of practice that have been out for public consultation. All submissions will be taken on board. There is quite an amount of complexity with certain parts of interpretation of the Act. Some people have very definite views on what it says and means. The range of opinion is quite striking. Coming into the meeting I was concerned that perhaps we needed to bring further clarity to the matter of restraint, which received an amount of attention yesterday. I believe that has been achieved, so that we all are clear about what is intended about the removal around the provisions relating to restraint in very particular decision-support arrangements under the Act. It is not a broader statement on restraint at all, but I hope we have achieved that clarity today.

There were also some submissions yesterday about the desirability of a transitional period. I have engaged quite extensively with the organisation that submission comes from and I think, and I do not wish to presume, that is based perhaps on an apprehension that as soon as the Act is introduced things automatically have to become very formal and that everybody will be rushing to court to put arrangements in place. I do not think that is the intention and I hope I can provide better reassurance there.

There was also discussion yesterday about inordinately long time delays, to some extent, as I picked it up, informed by our demand forecasting. To reassure, we do not suppose that people will have to wait seven or ten years to become a decision-making representative, which was part of a submission yesterday but I hope I can engage further with the organisation in question to provide further reassurance.

Finally, from this meeting and from our broad engagement with stakeholders under this Act, I find it very encouraging to see the appetite for change. Much has been said about the cultural shift that this Act brings about. From my experience, this is well under way. It is not, fundamentally, an Act about capacity or new tools for accessing consent, it is not even primarily about the new and very welcome framework that the Act introduces. Primarily, it is about supporting people to have their own will and preferences respected and to be at the heart of the decisions that matter to them, and to support and enhance their opportunities to take those decisions themselves. I hope that everybody sees that as the starting point. The Decision Support Service, DSS, is more than happy to continue to play its part. We will deal with whatever legislation we are eventually handed. We will not be the owners of this Act, we will be servants of the Act. As Mr. Farrelly has said, a lot of work has been to done to build up a DSS, a lot of which is predicated on the Act as is and the Act as we expected it to turn out. It is probably appropriate to say that if we have to do a reset, there could be further delays flowing from that, but clearly we will respect the legislative process. We are happy to be of further service to this committee as necessary.