Ms Áine Flynn:

In relation to utopia, this Act is quite highly regarded at an international level. I suppose if you wait 150 years to replace something, there is lots of learning that you can take from around the world. Opinions vary but it is spoken of as coming close to hitting the mark in terms of UNCRPD compliance. Quite honestly, what full compliance with Article 12 of UNCRPD consists of could occupy a three-day conference.

This legislation, which is ambitious in scope, operates at a scale which is not replicated in many other jurisdictions because we have three tiers of support. It is spoken of as doing very well because we have moved away from a medicalised approach to capacity. This was a consequence of really good input from NGOs and disabled persons organisations in the run-up to 2015 because there was a conscious determination to take the UNCRPD and translate it into the guiding principles under the Act. That has had good effect. Even at the top tier, and even if that is a model of substitute decision-making, there is still an onus on that court-appointed decision-making representative to ensure they are informed about the person's will and preferences and, while making decisions on behalf of the person, to give effect where possible to that will and those preferences. The legislation is held in quite high regard by international commentators. We await to see what the UN committee will make of it when we are before it.

In terms of adult safeguarding, which is separate, I urge that capacity be recognised as having the singular meaning that exists under the Act. It is about decision-making capacity and a move away from that concept of mental capacity or that diagnostic approach which definitely prevailed previously. Wherever capacity comes up in other legislation or policy, it is to be understood in those terms.