Dr. Alison Harnett:

I will endeavour to answer Deputy Dillon's questions to the best of my ability and invite Ms Mallon to jump in if I have missed anything. From what Mr. McGrath has said, it is abundantly clear that people with an intellectual disability feel the need for accessible communication around this legislation and what it will mean for them. I mentioned that it is really impactful and important that all people with intellectual disabilities understand ahead of time what it will mean for them. Wards of court make up one particular group of people for whom this legislation will bring about significant change in their lives. Across the board, people need to know what this means for them before it happens in order that their fears and anxieties can be dealt with and their questions answered. Beyond people with an intellectual disability, people with a disability in general would really welcome an understanding of what the legislation means. We have engaged with the DSS in respect of how this can be done. In other regulatory forums, there are things like FAQs and explainer videos that help to bring people through vignettes or examples that might be particularly helpful in pointing out things that might happen.

Unfortunately, we are already aware that there is quite a lot of misunderstanding about the Act. We have some examples from within our services. I can give the committee one example to illustrate what we are talking about. A person wanted to open a bank account, and there are plenty of examples of this, but the person's sister was not particularly happy that the person did want to open a bank account. The bank then referred the matter to a GP saying that a capacity assessment had to be done. The capacity assessment was carried out by a GP with the sister present and the GP wrote to say that capacity was not present and that the person should not be allowed to open a bank account. There was a misunderstanding of the Act and its meaning at all levels - the person, the sister, the bank and the GP - all of whom had misunderstood the assumption of capacity and working in terms of supporting people's will and preference. If we could have really good examples in a neutral space whereby we could point all stakeholders to the same information and explain what the legislation says and means, it would take some of the conflict out of it because we could all talk together about the right way to support people's will and preference.

In our engagement with the Decision Support Service, we have had a positive response to the idea of developing resources, such as video training or frequently asked questions that could be pointed to in an objective manner. For example, in cases where a bank is looking for a capacity statement on a person, a GP is making such a statement about a person or where the question might be arising for such people themselves about what their rights are, those resources would be very useful. It is important that the vignettes or examples that are provided are complex enough to speak to people's lived experience. As for who might do that, the Decision Support Service will need to be resourced to carry out a lot of that work. There are plenty of other stakeholders who would be willing to support the action. The point that I am making is that if it is left, for instance, to individual organisations that support people with disabilities, then there will be a lot of opportunity for conflict and misunderstanding at a local level. What we want is a nationally co-ordinated structured campaign of awareness-raising, support, training, education for staff in our services to understand families, as Mr. Dunne has described, and for people who have lived experience. I hope that answers Deputy Dillon's question. If there is anything else I can add, I ask him to come back to me.