Ms Joanne Condon:

There are quite a few issues to cover off, so it will be a combined answer. I will deal first with the advocacy resource. The role that independent advocacy plays is clearly recognised in this new system. There is a code of practice for independent advocates, as Ms Byrne mentioned already. There is quite a heavy reliance on advocates to ensure the voice of the person is heard and the person is kept central to the process. However, there has been no increased investment in the advocacy sector. We are, therefore, in a position where we have to absorb a considerable extra volume of work. I mentioned that 24% of our casework is now in the area of decision-making. That has been absorbed with no increase in resources since the inception of the National Advocacy Service. That is simply not sustainable. It is why we are calling for a Government strategy on advocacy, so that there is some joined-up thinking and some strategising about the future. It is only going to increase with the introduction of protection of liberty safeguards, the likes of safeguarding legislation and other developments that are yet to come. There needs to be a focus now on adequate resourcing of independent advocacy. It is absolutely fundamental to the rights, to get to one of the Senator's other questions.

We see the guiding principles as absolutely foundational and essential to be adhered to in making sure the spirit of the Act is adhered to. Where that does not happen, as I mentioned already, we can see that things like presumption of capacity can quickly get bypassed. The voice of the person can be left out, and we can end up back in a system that is based on best interests, which is exactly the type of thing we are trying to move away from. Under the lunacy Act, it was okay for others to make decisions on behalf of people. If we bring it to ourselves, none of us wish to have decisions made on our behalf. We want to be involved and included ourselves. People with disabilities need to be recognised as citizens with rights who deserve that same level of autonomy and respect to make their own decisions and be included. Even to Deputy Ó Murchú's point about unwise decisions, we all make unwise decisions. It is not about abandoning people to do things that are going to harm them or others. While we all have that ability to weigh choices, we all make bad decisions. For people with disabilities, that is part of personhood and of being an individual trying to work out their day-to-day life.

On adhering to the guiding principles, we feel that is really where the rubber hits the road. Where that is not happening and where people are making assumptions about others' capacity based perhaps on the fact that they have a disability in the first place, or indeed where there is not proportionality, this rush to put in the highest tier of decision-making straight away can sometimes by system-driven, to solve problems. For example, where beds are perhaps needed, that is a real need in terms of hospitals and so on, but it does not justify rushing to get a decision in place. We all know that where time is a pressure, things get compromised. Adequate time is not often given to understand where people are coming from. There are important facets that need to be taken into consideration about the decisions they can make in their lives so that we are truly respecting autonomy.