nor provide enough support to enable the adult to make their own decisions. Further, rather than making the process less complex, we ran the risk of creating more bureaucracy, which certainly was not the intention. The need for multiagency training was a recurring theme, as was the need for independent advocacy to be given the same priority in AWI legislation as it has in mental health legislation. Many respondents commented on the need to strike the right balance between supporting individuals and upholding their rights, and the viable provision of care, and were of the view that the consultation proposals do not do this. This report will provide a summary and analysis of the consultation, chapter by chapter, with the intentions of the Scottish Government outlined after each chapter. What happens next? The intention behind the proposed reforms to the AWI legislation is to maximise the autonomy and exercise of legal capacity of individuals with cognitive impairment so that genuine non - discriminatory respect is afforded for a person’s rights, will and preference, in keeping with the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. However as will be clear from reading this paper, many consultation responses were of the strong opinion that this aim was not achieved. We will therefore be working closely with a wide range of stakeholders over the autumn to adjust the proposals where required so that they more accurately reflect the original aims for the reform of this legislation. To achieve this we intend to: Reframe the principles of the AWI legislation to ensure that the adult’s rights, will and preferences are paramount, that any intervention in an adult’s life is genuinely the least restrictive, and for the shortest period of time, and that the principles are adhered to by all persons involved in acting on behalf or in support of the adult Work with a small group of stakeholders to firm up the policy around deprivation of liberty for persons lacking in capacity Provide a more flexible means of guardianship so that it can be more easily tailored to a person’s individual situation and be less restrictive than at present, ensuring that the system fully accommodates the need to ensure the adult’s rights will and preferences are accounted for, but in doing so take account of the concerns that the consultation proposals are too wide ranging and risk creating more complex systems than before.
raised as practice issue with Sheriffs Principal and Sheriffs, and training and guidance should be supplied to applicants and professions, rather than remove intervention orders from the legislation. Other comments from those that agreed with the proposal were: • Supportive of reducing the numbers of orders available under the Act. • Important that a degree of flexibility is retained in whatever form of revised structure is put in place. • Uncertainties regarding supervision of intervention orders should be addressed • Adults or family may not feel comfortable that a ‘guardian’ is appointed for a one off or time limited power. • Intervention order useful to get direction from court when there are 2 valid possibilities. If S.3 direction can deal with this, then no need for intervention orders Of those who answered no, 8 considered amalgamating intervention orders into graded guardianship would be removing a least restrictive option. 3 were of the opinion that incorporation of intervention orders into the guardianship regime could encourage applications for too many powers. Another 3 respondents stated that it was not clear who would determine when the intervention was concluded. 2 stated intervention orders constituted substitute decision making and were non-compliant with UNCRPD. They thought a supported decision making regime should be preferred. Other comments from those that disagreed with the proposal were: • It would be useful to separate the role of intervener and guardian as it might not be appropriate or possible for the same person to carry out the specific task. • It would be more useful for processes around intervention orders to be used more flexibly to deal with more urgent and immediate actions for lower level support of adults in their daily lives. • There should be evidence of actual use of intervention orders, before abolishing or amalgamating with guardianship orders. • There is a place for a specific issue order as can apply for this for a higher grade intervention, when day to day the guardianship is at a lower grade. As there was not a question relating to organisations applying for guardianships, some respondents entered their observations in this section. Some comments were: • Organisations would have to have a range of duties imposed upon them as do the local authority at present, given the substantial powers in relation to the adult’s liberty granted to them. • There is a conflict of interest and lack of accountability. • It is not clear how suitability would be assessed. • It is not clear how organisations would be supervised.