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.
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.
adultswithincapacityrefor44.docx