Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Monitoring Framework
in Ireland for the United
Nations Convention on
the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities
Foreword iii
Glossary iv
List of Abbreviations v
3.2 Civil Society Involvement in Germany 35
3.3 Civil Society Involvement in New Zealand 37
3.4 Civil Society Involvement in Malta 39
i
Executive Summary vii 3.5 Civil Society Involvement in Spain 41
Introduction 1 3.6 Civil Society Involvement in Sweden 42
Approach to the Research 1 3.7 Civil Society Involvement in the UK 43
Research Methodology 2 3.8 Other Examples of Civil Society
Involvement in Article 33 Mechanisms 46
CHAPTER 1: 3.9 Other models of DPO Involvement 48
Scope of Article 33 5 3.10 Conclusion Considerations for
1.1 Introduction 5 Involvement of Civil Society and
1.2 Focal Point 6 DPOs in Article 33 Monitoring 49
1.3 Coordination Mechanism 8
1.4 Independent Monitoring Framework 9 CHAPTER 4:
1.5 Involvement of Civil Society 12 The Irish Context: Civil Society and
1.6 Conclusion 13 Representative Organisations of Persons
with Disabilities 51
CHAPTER 2: 4.1 Introduction 51
Existing Article 33 Frameworks 17 4.2 Methodology 51
2.1 Introduction 17 4.3 Discussion 52
2.2 Germany: 4.4 Mapping: Disabled Peoples
An NHRI as the Sole Mechanism 17 Organisations under the CRPD 54
2.3 Malta: 4.5 Mapping: Civil Society in Ireland 57
Single-body Framework with a New DPO 20 4.6 Statutory Disability Bodies 61
2.4 UK: 4.7 Existing National Disability Monitoring
Multiple NHRIs and Equality Bodies 22 and Inspection Frameworks 61
2.5 Spain: 4.8 National Inspection and Monitoring
NHRI Jointly Designated with NGO 24 Structures 67
2.6 Sweden: 4.9 Disability Research Centres
NHRI Jointly Designated with and Databases 68
Statutory Disability Body 25 4.10 Conclusion 69
2.7 New Zealand:
Multi-body Framework with NHRI and DPOs 28 CHAPTER 5:
2.8 Conclusion 31 Conclusion and Options for Consideration 71
CHAPTER 3: APPENDIX A
How States Support Involvement of IHREC CRPD Framework Inclusive Advisory
People with Disabilities in CRPD Monitoring Group Proposal 75
A Global Perspective 35
3.1 Introduction 35
ii
Foreword
While it is a ground-breaking document, the The Irish Human Rights and Equality
Convention is, in its own way, remarkably Commission is committed to working with the
simple. It does not draw up or confer any state and with civil society over the course
new human rights. What it does is mark out of 2016 to ensure that the mechanisms put
in clear, unambiguous terms that the rights in place under Article 33 meet the standards
of persons with disabilities are human rights. set out by the Convention, elaborated upon
It makes plain that our body of international since 2007 by the UN Committee on the
human rights norms applies equally to Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This study,
persons with disabilities. Ireland signed the carried out on behalf of the Commission by
Convention in March 2007, and has committed the Centre for Disability Law and Policy in NUI
to its ratification in 2016, as outlined in Galway, I hope, will form a useful contribution
the Department of Justice and Equalitys to this process, and allow us to benefit from
recently-published Roadmap to Ratification. the experiences of other countries in meeting
this challenge.
The Convention adopts a modern, forward-
looking model of disability, recognising Emily Logan
persons with disabilities as primary
stakeholders, active participants and Chief Commissioner,
equal partners in State action around Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission
disability. This principle is prominent in
Article 33 of the Convention, which makes
clear that the domestic oversight and
independent monitoring of the Conventions
implementation must involve the direct
participation of persons with disabilities.
The text of the CRPD itself and the concluding Three options for developing a monitoring
observations of the UN Committee when framework are identified and assessed in light
it has examined countries show that the of both the findings of the UN Committee
involvement and full participation of people on the CRPD and the existing structures
with disabilities and civil society are essential of both civil society and public bodies in
if a state is to comply with its obligations Ireland with remits that could come within
under the CRPD. Characteristics of systems the scope of the Convention. The model
for the inclusion and participation of people identified by the researchers as most suitable
with disabilities that were found by the for the designation as Irelands framework
UN Committee to be important include containing an independent mechanism is the
formal mechanisms for engagement and, Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission
ideally, a permanent role for civil society in with an advisory committee, appointed in a
the monitoring framework. States which transparent way and consisting of a diverse
established permanent bodies within the group of people with lived experience of
monitoring mechanism to represent persons disability. The development of whatever
with disabilities, such as Malta and New framework the State does adopt will present
Zealand, are particularly important examples Ireland with the opportunity to demonstrate
to consider for the Irish context. leadership and innovative thinking in its
processes for involving disabled peoples
The UN Committee on the CRPD has placed organisations, individuals with disabilities and
particular importance on the characteristics broader civil society.
of disabled persons organisations (DPOs)
that participate in the implementation and
monitoring of the Convention. The standard
it identifies as necessary are that at least half
Introduction
The input of Commission staff and key 4 he representatives who attended the advi-
T
stakeholders into the report and the provision sory group meetings were: Sarah Jane Lavin,
of several opportunities to feedback on its National Platform of Self Advocates; Fiona
progress has been vitally important to the Walsh, Recovery Experts by Experience;
research process. Given the nature of the Eddie Redmond, Irish Deaf Society; and
study, and in keeping with the spirit of the Joanne McCarthy/Joan OConnor, Disability
CRPD, a small advisory group composed of Federation of Ireland. Commission staff
representatives from groups of persons with members Walter Jayawardene and Ruth
disabilities was established for the research. Gallagher also attended the meetings. Emily
The role of the advisory group was to guide Logan, Chief Commissioner, attended the
the research process by reviewing and first meeting and Frank Conaty, Commis-
approving the terms of reference, ensuring sion Member, reviewed drafts and provided
that data is gathered from the most relevant feedback to the research team.
The aim of this initial report is therefore to
critically examine the significant body of
existing literature on the implementation
3
of Article 33, and to provide an interpretive
analysis that is applicable to the Irish context.
This research aims to ensure that Ireland can
benefit from the experiences of those states
that have already established a monitoring
framework, and enable Ireland to apply best
practice when preparing its own framework
to monitor the implementation of the CRPD.
While the views of the advisory group have
been immensely valuable for the preparation
of this report, it is important to emphasise
that a further and more extensive State-led
participatory process to elicit the views of
people with disabilities will be required in the
designation of any monitoring framework
under Article 33. Depending on the timeline
for Irelands ratification, and new knowledge
which may subsequently emerge from the
CRPD Committee and from states currently
implementing Article 33, further comparative
research may also be required to inform
Irelands approach to this issue. Finally, in
order to ensure compliance with the spirit and
purpose of the CRPD, it is vital to ensure the
active participation of people with disabilities
and their representative organisations in
developing Irelands monitoring framework
under Article 33.
4
Chapter 1: Scope of Article 33
1.1 Introduction
The creation of a national monitoring
framework is an important step in the
strengthen, designate or establish within
the State Party, a framework, including
one or more independent mechanisms, as
5
implementation of the CRPD. The monitoring appropriate, to promote, protect and monitor
framework, however, is only one part of a implementation of the present Convention.
larger framework designed to guide and When designating or establishing such a
monitor the implementation process as mechanism, States Parties shall take into
set out in Article 33. This chapter examines account the principles relating to the status
Article 33 as a whole, with a special focus on and functioning of national institutions for
the monitoring requirements, to give a better protection and promotion of human rights.
idea of what the article contains and requires, 3 Civil society, in particular persons with
and some idea on how states can address this disabilities and their representative
article. Further evaluation of the monitoring organizations, shall be involved and participate
requirement of Article 33, and how to best fully in the monitoring process.
address the need for monitoring in the Irish
context, is in chapters below.
The framework required by Article 33 has four
Before discussing the monitoring mechanism parts. The first part is a focal point, located
in depth, it is worth looking at Article 33 within government, which is tasked with
as a whole in order to understand how the overseeing the implementation process. The
parts work together and how the monitoring second part is a coordination mechanism, also
mechanism fits into the larger framework. The located within government, which ensures
article has three subsections, and contains that government action on the Convention is
four elements that make up the Article 33 properly organised, with no conflicts arising
framework. It reads as follows:5 through shared areas of responsibility. The
third part is outside of government, and is
1 States Parties, in accordance with their system an independent monitoring framework. In
of organization, shall designate one or more defining the word independent, the article
focal points within government for matters makes reference to the Paris Principles, which
relating to the implementation of the present guide the creation and independence of
Convention, and shall give due consideration National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs).6
to the establishment or designation of a Article 33 does not, however, state directly
coordination mechanism within government that the independent mechanism must be an
to facilitate related action in different sectors NHRI. The fourth part of the framework is civil
and at different levels.
2 States Parties shall, in accordance with their 6 he reference is the following phrase that is
T
legal and administrative systems, maintain, to be found in the second sentence of Arti-
cle 33.2: the principles relating to the status
5 nited Nations Convention on the Rights of
U and functioning of national institutions for
Persons with Disabilities, at Article 33. protection and promotion of human rights.
Chapter 1: Scope of Article 33
in: Gauthier de Beco, (ed.) Article 33 of the ing, International Journal on Human Rights, vol.
Concluding observations on the initial report tion of Article 33 of the UN Convention on the
of the European Union (2015), paragraph 77, Rights of Persons with Disabilities, available
available at <https://documents-dds-ny.un- at <http://europe.ohchr.org/Documents/
.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G15/226/55/PDF/ Publications/Art_33_CRPD_study.pdf> (last
G1522655.pdf>, (accessed 26 April 2016). accessed 30 March, 2016).
While states are clearly obligated to include
persons with disabilities and DPOs in the
monitoring process, the exact form this
for access to the monitoring process to be
a meaningful right, people with disabilities
will require the resources to make use of this
13
participation shall take is left unclear. It access. This means ensuring that accessibility
should be noted, however, that Article 33.3 requirements for various disabilities are taken
calls for participation, which is a stronger into account, and that both the Convention
requirement than consultation. It should and related implementation strategies are
also be noted that the article requires made available in forms that all civil society
that people with disabilities be allowed to participants can understand.36
participate separate from the participation
of DPOs, if they so choose.34 In Ireland,
this will be particularly important as there 1.6 Conclusion
are few organisation in Ireland that meet The commentary of academic scholars and
the definition of a DPO that is used by the the CRPD Committee provides guidance to
CRPD Committee and some of those that determine what a best practice Article 33
do may not have the capacity to participate framework should look like, and some of the
in monitoring (see Chapter 4). If Article 33.3 actions that framework should take. The
is read in conjunction with Article 4.3, it also focal point should be located at the level of
becomes clear that people with disabilities a ministry, in a department where the rights
must not only be involved in the monitoring of persons with disabilities are considered
framework of 33.2, but also the focal point holistically as part of a broad human rights,
and coordination mechanism of 33.1. In justice or equality agenda, rather than
addition, state parties to the Convention may narrowly as a health or social care issue.37 For
have to work on building capacity within civil
society to ensure that DPOs have the ability Publications/Art_33_CRPD_study.pdf> (last
to participate meaningfully in the process of accessed 30 March, 2016).
implementation and monitoring.35 In order
36 authier de Beco & Alexander Hoefmans,
G
34 ental Disability Advocacy Centre, Building
M National Structures for the Implementation
the Architecture for Change: Guidelines on and Monitoring of the UN Convention on
Article 33 of the UN Convention on the Rights the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in
of Persons with Disabilities, 15, available at Gauthier de Beco (ed.) Article 33 of the UN
<http://mdac.info/sites/mdac.info/files/Ar- Convention on the Rights of Persons with
ticle_33_EN.pdf> (last accessed 30 March, Disabilities: National Structures for the Imple-
2016). mentation and Monitoring of the Convention,
9, 58 (2013).
35 authier de Beco, Study on the Implementa-
G
tion of Article 33 of the UN Convention on the 37 uman Rights Council, Thematic Study
H
Rights of Persons with Disabilities, available by the Office of the High Commissioner for
at <http://europe.ohchr.org/Documents/ Human Rights on the Structure and Role of
Chapter 1: Scope of Article 33
2.1 Introduction
In this chapter, six states that have already
designated a monitoring framework under
Institute, Germany created a separate body
to oversee the implementation process. As
a previously established NHRI, the Institute
17
Article 33 are presented, to give some idea had the necessary independence to fulfil the
of the variety of frameworks that exist, and requirements of Article 33.2.45 The National
how the CRPD Committee has responded to CRPD Monitoring Body is made up of four staff
the frameworks within these example states. members. Its website states that currently
Where they are available, the reactions of the National CRPD Monitoring Body does
civil society have also been included. This not have a staff member with a more severe
chapter also provides an analysis of the disability. However it has had experience
various types of framework, what works and with employees with impairments.46 The
what could be improved, to provide further Monitoring Body hosts consultations
guidance and advice. The six states chosen with civil society three times a year. Each
are Germany, the UK, Spain, Sweden, Malta consultation focuses on one issue that is of
and New Zealand. This sample was chosen concern to the Monitoring Body at that time.
as a diverse mix of states civil and common Topics the Monitoring Body has focused on
law, single and multi-body frameworks include legal capacity, women and girls with
that are similar enough to Ireland to provide disability, and housing.47 Over 60 groups are
guidance in creating Irelands own monitoring
framework, but still diverse enough to provide outline of the difference between them,
a variety of experiences. Five of the states see <http://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/
are in the EU, while the sixth, New Zealand, is ICCAccreditation/Pages/default.aspx> (last
a common law state with a population similar accessed 27 April 2016).
in size to Irelands. It is also helpful that four
of the six states have been reviewed by the 45 ommittee on the Rights of Persons with
C
CRPD Committee, which means that the Disabilities, Implementation of the Conven-
Committees views can be included in the tion on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,
analysis. Initial reports submitted by States parties in
accordance with article 35 of the Convention,
Germany, paragraphs 284290, U.N.Doc.
2.2 Germany: An NHRI as CRPD/C/DEU/1 (7 May 2013).
the Sole Mechanism
Germany is an example of a state that 46 eutsches Institut fr Mensehenrechte,
D
uses a single body, its NHRI, as its entire CRPD Monitoring Body [web page],
monitoring framework. For its monitoring available at <http://www.institut-fuer-men-
mechanism, Germany chose to appoint schenrechte.de/en/crpd-monitoring-body/
its NHRI, the German Institute for Human frequently-asked-questions/> (last ac-
Rights, an A status NHRI.44 Within the cessed 31 March 2016).
Germany 3 3
UK 3 3
Spain 3 3 3 3
Sweden 3
Malta 3 3 3
New 3 3 3 3 3
Zealand
34
Chapter 3: How States Support
Involvement of People with Disabilities in
CRPD Monitoring A Global Perspective
3.1 Introduction
This chapter examines how different states
have involved civil society in their Article
submitted to the CRPD Committee from the
BRK-Allianz (an alliance of German NGOs with
a focus on the CRPD) indicates dissatisfaction
35
33 mechanisms. The chapter starts by with the inclusion of civil society and people
exploring how the six states (Germany, Malta, with disabilities. The report states that
New Zealand, Spain, Sweden and the UK) while DPOs and people with disabilities have
have involved civil society in implementing been invited to take part in governmental
the CRPD and in particular how Article 33 committees and meetings, their participation
mechanisms have involved people with has not been given equal weight compared
disabilities and DPOs. In addition to these with other members of the various
six states, this chapter looks at how other committees in question.109 The report further
states that may have less well established asserts that the state report submitted by
DPO networks have involved people with Germany at the time of its examination in
disabilities into their Article 33 mechanisms. the spring of 2014 was compiled without the
The chapter also looks at models for the involvement of people with disabilities or
involvement of people with disabilities in their representative organisations.110 This
CRPD monitoring and concludes with a issue was mentioned by CRPD Committee in
summary of important considerations in the concluding observations for Germany in
establishing involvement of civil society and 2014.111
DPOs.
109 BRK-Allianz, Submission by the German CRPD
Alliance (BRK-Allianz) for the List of Issues on
3.2 Civil Society Involvement Germany Committee on the Rights of Persons
in Germany with Disabilities 11th Session, 31 Mar 11 Apr
2014 (December 2013) 9, available at <http://
3.2.1 DPO and Civil Society www.internationaldisabilityalliance.org/en/
Involvement in the State Report article/ida-information-note-11th-session-
A study of Article 33 implementation in crpd-committee-31-march-2014> (last
Germany reported that the Federal Ministry accessed 15 March 2016).
for Labour and Social Affairs, which funds the
independent mechanism, regularly consults 110 BRK-Allianz, Submission by the German CRPD
with civil society and the German Disability Alliance (BRK-Allianz) for the List of Issues on
Council in particular.108 However, a report Germany Committee on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities 11th Session, 31 Mar 11 Apr
108 authier de Beco, Study on the Implementa-
G 2014 (December 2013) 9, available at <http://
tion of Article 33 of the UN Convention on the www.internationaldisabilityalliance.org/en/
Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Europe, article/ida-information-note-11th-session-
UN Office of the High Commissioner of Hu- crpd-committee-31-march-2014> (last
man Rights, Europe Regional Office (2014) accessed 15 March 2016).
25, available at <http://europe.ohchr.org/
Documents/Publications/Art_33_CRPD_ 111 ommittee on the Rights of Persons with
C
study.pdf> (last accessed 15 March 2016). Disabilities, Concluding Observations on
Chapter 3: How States Support Involvement of People with
Disabilities in CRPD Monitoring A Global Perspective
New Zealand Convention Coalition Monitoring 3.3.3 DPO and Civil Society
Group (Convention Coalition), which is Involvement in Shadow Reporting
described as a governance-level steering The Convention Coalition is government-
group by disabled peoples organisations funded and is made up of members from
that is tasked with providing the civil society a diverse group of national disability
input into the CRPD monitoring process.119 organisations that represent not only the
This Convention Coalition along with the diversity of types of disabilities but also the
New Zealand Human Rights Commission and ethnic diversity of New Zealand.122 As noted
the Ombudsman constitute the independent in Chapter 2, however, none of the groups
monitoring mechanism. The independent represent people with experience of mental
mechanism of New Zealand has issued two health issues. Members of the group are all
annual reports. In its most recent report it people with disabilities who have been trained
recommended that the government change by Disability Rights Promotion International
the way it was funding the Convention (a collaborative human rights monitoring
Coalition to allow for more independence.120
The government responded by moving from
a year-to-year funding on contract basis to a
120 I ndependent Monitoring Mechanism, Making 122 I ndependent Monitoring Mechanism, Making
Disability Rights Real: Second Report of the Disability Rights Real: Second Report of the
Independent Monitoring Mechanism of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism of the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, (July 2012 December 2013) Disabilities, (July 2012 December 2013)
107, available at <https://www.hrc.co.nz/ 107, available at <https://www.hrc.co.nz/
files/8014/2357/0686/Making-disabili- files/8014/2357/0686/Making-disabili-
ty-rights-real-full-report.pdf> (last accessed ty-rights-real-full-report.pdf> (last accessed
15 March 2016). 15 March 2016).
project)123 to interview people with disabilities
on how they have experienced their rights in
New Zealand.124 The Convention Coalition
3.4 Civil Society Involvement in Malta
159 Paula Pinto et al, Linclusion sociale des per- 162 undamental Rights Agency of the EU, The
F
sonnes en situation de handicap dans la wilaya, Right to political participation for persons with
Document satellite Collection Recherche disabilities: human rights indicators, (2014),
et tudes Ds/RE|14, (November 2014), available at <https://fra.europa.eu/sites/
available at <http://drpi.research.yorku.ca/ default/files/fra-2014-right-political-par-
Chapter 3: How States Support Involvement of People with
Disabilities in CRPD Monitoring A Global Perspective
50 3.10.3 Inclusion
The CRPD Committee has consistently
informed states in its concluding observations
that civil society, and in particular people with
disabilities and DPOs, must be involved in
Article 33 duties, including the development
of the state report submitted to the CRPD
Committee and the ongoing work of
monitoring frameworks.171 The issue of
exclusion from aspects of monitoring is also
a common theme in shadow reports. This
highlights the importance of the inclusion
of people with disabilities in all parts of the
monitoring process and the need to make
sure DPOs and individuals with disabilities are
included.
4.3.1 Defining DPOs under the CRPD 176 osemary Kayess and Phillip French, Out
R
and the Importance of Involvement of Darkness and into Light? Introducing the
of People with Disabilities Convention on the Rights of Persons with
In the CRPD, the participation of people Disabilities, Human Rights Law Review, 8(1)
with disabilities is enshrined in Article 4.3. 134.
The unofficial motto of the Convention
was nothing about us without us.174 This 177 eport of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Com-
R
principle was put into practice throughout prehensive and Integral International Conven-
the drafting: people with disabilities and their tion on the Protection and Promotion of the
Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities
174 osemary Kayess and Phillip French, Out
R on its Sixth Session paragraph 159 (17 August
of Darkness and into Light? Introducing the 2005) U.N. Doc. No. A/60/266, available at
Convention on the Rights of Persons with <http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/
Disabilities, Human Rights Law Review, 8(1) rights/ahc6reporte.htm> (last accessed 4
134. February 2016).
discussion, we rely on the definition of DPOs
used by the CRPD Committee, given above.178
Some disability organisations in Ireland
Ireland does not currently have a DPO
that represents all people with disabilities
(including people with experience of mental
53
represent multiple parties (for example, health issues), known as a cross-disability
family members and people with disabilities) DPO. There have been two attempts in
or both represent people and provide services the past 30 years to create a national DPO
to them. The CRPD is quite clear that under for all people with disabilities, People with
the Convention it is the person with the Disabilities in Ireland (20002011)180 and the
disability that is the rights holder. Even when Forum of People with Disabilities (19962000).
the Convention mentions the family, its The Irish government financially supported
focus is on ensuring people with disabilities both organisations. Since 2011 there has been
have the right to a family life, rather than on no state-funded national DPO that represents
the rights of family members of people with all people with disabilities in Ireland.181
disabilities.179 In the context of monitoring, This lack of an umbrella organisation could
hybrid organisations such as these are prove to be a challenge when it comes to
unlikely to be considered DPOs using the creating a monitoring framework, as some
CRPD Committees definition, unless people states, such as Spain, have relied on existing
with disabilities form the majority of their national umbrella organisations to ensure the
membership and direct and control the participation of people with disabilities.
organisation
Therefore, it is important to look at the
178 ommittee on the Rights of Persons with
C different groups of people that make up
Disabilities, Guidelines on the Participation people with disabilities to ensure that all
of Disabled Persons Organizations (DPOs) people with disabilities are adequately
and Civil Society Organizations in the work of
the Committee, CRPD/C/11/2 (April 2014) 180 athleen Lynch, Equality as Rhetoric: The
K
paragraph 3, Annex II in: Report of the Com- Careless State of Ireland. Paper delivered at
mittee on the Rights of Persons with Disabil- the MacGill Summer School 2013, available
ities on its eleventh session (31 March11 at <http://www.macgillsummerschool.com/
April 2014) available at <http://tbinternet. equality-as-rhetoric-the-careless-state-of-
ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/ ireland/> (last accessed 4 February 2016).
Download.aspx?symbolno=CRPD%2F-
C%2F11%2F2&Lang=en> (last accessed 20 181 I n 2012 in the wake of the closure of People
April 2016). with Disabilities in Ireland a National Council
of People with Disabilities was formed but it
179 osemary Kayess and Phillip French, Out
R does not seem to be very active and seems
of Darkness and into Light? Introducing the to only have offices in the west of Ireland.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with National Council for Disabilities Ireland [web
Disabilities, Human Rights Law Review, 8(1) page], available at <http://galway.ncpd.ie/
134. index.htm> (last accessed 6 February 2016).
Chapter 4: The Irish Context: Civil Society and Representative
Organisations of Persons with Disabilities
MindFreedom Ireland
MindFreedom Ireland196 was started in 2003 as National Council of People with Disabilities
a way to explore and promote alternatives to The National Council of People with
the psychiatric model of mental health care.197 Disabilities was started in 2012 after the
People with experience of the mental health government ceased funding People with
system founded the group. The group is Disabilities in Ireland.199 It is made up of
linked to both the European Network of Users former members of that organisation and
and Survivors of Psychiatry and the World seems to be largely active in the west of
Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry. Ireland. (The headquarters are in Clare.)
The organisation describes most of its
Not for Profit Business Association218 219 ot for Profit Business Association [web
N
The Not for Profit Business Association site], available at <www.notforprofit.ie> (last
is a representative body for large service accessed 20 April 2016).
providers that provide services to people
220 ot for Profit Business Association, About
N
Us [web page], available at <http://www.
notforprofit.ie/home/about/> (last accessed
217 ational Federation of Voluntary Bodies
N 11 February 2016).
[web site], available at <www.fedvol.ie> (last
accessed 20 April 2016). 221 ental Health Reform, Vision, Mission and
M
Values [web page], available at <https://
218 ot for Profit Business Association [web
N www.mentalhealthreform.ie/vision-mis-
site], available at <www.notforprofit.ie> (last sion-and-values/> (last accessed 7 February
accessed 20 April 2016). 2016).
4.6 Statutory Disability Bodies
Working People with Disabilities and Catholic Institute for Deaf People
Group 3 Community Involvement Centers for Independent Living
Cope Foundation
Disability Federation of Ireland
DeafHear
Disability Equality Specialist
Inclusion Ireland
LEAP
National Council for the
Blind of Ireland
National Parents and Siblings Alliance
Support Agency
Chapter 4: The Irish Context: Civil Society and Representative
Organisations of Persons with Disabilities
66 Table 3 Continued
HSE working groups and civil society membership
230 HIQA, National Standards for Residential Ser- 233 ine McMahon, HSE defends appoint-
A
vices for Children and Adults with Disabilities, ing Leigh Gath as the confidential re-
(January 2013), 6, available at <https://www. cipient, Irish Times, 17 December 2014,
hiqa.ie/standards/social/people-with-dis- available at <http://www.irishtimes.com/
abilities> (last accessed 11 February 2016). news/health/hse-defends-appoint-
ing-leigh-gath-as-confidential-recipi-
231 or information on the scandal at ras At-
F ent-1.2040251> (last accessed 11 February
tracta, see, for example: Minister of State at 2016).
Chapter 4: The Irish Context: Civil Society and Representative
Organisations of Persons with Disabilities
Conclusion
Based on the comparative research conducted
for this report, Option 3 seems the most
appropriate in the Irish context, given the
current landscape of DPOs and civil society
organisations that advocate on disability
rights. In keeping with the spirit and purpose
of the CRPD, and in acknowledgment of the
current Irish civil society and DPO landscape,
the research teams recommendation
would be for the Commission to be jointly
designated as the monitoring framework
with an advisory committee composed of a
Appendix A IHREC CRPD Framework
Inclusive Advisory Group Proposal