Mr. Adam Harris:

I thank the Deputy for that important question. When we talk about the UN convention, we should not lose sight of its main achievement which is changing our understanding of disability, moving away from a medical model that view disabled people as lesser and requiring them to become more like non-disabled people. Unfortunately, that has been most of the history that disabled people have lived through.

The UN convention recognises that disability comes into play when impairments interact with both environmental and attitudinal barriers. The Statute Book's definitions of disability do not, in many respects, bring that to life. They approach disability more from a medical-based model which still informs the system that sees disabled people as less than or as having to conform or needing help or needing to be treated as opposed to being empowered. It has a more practical consequence as well in that it tries to create an exhaustive list of disability whereas in actual fact disability is much broader. We know a significant percentage of people at some stage in their life will experience disability. While it is appropriate for the Statute Book to categorise disability where it can, it should not seek to codify or to make an exhaustive list.

The census is a great example of this. As an autistic person, I cannot actually answer the disability question on the census because autism is not an option. It is an example of how we are losing data visibility because we are too defined and confining in our approach.

Regarding full implementation and reaching everybody with this convention, we have talked a lot today about how we bring the convention to life in practice and also the optional protocol. The committee should not lose sight of Articles 12 and 14 of the convention. These relate to deprivation of liberty which has a lot of consequences, particularly for older people who may be in nursing home care. Ireland had reservations around these pieces of the convention. The commission has expressed concern on several occasions about the draft heads of Bill and the deprivation of liberty. While the Bill has been delayed because of Covid-19, it is important that a timeline is established around when the legislation will proceed. Critically, as we recently asked the commission against torture to ask the State, when that Bill proceeds, it must be clear how it is intended to ensure the Bill aligns with international human rights standards.