Author: Amelia Napolitano – Manager of Cultural Heritage, PhD candidate in Law at the University of Padova, visiting PhD at ALL Institute, Maynooth University.
Visiting a museum should be straightforward – select an exhibition, purchase a ticket, enter, observe, enjoy and learn. However, many people with disabilities still face barriers, as previous scholarly work and research conducted in the ALL Institute has highlighted. In museums, these barriers span the entire visitor journey.
Yet, being able to access and move around a museum or a heritage site without assistance and being able to enjoy art is in itself an exercise of human rights and a concrete realisation of independent living, which unfortunately they still do not see happening. This is one of the gaps that the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro Convention) seeks to close by requiring States parties to create a people-centred, rights-based framework that calls on institutions and communities to remove barriers, widen access, and enable full, meaningful participation in cultural life (Art.12). The Faro Convention can be seen in this respect as complementary and supportive of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), as it can prompt States in addressing the persistent environmental, communicative, cognitive, organisational, and attitudinal barriers that curtail cultural rights of persons with disabilities. The Faro Convention is drawn up under the authority of the Steering Committee for the Cultural Heritage, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 13 October 2005 and opened for signature to the member states of the Council of Europe on 27 October 2005.
To date, Ireland has not yet signed it, but on 19 March 2025, the Irish Parliament shone a spotlight on this issue. The Deputy Rory Hearne asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage whether Ireland intends at last to sign and ratify the Faro Convention; if there is a timetable for this; the reason it has not been signed up to this point; and if he will make a statement on the matter. The reply was cautious: the Convention has not yet been signed, but its principles have long informed national policies and programmes, such as the Heritage Ireland 2030 Plan, which recognises the role of local communities in protecting and sharing heritage. Against this background, this post argues that signing the Faro Convention could catalyse progress on the rights of persons with disabilities in Irish museums and help Ireland implement CRPD commitments into inclusive museum practices —integrating participation and rights into the design of spaces, the interpretation of collections, and the provision of services, with participation and accessibility as non-negotiable standards.
Despite the antiquity of many collections, Ireland’s museum sector is relatively young: two-thirds of museums have been established only since 1980. The 1980s and 1990s witnessed a genuine boom, marked by the establishment of the Irish Museums Association, the Heritage Council, and, later, the Museum Standards Programme for Ireland. This institutional evolution is accompanied by a legal and ethical framework that establishes accessibility as a concrete commitment. Since 1973, Ireland has been a member of ICOM (International Council of Museums), which means that it embraces its definition of museums. The last one, approved in 2022 in the framework of the 26th General Conference in Prague, defines museums as institutions in the service of society, accessible and inclusive, promoting diversity and sustainability and operating with the active participation of communities. In principle, at least, Irish museums are committed to being accessible and inclusive. This ethical commitment finds its legal anchor in Ireland’s signature (2007) and ratification (2018) of the CRPD. The CRPD makes accessibility and participation in the museum field binding obligations through its Article 30that requires State Parties to take all appropriate measures to ensure that people with disabilities enjoy access to cultural materials in accessible formats, e.g. supporting their specific cultural and linguistic identity, including sign languages and deaf culture, and enjoy access to places for cultural performances or services such as museums. Article 9 CRPD provides for direct and concrete measures that operationalise the provisions of Article 30 and can be applied directly to museums as facilities and services open to the public. States are obligated to guarantee equal access to the built environment and to information and communications (including ICT) and to identify and eliminate barriers. In the context of museum practice, this translates into the provision of comprehensive access for audiences throughout their entire visitor journey, as previously delineated.
As an EU Member State since 1973, Ireland has also transposed several directives that directly affect cultural accessibility. The Web Accessibility Directive (EU) 2016/2102, implemented via S.I. No. 358/2020, which identifies the National Disability Authority (NDA) as the monitoring body, requires public-sector websites and mobile apps (including those of museums) to conform to WCAG 2.1 AA, publish an accessibility statement with a user feedback mechanism, and undergo national monitoring. The European Accessibility Act (Directive (EU) 2019/882), transposed by S.I. No. 636/2023 and applicable from 28 June 2025, sets accessibility requirements for products and services relevant to museums’ digital value chain as e-commerce, e-books/reading software, and certain self-service terminals, together with market-surveillance and redress obligations. The Public Procurement Directive 2014/24/EU, implemented by S.I. No. 284/2016, enables contracting authorities to integrate accessibility into every stage of a museum procurement process. Technical specifications may require compliance with recognised standards, while award criteria (MEAT) may reward solutions that exceed minimum requirements, such as demonstrable testing with visitors with disabilities. This approach applies to ICT, signage, layout, and services aimed at the public (e.g., ISL interpreting, accessible ticketing), transforming accessibility from a voluntary addition to a verifiable contractual obligation.
In addition, the Disability Act 2005 (Part 3: Access to Buildings and Services), supported by the ministerially approved Code of Practice under the Disability Act (S.I. No. 484/2011), provides authoritative guidance on accessible information, services and premises. Language access is guaranteed by the Irish Sign Language Act 2017, recognising ISL and imposing a corresponding duty on public bodies to provide interpretation when users access statutory services. Equality duties apply from 2000 to 2018 (non-discrimination in goods and services, including a duty of reasonable accommodation by service providers) and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014, Section. 42, which requires public bodies to eliminate discrimination, promote equality, and protect human rights in their functions. The physical environment is governed by Building Regulations Part M (Access and Use) and the current Technical Guidance Document M (2022), with a specific amendment S.I. No. 608/2022 introduces Changing Places requirements by building type/size.
Taken together, this legal toolbox has already begun to change practice on the ground: across Ireland, a number of museums have internalised the principles of participation and accessibility for visitors with disabilities, translating rights into design choices, programmes, and visitor support. One emblematic example is the National Gallery of Ireland, which shows how a public institution can operationalise these duties across the whole visitor journey. Its official website features a page entirely dedicated to accessibility information to assist people with disabilities throughout their visitor journey. The Gallery is fully physically accessible and provides maps indicating all facilities. It also supports deaf/hard-of-hearing and blind/low-vision visitors with multiple measures such as Irish Sign Language (ISL) tours and tours; large-print booklets (English and Irish); and activities designed for children who seek sensory input. The Gallery has also done significant work in the field of cognitive disabilities, preparing a guide that shows what the visit will be like step by step, and the dementia-inclusive resources online. It is AsIAm Approved Autism Friendly, signalling trained staff and adapted practices.
The National Gallery’s initiative is a noteworthy example of good practice, but it is not enough. Yet data on cultural participation among people with disabilities published by Eurostat confirm that there is still considerable room for improvement: in 2022, only 21.5% of men and 25.1% of women with activity limitations in Ireland reported visiting a cultural site in the previous 12 months. These data show that, despite the progress already made, the social inclusion of people with disabilities through participation in the cultural life of the country is still an isolated case.
Both practically and scientifically, ratifying the Faro Convention could represent an opportunity and a true commitment. Practically, it could lead government and competent authorities to define an implementation roadmap and allocate adequate resources, while museums could be encouraged to embed Faro’s principles in their statutes and missions, securing funding and ensuring the structured, rather than occasional, participation of persons with disabilities and their representative organisations as co-designers. Such ratification could unlock a new era of inclusion in Irish museums, transforming isolated virtuous practices into ordinary standards and consolidating a rights-based approach. It could also provide a coherent framework to guide policies, instruments, and practices already planned or yet to be activated. Importantly, it would align the call in Article 12 of Faro to involve disadvantaged persons with the principle of consultation and effective involvement enshrined in Article 4(3) CRPD; at the same time, it would give further democratic weight to Article 9 CRPD on accessibility, placing it within the broader framework of the right to participate in cultural life guaranteed by Article 30 CRPD. Scientifically, ratification could act as a catalyst for research on disability participation in museums, fostering a virtuous cycle between academic reflection and practice. The question, therefore, is not whether there are reasons to ratify, but whether any defensible reasons remain not to.
Amelia Napolitano (Author)
