reform of the law regarding legal guardianship announced for 2016. There is a similar situation in the unsatisfactory area of “work”. In 2015, the NPM drew particular attention to the situation at daily workshops. It provided a detailed account of how the payment of minimal pocket money instead of an appropriate wage, the lack of proper employment terms under social insurance law, and the lack of encouragement to seek a normal job constituted a violation of human rights. Here too there have been no commitments from politicians indicating that they wish to achieve change. This is the case despite recent pioneering plans and studies which the Federal Government, in its 2013-2018 Work Programme, explicitly acknowledged to be the solution to all these issues. Pocket money instead of wages and security There have been no initiatives in conjunction with self-representation organisations aimed at increased public awareness and consciousness about the importance and objectives of inclusion. In the field of protection against violence, there is no overall framework and in geographical terms too few contact points focus on the vulnerability of children, girls and women, persons with learning difficulties, individuals with mental (psychiatric) illnesses, individuals with hearing impairments, the partially sighted, etc. No special measures aimed at consciousness-raising The case of a young woman from Salzburg with serious disabilities, whose further care is currently at stake, provides an example of how persons with disabilities are not taken seriously as self-determining, independent individuals. The situation was not caused by the care recipient herself. It was the provocative behaviour of her mother, who is also her legal guardian. The mother’s criticisms and assertions became a burden for the facility, and this constituted the grounds for contractual termination. According to the observations of Commission 2, although the client evidently felt comfortable in the residential home and the care staff spoke positively about her, the operator organisation carried out termination against the mother’s explicit wishes. The NPM was unable to reach an agreement out of court, and the Land government was unable to act as a mediator. Court proceedings are currently pending. Whether the legal challenge to the termination will be successful will become evident in due course. At any rate, it is a cause for concern that where there is a reaction to complaints (whether they are objectively justified or not), persons with disabilities may lose their residential care at a facility and if necessary may have to reorient themselves. Termination on grounds of complaints? Goodwill and benevolence are not enough to guarantee that obligations relating to human rights will be upheld. At many facilities, the NPM encountered committed, hard-working staff, yet also identified risk factors for measures which restrict freedom and infringements of autonomy and self-determination. In many instances, work is governed by out-of-date structures, scant resources, rigid organisational rules, organisational culture and/or care and safety Thinking regarding care, safety and security 74