Memorandum submitted by Leonard Cheshire
Disability
INTRODUCTION
Leonard Cheshire Disability (www.LCDisability.org)
exists to change attitudes to disability and to serve disabled
people around the world. It has been supporting disabled people
for 60 years and is active in 52 countries. The charity directly
supports over 21,000 disabled people in the UK.
Campaigning for the civil and human rights of
disabled people is also a key activity for us. Our breadth of
experience, knowledge and constituency of disabled people gives
us a unique platform from which to engage in public debate and
to campaign on the social policy and civil rights issues that
have an impact on disabled people.
As such, we have been following developments
on the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities (CRPD) very closely. LCD is part of the UN Convention
Campaign Coalition, an alliance of 29 disability organisations,
the aim of which is to ensure that the UK ratifies the CRPD without
reservations.
We welcome this opportunity to give evidence
on this issue to the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Our main points are the following:
1. Leonard Cheshire Disability commends the UK
government on its commitment to disabled people's human rights,
as evidenced by its signature of the CRPD.
2. We staunchly support ratification without
reservations.
3. We believe that the European Community's confirmation
process does not constitute a barrier to the UK's ratification.
4. Regarding compatibility issues, we are concerned
about the recent Malcolm judgement.
5. We support UK accession to the Optional Protocol.
1. Leonard Cheshire Disability commends the
government on its commitment to disabled people's human rights,
as evidenced by its signature of the CRPD
The Convention is a vitally important document.
It is the international community's response to the long history
of discrimination, exclusion and dehumanisation of disabled persons.
The CRPD ensures that the world's 650 million disabled persons
enjoy the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. It covers
the many areas where they have been discriminated against, including
access to justice, participation in political and public life,
education, employment, health, habilitation and rehabilitation
as well as freedom of movement.
The Convention is the first human rights treaty
of the 21st century. The UK was one of the states which recognised
the need for a disability-specific human rights treaty, and played
a leading role in its negotiation. The CRPD was adopted by the
United Nations in December 2006, and the UK indicated its strong
commitment to ratification by signing it at the first opportunity
on 30 March 2007.
Leonard Cheshire Disability commends the government
on its commitment to disabled people's rights, and now strongly
supports completing the process by ratifying the Convention, thus
giving legal force to its provisions in the UK.
2. We staunchly support ratification without
reservations by the UK government
As a disability charity, we naturally support
the ratification of the CRPD at the earliest possible opportunity;
but the UK should not ratify any international treaty until it
is in a position to ensure that it can implement its provisions
and comply with its obligations. Ratification will ensure that
the UK does not miss again the chance to participate in the election
of members of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,
the monitoring body of the CRPD.
However, our main objective is that the Convention
is ratified without reservations or interpretative declarations.
We hope that giving the government enough time to ensure that
British legislation, policies, practices and procedures comply
with the Convention will convince it that there is no need to
reserve, especially in view of article 4.2 that allows for the
progressive realisation of economic, social and cultural rights.
Our main reasons for taking this position are
the following:
(a) As a matter of equality, the UK must guarantee
exactly the same rights to disabled citizens as to non-disabled
ones.
(b) It is also a matter of international standards;
the UK cannot guarantee anything less than what 136 countries
worldwide have signed up to.
(c) Indivisibility and interdependence of human
rights mean that the full realisation of one set of rights depends
on the realisation of the others; reserving thus jeopardises the
realisation of the government's commitment to equality by 2025
and of its human rights agenda for all British citizens.
(d) Reservations would send the wrong signal
that the UK anticipates that there will be violations of rights
in those areas where it has reservations.
(e) Withdrawing reservations is a lengthy process.
(f) The elaboration of the Convention was unique
in the degree of involvement of disabled persons; reserving on
the areas that they identified as requiring to be addressed indicates
disregard for the expertise of disabled people.
We are aware—and concerned—that
the government is considering reservations to the following articles:
(a) Article 27.1: reservation in respect of service
in the armed forces. While the MoD already complies with legislation
in terms of retaining employees who acquire an impairment or condition
in the course of their service, it wants to reserve on recruiting
disabled people. We believe this is unnecessary, as there is no
legal requirement in the Convention to hire personnel unable to
do the job they are recruited for; the obligation is to ensure
a non-discriminatory and accessible working environment when it
is reasonable to do so.
(b) Article 24: reservation in respect of inclusive
schooling in the community, and interpretative declaration to
the effect that the UK general education system includes both
mainstream and special schools. Inclusion is a general principle
and a fundamental freedom, and should be aimed at in all areas
of life, including education. Leonard Cheshire Disability favours
ratification without reservations, but would agree with an interpretative
declaration including a deadline for realising inclusive education,
such as the one put forward by Equality 2025 and the Council for
Disabled Children[40].
(c) Article 18: reservation and interpretative
declaration to retain full flexibility in changing immigration
rules. This sends the wrong signal that the government intends
to introduce legislation that could violate disabled people's
human rights. This is particularly unfortunate when the government
has just dropped similar reservations to the UNCRC. We also believe
that introducing an interpretative declaration stating that disabled
persons shall not be given more rights than non-disabled persons
in respect of liberty of movement, freedom to choose their residence
and nationality is unnecessary as the Convention does not stipulate
any such treatment.
(d) Outstanding issues in respect of article
12.4 and article 30.4: We hope that remaining outstanding issues
can be resolved without reservations or interpretative declarations;
in particular, we call on the UK government to sign up to full
equality concerning the exercise of legal capacity by disabled
people (article 12.4) and interpretative measures (article 30.4),
especially as BSL has been recognised as a language in its own
right.
3. We believe that the European Community's
confirmation process does not constitute a barrier to the UK's
ratification
Leonard Cheshire Disability agrees that the
process of conclusion of the Convention by the European Community
must be carefully examined, in particular the three following
aspects: competence delimitation; overlap of member state and
EU monitoring and reporting processes; possible conclusion of
the optional protocol.
However, completing this scrutiny is not a prerequisite
for ratification by the UK. Indeed, Hungary, Slovenia and Spain
ratified the CRPD before the Commission proposal for EC conclusion[41]
was published; Austria did so shortly afterwards. The scrutiny
process must be completed before the UK can support the Commission
proposal for conclusion by the European Community, but the adoption
procedure effectively grants the UK a right of veto in the Council.
This system will ensure that competence conflicts (including over
potential reservations or interpretative declarations by EU member
states) will not arise.
We therefore believe that issues of EC competence
do not create any barriers to ratification by the UK.
4. Regarding compatibility issues, we are
concerned about the recent Malcolm judgement
We are very concerned by the recent Malcolm
judgement by the House of Lords, which significantly narrowed
the scope of protection offered against discrimination on the
grounds of disability in respect of access to goods and services.
We suspect that it might conflict with the government's duty to
end all forms of discrimination under article 4 of the Convention
and urge the government to address this issue at the earliest
possible opportunity.
5. We support UK accession to the Optional
Protocol
Leonard Cheshire Disability supports the ratification
of the Optional Protocol giving disabled persons the right to
individual petition to the Committee on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities once they have exhausted national remedies.
We believe that an enforcement mechanism would
give more substance to the rights enshrined in the Convention.
Moreover, ratifying the optional protocol could help the ministry
of justice in its review of the UK's position on individual petition.
31 October 2008
40 "The UK government is committed to developing
an inclusive education system where mainstream primary and secondary
schools and staff will have the capacity to effectively educate
the full range of disabled children. Currently the general education
system must be taken to mean mainstream and special schools with
some children whose needs are met by specialist provision being
educated some way from their home. We aim through improving capacity
that by 2025 all will be able to have their needs met in local
mainstream provision." Back
41
COM(2008) 530 final/2 Back
| 
