Memorandum submitted by the UN Convention
Campaign Coalition
Evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights
on the Government's approach to ratification of the UN Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disability.
The UN Convention Campaign Coalition was formed
after a meeting in December 2007, called by the Office on Disability
Issues, to discuss the Convention on Disability Rights. It became
clear that, although Anne McGuire [Minister for Disabled People]
was hoping that the UK would ratify the Convention by December
2008, support for such goals was not yet shared across Whitehall
and that reservations would be tabled. This was a surprise to
those of us present at the meeting because until that date the
UK Government had been very proactive in the elaboration of the
Convention, had taken a leading role within the Europe delegation
to ensure implementation and had at all times listened to and
promoted the views and expertise of disabled people.
Twenty-five organisations[48]
joined the campaign coalition (UNCCC) the aim of which is to ensure
that the UK Government ratifies the Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) without reservation.
Our main reasons for taking this position are:
— By ratifying the convention on the
Rights of Disabled People with reservations the UK government
would be declaring its willingness to accept less than the agreed
international standard for the protection of the human rights
of disabled people in the UK. If the UK enters a reservation to
one or more parts of the Convention, the Convention protecting
the human rights of disabled people will not apply in its entirety
to the UK.
— Human Rights are universal and indivisible.
Ratification of this convention, whilst demanding duties and obligations
on Member States, does recognise the need for progressive implementation.
In the UK we already have the DDA and the Human Rights Act to
support our rights as well as obligations under all the other
international human rights instruments. It is our belief that
reservations are an indication in themselves that the UK is prepared
to continue to violate disabled people's rights in certain areas
of our lives.
— The government may argue that they
can withdraw reservations when they are ready to do so. In fact
this either does not happen or takes decades—as in the recent
withdrawal of a reservation within the Convention on the Rights
of the Child.
— Reserving on any part of the Convention
is not compatible with the commitment of the UK Government to
disability equality by the year 2025 or any of their commitments
to human rights for all their citizens. Nor is it compatible with
Article 46 regarding reservations.
— The elaboration of this Convention
was unique in having disabled people from all over the world fully
involved in the process. As a result the Convention outlines precisely
those areas that we know, from our direct experience, where we
need protection from violations. Reserving on any of these areas
indicates a disregard of the rights, expertise and views of disabled
people.
— For those of us who are committed
to the full enjoyment of human rights for disabled people, reservations
break the universality and indivisibility of the Convention. As
supporters of human rights we cannot say that we will only support
certain rights and not others.
In Anne McGuire's speech of 6 May 2008 in which
she responded to your committee's request for a speedy ratification
of the Convention, she outlined the areas in which reservations
were likely: the armed forces, education, immigration, mental
capacity, mental health, habitation and cultural services. What
was clear from this list is that the Government was not prepared
to fulfil Article 4, General Obligation 1b, and "take all
appropriate measures, including legislation to modify or abolish
existing laws, regulations, customs and practices that constitute
discrimination against persons with disabilities."
Rather they are only prepared to reserve or
table interpretative declarations in the very areas that will
demand actions.
The armed forces have already publicly acknowledged
that the only problem they have with the Convention—as with
the DDA—is that they should not be obliged to recruit disabled
people. They are already retaining service men and women who become
disabled when on active service. However, neither the DDA or the
Convention requires any employer to employ an unqualified disabled
person. The obligation is to ensure a non-discriminatory and accessible
working environment when it is reasonable so to do. Nobody would
believe a war zone to be a reasonable environment for a blind
or deaf person (for instance).
The Education article 24, was debated long and
hard in New York. Many countries were unused to the concept of
inclusion in education, particularly for deaf, deaf-blind and
blind children. However, the final agreed draft, based on the
concept of inclusion rather than choice, was agreed by the then
Department for Education and Skills. Inclusion is viewed as a
fundamental freedom in the Convention. That present education
practices in the UK do not absolutely (though nearly ) conform
to the Convention does not require reservation as the full realisation
of rights, including those in Article 24, are to be achieved progressively.
As does the achievement of the DDA Duty to Promote Disability
Equality in UK schools—through a series of three year equality
schemes.
Similar arguments of progressive implementation
and a duty to amend legislation can be brought to the government's
reservations on mental capacity and mental health. It is our contention
that many of the clauses in the recent Mental Capacity and Mental
Health Acts have not fully supported the rights, dignity and humanity
of disabled people but have seen them as "other", as
people whose rights must be different because either they are
a danger or incapable. These perceptions are in themselves prejudiced
and discriminatory and in violation of the Convention. We believe
that this Government must recognise its own fault in this and
be prepared to make progressive changes. The rights of disabled
people can be implemented whilst protecting the rights of others—it
just has to be done in non-traditional ways that uphold the dignity
and equality of all. These non-traditional approaches have been
accepted by the UK Government and the CRPD with the concepts of
the social model of disability, independent living, self-advocacy
and direct payments. Disabled people are also able to provide
further approaches with regard to mental capacity and mental health,
the right to live and the right to humanity. We just need governments
to listen.
Another argument for delay put forward by Anne
McGuire was the need to recognise that Europe had also signed
the Convention. That has not prevented other European States from
ratifying. We also hope to engage with the government on the antidiscrimination
Directive currently being discussed at EU level, so as to bring
it in line with the Convention, regardless of European confirmation
of the Convention.
It is particularly sad that the UK has taken
so long in ratifying—though 43 countries have already done
so, without reservation. Representatives of these countries will
discuss the implementation of the convention and choose the Committee
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities who will oversee implementation
of the Convention at a Conference of State Parties to be held
in New York on 4 November 2008. We were so much at the table during
the elaboration process and now we are missing a real opportunity
to take a leading role in monitoring. A great shame.
DISABLED PEOPLE
IN THE
UK REALLY NEED
THIS CONVENTION
As the Joint Committee knows, despite the DDA,
the Human Rights Act and the Lifetime Chances report, our rights
are still violated.
The Convention is the first human rights instrument
to be absolutely clear about disabled people's right to be treated
as full and equal human beings. Although disabled people should
be considered as fully human under the pre-existing conventions,
we were not specifically mentioned (except in the Convention on
the Rights of the Child) and therefore ignored.
It can be used at all levels as further evidence
that disabled people must be included in the rights agenda—and
shows exactly what that means for local and national statutory
authorities.
It can be used for responses to local and national
policies that affect disabled people.
Local authorities, government departments, NHS
Trusts, and all public bodies can adopt it as part of their Disability
Equality Schemes and as the basis of their Disability Equality
duty.
It can be used as evidence to prove a violation
in any case taken in relation to either the DDA or the Human Rights
Act—and, for instance, in arguments with the Crown Prosecution
Service it they consider it impossible to take a case because
of the level of someone's impairment.
Because the Convention goes into the details
of what makes effective human rights protection for disabled people,
it is an excellent support to training both non-disabled and disabled
people in our rights and equality.
DISABILITY PRIDE
For the first time, an international document
has clearly spelt out our humanity and recognises, officially,
that disability is a social response not a personal fault.
Like all UN human rights instruments, the Convention
on the Rights of disabled people is not just a legal tool. It
also sets an international cross-cultural moral standard for the
treatment of disabled people. It effectively articulates a moral
code of behaviour by which states, governments, public bodies
and all human beings should follow toward disabled people.
This submission has been agreed by all members
of the UNCCC.
2 November 2008
48 DAA, UK Disabled People's Council, Inclusion Scotland,
NCIL, Alliance for Inclusive Education, Disability Equality in
Education, Scope, RADAR, SIA, CSIE, Challenging Perspectives,
National Federation of the Blind, Equalities National Council,
APDA, LC Disability, Centre on Human Rights for Disabled People(NI),
Disability Action Northern Ireland, Capability Scotland, GADCIL,
Preston Disc, ADD, Group of Solicitors with Disability, IDEA,
Treehouse. EqualAbility. Back
|
