|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Insider dealing is a serious crime which taints the integrity and efficiency of any financial market. London is indisputably a leading international financial centre, and attracts institutions from all over the globe to invest and set up their operations here.
Your Lordships will be aware that the criminal offence of insider dealing is governed by the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. These provisions enable the Treasury to specify the securities to which the criminal offence of insider dealing applies. The Insider Dealing (Securities and Regulated Markets) Order 1994 specifies those securities and was last amended four years ago. This order amends that order again to add three more markets and thereby bring the securities traded on these markets under the jurisdiction of the Criminal Justice Act for the purposes of insider dealing.
The first of these three markets is OFEX. This is an off-exchange share matching and trading facility operated by J P Jenkins Limited, a firm authorised by the Financial Services Authority. When the order was last amended, OFEX was a relatively small operation but its growth as a tertiary market in London has been significant. We judge that it is now appropriate for the securities traded on OFEX to be covered by the criminal offence of insider dealing.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, for giving me notice of a question about whether OFEX will be covered by the civil market abuse regime under the Financial Services and Markets Act. The scope of the civil regime will be determined by the prescribed markets order. This was published for consultation in June 1999. It made clear that any market capable of meeting the recognition criteria for recognised investment exchanges is likely to be the kind of market that will be covered by the new regime. However, it also made clear that the new regime was not coterminous with recognition and so its scope can extend beyond the recognised investment exchanges. The responses to the consultation document are being considered. The question of whether the civil regime should apply to OFEX is part of the process of consideration. We will be talking to the relevant interested parties over the coming months.
The second market to be included in the order is COREDEAL. This is an over-the-counter, electronic exchange for international, debt-related securities. The market for these securities is a major source of medium to long-term funding for governments, international financial institutions, development banks and corporations. COREDEAL was recognised by the FSA in May of this year as an investment exchange.
The third market to be added is EASDAQ, the European Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations. This is a Brussels-based, pan-European stock market which was set up in 1996. The existing order already specifies a large number of regulated markets across the European economic area. It would therefore be inconsistent not to bring EASDAQ within the scope of the order.
Finally, we would like to remove the Securities Exchange of Iceland from the order because it refers to the same body already on the list; namely, the Iceland Stock Exchange. The duplicate inclusion was a simple error when the order was last changed in 1996.
It is important that the order is amended to include OFEX, COREDEAL and EASDAQ. By doing so, it deters would-be perpetrators who might otherwise take advantage of an unregulated market. These markets are significant in their own right as part of our financial sector and it is important that they should be covered by the insider dealing regime. I beg to move.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, we on these Benches approve the order. We note that, unlike the other orders before us today, it consists of only one page. I declare an interest as an investment fund manager, and on behalf of Members on these Benches I thoroughly approve of the tightening up of insider dealing as applying to the additional markets of EASDAQ, OFEX and COREDEAL. I am grateful to the Minister for replying to my question about the civil regime applying to OFEX. We are in favour of the order.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, last week, on 5th July, the Charter for the Third Millennium, which calls for the human rights of disabled people everywhere to be recognised and protected, was received by the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street. It seems therefore the appropriate time to be asking whether Her Majesty's Government have made any response to the charter and to urge that they do so positively. I emphasise that it is the right time to ask the Question. We could not put it off and I greatly appreciate the tolerance of the staff and officers.
Perhaps I may sketch briefly the history of how the charter came about and then give a broad-brush description of its aims, leaving other noble Lords to fill in the finer detail of their chosen areas. I am appreciative of all those who have put their names down to speak and I look forward to hearing their contributions, especially to the Minister's reply.
I look forward to hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, who in a sense could almost claim paternity of the charter. It was because of Alf Morris's achievements in the field of disability legislation--from promoting his Private Members' Bill, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 which was taken through this House
Rehabilitation International (RI) is the co-ordinating body for disability organisations in more than 100 countries, working to improve life for people with disabilities. That earlier charter was RI's contribution to the International Year of Disabled People in 1981. Its goals were full participation and equality for disabled people everywhere. I speak about this charter as well because the two form part of a whole.
The charter had a major impact on the provision for disabled people in many countries. It was the basis for the UN Decade of the Disabled Person and influenced the drafting of the UN standard rules on disability. It provided targets for the 1980s at community, national and world-wide levels and set out how every nation could translate the charter's aims into reality.
Many people believed that it was over-ambitious; for example, the proposal for a Minister for disabled people, or the equivalent, with responsibility for developing and co-ordinating a national plan for disability prevention and rehabilitation. Yet, I am told that that now happens in most countries.
In the UK the national members of Rehab International, RADAR and Rehab UK, chaired by George Wilson, who is also the treasurer of Rehab International, have been responsible for advancing the Charter for the 80s and, equally, have played a leading part in the Charter for the Third Millennium. The Charter for the Third Millennium came about because most of the proposals of the previous charter had been achieved and there was a need to set out how future priorities would be met. Once again, Alf Morris--now the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester--chaired the international group which drafted the new charter. I pay tribute to the way in which he continues to work unstintingly for disabled people world-wide.
The Charter for the Third Millennium was approved by Rehab International's governing body in September 1999 and has been presented to heads of state and of government, as well as to the UN and the Commonwealth Secretariat. Some of your Lordships were in the Crypt Chapel just before Christmas when the charter was presented to the Lord Chancellor and the Deputy Speaker. As I said at the beginning, it was presented to the Prime Minister on 5th July. It has also been presented to heads of state in countries as diverse as China, Russia and South Africa.
What does the charter say? Its goal is world-wide recognition and protection of human rights for people with disabilities. It updates the original charter, takes account of the benefits of information technology, stresses the need to prevent preventable diseases and expresses concern at the failure to treat treatable conditions. It calls on countries to show the political will to ensure programmes to prevent disability and
I find the charter itself quite difficult because it uses rather poetic language. However, the attached draft plan of action gives a more detailed outline under eight headings, including ethical issues, childhood disability, access and technology. I hope that other noble Lords will say more about them. There are huge questions about ethics, genetics and the impact of AIDS.
Perhaps I may give one detail from Childhood Disability to demonstrate how much has been achieved and how much is still to do. This paper contrasts the achievements, for example, of the near eradication of polio, the reduction of mental impairments due to iron deficiency and of blindness due to Vitamin A deficiency. Yet international estimates are that only approximately 3 per cent of children world-wide are in school, and of those only one-third are girls. Therefore, our global disease and disability prevention strategies have intensified. International and national commitment to address the basic needs of children who are born or become physically or mentally disabled lag far behind.
I believe that we would all acknowledge that education opens up opportunities in life. Most of us would agree that inclusive education provides the best way and I am glad to see the heading, "Inclusion and Equity". Inclusion is viewed as the most powerful tool available to implement the equalisation of opportunities. Again, in this field much has been achieved but there is still much to be done.
Three years ago, on a wonderful visit to India organised by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, I visited a remarkable school on the campus of the Indian Institute of Technology in south Delhi. Equality is paramount, physically and mentally disabled children are welcome, there is no caste prejudice and all religious festivals are celebrated.
I met a 16 year-old girl sitting in her wheelchair with her legs folded on the seat. Her name was Mamta and she had been locked up in her room for years because she could not use her legs on account of polio and the neighbours thought that she was evil. Her parents were not unkind; they were just helpless because they could not take her out.
The school gave Mamta a tricycle and her brother helped to push her to school. She started in the kindergarten at 14 and she was so bright that she had caught up by 16 and was looking forward to going to college.
Last week, I was thinking of Mamta in the context of this debate. The same day, a lady came up to me in the Peers Lobby and said, "Didn't you come to my school in Delhi?" It was extraordinary, because she had come to visit the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. I learnt that Mamta is now 19, doing a university degree and going back to teach computer skills at the school.
Coming back nearer home, I welcome the fact that a Bill on special educational needs and disability rights in education is coming soon. I hope that it will facilitate and ensure successful inclusive education. We must work hard to get it right.
Many of your Lordships have spent hours--even years--discussing transport, accessible housing and access to work in this Chamber. By now I hope that we understand the problems and how to solve them, even if we have not yet wholly eliminated them. However, for most of the world, those are the problems to be faced today--or even tomorrow for those countries that have not yet considered the place of disabled people in society and need to be encouraged towards a more enlightened policy. We have to deal with huge questions of ethics and genetics.
There have been many useful initiatives and much progress since the Charter for the 80s was drafted, but even the UN standard rules are not compulsory. Time has shown that we need something with a bit more clout, underpinned by international standards and the experience of rights-based national legislation.
The Charter for the Third Millennium calls on member states to support the promulgation of a United Nations convention on the rights of people with disabilities, which it sees as vital to achieving its goals. I very much hope that the Government will give their wholehearted support to a convention and, if necessary, will argue and push for it in the United Nations so that the human rights of people with disabilities may be recognised and protected worldwide.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I most warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, on her speech in opening the debate. The conventions of the House do not allow me from these Benches to call her, as a Cross-Bencher, "my noble friend". What I can say, however, is that she is indeed a long-standing friend, that her parliamentary record is one that I hold in high admiration and that it was enhanced both by the manner and the content of her speech today. I feel sure that her colleagues in all parts of your Lordships' House will think it most fitting that it was the noble Baroness who opened debate from the Cross Benches. For no specific party interest arises in
The noble Baroness explained the origins of my interest in the debate as chairman of the world planning groups selected by Rehabilitation International--RI--to draft both this new charter and its predecessor, the Charter for the 80s. But, like my Bill on which the noble Baroness made her maiden speech 30 years ago--the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill--both documents were the product not of individual but of co-operative effort.
The world planning group selected by RI to draft the Charter for the Third Millennium had among its members many highly distinguished people from the north, south, east and west of the world. They included HE Chief Emeka Anyaoku, then Commonwealth Secretary-General; Justin Dart, who formerly chaired the US President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities; Deng Pufang, chairman of the China Disabled Persons' Federation; Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa; Ms Jameela Al-Qasimi of the United Arab Emirates; Shri D K Manavalan of India; Anatole Ossadchikh, a Minister in the Russian Federation; Prince Ra'ad Bin Zeid of Jordan; Professor Stephen Hawking; and Sir Harry Fang of Hong Kong, a former President of RI. I am most grateful to them all and also to George Wilson, a senior officer of RI and chairman of Rehab UK, for his dedication to promoting the new charter here in the UK. The noble Baroness's and my acknowledgement of all his help will, I am sure, be endorsed by other speakers in this debate.
The new charter updates its highly acclaimed predecessor of 20 years ago, whose impact can be seen in the statute books of scores of countries and which became the basis for the UN World Programme of Action for the Decade of Disabled Persons. The Charter for the 80s was about basic rehabilitation services; full representation for disabled people on all public bodies making decisions affecting their lives; equal opportunities in education and the workplace; a basic income; and access to the built environment in a world where most countries had no disability legislation of any kind. The new charter is mainly about basic human and civil rights: those of the world's 600 million people with physical, intellectual and sensory disabilities.
Today millions of people, children and adults alike, more especially among the poorest of the world's poor, live with the effects of disabilities that were easily preventable at minimal cost. Failure to protect them was a problem not of resources but of political will and priorities. In the same way, purposeful action to reduce the handicapping effects of disability is still pitifully inadequate. Indeed in most of the world the problems of disabled living, far from being reduced, are multiplied by wholly unmerited but still lawful discrimination against disabled people.
Look, for example, at the incidence of blindness in the world today. Four out of five blind people live in the third world and four out of five of them are preventably blind. Yet as that inspired crusader against avoidable disability, the late and widely mourned Sir John Wilson, so clearly demonstrated, the cost of saving people in the third world from preventable disability has been falling as dramatically as the incidence of preventable disability in many of the poorest countries has increased.
The new charter has already been presented, among others, to state leaders in China, Russia, Ireland, Jordan, Greece, Lebanon and South Africa, and was received by our Prime Minister, as the noble Baroness said, at 10 Downing Street on 5th July. It has also been received with approbation by the United Nations and the Commonwealth and there is already wide backing for the charter's call for a UN convention on the rights of people with disabilities.
My noble friend who will reply to this debate showed his interest and concern by attending the service held in St. Mary Undercroft last December; and I know he will respond positively to the charter's recommendations, as the Prime Minister did so memorably when it was presented to him on 5th July.
The Charter for the Third Millennium looks forward to a world where all citizens with disabilities are seen as giving as well as receiving; where their potential is understood and valued; where needs come before means; where if years cannot be added to their lives, at least life can be added to their years; where disabled people have an undoubted right to participate in the work and life of their communities; and where no disabled person has cause to feel ill at ease because of her or his disability.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to take part in this debate to welcome the charter for the new millennium. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, for that opportunity. The charter represents 20 years of hard work by Rehabilitation International. It represents a lifetime of leadership by Alf Morris. We are all in his debt.
Disability is, more than ever, a key development issue. It is a hugely challenging one, as it means linking prevention and rehabilitation with empowerment and changes in attitudes. The charter for the new
Among those challenges I believe that none is greater than the failure to remove disabled people from the ranks of the poorest and the most dependent. Despite all the progress that we have made in articulating human rights, in science and in medicine, we have not solved the problem of poverty because the disabled have been left out of education and employment.
The fact is that unless we are more pro-active their children will be left out of those rights as well. For them, the fact that the international commitment to education is a fundamental right that has been enshrined in so many international charters has a hollow ring. I believe, therefore, that one of the most effective responses that our Government could possibly make to the expression of equal opportunities in the charter is to recommit itself to more pro-active policies for the education of disabled children.
To concentrate on that point, the figures given by the noble Baroness make a truly shocking story. There are 150 million disabled children of whom 3 per cent are in school, and yet, as UNICEF has made clear, 70 per cent of them could be in school. What keeps them out of school and what keeps them out of jobs is not their lack of talent, but the negative cultural and professional attitudes, inaccessible schools, inflexible curricula, untrained teachers, family poverty and the failure to provide early intervention that can help children to thrive.
Those figures also reflect other shocking facts as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has said. Many diseases and disabilities are entirely preventable. In the decade since the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, more than 6 million children have been injured in armed conflict.
That is not to say that good things are not happening within developing countries or indeed through development assistance programmes. They are. Within the past year, for example, India has made a specific effort to include disabled children as of right in mainstream schools, and those schools which are good practitioners are leading the way and helping many other schools to follow their example.
I hope that this charter will galvanise the Government in finding new ways to do that and to ensure that special needs education as well as early intervention strategies become a requirement rather than an exception within every international assistance programme directed towards children and help them to support developing countries into making inclusive education part of their mainstream provision as a matter of course. Above all, I hope that the response of the Government, following the warm welcome the charter has already received from the Prime Minister, will be to take a lead in supporting in principle and practice the prospect of a United Nations convention on the rights of people with disabilities to match the other conventions in this field. For the 150 million children who are still waiting to be offered a place in school and a place in society, this charter is the beginning of practical action. No country can afford to waste the intelligence and resourcefulness of people with disabilities, least of all developing countries with little economic capacity.
Lord Rix: My Lords, appalling descriptions of institutions and conditions for disabled people are sadly commonplace around the world. They make us only too aware of the importance of charters such as Rehabilitation International's Charter for the Third Millennium which, as we have heard, was presented by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, to the Prime Minister last week and which he and my noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth described so well.
The charter ends by stating that, in the third millennium, it must become the goal of all nations to evolve into societies that protect the rights of people with disabilities by supporting their full empowerment and inclusion in all aspects of life. As we heard from my noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth, in particular it calls for a United Nations convention on the rights of people with disabilities as a key strategy to achieve those goals.
I hope I will be forgiven if, as President of Mencap, I mention our work in the countries of east and central Europe, which has been growing over recent years and which may illustrate some of the problems facing us. Working in partnership with a number of different national and local organisations in those countries we have been seeking to ensure that the rights of people with a learning disability are protected, not least their rights for personal safety and growth. Those are countries seeking to move on from a situation we ourselves have long left behind.
In the week when a seminar in South Africa is focusing upon the issues related to HIV/AIDS, I am pleased to remember a small group home in Bucharest, set up by Mencap, Health Aid UK and Romanian Save the Children, where a group of children with HIV/AIDS and additional disabilities can enjoy what little time they have left before they die. It is in startling contrast to the infectious diseases hospital where the children used to live.
Moreover, the Government welcomed this week a visit by the President of the Republic of Macedonia and Mencap was able to announce its participation in a United Nations-led project in that country. The project has the full backing of Macedonia's Ministry of Labour and Social Policy and will work towards the closure of a large institution in that country, which presently houses some 460 children and adults who all live in grim conditions. I should mention that one little girl is in the institution simply because she has a squint! A journalist wrote the following description of a visit to the present institution:
Of course, we should not forget that institutions like this also existed in the United Kingdom and in the USA not so very long ago. What is important is that the Macedonian Government, recognising that the human rights of people with a learning disability are violated daily in the institution, are committed to create alternative community-based services for their residents. Mencap is delighted to be playing a role in that initiative, thanks to the British Ambassador in Skopje and his wife (Mark and Christina Dickinson) who drew our attention to the need for such action.
In view of what noble Lords have already heard in this short debate, and as we have adopted the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, why should we not call for a convention on the rights of people with disabilities? This was also the conclusion of the World NGO Summit on Disability that met in Beijing in March of this year, at which the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, was present. It was attended by five leading international disability organisations--Disabled People's International, the World Blind Union, the World Federation of the Deaf, Rehabilitation International and, finally, Inclusion International. For the sake of clarification, I should tell noble Lords that the latter organisation is a truly
As I said, the Beijing Declaration also calls upon nations to move forward from the UN Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunity for People with Disabilities and to adopt an international convention on the rights of people with disabilities that will legally bind member countries. It was recognised in Beijing that the UN standard rules were an important landmark and have inspired legislation and programmes around the world to improve the living conditions of disabled people--but they are not legally binding. An international convention would be binding, once governments had signed it. It would also have a monitoring mechanism, although it is recognised, with regret, that this is no guarantee of total implementation, as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child illustrates.
Despite that convention, we read in UNICEF's report, The State of the World's Children in 2000 that hundreds of millions of children throughout the world are still deprived of their rights. This is quite appalling. Rights need to be realised both for children and for people with disabilities.
We now have two very important statements, both of which call for a United Nations convention on the rights of people with disabilities--one, the Charter for the Third Millennium, and the other, the Beijing Declaration. Therefore, it was a great disappointment to learn that the European Union has blocked the adoption of such an international convention at the UN Human Rights Commission earlier in the year. My noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth asks whether the Government,
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I welcome and support the charter. I am extremely thankful to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, for bringing this matter before the House. One is, of course, always humbled by the outstanding and continuously imaginative efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, to further the agenda for and on behalf of disabled people.
A Charter for the Third Millennium is a significant aspiration to address the plight of 600 million people world-wide. The temptation to say too much is so great that on this occasion I shall have to concentrate on highlighting only a few good practices.
In Britain we have come a long way with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; the setting up of the Disability Rights Commission and the recognition of carers of disabled children. This journey must recognise the outstanding work of many organisations such as Rehabilitation UK and Rehabilitation International and of individuals such as George Wilson, who has already been mentioned.
I always hesitate to make any reference to anything that is going on outside the House as I spend so much of the day inside it. However, Whip or no Whip, I ventured outside last week to witness the launch of the Employers Forum on Disability. I note that the Whip on the Front Bench has just taken in that fact! I was greatly encouraged by the discussion and demonstration of how far we have progressed over 20 years, both here and in the United States. Many individual and corporate experiences were shared and significant progress was made. The message was simply that we need a common-sense approach to achieving equality. Where there is a will there is a way.
The question before us is whether there is global change and how we can ensure that some of our positive advances are also experienced by our international brothers, sisters, mothers and children and, of course, partner organisations. Among the partners supporting the Charter for the Third Millennium are champions such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu and my good friend, the former Commonwealth Secretary-General, Chief Emeka Anyaoku.
As a Muslim woman I am particularly proud of the role of my fellow Muslim believers in the contribution that they have made to and the support that they have demonstrated for the charter. Two people who have put their signature on the document are distinguished people in the Muslim world. Both Prince Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia and Prince Ra'ad of Jordan are known to be vigorous champions for the rights of disabled people in the Muslim community.
One of the most exemplary exercises in inclusion, appreciation and respect for disabled people is the way in which the Hajj--the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca--is planned. Despite the fact that the hosts have to cater for millions of people from different parts of the world, as far as humanly possible attempts have been made to cater for the needs of the disabled. The fact that there are more wheelchairs and personal facilities--I did not want to mention toilets--for the disabled within the vicinity of Mecca than anywhere in the world is something to be noted.
Another interesting example from the Muslim world--I have not visited it, but I am reliably informed that this is the case--is that of the Islamic Republic of Iran which has done remarkably well in trying to ensure that equal opportunities for disabled people in
But, like everything else, the problem highlighted by the charter is one based on attitude and lack of action. Needless to say, I should like to see every country, state and organisation signed up to this charter as a sign of their commitment to changing the lives of disabled people. I believe that we have got to get tough and practical about what our Government can do globally to move forward the agenda for disabled people. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that he should consider what leverage we have internationally. Will my noble friend consider discussing with DfID and the British Council that any future programmes and activities negotiated overseas should have agreed criteria which require the country concerned to sign up to the human rights of disabled people? I suppose I am suggesting that a standard procedure should be drawn up to call into account resource allocation on the basis of a country's track record of work with disabled people, as is the case with human rights and other fundamental principles.
Some of the examples that I have shared about the Muslim world do not surprise me when I consider the intolerance and militancy with which Islam combats discrimination against the disabled. I am no scholar, but research indicates that Allah tells the believers in Chapter 4 verse 61 of the Koran that,
I suggest that if emphasis was placed on making the noble teaching of Islam on such matters more accessible to Muslim people in this country and world-wide, the charter would achieve phenomenal results within the Muslim communities throughout the world and bring equality and justice to millions who are now marginalised and discriminated against. I am adding my very small voice in support of the charter and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, has introduced the debate, the subject of which is not only interesting but important for the future of disabled people world-wide. I apologise to the noble Baroness for shortening my speech due to the lateness of the hour.
Among the aims of RI are the prevention of disability and the rehabilitation of people with disabilities. Disabled people have the same right to life as everyone else, and the last century has demonstrated that it is possible to extend access to every available resource to certain members of the community. This must be extended more widely. Disabled people want to make a contribution to their communities but are frequently prevented from so doing by the disabling factors highlighted in this charter.
But more and more people are being added to the number of those with disabilities simply as a result of the failure to prevent certain diseases and the failure to treat treatable conditions. Immunisation and other preventative medicines are both practical and cost effective but governments throughout the world need determination to end the discrimination which can lead to disablement. When so many people have been disabled by preventable conditions, how can we justify inaction?
It is acknowledged that, in the past 25 years or so, the battle against age-old diseases such as smallpox, polio, measles, river blindness and leprosy can be won. More is needed to overcome other diseases, some of which have come back to haunt us and others which are comparatively new: TB, drug resistant strains of communicable diseases, increased tobacco-related diseases and those associated with alcohol and drugs. But until such time as the scale of the problem is acknowledged there will be insufficient will to address them. Yet the magnitude should be self-evident. The fact that 100 million people are disabled by malnutrition, for example, illustrates with immense power the fact that issues such as hunger, poverty and health cannot be addressed without also tackling the needs of disabled people.
Disabled people are organising themselves with increasing cohesion and efficiency throughout the world and Rehabilitation International is an important strand in that. This voice needs to be heard and it behoves all of us to do what we can to listen and respond. An important part of this is through community development. It would mark real progress to see disability receiving specific attention in all such transitional programmes.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, we are all eager to hear the Minister, whose devotion to the disabled is well known. I shall not stand between noble Lords and the Minister for more than a few minutes.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, does not really enjoy my compliments. However, I cannot help repeating the one I paid her previously because it comes so much into my mind. It is a wonderful thing that after 30 years in what seems
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, in her humility in front of these heroes and heroines. I remember what a negro leader said to Abraham Lincoln after his greatest speech. He said, "Mr Lincoln, that was a sacred thing", to which Mr Lincoln replied, "I am glad you liked it". We are in the presence of people who have suffered a great deal but who have devoted their lives to this cause. That is bound to leave a permanent effect on all of us. I have no claim to speak in this matter, although the noble Lord, Lord Morris, did me the great honour of asking me to take his Bill through the House 30 years ago. I have a few more credentials than I used to have. Not many people can say that they have moved about the House recently in six different ways: first, on my own legs for many years until I was 90 or so; then with a stick; and then with a zimmer. I do not know how many noble Lords have used a zimmer. I have never had one on wheels. Next time I have a bad fall I shall get one on wheels. Next I had a wheelchair--pushing myself and then being pushed by someone else; and, finally, pushing the wheelchair itself. I found that the most satisfactory way of moving about that I have ever encountered. I have had those experiences. But they do not amount to much compared with what so many others have suffered and achieved.
I shall offer just one reflection. I have given notice of it, although the Minister may not have much time to deal with all the points raised in the debate. I was personal assistant to Sir William Beveridge--later Lord Beveridge--from 1941 to 1944. We drew up plans--I should say he drew up plans; I was his bottle-washer--for the welfare state. And very fruitful they proved. In those days we spent a good deal of time discussing the position of the old and the sick. They were different categories. Now most people recognise that they overlap. I hope that the Minister will have time--perhaps he will not have time today--to answer my question. Are we giving sufficient attention to the fact that, according to the figures that have been given to me, half the disabled are old people? The position of old people who are disabled is in a way almost more tragic than the position of a young person disabled from birth. I know that many others will speak up for them.
As an old person myself, I think that I qualify. I think that most people over 90 qualify. I hope that we shall be given an indication that the connection between old age and disability will be recognised.
|Next Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|