Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Bilston, L.
Blood, B.
Boothroyd, B.
Boyd of Duncansby, L.
Bradley, L.
Bragg, L.
Brett, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter of Coles, L.
Chandos, V.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Crawley, B.
Cunningham of Felling, L.
David, B.
Davidson of Glen Clova, L.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Desai, L.
Donoughue, L.
Drayson, L.
Dubs, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Falkender, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.
Foulkes of Cumnock, L.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Gale, B.
Gilbert, L.
Golding, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Brookwood, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Griffiths of Burry Port, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.


25 Jun 2007 : Column 464

Haskel, L.
Haworth, L.
Henig, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jones, L.
Jones of Whitchurch, B.
Kennedy of The Shaws, B.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Layard, L.
Leitch, L.
Levy, L.
Lipsey, L.
Macaulay of Bragar, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Mason of Barnsley, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Meacher, B.
Mitchell, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morgan of Huyton, B.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Morris of Manchester, L.
Morris of Yardley, B.
O'Neill of Clackmannan, L.
Parekh, L.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Prosser, B.
Puttnam, L.
Quin, B.
Radice, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Rooker, L.
Rosser, L.
Rowlands, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Sawyer, L.
Sewel, L.
Sheldon, L.
Simon, V.
Smith of Finsbury, L.
Smith of Leigh, L.
Snape, L.
Soley, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Strabolgi, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Thornton, B.
Truscott, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Uddin, B.
Wall of New Barnet, B.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Young of Norwood Green, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 6.20 to 6.30 pm.]

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to promote the United Nations convention on disability.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want to raise a number of issues about the UN convention on disability and the related optional protocol. But first I congratulate the Government on their outstanding leadership in establishing this potentially powerful instrument. The convention and, indeed, the protocol can dramatically affect the lives of the world’s 650 million disabled people. That is a gigantic aim, and a wonderful one. They reinforce the rights laid down in other treaties by interpretations relevant to disabled people who were hitherto excluded. It will be of enormous benefit to millions of disabled people seeking to establish their human rights.

So, the first question I want to raise is: now that we have commendably helped to establish the convention, and signed it, why do not the Government ratify it? I know that Ministers feel that our signing of the convention

25 Jun 2007 : Column 465

indicates our intention to ratify it, but every country can say that and it does not necessarily follow. It certainly does not for some of those countries which do not have Britain’s record of disability legislation. Twenty states need to both sign and ratify the convention before it enters into force. So far, only one state has ratified it—Jamaica.

I have seen far too much admirable legislation on disability become moribund because it was not ratified, implemented or monitored. There is a world of difference between a government intention and a Government’s signed commitment. Where there is just an intention, a Government can be knocked off course for a thousand reasons, but not if there is a written commitment. So I would welcome from my noble friend an explanation of the Government’s view on ratification, and perhaps he can tell us precisely where the Government stand on it. Personally, I think it is time for an unequivocal commitment, and I would welcome that today from the Government.

The next issue of concern is the optional protocol, which allows individuals and organisations to petition the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities about alleged breaches of the provisions of the convention. This protocol is important because without it disabled people are unable to challenge the deprivation of their rights. But the attitude of our Government is far from clear. One Minister has said that it is not their custom to sign protocols because there is not necessarily enough value as the petitioners petition a monitoring committee, not a court of law, and therefore cannot offer compensation or legal interpretation. That may be true, but the Minister went on to say that it was not necessarily the case that the Government would not sign protocols in the future and that the issue was under consideration. I really would like clarification. Does the term “under consideration” mean that the Government are kicking the issue into the long grass or is it being actively considered? This debate is an opportunity for the Government to give a categorical answer. Will they sign the protocol or not?

Another key issue is the full involvement of disabled people in the implementation and monitoring of the convention. The machinery for implementation and monitoring is now being constructed, but it will be built on shifting sands unless disabled people are actively involved. It is important that we utilise the rich fund of experience and expertise available for contributing to these vital decisions. I am heartened by the fact that Jane Campbell—the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell—is chairman of the disability committee of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. She and her disabled colleagues in this House who have contributed so much to the disability movement, such as the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy de Knayth, Lady Wilkins and Lady Masham, and Colin Low—the noble Lord, Lord Low—will no doubt play a major role. They will be massively supported and supplemented by my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester, who plays an important role in these events.

However, in the vast area of the world to be affected, the authorities must bear in mind the paramount importance of the involvement and active participation

25 Jun 2007 : Column 466

of disabled people. Once the convention and the protocol become fully operational, they can resolve a whole range of injustices affecting disabled people. For example, on a disability of which I have personal experience, deafness, many people are denied their rights in Britain and elsewhere. The convention emphasises the need to provide access to communication support, including sign-language interpreters, and it places a duty on Governments to ensure that deaf people are no longer excluded from a wide range of activities. This will be a great boon to deaf people everywhere.

Another example is the need to rescue disabled people if they are being abused when local authorities place them in privately owned care homes. Judges, in their wisdom or otherwise, have ruled that private care homes contracted out by a local authority are not covered by the Human Rights Act, which is astonishing. Presumably, any kind of behaviour by the owners which flies in the face of the Human Rights Act provisions is permissible. This outrageous situation cannot be allowed to continue and the convention can play a vital role in ending it.

The establishment of this convention is, let us make no mistake, a major development crucial to many millions of disabled people throughout the world. But it can easily become a dead letter unless it is followed up by energetic, organised, determined and enthusiastic action. We need to tackle the evident lack of knowledge of disabled people’s rights and their failure to claim them; a major awareness campaign is a priority. We need to deal in specifics rather than generalities and our Government can make a start by accepting my Disabled Persons (Independent Living) Bill, which imposes specific duties on public authorities and confers specific rights on disabled people.

I hope that my noble friend can tell us where the Government stand on this and what other action they intend to take to mark this historic event of the United Nations convention.

6.38 pm

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, on his comprehensive introduction to this short debate and applaud his robust and unremitting pursuit of full rights for disabled people. Equally relentless in pursuing this aim is the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, and I am delighted that he will speak today. He played a key role in chairing Rehabilitation International’s world planning group that drafted the Charter for the Third Millennium, which called for the United Nations convention. Both noble Lords have kept the matter in front of this House in Oral Questions.

I also congratulate the Government on their hard work—including Anne McGuire and, previously, Maria Eagle, as Ministers for disabled people—because the significance of the UN convention on disability is not to be underestimated. It is an outstanding achievement which would not have been possible without strong advocacy on the part of the UK Government. Doubtless the Office for Disability Issues is working hard to enable ratifications as soon as possible. Disabled people will then need a well co-ordinated and well resourced

25 Jun 2007 : Column 467

campaign to ensure that they can make full use of the convention in human rights cases and in securing a better deal for public services.

We must also ensure disability organisations are properly resourced to monitor compliance with the convention. I endorse all that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has said about the CEHR needing to play a strong role. The Disability Commission is led by my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton, who will, I know, ensure that there is expert involvement. I urge the Government to ensure that the Disabled Persons (Independent Living) Bill passes swiftly to the statute book. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, I urge the Government to close the loophole whereby disabled people in private or voluntary sector care homes appear not to be covered by the Human Rights Act, contrary to the intention of Parliament.

I turn now to a subject close to my heart: education rights and closing the gaps in the light of the UN convention, which sets out strong standards for access to inclusive education for disabled people. Last week there was the launch of “Progression Through Partnerships”, which is a joint strategy between the DfES, the Department of Health and the DWP on the role of further education and training and supporting people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. Under three Ministers—Bill Rammell, Ivan Lewis and Anne McGuire—this three-pronged attack is hugely welcome. We know that you need both care and education to progress through learning to meaningful work. This should pave the way for disabled learners to have a meaningful, productive life.

However, current equality legislation is failing disabled children, as the DRC points out. When schools were made subject to non-discrimination duties in 2001, the rights to auxiliary aids and services were excluded on the grounds that such provision would be made for pupils through the special educational needs framework. Yet the evidence shows that disabled pupils are losing out; increasing numbers either do not have a statement of SEN or do not fall within the definition of special educational needs. The exclusion of rights to auxiliary aids and services has led to a gap in provision for disabled children. This can mean that where this support is not delivered, disabled children can experience barriers to their participation in school life and difficulties in accessing teaching and learning. The lack of effective support can also mean that disabled children may have to be educated in specialist settings.

It is disappointing that these issues were not even mentioned in the Green Paper on a single equality Act. Perhaps the relevant government departments might like to consider this in the light of the steps they will wish to take to ensure full implementation of the convention. I hope the Minister will comment on that.

The National Autistic Society’s campaign, School Makes Sense, calls for every child to receive the education they deserve. The NAS comments that two of its demands are particularly relevant to the convention. First, “the right school for every child” is an inclusive education system called for by the convention in which a child receives the appropriate support for his or her needs. It should mean access to a range of provision

25 Jun 2007 : Column 468

and be flexible. Secondly, under “the right approach in every school”, the School Makes Sense campaign calls on schools to make adjustments to facilitate autism-friendly schools and to increase understanding across the whole school. The convention’s commitments to peer support and the,

are therefore very welcome.

The NAS also states that the disability equality duty requires public bodies, including schools and local authorities, to eliminate harassment, although it points out that the Government failed to mention the DED in its recent response to the Select Committee report on bullying. The convention is an opportunity to take that further and foster respect at an early age; for example, through citizenship classes to increase understanding of disability and more complex conditions such as autism. Bullying is a big problem with children on the autistic spectrum and with children with learning disabilities, as my noble friend Lord Rix has often told us so graphically.

I turn to the need for a European disability directive. The UK Government’s leadership on the UN disability convention has been widely praised, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, pointed out. Now more than ever, that kind of leadership is needed to secure a comprehensive EU directive outlawing discrimination against disabled people in education, access to goods and services and all other areas of life.

Four years ago the European Commission acknowledged the need for wider anti-discrimination legislation to complement the employment equality directive, but said that everything hinged on the willingness of member states to take that forward. A great opportunity exists to press forward with this. Please will the Minister assure us that the Government will do all they can to champion the urgent need for a European equivalent of the DDA?

Such a directive would be vital to effective implementation of the UN disability convention by and across the European communities. It would also have direct benefits for disabled people in the UK, because it would open up new opportunities for inclusive travel and living and for taking up employment opportunities in other EU countries. It also represents the best means of securing progress on inclusive design of manufactured goods, which are currently excluded from the DDA.

Seven years ago I opened a short debate asking the Government whether they had made any response to Rehabilitation International’s newly promulgated charter for disabled people worldwide. I referred to a Bill on the special educational needs and disabled rights in education that was coming soon. I hoped it would facilitate and ensure successful and inclusive education. We still have some way to go, at home as well as abroad. I continued:

We still have a little way to go.



25 Jun 2007 : Column 469

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for introducing this debate, and look forward to the contribution of other noble Lords. I hope the Government, in promoting the UN convention, will pass the Disabled Persons (Independent Living) Bill, secure a comprehensive EU disability directive and really bring the day closer when people with disabilities throughout the world can experience the same life chances as the rest of the society they inhabit.

6.47 pm

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I begin on a note of regret. Had it been possible, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, would have been with us for this debate. I first met her in 1992 while preparing a speech to move, in another place, the Second Reading of my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, out of which the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was filleted. Indeed, she contributed to that speech. Thus it was a joy for me, last Wednesday, to hear her make a parliamentary speech of her own. Like the noble Lord, Lord Low, whom it is good to see here this evening, she powerfully reinforces the representation of severely disabled people in this House.

One of the most endearing of all the charms of your Lordships’ House is the near certainty of knowing well ahead of an occasion like this who will be taking part. We operate as a fellowship, in debates opened by one or other of us, of all parties and of none, and I am naturally delighted both that it was my noble, and long-standing, friend Lord Ashley who opened the debate with all his customary skill and commitment, and that he was followed to such good effect by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth. For it was the noble Baroness who on 14 July 2000 opened the first debate here on the case for a UN convention on the rights of disabled people. She urged the Government to back the compelling case by Rehabilitation International—RI—for one, in its Charter for the Third Millennium,as a key strategy for advancing the rights of disabled people worldwide. The noble Baroness explained my involvement, as chairman of the World Planning Group chosen by RI to draft its charter and recalled that I had unveiled it at a service in the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft in December 1999, attended supportively by the right honourable Michael Martin, the Speaker of the House of Commons, my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg, then Lord Chancellor, and the late Sir Edward Heath, representing the Opposition.

Also present were members of the World Planning Group, including His Excellency Chief Emeka Anyaoku, then Secretary-General of the Commonwealth; Justin Dart, who chaired the United States President’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities; Archbishop Tutu of South Africa; Anatole Ossadchikh, Minister of Social Affairs in the Russian Federation; Professor Stephen Hawking; His Royal Highness Prince Ra’ad bin Zeid of Jordan; Sir Harry Fang of Hong Kong, a former president of RI; Dr Arthur O’Reilly, then RI’s chairman; Shri DK Manavalan of India; and a representative of Deng Pufang, chairman of the China Disabled Persons Federation.



25 Jun 2007 : Column 470

Speaking for the Government on 3 May, my noble friend Lady Morgan of Drefelin told the House that at a ceremony held at the UN to mark the opening for signature of the convention, His Royal Highness Prince Ra’ad bin Zeid had paid tribute to my “pioneering role”—having led the process of drafting RI’s charter—in originating the call for the UN convention he was there to sign for Jordan. While it was kind of my noble friend to relate this to the House, in fact nothing I did could have been done without the unwavering support of my colleagues in the World Planning Group, all of high distinction, and drawn from the north, south, east and west of the world to draft the charter. For they, too, operated as a fellowship, which I was privileged to serve. Moreover, the group itself could not have succeeded without the help and backing of national committees formed by disability organisations in most of RI’s 117 member countries to report their priorities to us, Bert—now Sir Bert—Massie having reported for the UK national committee.

Also crucial was the endorsement of our call for a UN convention by heads of Government all around the world; and in no country was that endorsement made more strikingly clear than in Britain when RI’s charter was presented to the Prime Minister in Downing Street on 5 July 2000.

Responding later to a Parliamentary Question from my right honourable friend, Sir Gerald Kaufman, on the Government’s support for the charter,

the Prime Minister told the House of Commons:

That stance has been maintained with faultless constancy ever since. In fact, the Government’s support for a convention went further than formal backing at the UN. They made a significant financial contribution to involving representative disabled people in the process of drafting the text ultimately agreed.

That text, like RI’s call for the convention, was founded on two straightforward propositions: first, that unjustified discrimination against disabled people is morally indefensible; and secondly, that what is morally indefensible ought no longer to be legally permissible. Yet millions of disabled people, children and adults alike, more especially among the poorest of the world’s poor, still have to live with disabilities that were easily preventable at minimal cost. And why? The answer is clearly stated in UNICEF’s exemplary report The State of the World’s Children:


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page