| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The importance of that is that, as was described in the previous speech, people are not taking on board the fact that the law has been changed. The patterns of behaviour, which we must get into first and foremost, have not been changed, no matter how much legislation we have passed. The Government may well be about to say that they have done more than any other Government. Congratulations, but you should have done more. The previous Government could have said the same with an equal degree of truthfulness. The Government before that could probably have said it.
We must have an ongoing process. For all the legislation that we have passed—for nearly two decades I have been helping to get some of that legislation through—we still have not got there yet. Our legal framework means that we must hit people in the courts to establish practice. That is what we have; it is not what I would want. We have to try to get inside behaviour patterns.
When we come to international law and international conventions, the Government have another challenge. I thought that I had a more original point than is normally made in these debates, but the noble Lord, Lord Low, managed to steal my thunder. That shows that he has arrived running.
In the EU, we should be doing more to ensure that there is more interaction with our closest political allies. In the full transfer of goods, services and labour, a disabled person should be able to transfer reasonably easily between different states. I hasten to add that equal rights do not mean special treatment. For example, if someone cannot speak French it may be difficult to work in France, but if you have a command of that language and require assistance to work there because of a disability, modern technology has the capacity to remove many of the problems, or at least make access much easier to and the Government should be there making sure that there is a seamless a transition as possible. This process is ongoing.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and his Disabled Persons (Independent Living) Bill have been mentioned by others. I remember discussing that Bill with my colleagues in this House and in another place. The Bill is fundamentally a personification of best practice, which we should have taken on board from the amount of time and energy we have addressed to the issue over the years. Still we do not seem to have got into the structures at both national and local government levels on what is required. MPs come up to me asking about dyslexia, which is a world I know best. “Oh, is this how you do it? Is this what I say to my constituents?
25 Jun 2007 : Column 479
There are problems in Whitehall—those blocks that we try to punch through the whole time—but they seem to be ones where the information is not transferring quickly enough. Can the Government give me a little more encouragement that they are trying to make it easier for the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions to talk to each other? The communication of ideas between the blocks and between departments seems to have similarities. What can we do to make communication work across the spectrum? When will we get in touch with each other? It would help if the UN convention were ratified. That is basically the message; it would help us. We are not going to let the issue go; we shall come back to it again and again.
Will the Government make sure that no matter how far down the chain of command, everybody knows what they are supposed to do? If a case has to be brought or a complaint has to be lodged, you have failed. At every point when you put up a barrier, no matter how small, and somebody struggles to get the rights that have been given to him by various Acts of Parliament, you have failed. No matter how many laws you have passed, you have failed at that point. The failures may not be as big as they were; they may not be as consistent; but every time you have to go through the legal process to get your rights enforced there is a degree of failure.
Most of us involved would like to be able to say—we have all dreamed of this—“Job done. We can wash our hands and move on”. But it is unlikely that any of us will ever be able to truly say that. There is some sympathy for the Government, as only a relative degree of success and failure is possible in the medium or long-term, but how far and how fast can we go down this road?
Will the Minister say, first, how far international co-operation has gone, and secondly, what training programmes are going out from his department—I understand that not all of them are involved—to influence the actions of those who implement not only government policy but basic government services?
7.29 pm
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I add my voice to those of all previous speakers who have in turn thanked the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for giving this House an opportunity to debate the convention. This House has the good fortune to have the chance to hear from so many noble Lords who bring such authority to this debate, and who have through their personal efforts significantly changed attitudes on disability issues. Their dedication serves as an inspiration to us all. I am sure that noble Lords are pleased that the UK was one of the first countries to sign this convention and look forward to it being ratified and coming into force. It is to be hoped that with so many countries signed up, the last of those steps will not be far away. How long do the Government expect it to take for the necessary 20 countries to ratify this convention?
25 Jun 2007 : Column 480
Ratification will not be the end of it. Some concern has been raised in this House and by other organisations about what difference the convention will really make to the daily lives of disabled people. This question has already been raised by noble Lords, and I look forward to hearing the Minister explain how the Government intend to monitor and assess the implementation of the convention.
I am also curious to hear the thinking behind the decision not to sign up to the Optional Protocol at present. As we have already heard, it would allow disabled people to petition the treaty-monitoring body as a last resort, and would give the convention real teeth. Can the Minister explain how the provisions of the convention will be enforced without it? Is the Minister concerned that countries where disability rights are considerably weaker than those in the UK may follow the UK’s lead and not sign up to the Optional Protocol, thus greatly weakening the impact of the convention? Under what circumstances would the Government consider signing it? Will they consider signing it if it becomes clear in future that existing means of redress are not adequate?
As the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and other noble Lords said, another question that the Government have still to answer concerns the current loophole the Disability Rights Commission has identified in the convention. Disabled people will not have legal rights under this convention if local authorities have placed them in private care homes. Contracting out public services has the potential to raise standards and cut costs, but only if done in a consistent and transparent way. What measures will the Government take to reassure this House that residents in private care homes who are supported by public funding will not find themselves at a disadvantage compared to those in state-run homes?
Of course, without widespread understanding of the convention and the rights it gives to disabled people, the convention will have no effect and bring no improvement to the lives of those it concerns. What do the Government intend to do to raise awareness of this convention and the methods of redress available? The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, showed us how frequently the disabled still experience ignorance and discrimination. The noble Lord, Lord Low, pointed out ways in which existing provision frequently lags behind and that there remains a lack of information about the support available to disabled people. The Public Accounts Committee, in its January report, was not complimentary about the support schemes for employers and disabled people seeking work. DRC figures show that three out of five employers are happy to admit that they would not employ someone with a history of mental illness; there is clearly much more that can and should be done here. Indeed, on these Benches, we have often expressed concern that the Government do not think hard enough about finding effective ways of supporting the many disabled people who are able to work to gain the skills, confidence and, most important of all, opportunities to rejoin the workforce. The Welfare Reform Act 2007 made a start on improving the resources available for disabled people seeking work, but failed entirely to improve on the
25 Jun 2007 : Column 481
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, rightly drew attention to the ways in which the convention can be used to improve opportunities for children with disabilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, focused on the importance of housing policy.
Finally, I would like to explore the impact of the convention abroad. We are fortunate in this country to have the infrastructure and wealth to support the necessary steps to implement this convention. However, over 80 per cent of disabled people live in the developing world, where resources are hard to find to support programmes that are often not considered to be of high priority.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, was right to talk of what might be possible to improve the lives of disabled people in these countries. Do the Government have any intention of implementing Conservative recommendations to join bilateral agreements to strengthen developing countries' commitment to improving the rights of disabled people? Encouraging the president or the head of state of the country to take direct responsibility for a national strategy has been effective for tackling HIV/AIDS. Will the Government consider requesting that responsibility for enforcing the convention be taken at the highest levels, particularly in developing countries where we have the greatest influence? In many cases, we could have impressive results there too.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to my questions—I have phrased my speech in the interrogative—and those asked by your Lordships during this debate. This convention is an encouraging sign of progress for disabled people. I hope that it will translate to a real improvement in the opportunities open to them, both in this country and abroad. It has been good to have the occasion through debate to focus attention on the convention and the opportunities it gives the Government, which they have at their disposal.
7.37 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord McKenzie of Luton): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Ashley for raising this question and for ensuring that time has been allocated to discuss this important area of human rights for disabled people. He, of course, has an outstanding and steadfast commitment to these issues. Indeed, it has been a valuable and informed debate, which will help inform our preparations and plans for ratification of the convention and eventual acceptance of its obligations.
Many questions have been raised with me tonight. On those that I cannot cover in my allotted 12 minutes, I undertake to write to noble Lords. Reference was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and my noble friend Lord Morris to the early work done by Rehabilitation International in its Charter for the Third Millennium. This charter asserts the imperative for disabled people to have their rights fully recognised and protected in a UN convention.
25 Jun 2007 : Column 482
Reference has been made to the inspiring debate held in July 2000 that was led by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, which I have taken the opportunity to read. It was, indeed, the House at its best. It acknowledged the pivotal role played by my noble friend Lord Morris.
Those who campaigned so long have the right to feel pride in the convention and, as the Charter for the Third Millennium states:
“In the 21st century, we must insist on the same human and civil rights for people with disabilities as for everyone else”.
They are entitled now to press Governments in the UK and around the world to make the aspiration a reality.
I would like to take the opportunity to say that I will pass on the thanks that several noble Lords have expressed to my honourable friend Anne McGuire, the Minister. I am sure that she will take a keen interest in the debate.
I am sure that the House shares our delight that the UK signed the convention on 30 March on the first day on which it was open for signature. As of today, there are 98 signatures to it. Now comes the critical phase of preparing for ratification. Both in the UK and internationally, an estimated 650 million disabled people now have a clear statement that they enjoy the same fundamental human rights as everyone else, and on an equal basis with everyone else. The importance of this cannot be overestimated.
There should be no doubt about the UK’s continued commitment to human rights for disabled people at home and abroad. The convention sets international standards for human rights, and it will be incumbent on the UN member states that ratify it to act consistently with its obligations when it comes into force. The UK already has extensive legislation that outlaws discrimination against disabled people; yet it is undeniable that disabled people still face complex and diverse threats to their rights. Disabled people can too often be easily dismissed or undervalued. The Government’s pledge is that by 2025—within a generation—disabled people should have the same opportunities and choices as non-disabled people, and should be respected and included as equal members of society. Our strategy to realise this vision is built on a foundation of inalienable rights.
The new convention will ensure that disabled people have the comprehensive framework needed to protect them from violations of their human rights. It also recognises the social model of disability, and will help us to tackle the environmental and attitudinal barriers faced by people with impairments and long-term health conditions. It is increasingly becoming the means by which the discourse on disability is carried out in this country and throughout the world.
My noble friend Lord Ashley, the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy de Knayth and Lady Wilkins, and the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Taylor, asked when the UK will ratify the convention. Our intention, following signature of the convention, is to ratify it without undue delay. We will not ratify it, however, until we are satisfied that the UK’s law, policy, practice and procedures are compatible with its obligations. Noble Lords will be aware that the timetable for
25 Jun 2007 : Column 483
As for signing the optional protocol—a point pressed by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and others—our current policy is that we do not believe that there is a particular benefit in UK citizens having the right to make individual complaints to the UN committees that supervise human rights conventions. The opinions of these bodies are not judicial, and the bodies cannot award remedies against individual UN member states. There are also resource implications and costs for UN member states, which must be taken into account when allowing such access. However, as an experiment and in order to gain more empirical evidence on the merits of the right of individual petition under various UN conventions and treaties, the Government signed the optional protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women—CEDAW. We will review that experiment later this year. Noble Lords may be aware that the CEDAW committee has now issued decisions on both applications received that cover the UK, and the Ministry of Justice will now carry out a review of the experiment. We do not rule out acceding to the optional protocol for the disability convention, and we will consider this further during ratification.
Several Members made a point about consultation. We have worked, and will continue to work, closely with disabled people and disability organisations. Only last week, we discussed the convention with Equality 2025: the UK Advisory Network on Disability Equality. We asked the new body how we might best disseminate knowledge of the convention to disabled people so that we can ensure that they are aware of the convention and what it means to them in day-to-day terms. We also asked it how we might involve it in monitoring the convention. The convention puts obligations on member states for disabled people to be involved in its implementation and monitoring, and we intend to fulfil these obligations.
Around half the UN’s member states already have signed the convention. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and the DWP will work together to encourage the remaining UN member states to sign and to ratify the convention. However, noble Lords will understand that the UK Government must be reluctant to comment on the decisions taken by states on whether to sign. Article 32 highlights the important role of international co-operation, including international development programmes in supporting national efforts to realise the rights of disabled people. DfID is committed to mainstreaming disability issues across our development programme.
As was referred to, my noble friend Lady Morgan mentioned the last time this convention was discussed in this House that my honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People was to attend a conference on disability organised by Germany as part of its EU presidency on 11 and 12 June. The conference included expert academic speakers, representatives of UN
25 Jun 2007 : Column 484
Good progress is being made on analysing the compatibility of the convention with UK legislation, policy, practices and procedure. As noble Lords will appreciate this is a big task for our departments and the devolved Administrations. At this time I can say that no changes are envisaged to the Disability Discrimination Act. Noble Lords will be aware that before ratification the convention will be laid as a Command Paper before both Houses for the opportunity for debate. The paper will also be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its consideration.
We now have reached the stage where we must plan carefully for the promotion of the convention by seeking views and considering the best way forward. This is in advance of any obligations placed on us by the convention, particularly under Article 33(2), which we must remember is not yet in force. The convention will not be in force until 30 days after 20 UN members have ratified it, but around half of all UN member states have signed it, which is a strong indication of a commitment to ratification which we welcome and share.
Our preparations include or have included ensuring a close working relationship at European level between member states. Noble Lords will wish to be aware of an independent website with UN convention information. We are updating our already existing “easy read” version of the convention, which we hope to share widely around the world via websites. We will continue to consult with Equality 2025 to get its views on how the UK can best approach the obligations of Article 33(2) in relation to the framework for promotion, protection and monitoring of the convention.
My noble friend Lord Ashley and the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy de Knayth and Lady Masham, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, raised the recent House of Lords judgment in relation to care homes. The Government are obviously disappointed by the House of Lords decision. It is a difficult issue, but it is also an important issue, which affects many older and vulnerable people. We are considering their Lordships’ opinions. Colleagues in the Ministry of Justice will work with their colleagues in the Department of Health. Furthermore, my noble friend Lady Ashton will meet the other interveners in the case very soon to start discussing the way forward.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. He has given a number of categorical and progressive assurances tonight. I should just like to express my appreciation for those.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that, and along with other noble
25 Jun 2007 : Column 485
A number of noble Lords, along with my noble friend Lord Ashley, raised the issue of the Disabled Persons (Independent Living) Bill. The Government are fully supportive of the principles underpinning the Bill introduced by my noble friend. Those principles are entirely consistent with our position and reflect what we wish to achieve in the future to improve the lives of disabled people. Nevertheless, there would be major cost implications in implementing all that is proposed in the Bill, especially at the pace required.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, raised several issues around education. Of course it is government policy to ensure that the right education is provided for each child—education that is focused on individual needs and interests. She also spoke of resource allocations. The interaction between the SEN framework and the DDA is complex and it is best if I write to the noble Baroness further on that matter. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Low, both raised issues about the European disability directive. We believe that the priority should be to implement the framework employment directive, and that it is not the right time for a further directive. We should also see how the UN convention beds down.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |