---

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, on having secured this timely debate. In following him, it is a pleasure to acknowledge the inspiration that he has given the rest of us, over many years, in the struggle for disabled people's rights. I pay tribute also to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, whose work in this field is universally recognised and has been seminal. After all, his work on Rehabilitation International's Charter for the Third Millennium was, in many ways, the origin of the call for a UN convention. It is indeed a privilege to follow both those noble Lords in the debate. I begin by declaring my interest. As an officer of the World Blind Union, I played a small part in the negotiations in New York back in 2002 towards the beginning of the process. Since then, both as chief executive of RNID and president of the European Blind Union, I have followed the process closely. Like other noble Lords, I welcome the adoption of this convention. I readily acknowledge the positive and constructive part that the UK Government, and in particular Anne McGuire MP, the Minister in another place, have played in the negotiations. By signing the convention on the first day it was open for signature, the Government have set a positive example to other countries to get a move on with the ratification process. Like other noble Lords, I hope the Government will be in a position to ratify the convention soon, with as few derogations and reservations as possible. I shall be interested to hear how long the pre-ratification review of UK legislation is likely to take and when the UK thinks it will be able to sign the optional protocol. However, it is about the rights themselves that I principally wish to speak this evening. Her Majesty’s Government may conclude that the UK is ahead of most other countries in the matter of discrimination legislation, and they may be right to do so, but I would not want them to conclude from that that they can safely rest on their laurels and carry on as if it was business as usual. I believe that there are clear areas where the convention calls for Governments to provide services or take action over and above what is currently to be found in UK legislation or practice. It also seems that despite the increased emphasis on rights in UK legislation in recent years, in some areas there has actually been a deterioration in the level of support needed to ensure that these rights can be fully enjoyed, notably in the field of social care where 70 per cent of local councils have already indicated that they will be able to meet only the needs of those who fall into the critical or substantial category; and that figure of 70 per cent is set to rise to 80 per cent in the next year. I shall give three examples of where the convention requirements do not seem to me to be properly met at present for visually impaired people in the UK. Article 26, on habilitation and rehabilitation, says: "““States Parties shall take effective and appropriate measures … to enable persons with disabilities to attain and maintain maximum independence, full physical, mental, social and vocational ability, and full inclusion and participation in all aspects of life””." However, recent research by Guide Dogs found that 20 per cent of those surveyed had not received any form of needs assessment; only 56 per cent of those who had had their needs assessed were offered services based on that assessment; and only 37 per cent had received training in mobility. Again, the Equipped for Living report produced last year by the Improving Lives Coalition, a consortium of voluntary sector bodies concerned with improving social services for visually impaired people, based on a survey of 500 people in England and Wales, found that blind and partially sighted people were receiving very little in the way of equipment to help with independent living. For example, computer equipment using large-text speech or Braille was available to only 14 per cent of people, and four out of five of them had to buy it for themselves. This small selection of data from these two surveys illustrates the extremely poor state of rehabilitation services for blind and partially sighted people in the UK today. Article 21, on freedom of expression and opinion and access to information, says that states parties should provide, "““information intended for the general public to persons with disabilities in accessible formats and technologies appropriate to different kinds of disabilities in a timely manner and without additional cost””." Yet in the area of health services alone a recent survey of blind and partially sighted people in the UK showed that 95 per cent of respondents had never received health advice leaflets or information from their local surgery in their preferred format; 96 per cent had never received letters from their GP, results of tests or other correspondence in their preferred format; and 95 per cent had never received medicine labelled in large print. Article 9, on accessibility, says that states parties shall, among other things, "““take appropriates measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to … transportation””." Yet still almost no buses in the UK currently have onboard announcements on route destination or next stop, and according to the Guide Dog research mentioned earlier, only 39 per cent travelled by bus and 11 per cent by train. In the light of the above and other areas I could mention, I should like to ask the Minister three questions. First, will the current exercise to review UK legislation in the light of the convention be used to identify areas where further action needs to be taken? Secondly, what steps will the Government take to ensure that statutory bodies such as local councils implement the requirements of the convention? Thirdly, will the Government ensure that they involve disabled people from all walks of life and their organisations, both large and small, when carrying out this work? If you go to the Directgov web page on international disability rights and the UN convention and look under: "““How to find out more and get involved””," you will find links to just two disability organisation websites—that of the representative of disabled people on the UK’s delegation to the convention negotiations in New York and that of Disability Awareness in Action, a small pressure group concerned with monitoring infringements of disabled people’s rights and promoting action to address them. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me—as he did when answering my supplementary question of 16 January—about the importance of implementing the convention rights in a manner which takes account of the diversity of disabled people’s needs and ensures that in the implementation and monitoring process the Government consult with as wide a range of organisations as possible. The UN convention will be the first human rights treaty to be ratified by the European Union. It therefore involves obligations not just for the UK but for the EU as well as in areas where it has competence. The principles of non-discrimination and equality are among the underlying principles in the convention and are at the heart of many of its specific articles, for example those on accessibility. Given that the EU now has competence to address disability discrimination since Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, and has already used this competence with regard to discrimination in employment, following the UN convention it should now take the next step, as the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, said, and adopt a general disability directive covering all the areas falling within its competence such as access to goods and services, transport and manufactured goods. The last of these is particularly important since under single market legislation it cannot be addressed by national legislation. Furthermore, the UK, as the EU member state with the longest experience of disability discrimination legislation, should take the lead in persuading the Commission to propose such legislation. To conclude, I believe that the convention is to be welcomed but we should welcome it with our eyes open. Many of the rights in it are as long as a piece of string. Phrases such as ““as far as possible””, ““to the greatest extent possible”” and ““all appropriate measures”” abound. I commend the initiative of the European Blind Union, of which, as I say, I am president, to spell out in detail what the various rights mean for blind and partially sighted people. I hope very much that the Government will want to enter into discussion with our UK affiliates on this.