---

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

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? 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 ensure that the Minister will be able 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 inadequate support that is available for employers. I hope this convention will encourage the Government to look at this side of the equation as well. 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.