UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

– in the House of Lords at 6:09 pm on 25 June 2007.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke Labour 6:09, 25 June 2007

asked Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to promote the United Nations Convention on disability.

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 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 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 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.

Photo of Baroness Darcy de Knayth Baroness Darcy de Knayth Crossbench 6:38, 25 June 2007

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 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 also 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 NHS 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 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,

"full development of human potential and sense of dignity and self-worth", 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:

"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".—[Hansard, 14/7/00; col. 555.]

We still have a little way to go.

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.

Photo of Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester Labour 6:47, 25 June 2007

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 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 longstanding, 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 InternationalRI—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.

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; 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,

"and the adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of the Charter's call for a UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People", the Prime Minister told the House of Commons:

"I welcomed Rehabilitation International's Charter for the Third Millennium in July 2000. In doing so, I said that I believed it would form the basis of a global consensus on priorities for at least the next decade. This absolutely remains the Government's view".[Hansard, Commons, 25/3/02; col. 618W.]

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, which states:

"When so much could be done for so many and at so little cost, then one central, shameful fact becomes unavoidable: the reason that these problems are not being overcome is not because the task is too large or too difficult or too expensive. It's that the job is not being given sufficient priority because those most severely affected are almost exclusively the poorest and least politically influential people on earth".

Take 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—this at a time when the cost of saving people from disability has been falling as dramatically as the incidence of preventable disability in many of the poorest countries has increased. That is but one example of the scale of the problems that the UN convention has to address and RI's Charter for the Third Millennium provides as good a guide as now exists to the way forward. It is a statement not of generalisations, but of well argued recommendations that include many about the contribution that aid-giving countries can make to helping disabled people in the third world: for example, the recommendation to ensure that international assistance programmes require accessibility for disabled people in all infrastructure projects, including technology and communications, to vouchsafe their full inclusion in the economic and social life of their communities.

Yet inevitably the disability organisations in the developed world also want to see progress in rooting out discriminatory practices in their own communities; many of the Parliamentary Questions that I have asked since our signing of the convention have reflected concerns put to me by representative disabled people in the UK. They are anxious to know what progress Ministers have made in analysing the compatibility of the convention with British laws, their plans for ratification and whether we shall sign the Optional Protocol about which I asked a recent Starred Question. They also want to know how widely the Government will consult disabled people and their organisations in implementing the convention, monitoring its impact and promoting its purpose. I am asked in particular whether Ministers will consult the RNIB, the RNID, Leonard Cheshire and CEHR; and I know that my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton will respond as fully and helpfully as he can to these questions.

The endeavours of disability organisations to make Britain the exemplar par excellence of full and rapid implementation of the convention richly deserve to succeed, because it was from here that the long, long trail towards achieving equal rights for disabled people began. It did so in 1978, when Sir Peter Large was appointed to head a government committee of inquiry—of which the noble Lord, Lord Low, was also a member—into unjustified discrimination against disabled people. Its landmark report in 1982 called for legislation to outlaw such discrimination.

The Americans with Disabilities Act was but one lineal descendant of that report, followed by legislation here and in many other countries and culminating now in the UN convention. That is why this debate should not end without due acknowledgement of Peter Large's huge contribution to that outcome. Severely disabled himself, often having to rely on an iron lung to stay alive, he was a towering figure in the world of disability whose passing two years ago was an immense loss to disabled people everywhere. We owe it to them—not least, in UNICEF's words, the poorest and least politically influential people on earth—and to Peter's memory, to brook no delay in implementing the UN convention.

Photo of Lord Low of Dalston Lord Low of Dalston Crossbench 6:58, 25 June 2007

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.

Photo of Baroness Wilkins Baroness Wilkins Labour 7:08, 25 June 2007

My Lords, as is repeatedly the case, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke for securing this debate and for his relentless pressure on the Government to secure the human rights of all disabled people. I also add my thanks to the Minister, Anne McGuire, and her predecessor, Maria Eagle, together with their official, Liz Tillett, for their commitment in bringing the UN convention into existence. Most important, I pay tribute to Rachel Hurst of Disability Awareness in Action and Richard Light for their years and years of tireless work in producing the evidence, arguing the case and lobbying for the need for a UN convention to protect the rights of the 650 million disabled people throughout the world.

Our Government can be proud of their role in developing this UN convention and for being one of its earliest signatories. With this history, will my noble friend the Minister tell the House what justification there can possibly be why we should not be high on the list of the 20 nations needed to ratify the convention and so ensure that it becomes binding on all UN countries?

Other noble Lords have addressed the breadth of this debate, so I hope that they will understand if I concentrate on just one area, which I consider fundamental to meeting disabled people's human rights. David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, said at this year's EU seminar on housing as a human right:

"It cannot be possible to have a meaningful concept of human rights until it is accepted that having a warm, dry and secure home is a pre-requisite to ensuring civil, political, cultural, social and all other human rights. Indeed the right to a home is more basic to human dignity than any other rights we discuss".

At the European level, there is growing acceptance that human rights must be the basis for social policy. Scotland was the first place in Europe to make the right to housing enforceable by law, and last Christmas France followed its example. The DRC has called on the Government to use their leverage to ensure that the newly formed fundamental rights agency conducts research and gathers data on the rights of disabled people across the European Union, which I totally endorse.

Public discussion of housing in the last few years is as likely to talk of "investment opportunity" as recognise that our home is the very foundation of our social and psychological well-being. It is the base that should enable us to take our place in the world around us, healthy, rested, clean and ready to use our talents. Yet home for many disabled people is neither liberating nor comforting. Too often it is the bare four walls, with a bed, table and cupboard, of a residential care home; or where your bed and commode are in the family sitting room, as the only accessible space. It can be the place that is impossible to leave because of the flights of stairs to the outside world, or where the damp walls provide a daily threat to your asthma and thus your life. A disabled person's home conditions every aspect of their life—their health, ability to work and economic status, social opportunities, ability to contribute and whole well-being.

In Britain, we have a housing crisis which impacts disproportionately on disabled people due to their relative poverty and restricted opportunities. The facts are worth repeating. In 2003, the charity John Grooms conducted a survey of physically disabled people across England and Wales. It found that more than 20 per cent of respondents lived in houses that were either difficult to move around or get in and out of, that 40 per cent of respondents felt that their housing situation made them unnecessarily dependent on other people, and that 24 per cent of wheelchair users were prisoners in their own home because of poor access and location.

What measures are the Government taking to meet Article 9 of the UN convention, which calls for measures to,

"enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life"?

It calls on states to take appropriate measures to ensure that disabled people have equal access to the physical environment, including accessible housing.

Yesterday's statement by the incoming Prime Minister that,

"housing will be a priority", and that the Housing Minister will sit in Cabinet could not be more welcome. He went on to say that,

"we need to build homes not just to own but to rent .... we can make affordable housing for all one of the great causes of our time".

I ask my noble friend to ensure that the new Housing Minister is aware that disabled people's needs must be integral to that policy if our human rights are to be met and disabled people are to have any hope of taking an equal part in society.

It is not enough just to build more houses, although more are undoubtedly required. That new housing stock needs to be fully accessible and adaptable. The building industry will continue to ignore that need unless it is forced to act, and to date the Government have refused to require all new housing to meet the lifetime home standard. Merely making it a recommendation is not enough to get developers to act. Furthermore, the shortage of accessible housing is an issue that the Barker review completely ignored, and there is no coherent government strategy to tackle it.

The Government have cause to be immensely proud of their part in bringing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities into existence. As the DRC says, the fact that we were one of the first signatories sent a strong signal of support for making human rights a reality for disabled people. The right to a secure, warm, dry and accessible home is one of the most basic of those rights. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can assure the House that the Government will soon set out their policy to meet Article 9 and that they will ratify the convention at the earliest possible date, with—as the noble Lord, Lord Low, said—as few derogations or reservations as possible.

Photo of Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton Crossbench 7:15, 25 June 2007

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for asking Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to promote the United Nations convention on disability rights. I have the greatest admiration for the noble Lord for his continued dedication and campaigning on behalf of disabled people. This is a good debate, because so many faithful campaigners for disability in your Lordships' House are taking part.

Until they become disabled, or a member of their family does, members of the general public have no idea what disability in so many different forms really means and how many obstacles there are when living in the community. Many countries throughout the world still look to the UK for leadership in many fields. If we promote this convention, I am sure that it will help many disabled people across the world. I remember visiting a church while on holiday with my husband in Italy. A young couple were sitting in the church; the young woman was disabled, and they asked us whether we were married. When we told them that we were, they were so pleased and said that meeting us had given them encouragement as they wanted to get married but faced opposition from family and officials.

Disabled people often have to battle for many things in life that non-disabled people take for granted. This is why we need this convention. There are many things that we must improve in our country, including building a human rights culture by rolling out human rights training for all public servants.

I shall relate an incident that could be typical in this country for disabled people. I declare an interest as a disabled driver. In Northallerton, which is the small county town of North Yorkshire, there are very few parking places for disabled people. On one recent occasion I had to go to Northallerton to collect some things, and I parked in the one and only parking space in Zetland Street. There was no message covering the disabled parking sign to say that parking for disabled people had been suspended. When I came back with my unfortunate helper, who was carrying packages and pushing me, we found a black bin liner over the sign and a taxi driver saying that they had been allocated the one and only disabled place. What is more, I had a parking ticket. No doubt the local taxi drivers and police had an amicable arrangement. My companion is from the Czech Republic and she was shocked that such blatant discrimination should happen in such a place as Northallerton.

As president of the Spinal Injuries Association, I can say that we have had several members of the police who have become paralysed in the course of their duty and are not aware of what the needs are until it happens to them. Their macho attitudes soon change when they become disabled. That is one section of public servants who definitely need training. Members of Parliament should also be aware of what happens in their constituencies. When that incident happened to me, most of the High Street was closed because of the Spring Fair, which made it even more difficult to park. It would be even more important if a disabled person had wanted to take children to the fair but had nowhere to park. That is typical of the cutting of services to the most needy.

How has there been a ruling in the House of Lords that the Human Rights Act does not apply to people who are in independent care homes when their care is paid for by the local authority or the NHS? I hope that the Minister will be able to explain that anomaly. I hope that the Government will act quickly to close that loophole, which leaves disabled people in private or voluntary sector care homes without the protection of the Human Rights Act. As has often been said in your Lordships' House, those are very vulnerable people who need protection.

We have just voted to protect prisoners under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill. They should be protected. I voted for it. But so should all disabled people be protected. Sometimes, it has been found that frail, elderly and disabled people in care homes, as highlighted by a recent "Panorama" programme, have been less protected than people in prison. It is time that that was put right.

Photo of Lord Addington Lord Addington Spokesperson in the Lords (Disability), Work & Pensions, Deputy Chief Whip, Spokesperson in the Lords (Sport), Culture, Media & Sport 7:21, 25 June 2007

My Lords, the Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, again gathers together what I have referred to, slightly flippantly, as the usual suspects. He brings forward a group of people who, under his leadership and that of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, have been snapping away at the heels of the Government for a long time. That is probably a great reminder that if you want to achieve anything in politics, you have to be not only good but persistent, first and foremost. The Government have learnt that this group is persistent. It briefs well; it gets its message out there. So when we refer to the fact that we want the convention ratified, we are talking about a group that says to the Government, "Please continually bear us in mind, we will not go away".

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 havesaid the same with an equal degree of truthfulness. The Government before that could probably havesaid 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 it much easier to access, 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? What is the guidance?" They do not seem to realise that certain people go from it being a problem in education to a problem in the workplace.

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 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?

Photo of Lord Taylor of Holbeach Lord Taylor of Holbeach Shadow Minister (Environment, Food & Rural Affairs), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, Deputy Chief Whip, Whips, Shadow Minister, Wales 7:29, 25 June 2007

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.

Photo of Lord McKenzie of Luton Lord McKenzie of Luton Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions) 7:37, 25 June 2007

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.

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 over-estimated.

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. TheUK 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 ratifying the convention is not entirely within the UK's control, because we share competence in a number of areas with other members of the European Community that are also signatories to it. I stress that none of this should detract from our very real desire and commitment to ratify it as soon as we can.

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 WomenCEDAW. 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 organisations, politicians from Europe and the European disability NGOs, including the European Disability Forum. I am delighted to report that on 12 June in Berlin the Minister gave a well received closing address on continuing the European exchange on disability policy. She also met and discussed issues with her German and Portuguese opposite numbers. I understand that the presidency conclusions from that meeting will keep disability and the UN convention high on the European agenda for co-ordinated action among EU member states.

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.

Photo of Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke Labour

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.

Photo of Lord McKenzie of Luton Lord McKenzie of Luton Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that, and along with other noble Lords I know that he will take a keen interest in how we take these matters forward.

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.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised issues about awareness and behaviour, and how we can generate culture change. We agree with those views. The Government legislated for this with the equality duty and major awareness work has been undertaken. The ODI and the Government are promoting disability awareness widely and continuously, but we acknowledge that changing behaviour and attitudes will take time.

The noble Lord, Lord Low, spoke about people who are blind or partially sighted. The Government's policy is of course to improve the life chances of disabled people, including those with visual impairments, by promoting their inclusion and participation in community life and enabling them to have more control over their lives. Rehabilitation services for blind and partially sighted people are provided predominantly by local authorities, and to some extent NHS trusts. It is for those organisations to plan, develop and improve services for local people, and there has been a substantial increase in resources to enable them to do so.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, raised some significant issues around housing. In brief I can say that the independent living review will be a cross-government project led by the Office for Disability Issues. Initially it will take some 12 months and will bring together the views and experiences of officials from central and local government, disabled people and their organisations, to look at developing imaginative new solutions in the area not only of housing but also of health, social care, transport and employment. I acknowledge that these are all important issues which need to be addressed. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, pressed us on the cross-government approach and working together. The whole rationale of ODI is to get cross-government policy discussions and co-ordination to achieve substantial equality for disabled people within a generation.

I am sure there are other questions which I have not dealt with in detail, but I will read the record and write as I have promised. I am also conscious that this response is in some part a statement of work in progress, but I hope noble Lords will acknowledge our determination to ratify the convention as soon as possible. Should anyone doubt our determination to see this through, I would pray in aid the Government's record on human and civil rights for disabled people, from the Disability Rights Task Force being established in 1997 through to setting up the Office for Disability Issues in 2005 and the launching of Equality 2025. We have made clear the need to challenge and defeat the ignorance, prejudice, superstition and fear which still governs much of society's response to disability. This we will continue to do.

Photo of Lord Low of Dalston Lord Low of Dalston Crossbench

My Lords, I draw to the noble Lord's attention the fact that the European Commission has moved on in its position and now recognises that the time has come to move beyond employment towards a general directive, covering not only disability but other strands of discrimination that are not currently covered—age, religion and so on. Indeed, the Commission will launch a consultation this summer on how it might be possible to move forward in that direction within the next year or so. I hope that when the consultation is launched the Government might be willing to take a slightly more positive attitude towards it than the Minister evinced in his wind-up.

Photo of Lord McKenzie of Luton Lord McKenzie of Luton Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)

My Lords, we would certainly engage with a process of that nature—and do so fully and enthusiastically.

House adjourned at 7.55 pm.