New disability bill draws mixed response from experts, activists

As the final draft of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2011 was submitted to the ministry of social justice and empowerment on June 30, activists working for people with disabilities, have mixed responses about the proposed Act.

According to Bhargavi Davar, managing trustee of the city-based Bapu trust for research on mind and discourse, the bill includes a liberal definition of ‘disability’ and disability rights unlike the existing Act. However, in some ways, it is inferior to the existing one.

"The Bill lists at least 20 disabilities as illustrative of the disability experience. A significant contribution is the inclusion of a range of civil political rights, such as right to liberty, life, political participation, among others. In terms of socio economic rights, the Bill offers manifold duties of the government and new entitlements. However, the new Bill is inferior to the existing Act in the context that the existing Act do not impose a limit on legal capacity, nor does it talk about guardianship," said Davar.

The new Bill, which promises to usher in landmark clauses to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms for all Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) without discrimination, has been drafted in harmony with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). 

Among other things, the proposed law suggests setting up of a National Disability Rights Authority to formulate regulations for ‘service animal’ training facilities so as to ensure that persons with disabilities are provided suitable animals to help them.
The bill also proposes to replace the existing practice of plenary guardianship with limited guardianship, a system of joint decision-making which operates on mutual understanding and trust between the guardian and the person with disability.

The ministry of social justice and empowerment had earlier constituted a committee with members representing persons with disabilities, NGOs and experts from the disability sector, to draft a new legislation to replace the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

According to Davar, though the draft bill gives the right to full legal capacity, the concept of limited guardianship takes that benefit away.

"With any kind of guardianship, limited or plenary, the exercise of right for a person with disability becomes all the more difficult. The clause on ‘limited guardianship’ will again push the people with disabilities back to colonial times, as vested interests will take advantage of the clause and take away rights otherwise granted in the new Bill," said Davar.

At the same time, Davar is not sure about the implementation of the bill in the state, where the basic PwDs are, in many cases, non-existent. "The state coordination committee does not meet regularly and the budgets of 3% provided for, under the Action Plan for disability spending under all government heads, has been unutilised. State budgets for social welfare in general has been unutilised, whereas there is a crying need for huge reform of social / disability sector," she said.

Sadhana Khati, project leader, Bapu Trust, said, "Granting full legal capacity includes an array of rights – from the right of marriage to the right to vote. Though the draft grants the right to legal capacity, it does not grant ‘absolute’ right to legal capacity."
A lawyer, part of the Human Rights Law Network (HRLN), a collective of lawyers and social activists dedicated to the use of the legal system to advance human rights in India and the sub-continent, said on condition of anonymity, "The proposed law should have expounded on the concept of limited guardianship, instead of giving it a minimal definition. What the act proposes to do, i.e., replace plenary guardianship with limited guardianship sounds like a gain; but the finer details on the latter have not been specified. What the new Bill should have done is describe the process by which persons with mental disabilities – in conflict with law or in need of care and protection – are identified as a class apart, ensuring a participatory process, as the one ensured by the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act."

Pune, Times of India

ENABLE AND EMPOWER

The draft Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill breaks new ground in protecting the civil and political rights of the disabled, says Hemchhaya De

Syed Sallauddin Pasha feels that India needs an Anna Hazare to fight for disability rights. The art therapist-cum-classical dance trainer would know what an uphill task it is for persons with disabilities to make their mark. He has trained about 150 dancers with disabilities in his Delhi-based organisation, Ability Unlimited Foundation, known for its exquisite “Bharatanatyam on wheels” performed by dancers on wheelchairs.

“I have written several times to leading government organisations like Sangeet Natak Akademy to help differently-abled artistes in India participate in premier art festivals across the country,” says Pasha. “But unfortunately, unlike government-backed initiatives in the West, artistes with disabilities in this country are given short shrift.”

Pasha hopes the government will pass stronger laws to end such social inequalities. And he feels the recently drafted Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPD) Bill, 2010, might just be the answer to his prayers.

In April last year, the ministry of social justice and empowerment appointed a committee to prepare a draft RPD Bill that seeks to replace the existing Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act of 1995. After a year of exhaustive state and national-level discussions with various stakeholders, the committee — comprising disability rights activists, government representatives, legal scholars and medical professionals — has submitted the final draft of the bill to the ministry.

“We have received the final draft from the committee we appointed. We’ll now follow the usual legislative process, such as inviting suggestions from state governments and sending them to a parliamentary standing committee, before it’s tabled in Parliament,” says a senior official at the ministry who does not wish to be named.

“This is a standard practice with all bills,” says Sudha Kaul, head of the Indian Institute of Cerebral Palsy, Calcutta, under whose chairpersonship the committee drafted the bill. “The proposed law seeks to put in place a charter of rights in accordance with the mandate of the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) to which India is a signatory.”

The UNCRPD — which was adopted on December 13, 2006, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York — speaks of a “paradigm shift” in attitudes towards persons with disabilities. It says that the disabled should be seen not as objects of charity but as “subjects” who are free to exercise their rights like any other individual in society. The legislation proposed is inspired by these UNCRPD principles.

In addition to the 1995 Act, India has other disability-specific laws like the National Trust Act, which is concerned with the welfare of people with autism, cerebral palsy and multiple disabilities, and the Rehabilitation Council of India Act that regulates the training of rehabilitation professionals in the disability sector. Nevertheless, experts say these laws are narrow in scope. They stress that the need of the hour is a more comprehensive, rights-based law for persons with disabilities who constitute about two per cent of the Indian population.

Says Amita Dhanda, professor and head, Centre for Disability Studies, Nalsar University of Law, Hyderabad, who was part of the team which drafted the RPD Bill, “Yes, we have laws, but they are welfare-oriented. We do not have a rights-based law in the country and consequently the present legislation is required.” She adds that the existing disability law makes room for some of the socio-economic rights recognised by the UNCRPD such as education and employment. “But the law is totally silent on the issue of equality and non-discrimination. It does not look at the practical implementation of civil-political rights,” she says.

The draft RPD Bill, on the other hand, seems to be breaking substantial new grounds. Take the provision for service animals — the first time that such a provision has been included in a law for disabled people. Section 82 of the draft bill says, “The appropriate governments and establishments shall permit and facilitate the use of service animals by persons with disabilities on roads, buildings, all transport systems, public facility or service.” Furthermore, a person with disability will have the right “to be accompanied by a service animal without being required to pay an extra charge”.

The proposed law is also geared to the protection of the rights of women and children with disabilities. Experts say that women with disabilities are often forced to opt for sterilisation. Section 30 of the draft bill addresses this problem. It states, “Persons with disabilities, particularly women and children with disabilities, shall have the right to retain their fertility” and “no person with disability shall be subject to any medical procedure which leads to or could lead to infertility without their free and informed consent”.

Any violation of this will attract imprisonment and a fine. As Section 153 specifies, “whoever performs, conducts or directs any medical procedure to be performed on a woman with disability which leads to or is likely to lead to termination of pregnancy without her express consent” could face 10 years in jail along with a fine. And any caregiver, a parent or a guardian, who fails to prevent such wrongful medical procedure is also liable to be imprisoned and fined. Moreover, there is a provision for disabled persons to opt for postal ballot if they cannot vote in person, and for electoral booths to be made completely accessible to them. The bill also proposes 7 per cent reservation in higher education for the disabled, raising it from the current one per cent.

Most social activists who work with disabled persons are happy with the draft bill. Says Bhargavi Davar, director, Centre for Advocacy in Mental Health, Pune, “It is a very comprehensive legislation, and has covered vast new areas. We hope the sheer scope of the new legislation will lead to the immediate formation of a ministry for disability affairs, which the sector has been asking for, for a long time.”

However, one particular provision in the draft bill has come in for considerable criticism. This relates to “limited guardianship” or a joint decision-making process between a person with disability and his or her guardian. “The limitations on legal capacity compromises all the rights or freedoms promised in the draft,” insists Davar.

The drafting panel contends that the proposed bill, like the UNCRPD, recognises that all persons with disabilities can exercise legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all areas of life. “However, there is a duty on the part of appropriate governments to provide support. The choice to accept or refuse that support is with persons with disabilities,” says Dhanda. She adds that a number of persons with disabilities are in plenary guardianship today. A plenary guardian is one who takes decisions in the best interest of the person with disabilities but without consulting him or her. “The bill has replaced this system with limited guardianship,” says Dhanda. “Insofar as limited guardianship is required to operate on mutual understanding and trust, it is in consonance with the rights-based orientation of the law.”

On the whole, there is little doubt that the RPD Bill will usher a new era in disability rights in the country. For the differently abled, it may be the beginning of a better life.

The Telegraph

Memorandum on Disability Code

The Background

In the explanatory note to the Working Draft we had communicated to the Committee that in our opinion in order to do full justice to the Disability Rights Authority in terms of putting down its power and responsibilities in full detail it would be appropriate if the Authority was established under a dedicated statute of its own, instead of being made to tag along with the Rights statute. We had pointed out that we felt cramped for space in working out the norms by which representation to the Authority should be worked out and accountability of members obtained. It was due to this substantive constraint along with the lack of time that prevented us from working out the linkages between the DRA and other Authorities in the disability field such as the National Trust and the Rehabilitation Council of India.

Dedicated Legislations

Since we reached the opinion that the newly established DRA should have its own legislation we also concluded that the National Trust and the RCI should have their own legislations which should spell out the specific tasks each of those authorities should carry out to implement the rights recognized in the New Rights for Persons with Disabilities Act. The National Trust should be the authority which addresses the issue of multiple discrimination and be mandated to proactively formulate policies and programs by which to ensure the equality and non discrimination of persons with disabilities who are so disadvantaged and the RCI could work on HRD. The composition and powers and functions of the three bodies should be so created that it ensures convergence of operation.

Transitory Measures

The proposed new law recognizes the paradigm of legal capacity with support. It also recognizes the right to life, liberty and integrity of all persons with disabilities. The recognition of these rights requires a re-examination of the Mental Health Act. Even if it is accepted that community living and no force are what is required for all; it is necessary to ask what should be done with the existing institutions and the inmates housed in them. The process of dismantling cannot be done without creating alternative services and there is a need to make a transit legislation which addresses this interim situation. The reason for making the transit legislation comes from the main law but to allow coherent operation and efficient implementation of these transitory measures it is better that they are contained in a separate legislation.

Demands for Comprehensive Legislation and Protection of Interests of Most Marginalized

The Committee and consequently the legal consultant has been faced with two demands: one, seeking a comprehensive all inclusive legislation; and the other asking that the interests of the most marginalized persons with disabilities should not be compromised and side-lined. The reason for seeking a comprehensive legislation as we understand is to ensure convergence in the operation of various authorities in the field and to make for more effective implementation. Whilst the group asserting the interest of the marginalized accepts the need for convergence, it fears that if such convergence is obtained in one comprehensive legislation, which absorbs all authorities then the voices of the more organized groups could drown their concerns.

Convergence in Disability Code

It is in the wake of these equally valid concerns that it was suggested that a Disability Code may be formulated which could be a legally accepted and efficient way of bringing convergence along with accommodating difference. The difference between a Code and multiple legislations in a field is that the Code has a common philosophy; common grammar and a concerted effort to ensure that each part fits into a cohesive whole. Thus for example there are number of legislations on children which occupy the field today but they do not make a Children Code because the cohesiveness of philosophy, grammar and the convergence between authorities is absent.

The difference between a Code with multiple legislations and a single comprehensive legislation is that a Code with multiple legislations allows each area to obtain the detailed and dedicated attention it requires. The Companies Act; the Income Tax Act are examples of legislations which are comprehensive but whose very comprehensiveness becomes a barrier to their efficient implementation. A Code with multiple legislations makes it easier to undertake capacity building and awareness raising of the law and it ensures that the interests of the marginalized groups are not submerged in the bulk of a large legislation.

Centre For Disability Studies Nalsar

DISABILITY CONVENTION COMMITTEE FORGES AHEAD

ON PERSONAL FREEDOMS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

The General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities last week came closer to an agreement on issues such as respect for privacy, equality and non-discrimination, right to life and liberty and security of the person.

Participants reached a general agreement on article 22, under which States parties are to protect the privacy of persons with disabilities, including personal, health and rehabilitation information, and are to prevent arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy, family, home, correspondence and communications.

There was general support for the Chair’s text (available at www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahcstatachairstxt.htm) on equality and non-discrimination, right to life, liberty and security of the person, freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse, personal mobility and liberty of movement.

On equality and non-discrimination (article 5), the current draft requires States parties to prohibit discrimination, guarantee to persons with disabilities equal protection against discrimination and ensure that they are provided with reasonable accommodation. Some delegations argued for including an element of sanction or reference to legal protection.

No delegation made specific proposals to amend article 10, on the right to life, which would require States to reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and ensure its enjoyment by persons with disabilities. The International Disability Caucus suggested the only amendment, proposing to add the words “in all stages of life” after “every human being”, and to add “and shall recognize” after “reaffirm”.

Some suggestions were made on article 14, on liberty and security, under which States are to ensure that persons with disabilities are not deprived of their liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. If they are deprived of their liberty through a civil, criminal or administrative process they shall have guarantees on an equal basis with others, including being informed of their legal rights, having prompt access to legal assistance, receiving a fair hearing and obtaining compensation in the case of unlawful deprivation of liberty.

Some delegations suggested modifications in article 15, on freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which affirms that no person with disabilities shall be subjected to such treatments. States shall take legislative, administrative and judicial measures to prevent such treatment, and shall prohibit medical or scientific experiments without the free and informed consent of the person concerned. The International Disability Caucus proposed adding a sentence that would prohibit interventions aimed at correcting, improving or alleviating any impairment without the person’s consent.

Participants suggested minor revisions to article 16, under which States would take legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect persons with disabilities from exploitation, violence and abuse. Preventive measures would include ensuring assistance and support for persons with disabilities and their caregivers; monitoring by independent authorities of facilities and programmes for persons with disabilities; and legislation to ensure that violations are investigated and prosecuted. Victims would receive assistance promoting their recovery, rehabilitation and reintegration.

Article 18 would require States to ensure the rights of persons with disabilities to liberty of movement. This would include ensuring that they have the right to acquire a nationality, are not deprived of their nationality arbitrarily or on the basis of disability, and are free to leave any country, including their own. Many delegations felt that the article lacked important elements, such as freedom to choose one’s residence, the right to enter one’s country and the right to move within one’s country.

There was broad support for article 20, on personal mobility, although some countries felt that high-quality mobile aid would be out of reach for them. The article would require States to ensure liberty of movement with the greatest possible independence for persons with disabilities, including by facilitating access at affordable cost to high-quality mobility aids, devices and assistive technologies.

Participants sought to refine the language on freedom of expression and opinion and access to information (article 21), under which States would guarantee that persons with disabilities can exercise their right to freedom of expression and opinion, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through all accessible means, models and formats of communication, including sign languages, Braille and augmentative and alternative communication.

The Committee came closer to an agreement on several other issues. On awareness raising (article 8), States would be required to raise awareness about disability and persons with disabilities, promote awareness of their capabilities and contributions, and combat stereotypes and prejudices.

On changing perceptions and prejudices in matters of sexuality, marriage, parenthood and family relations, Syria and Jordan called for language on sexuality that could be culturally acceptable while Kenya, Japan, New Zealand, Brazil and Uruguay argued for the need to retain the current text.

Under article 9, States are to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities by eliminating obstacles to the built environment, to transportation, to services and to information and communication so as to guarantee that persons with disabilities can live independently and take part in all aspects of life.

Many delegations felt that the text should refer to buildings and services for public use and not simply publicly owned buildings or services. Others supported inserting sanctions for non-compliance. Yemen, Venezuela, Israel, the African Group and the International Disability Caucus called for adding language on access to information, especially to information and communication technologies.

Differences remained on issues of legal capacity, as well as supportive and substitutive decision-making covered in article 12, under which States would recognize that persons with disabilities have legal capacity in all fields and would ensure that support is provided to exercise that capacity. States would also ensure the equal right of persons with disabilities to own or inherit property, to control their own financial affairs and to have equal access to bank loans, mortgages and financial credit.

Article 13 would require States to ensure equal access to justice for persons with disabilities and facilitate their role as participants in legal proceedings, including the investigative and preliminary stages. Some delegations proposed short and specific additions, but various delegations expressed concern about adding too many lists and details. Participants agreed that the Chair would work on the article adding some essential elements — in particular on appropriate accommodation during a trial and on training police and tribunal personnel.

Participants agreed that further reflection and negotiation was needed on article 17, which would require States to protect the integrity of persons with disabilities, including protection from forced interventions or institutionalization aimed at correcting, improving or alleviating an impairment.

Differences also remained on article 19, which would require States to facilitate the enjoyment by persons with disabilities of their freedom of choice, living independently and being fully included in the community. Under this article, persons with disabilities should be able to choose their place of residence and would not be obliged to live in a particular living arrangement; and they would have access to a range of support services, including personal assistance necessary to support living and inclusion in the community.

The Committee is expected to conclude the second full reading of the Convention by 3 February, the last day of its current session.

New treaty to play key role in affirming rights of disabled persons

Existing standards and mechanisms had failed to adequately protect persons with disabilities, and it was clearly time the United Nations remedied that shortcoming, Louise Arbour, High Commissioner for Human Rights, this morning told the Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities.

Speaking as the Committee rounded up the second of three weeks of negotiations on the first ever disabilities Convention, she noted that facilities, working methods, even attitudes and understanding in the Organization were not geared towards equal treatment of persons with disabilities. “The new treaty will play a key role in affirming the rights of persons with disabilities, and spell out action needed to implement them”, she said.

The United Nations faced an urgent task in tackling stereotypes and prejudices giving rise to barriers faced by persons with disabilities, which prevented them from obtaining equal access to education, employment and full participation in decision-making. “Persons with disabilities are entitled to full equality in the enjoyment of their rights, not only with regard to public institutions and services, but also in their dealing with society and in the privacy of their own homes and personal relations”, she stated.

Resource needs could be considerable if States were to ensure due process in criminal justice proceedings, free and fair elections, or even reduce the risk of torture for persons with disabilities, she added. But all States must refrain from hindering individuals or groups from enjoying their economic, social and cultural rights, ensuring that available resources were distributed without discrimination. Wealthier States would be accountable for higher accommodation, and international cooperation must also help ensure progress, especially in less developed nations.

Attitudes, rather than limited resources, were often the strongest barriers to the exercise of civil and political rights or economic, social and cultural rights by persons with disabilities, she said. Rules blocking persons from obtaining personal documents or voting in elections could be altered, often at little expense. Access to education or employment could sometimes be improved through simple and inexpensive regulatory changes.

Encouraging delegates to ensure that the treaty strongly emphasized the need for effective national human rights protection, she also called on States to use lessons learned and best practices to improve the existing system of human rights treaty monitoring bodies. Any monitoring system set up by the new treaty should provide maximum opportunities for national deliberation on improving human rights, and useful advice and guidance to States. It should also help raise awareness, promote international cooperation, and facilitate full participation of those whose rights were being questioned or violated.

DISABILITY CONVENTION COMMITTEE NEARS CONSENSUS ON HEALTH,LABOUR RIGHTS, PARTICIPATION IN SOCIETY

http://www.nieuwsbank.nl/en/2006/01/30/f019.htm

NEW YORK, 30 January – The General Assembly Committee drafting the first-ever treaty on disability rights last week came closer to an agreement on the issues of respect for the home and the family, education, health, habilitation and rehabilitation, work and employment, adequate standard of living and social protection, statistics and data collection, and participation in political and public life, cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport.

“We had a very good discussion , with a very rich debate, and I would like to thank our colleagues for this”, said Ambassador Don MacKay (New Zealand), the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities, which is holding its seventh session at the United Nations.

Delegates and disability organizations expressed general support for article 23, which would require States Parties to seek to eliminate discrimination in matters relating to marriage, family and personal relations. Persons with disabilities should not be denied the opportunity to have sexual and intimate relationships and experience parenthood. They should have the right on an equal basis with others to marry and found a family, to decide on the number and spacing of their children, and to be able to adopt children. Children should not be separated from their parents on the basis of a disability of the child or one or both parents.

Brazil, the European Union, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, the United States and the International Disability Caucus proposed an additional paragraph affirming that, where the immediate family is unable to care for a child with disabilities, States should seek to provide alternative care within the extended family, and failing that within the community.

Participants generally supported article 24, under which States are to recognize the right of persons with disabilities to education and ensure their access to schooling, vocational training, adult education and lifelong learning. Children with disabilities should access inclusive and free primary and secondary education, as well as reasonable accommodation of their requirements. Inclusive education and lifelong learning should foster the development of the abilities, talents and creativity of persons with disabilities, as well as a sense of dignity and self-worth. Education should be provided in the appropriate communication means and modes, educational techniques and materials.

Iran, Kenya, Mexico, Morocco, Senegal, South Africa, Uganda and the International Disability Caucus argued for a stronger provision on training, and several delegations called for a provision on individualized support measures.

Differences remained on article 25, particularly on the reference to sexual and reproductive health services. This article would require States to recognize that persons with disabilities have the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination. States would seek to ensure access to health services and rehabilitation; provide persons with disabilities with the same health services as provided other persons, as well as those health services needed because of their disabilities; require health professionals to provide quality care on the basis of free and informed consent; and prohibit discrimination in the provision of health insurance.

Participants expressed widespread support for article 26, which would requireStates to enable persons with disabilities to attain their maximum independence, physical, mental, social and vocational ability and full inclusion in all aspects of life. States would provide comprehensive habilitation and rehabilitation services, particularly in the areas of health, employment, education and social services. Such services and programmes should begin at the earliest possible stage and be based on the assessment of individual needs.

There was general support for article27, under which States would recognize the equal right of persons with disabilities to work and to gain a living by work freely chosen. States should set an example by employing persons with disabilities in the public sector, and seek to protect them in the areas of recruitment, hiring, career advancement, working conditions, equal opportunities, equal remuneration, safe and healthy working conditions, and the redressing of grievances. Persons with disabilities should exercise their labour and trade union rights and have access to guidance programmes, placement services and vocational training. States should promote self-employment, entrepreneurship and starting one’s own business, and encourage employers to hire persons with disabilities through affirmative action and incentives.

Several delegations proposed adding provisions on protection for persons unable to work in the open market, protection from harassment in the workplace, disabilities acquired in the workplace and forced and compulsory labour. Participants agreed on the need for further consultation on adding a specific reference to the private sector.

Participants expressed support to article 28, which would require States to recognize the right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living — including adequate food, clothing and housing — and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. States would recognize the right of persons with disabilities to social protection and seek to ensure their access to affordable services, public housing, devices and assistance for disability-related needs, and public assistance for persons with disabilities living in poverty, including covering disability-related expenses.

Participants generally supported article 29, under which States would guarantee to persons with disabilities their political rights and the opportunity to enjoy them. They would seek to ensure their equal participation in political and public life, directly or through representatives; their right to stand for elections, hold office and perform public functions at all levels of government; and their participation in public affairs, in political parties and in non-governmental organizations.

There was widespread support for article 30, which would require States to recognize the equal right of persons with disabilities to take part in cultural life and seek to ensure that they enjoy access to cultural materials, television programmes, films and theatre in accessible formats; have access to theatres, museums, cinemas, libraries and tourism services; have the opportunity to develop and utilize their creative, artistic and intellectual potential for the enrichment of society; and be equally entitled to recognition and support of their cultural and linguistic identity. Laws protecting intellectual property rights should not constitute a barrier to access to cultural materials, while respecting the provisions of international law.

Under that article, persons with disabilities should also participate equally in recreational, leisure and sporting activities. States would encourage their participation in mainstream sporting activities; ensure their opportunities to organize and participate in disability-specific sporting and recreational activities; ensure their access to sporting, recreational and tourism venues; and ensure that children with disabilities can equally participate in play, recreation, leisure and sporting activities, including at school.

There was widespread support for article 31, which would require States to collect information, statistics and statistical data to enable them to enact policies giving effect to the Convention. Information-gathering should ensure confidentiality and privacy, and would also be used to help assess the implementation of the Convention by States. Disability organizations asked to be consulted on information and data collecting.

More than 400 representatives from governments and non-governmental organizations are attending the session. They are expected to conclude the second full reading of the Convention by 3 February, the last day of the current session.

SOCIAL JUSTICE

3% quota for disabled in govt-aided NGOs

By Subodh Ghildiyal/TNN

TOI, Bombay 29/01/2006

New Delhi: With some government will at work, the disabled may finally get access to 3% jobs in the NGOs. Seeking to restore the lapses in government rules, the social justice ministry has added the disabled to the group of beneficiaries, besides SCs/ST/OBCs, for job reservation in NGOs receiving government grants above Rs 20 lakh.

The ministry’s missive to all the ministries and government departments comes after the General Finance Rules 2005, which govern quota rules in NGOs, gave a complete go-by to persons with disabilities. In force since July 2005, the GFR stipulated that the SC/STs and OBCs be given reservation in NGOs as per the existing quota norms.

To ensure that the attempt to give a place to the disabled in NGOs does not remain on paper, the social justice ministry has sought an annual report from all the ministries on the status on their employment in voluntary organisations receiving grants-in-aid from them.

Sources said the fresh step is to neutralise the handicap in the GFR. The ministry has based the rationale of extending quota to the disabled on the Persons with Disabilities Act of 1995. It mandates 3% jobs for persons suffering from blindness or low vision, hearing impairment and locomotor disability/ cerebral palsy, against posts identified for them in all government and aided establishments.

Incorporating the criteria for reservation in NGOs from the GFR, the order states that voluntary organisations with an annual grant of Rs 20 lakh and workforce over 20 persons would have to implement the quota regime. It says, “The ministries/departments should insist on the above provisions relating to the employment of persons with disabilities by the voluntary organisations as a precondition for release of grant.’’

In the old GFR, a minimum grant of Rs 2 lakh made an NGO liable for implementing job quota. Officials say this norm has remained virtually ignored all these years. The new GFR has hiked the grant-in-aid to Rs 20 lakh.

Disability chief slams government

The Chairman of the Disability Rights Commission has attacked the government for sidelining disabled people.

Geoff Adams-Spink

BBC News website age & disability correspondent

Mr Massie attacked government for its lazy fatalism

During a speech in central London, Bert Massie said the problem lay in “a lazy fatalism and a low expectations culture” over those with disabilities.

He said targets for reducing poverty and increasing the number of people in work risked being missed.

Mr Massie told the BBC housing policies failed disabled people, while teaching with phonics excluded deaf children.

The DRC is launching an advertising campaign to highlight the impact of discrimination on the lives of disabled people.

Mr Massie told BBC Radio Four’s Today programme the needs of disabled people needed to be considered at the beginning of government policy.

Our argument is that disability, disabled people, has to be at the centre of government policy across all policies, otherwise those policies will fail

“You consider the needs of deaf children immediately at the beginning of the policy, not as a little add-on towards the end,” he said on phonics.

“…You might go for phonetics, provided you build in provision for disabled people straight away.

He said: “Across a whole swathe of public policy, disabled people have not been taken into account and because of that, the government is going to miss the target it’s setting for the whole population.

“What we’re actually facing – I think – in government, is a lazy fatalism,” he said.

“Our argument is that disability, disabled people, has to be at the centre of government policy across all policies, otherwise those policies will fail.”

‘Left behind’

During his speech at Westminster Hall, Mr Massie was joined by Conservative leader David Cameron and disability minister Anne McGuire.

According to the DRC, recent figures show that the number of disabled adults and people with long-term health conditions living in poverty has grown in the past ten years.

“The inequality experienced by disabled people affects us all,” said Mr Massie.

“It stands between this government and the ability to achieve its core ambitions for Britain – despite positive steps in some areas, public policy is in danger of leaving disabled people behind.”

The DRC chairman says that addressing some of the key challenges in public policy – unemployment, child poverty, a lack of skills – means having to consider the circumstances of disabled people.

“Only by putting disability at the heart of public policy can policy succeed today and in the future,” he said.

“But for some reason…public policy makers are not thinking about disability – it’s considered something ‘over there’…something to do with wheelchairs and ramps.”

The DRC points out that four out of ten people who are out of work have disabilities.

It says that the rate of income poverty amongst working-age disabled adults is double that of non-disabled adults and had risen over the past decade.

Expectations

And in addressing the skills shortage facing the UK economy, the DRC points out that a third of people who have no qualifications at all are disabled – a gap which has widened since 1997.

“Successive governments have failed to break the culture of low expectations that holds disabled people back – including the present administration,” said Mr Massie said in his speech.

“There is a lazy fatalism that too often shapes the perceptions that politicians have of disabled people.”

Mr Massie said the failure to address disability stood between the government and its own targets.

As examples, Mr Massie cited:

The introduction of phonics in literacy teaching which takes no account of deaf children

The steep rise in the institutionalisation of people with learning disabilities and mental health problems

The refusal to introduce lifetime homes standards – which would make the housing stock more accessible and more easily adaptable – which fails to consider people’s long-term needs

The issue could be better tackled, he thinks, if perceptions changed.

“Society still tends to come from the point of view that its best response to disability is through, care, welfare and charity rather than extending rights, opportunities and citizenship,” he says.

“Our historic approach to disability has been to institutionalise low expectations of disabled people.”

The government has taken a number of steps since 1997 to reduce the inequalities between disabled and non-disabled people.

Although the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act came into being under a Conservative administration, it has been progressively implemented by Labour governments.

And it was Labour that established the DRC in order to oversee disability rights in the UK.

The 2005 Disability Discrimination Act was passed just before the last general election and further extended the rights of disabled people.

And a year ago the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit published a report – Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People – which set out an ambitious 20 year plan for dealing with inequality and discrimination

Disability equality code of practice leaves no room for excuses

26 January 2006 11:24

Public sector employers have “no excuses” for ignoring the new code of practice on promoting disability equality, the government has warned.

The Duty to Promote Disability Equality requires public sector employers to produce a disability equality scheme to outline their policies, practices and procedures on disabled people.

Anne MacGuire, minister for disabled people, said public authorities now had the opportunity to plan ahead before the duty comes into force in December 2006.

“There is no excuse for not understanding what you have to do,” MacGuire told delegates at a Disability Rights Commission (DRC) reception this week to mark the publication of the code.

DRC chairman Bert Massie urged public sector employers to be proactive in instigating the policy.

“Public authorities must involve disabled people and take disability policies beyond the brief,” he said. “Take the code home with you, read it, memorise it and then make sure every public authority knows it.”

www.personneltoday.com