3. Shaping and Strengthening European Policy on Disability Equality
Submitting Institution
University of LeedsUnit of Assessment
LawSummary Impact Type
SocietalResearch Subject Area(s)
Medical and Health Sciences: Public Health and Health Services
Studies In Human Society: Policy and Administration
Law and Legal Studies: Law
Summary of the impact
Anna Lawson's research into disability equality and human rights
has shaped and strengthened the disability policy of the European Union
(EU) and Council of Europe (CoE).
The research formed the basis of a new EU-wide system for tracking the
progress being made by 34 countries in implementing the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006 (Disability
Convention).
Lawson's research also shaped the content of a CoE Recommendation (issued
to its 47 Member States) on the political rights of disabled people. In
particular, her research influenced the CoE's ground-breaking decision to
include an explicit recognition that mental disability never justifies the
deprivation of voting rights.
Underpinning research
Tracking Implementation of the Disability Convention
This research, reported in [1], was conducted by Lawson
(Lecturer, Senior Lecturer and Professor at Leeds since 1990) and
Priestley (Professor of Disability Policy at Leeds) between 2008 and 2010
as one element of the work of the EU Academic Network of Experts on
Disability (ANED). Its objective was to develop a system for monitoring
and disseminating the progress being made by countries in the European
region in implementing the full spectrum of Disability Convention rights -
thereby enhancing transparency and facilitating the identification of good
practice. The research was carried out in two phases.
Phase 1 consisted of a systematic review of disability-rights monitoring
methods previously used by national governments, the UN and civil society
organisations. These were evaluated using the `social model' theory of
disability. The research found that many of these monitoring methods, when
analysed from this theoretical standpoint, could be criticised for
focusing on measuring physical or mental impairment at the expense of
disabling social barriers (e.g. inaccessible built environments and
information and laws depriving people of the legal capacity to vote or to
bring a case before a court). Lawson and Priestley found that a
model of disability-rights monitoring, consistent with social model
principles, required a focus on the measurement of (1) the existence of
relevant laws and policies, (2) the extent of accessibility barriers and
(3) the participation levels of disabled people in mainstream activities
(such as employment and higher education). They also recommended that data
used for disability-rights monitoring in multiple countries should be
disseminated through a publicly available on-line database which supported
on-going updating and personally-tailored searching.
In Phase 2, Lawson and Priestley developed their work further in
consultation with others, including other members of ANED and
representatives of Eurostat, the World Health Organisation, the Council of
Europe and Disabled People's International. They identified a set of
qualitative indicators to measure rights in law and policy. These were
derived from an analysis of the Disability Convention and were organised
into six broad categories - personal and family life; choice and control;
access to goods and services; education and lifelong learning; work and
employment; and income and poverty. At the same time, another member of
ANED, Grammenos (Professor at the Centre for European Social and Economic
Policy, Brussels) developed quantitative indicators to measure
accessibility barriers and participation levels, taking into account the
feasibility of populating these indicators with relevant statistical data
for all EU countries. These quantitative indicators were organised in the
same way as the qualitative indicators developed by Lawson and
Priestley and presented in one combined report. By way of illustration,
under the umbrella of access to goods and services, a rights in law and
policy indicator was `Providers of financial services are subject to
accessibility requirements in relation to buildings, information and
communications'; an accessibility indicator was `Proportion of level
access accessible public [transport] buses'; and a participation indicator
was `Regular Internet usage [by disabled people] compared to general
population'.
Equalising Access to Political Participation
Lawson conducted this desk-based research [2-5] between
2006 and 2011. It consisted of a socio-legal analysis, based on the social
model theory of disability, of the potential of disability equality and
human rights law to tackle the socially created disabling barriers which
affect people with impairments. The research examined the equality and
accessibility requirements contained in the Disability Convention and
found that, for most countries, compliance would entail radical legal and
policy change. It demonstrated that equality and accessibility obligations
in EU countries, particularly outside the employment field, are patchy,
inconsistent and often fall a long way short of Disability Convention
standards [2]. It also found that people with mental disabilities
are often marginalised in efforts to implement equality and accessibility
obligations and that particular effort is therefore needed to ensure
equality for them [3].
The research addressed equality and accessibility in various policy
domains, one of which was political participation. Barriers preventing
people with impairments from voting were identified in [5]. These
included accessibility barriers, (eg polling stations which are physically
inaccessible to people with mobility impairments) and legal barriers (e.g.
statutes depriving people with mental disabilities of the right to vote
because they are declared incapable by a court or because they are under
guardianship). Legal barriers were particularly common because in 1996 the
UN Human Rights Committee (in General Comment 95) stated that laws
permitting courts to deny voting rights to people with mental disabilities
were consistent with UN human rights treaty law. Lawson's
research, however, found that such laws were discriminatory on grounds of
disability and therefore, she argued, contrary to the Disability
Convention 2006. She recommended in [5] that access and legal
barriers to political participation should be addressed through the
imposition of equality and accessibility obligations and through the
repeal of discriminatory laws.
References to the research
[1] Lawson, A. and Priestley, M. (2013) `Potential,
Principle and Pragmatism in Concurrent Multinational Monitoring:
Disability Rights in the European Union', International Journal of
Human Rights (advanced access online at
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2013.834494).
Available on request from the University.
[3] Lawson, A., (2008) `People with Psychosocial Impairments or
Conditions, Reasonable Accommodation and the Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities' 26 Law in Context 26: 62-84. Listed in
REF2 and available on request from the University.
[4] Lawson, A. (2008) Disability and Equality Law in Britain:
The Role of Reasonable Adjustment: Oxford, Hart Publishing. Listed
in REF2 and available on request from the University
[5] Lawson, A. (2007) `The United Nations Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities: New Era or False Dawn?', Syracuse
Journal of International Law and Commerce 563-619. (see, in
particular, pages 567, 572, 576-577 and 606). Available on request from
the University.
The research was funded by a number of grants which were awarded after
open competition:
• PROGRESS initiative VT/2007/005 (€1.5 million)
• JUST/2011/PROG/PR/01/D3-30-CE-0450002/00-88 (€1.95million)
• Arts and Humanities Research Council, research leave January-June 2007
(£26,000)
Details of the impact
(i) Shaping the EU System for Tracking Implementation of
the Disability Convention
The research described in Section 2
and reported in [1] was initiated by a request to ANED from the
European Commission. ANED, which is funded by the Commission, was
established to conduct policy-relevant research and provide the Commission
with an evidence base for its legislative and policy-making activities in
the disability field. It is co-ordinated by Leeds' interdisciplinary
Centre for Disability Studies in partnership with a Dutch management
consultancy firm. Priestley has been its scientific director since 2007,
since which time Lawson has also been a member of its
co-ordinating research team. The Commission was regularly updated on the
progress of Lawson and Priestley's research on disability-rights
monitoring (described in Section 2) and provided with reports subsequently
published on the ANED website. The impact of the research was thus
grounded on a strategic partnership between the researchers and the
research- users.
In 2010 the European Commission adopted a strategy to guide its work for
the next decade - the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020. This
includes an express commitment to adopt the monitoring approach developed
by Lawson and Priestley as the "general principles for monitoring
and evaluating the Strategy" [A, page 40].
In addition, the Strategy set out plans for building on the
recommendations of Lawson and Priestley by developing an online
tool to assist in monitoring disability policy instruments in the 34 ANED
countries [A, pages 55-58]. The online tool was developed
by ANED and, after consultation with the EU High Level Group of States
representatives in the disability field, launched in 2012 as the
`Disability Online Tool of the Commission' (DOTCOM) [B].
DOTCOM is a publicly accessible database which is regularly updated by
ANED members and contains more than 1,500 entries. It includes indicators
of rights in law and policy, broadly based on those suggested by Lawson
and Priestley and described in Section 2. Currently, however, the
statistical indicators are reported separately on the ANED website.
Against each of the 43 DOTCOM indicators, information is made available in
DOTCOM for each of ANED's 34 countries and also for the EU-level about the
existence, content and location (through web links) of any relevant law or
policy. Searches may be conducted by indicator or by country. DOTCOM thus
equips EU and national policy-makers, researchers, disability-rights
campaigners, and others with a convenient means of locating information
essential for mutual learning and for tracking progress towards
implementation of disability rights.
The Head of the Disability Unit in the European Commission, confirming
the impact of the research described in Section 2 on the Commission's
disability policy development, observed that: "In particular, ANED's work
on data collection and dissemination as well as the development of
relevant indicators has strengthened our approach to disability rights
monitoring" [C]. In 2012 the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights
(FRA) began working on disability-rights monitoring and data collection.
The research carried out by Lawson and Priestley for ANED has
shaped FRA's approach to this task. In the words of FRA's Head of Equality
and Citizens' Rights Department, it has made an `important contribution'
to the development of the Agency's data collection strategy in the
disability field' [D].
(ii) Strengthening the Council of Europe's Recommendation
on Political Participation
In 2009 the CoE established a sub-committee - the Committee of Experts on
the Participation of People with Disabilities in Political and Public Life
(CAHPAH-PPL) - to evaluate and promote the participation of persons with
disabilities in political and public life. In March 2011 Lawson
attended a meeting to advise CAHPAH-PPL. She presented her research on the
equality and accessibility obligations of the Disability Convention [2-5],
and their implications for the particular policy domain of political
participation. She explained her research finding that compliance with the
Disability Convention requires action to ensure that disabled people are
not prevented from voting by discriminatory laws (including laws denying
voting rights to people with mental disabilities on the basis of a court
ruling or loss of legal capacity). She also used her research to
demonstrate that the Disability Convention requires the progressive
dismantling of accessibility barriers (e.g. in physical structures and
information) associated with voting and elections.
The Committee agreed to take account of Lawson's research and
advice, as is indicated in the following quote from the minutes: "The
Committee ... decided to take account of her comments and opinions when
drawing up recommendations." [E].
Committee members agreed that a draft Recommendation should include
strong provisions on improving accessibility but there was initial
reluctance amongst some members to condemn the practice (endorsed by the
UN Human Rights Committee in 1996) of depriving people with mental
disabilities of voting rights on the basis of court rulings. However,
after further discussion, and also lobbying from civil society, CAHPAH-PPL
drafted a `recommendation' that fully incorporated all of Lawson's
arguments. This was accepted by CAHPAH-PPL's parent committee, the CoE
Committee of Experts on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CAHPAH)
and, on 16 November 2011, it was formally adopted by the CoE's Committee
of Ministers as `Recommendation CM/Rec(2011)14 of the Committee of
Ministers to Member States on the Participation of Persons with
Disabilities in Political and Public Life'. Since then DOTCOM [B] reveals
that Lithuania has introduced new accessibility obligations for elections;
and that the Lithuanian equality ombudsman has issued guidelines on the
topic.
According to the then Chair of CAHPAH-PPL [F], Lawson's
research `helped the Committee to realise the need to have a strong set of
recommendations that would focus on issues like accessibility and legal
capacity' and was `of paramount importance to help frame the Committee
recommendations and to bring consensus to the group of experts'. According
to the chair of CAHPAH (also then a member of CAHPAH-PPL), Lawson's
work with CAHPAH-PPL (particularly on the issue of voting rights for
people with mental disabilities) `led to' the recommendation [G].
Sources to corroborate the impact
[A] European Commission, `Commission Staff Working Document
Accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and
the Committee of the Regions - European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: A
Renewed Commitment to a Barrier-Free Europe' SEC (2010) 1323 final at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2010:1323:fin:en:doc
in relation to [i]
[B] The Disability Online Tool of the Commission (DOTCOM) at: http://www.disability-
europe.net/dotcom in relation to [i]
[C] Letter from Head of Unit: Rights of People with Disabilities,
European Commission (DG Justice) dated 14 February 2013 in relation to
[i].
[D] Letter from Head of Equality and Citizens' Rights Department,
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights dated January 2013 in
relation to [i].
[E] Confidential report of the 5th meeting of the European
Co-ordination Forum for the Council of Europe Disability Action Plan
2006-2015 (CAHPAH), Committee of Experts on participation of people with
disabilities in political and public life (CAHPAH-PPL), 25 March 2011 in
relation to [ii].
[F] Letter from the 2011 Chair of Council of Europe Committee of
Experts on Participation of People with Disabilities in Political and
Public Life (CAHPAH-PPL), dated 27 January 2013 in relation to [ii].
[G] Letter from the 2011 Chair of Council of Europe Committee of
Experts on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, (CAHPAH) and member of
CAHPAH-PPL dated January 2013 in relation to [ii].
All letters are available on request from the University of Leeds.