NGO
Comments on the draft text
Draft article 19
INTERVENTION BY REHABILITATION INTERNATIONAL
Article 19. Accessibility
Rehabilitation International is joined in this intervention by Disabled
People International (DPI), the World Union for Progressive Judaism,
European Disability Forum, Inclusion International. Landmine Survivors
Network, World Federation of the Deaf, World Blind Union.
Our operating philosophy – Accessibility gives freedom reality
We attach the greatest of importance to the right of access. Human
rights is concerned with more than protecting people against power –
it is also about restoring power to people over their own lives. It
is often said that human rights are indivisible and interdependent.
We believe that this interdependence is demonstrated most graphically
in the context of disability. Protecting the right to liberty against
unwarranted State intrusion is one thing. Making liberty and choice
a reality for persons with disabilities is another. Form and substance
are inseparably linked and we view this draft Article as bringing both
together.
We view the right of access as something that opens up gateways into
the lifeworld – whether the built environment or the communications
or transport environments. It makes the right to liberty real. The built
environment defines common public space – a space where people interact
and lead their daily lives. The communications environment enables people
to interact effectively with each other and with public and private
entities. The transport environment links the built environment.
The harsh reality is that the built, communications and transport environments
were constructed without factoring in the difference of disability –
without respecting and accommodating the difference of disability. Inaccessible
schools has a particularly cruel impact on children whose personal identify
is spoilt by early exclusion and who may never get a chance to overcome
educational deficiencies in later life. The waste to all is palpable.
Our challenge now is twofold. It is to tackle the barriers left to
us by this historical legacy by ensuring that as many of them as possible
are removed. It is also to guarantee that in any future buildings or
communications and transport environments the rights and needs of persons
with disabilities are effectively factored in from the outset. This
is not merely the right thing to do – it is also cost efficient.
It is in this light that we view draft Article 19
Need for Legally Enforceable and Flexible Accessibility Standards
We welcome the draft Article 7.2 (c) with respect to the development
and promulgation of national standards and guidelines. We would prefer
to insert the word’ enact’ instead of ‘promulgate’ to make it plain
that these standards should have the force of law. We would
also like to see the addition of the word ‘enforce’ to make it plain
that public authorities should have an obligation that goes beyond the
mere monitoring of the effectiveness of these standards. We welcome
the sentiment of ‘international cooperation’ in the development of standards.
We can all learn from each other’s mistakes and achievements.
With respect to accessibility standards we are not wedded to any particular
formula of words. We are more concerned to embed an operating philosophy
in the text that leaves as much flexibility as possible for new design
solutions to emerge. Flexibility is needed to enable the standards to
be ratcheted upwards and not remain static. The thinking we prefer is
that the process of ensuring accessibility operates at both a macro
and a micro level. At the macro level, efforts should aim at the greatest
possible accessibility for the greatest possible number. This may not
in fact cover all persons. That is why at the micro level there should
be a requirement of sufficient flexibility to adapt designs to suit
particular categories of persons with disabilities. Both levels are
needed. It is this forward looking dialectic between the macro – the
general - and the micro – the personal - that needs to be captured in
the text.
It might be best to avoid a term of art such as ‘universal
design’ in draft Article 19 (2) (f) which can, despite the best will
in the world, become redundant as technology evolves and to settle instead
on a flexible formula of words such as ‘personal accessibility to all
persons with disabilities’. Having said that we do not oppose
the term ‘universal design’ – we are only concerned that it would be
interpreted flexibly to allow for scientific innovation.
Requirement of Accessibility Must Apply to all New Environments
form the Outset
It is our view that buildings in the public sector and all new communications
and transport environments should automatically be designed in accordance
with the principles of accessibility. We see no reason for exclusions
from this since it has been proven to be cost effective to do so from
the very outset. We welcome the strengthening of the obligations
contained in draft Article 19 (1) (a) to this effect.
With respect to the historical legacy of inaccessible public
buildings we would like to see a provision in the draft text (perhaps
Article 19 (1) (a)) requiring States Parties to formulate and implement
retro-fitting or renovation plans. We should not have to wait
for renovations to occur. They should be required to occur in order
to roll forward a rational plan of accessibility. Progressive achievement
may mean progressive – but it also means achievement. We therefore suggest
new sub-paragraph to paragraph 1 to read
States Parties shall formulate and implement plans to progressively
reduce and eliminate barriers to accessibility for people with disabilities
with respect to existing public buildings.
Accessibility Must be Guaranteed where Public Services are
Delivered through Private Sector
We would like to see a strengthening of the provisions on
the private sector contained in draft Article 19.2 (d). Our
world is one in which public services are being steadily privatized.
If the convention is not alive to this trend and if it does not adequately
reach such public activities that increasingly take place in a private
context it will not be able to achieve its underlying aims. It is in
this regard that we remind delegates that general Comment 5 of the Committee
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights explicitly states:
In a context in which arrangements for the provision of public services
are increasingly being privatized and in which the free market is being
relied on to an ever greater extent, it is essential that private employers,
private suppliers of goods and services, and other non-public entities
be subject to both non-discrimination and equality norms in relation
to persons with disabilities. In circumstances where such protection
does not extend beyond the public domain, the ability of persons with
disabilities to participate in the mainstream of community activities
and to realize their full potential as active members of society will
be severely and often arbitrarily constrained.
Therefore, we propose that the word ‘encourage’ as used in
draft Article 19 (2) (d) should be replaced by the word ’require’.
Furthermore, all new buildings in the private sector that house public
amenities or accommodations (such as restaurants) must, in our view,
conform to the principles of accessibility from the outset. We reiterate
the cost-effectiveness of such an approach.
All ‘Key Services’ must be Accessible
We are of the view that ‘key services’ provided to the public whether
through the public or the private sectors. These services correspond
to basic living needs as well as equal citizenship rights. These include
but are not limited to physicians’ offices, community services, cultural
sites, etc. They should be accessible to persons with disabilities without
exception. Without proper access basic citizenship rights such as access
to Government services including access to courthouses will be undermined.
We therefore propose the following be added after 19.1.(a):
All buildings that house key services for persons with disabilities
must be made fully accessible.
Particular Proposals regarding Sign Language
We believe that Article 2(b) might be further subdivided along
the following lines to address firstly, personal assistants, and secondly,
sign language interpreting:
2(b)1 provide other forms of live assistance including guides,
readers and captioning to facilitate accessibility to public buildings,
facilities and information,
2(b)2 provide sign language interpreters as intermediaries
to interpret information from spoken language into sign language and
from sign language into spoken language for access to public services,
education and to facilitate participation.
The Need to Insert an Obligation of Reasonable Accommodation
We believe that there is some space in draft Article 19 for the concept
of ‘reasonable accommodation’. Inaccessible plant should never be used
as an excuse not to deliver services to persons with disabilities.
We therefore suggest that that Article 19(2)(b) be amended to include
a reference to ‘other forms of reasonable accommodation’ after the words
‘live assistance’.
Need to Insert Language on Incentives as well as Effective
Sanctions
We would also prefer to see some language added to the draft text to
the effect that States Parties should develop both incentives as well
as effective sanctions for failure to comply with domestic standards
of accessibility. Incentive measures can include tax credits, tax holidays,
direct subsidies, low interest loans and technical assistance and advice.
Need to More Explicitly Cover the eEnvironment
We believe that new information and communications technologies (ICTs)
pose both a threat as well as an unparalleled opportunity for persons
with disabilities. We therefore suggest that a separate sub paragraph
be crafted to deal specifically with ICTs. This is particularly important
given the worldwide trend in the migration of public services online.
The Information Society risks exacerbating the isolation of persons
with disabilities as both consumers and citizens. The convention provides
an ideal opportunity to ensure that this does not happen.
Inputs of the African Group on Article 19 on Accessibility
as indicated during the introduction of the article in the Plenary.
New amendments in bold:
State Parties are requested to take progressive appropriate measures
to identify and eliminate barriers and to ensure accessibility for persons
with disabilities to built environment
1. States parties to this Convention shall take progressive
(appropriate-delete) measures to identify and eliminate
obstacles and barriers, and to ensure accessibility for persons
with disabilities to the built environment, to transportation, to information
and communications, including information and communications technologies,
and (to services-delete), in order to ensure the capacity
of persons fully in all aspects of life. The focus of these measures
shall include inter alia;
(a) The construction and renovation of (public-delete) buildings
intended for use by the public, roads and other facilities
for public use, including schools, housing, medical facilities, indoor
and out-door facilities and (publicly owned-delete)
workplaces;
(b) Promoting universal design for mobility aids, devices and
assistive yechnologies and encouraging private entities which produce
these to take into account all aspects of mobility for persons with
disabilities;
(c) The developing and remodelling of public transportation
facilities, communications and (other-delete) services, including electronic
services.
2. States Parties shall also take appropriate measures to:
(a) Ensure provision in buildings and facilities for
public use, audio, signage including in Braille and
easy-to-read-and-understand forms;
(b) Ensure the provision of other forms of personal
and assistive services abd intermediaries, including guides,
readers and sign language interpreters to facilitate accessibility to
buildings and facilities for public use;
(c) Develop, promulgate and monitor implementation of minimum national
standards and guidelines for the accessibility of public facilities
and services intended for use by the public;
(c) bis Facilitating access by persons with disabilities to
mobility aids, devices, assistive technologies and forms of live assistance
and intermediaries including by making them available at affordable
cost;
(d) Ensure private entities that provide public facilties
and services to take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons
with disabilities; undertaking and promoting research, development
and production of new mobility aids, devices and assistive technologies;
(e) Ensure organisations of persons with disabilities
are consulted and fully involved from conception when
standards and guidelines for accessibility are being developed;
(f) Provide training for all stakeholders including professionals
involved in designing structures on accessibility issues for
persons with disabilities.
Intervention by (Australian) National Association of Community
Legal Centres, People with Disability Australia Incorporated, Australian
Federation of Disability Organisations
Mr Chairman:
Thank you for this opportunity to address the Ad Hoc Committee.
This is a fundamentally important article in this convention, which
is directed towards the removal of the structural barriers that disable
people with impairments within our societies. However, the scope of
the article as it is currently drafted is inadequate to remove many
barriers, as key areas, such as goods, equipment, electronic commerce,
aids and appliances are either omitted, or not necessarily included
in the terms used in the article. This is principally because in the
chapeau the article does not refer to key areas and uses terms at different
levels of generality; for example, “transport” and communications,”
are examples of “services” but “services” are listed alongside them.
This creates ambiguities and potential gaps in the scope of the article.
To address these drafting problems, the chapeau should be redrafted
to impose a general obligation to remove all barriers in the areas of
“the built environment, goods, services (including transportation, information,
and communications), facilities, information technology, electronic
commerce (including banking), equipment, aids and appliances.” In this
respect, we make the point that this article might achieve more if it
was more generally framed, and if its specific applications, and implementation
requirements were removed, and taken up in more flexible subsidiary
standards and advisory documents developed through international cooperation
once this convention enters into force.
The article is also far too focused towards the built environment,
which either directly or by implication limits its applicability to
other areas. For example, sub-paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) limit the requirement
to provide Braille and sign languages interpreters to public buildings
and facilities. States must accept a general obligation to remove barriers
in all aspects of the social environment.
The article is also inappropriately limited to the ‘public’ sphere.
Non-state actors are responsible for most of the built environment,
and goods, services, facilities, information technology, electronic
commerce (including banking), equipment, aids and appliances. The article
must be reframed to ensure that the obligation to create an accessible
environment applies to State and non-State actors in equal terms.
One critical area clearly, but very inappropriately, excluded from
this article is domestic (or private) residential accommodation. The
inaccessibility of domestic residential accommodation is one of the
greatest contributors to the extra costs of disability (as funds must
be expended to modify inaccessible premises), to social isolation (as
it prevents people with disability from visiting friends and family
on equal terms with others), and to reliance on specialist services,
which become necessary to compensate for the inaccessibility of the
domestic environment. It is essential that this convention mandates
universal design for residential accommodation.
We also believe the obligation to “develop detailed national standards
for accessibility” set out in paragraph 1 of the equivalent article
in the Bangkok draft ought to be included in this article.
We strongly believe the words “appropriate measures” in the first line
of the chapeau should be replaced with the word “progressive measures”
to make it clear that accessibility is to be achieved within a clear
framework of progressive realization.
Thank you for the opportunity to make this intervention.
|
