Debate contribution: United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 25 November 2024.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

25 November 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4675228

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to debate the motion. However, as with all the other motions that we are debating and that we have debated since we returned in February, I would rather be debating substantive legislation. Indeed, I would rather be debating legislation that, as Danny Donnelly said, incorporates the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities into our law. I would rather be debating practical updates to our statutory framework that at least start to bring us up to speed with other parts of these islands. Nevertheless, I agree with the substance of the motion, and I welcome the fact that the Alliance Party has brought it to the Assembly to debate. I will go on to discuss the specific substance of our amendment. It is clear that we have failed people with disabilities in Northern Ireland by not keeping up to date with equality legislation, and it is clear that we have not done right by them by ensuring that our statute book, statutory agencies and all others who are obliged to follow the law on equality provisions and protections have to meet the same standards as those in other jurisdictions. That is, I am afraid, shaming. It connects to our broad and consistent inability to keep up with equality rights provisions in this place, to deliver on a bill of rights, for example, and, frankly, to put the rights of people — be that people with disabilities or people with other protected characteristics — at the forefront of a rights-based agenda in this jurisdiction. We welcome the motion. I hope that in what is left of the mandate, which hopefully survives and does not collapse, we will see practical legislative action from the Executive through the incorporation of the UN convention into legislation here. Our amendment is designed to add to the original motion by drawing attention to the context around hate crime. For the past number of years, we have seen an increased and elevated level of hate crime against persons with disabilities. We are aware of and have talked regularly in recent months about the spike in race-related hate crime in Northern Ireland and the fact that the incidence of race-related hate crime is now greater than sectarian hate crime in Northern Ireland. Even though it is on a smaller scale, the impact of hate crime against persons with a disability is extraordinary, acute and very serious. It was looked at by Judge Marrinan when he did his review a number of years ago. Both 2022 and 2023 saw record numbers of hate crimes for this jurisdiction. Leonard Cheshire, a charity with which we will all be familiar, described the rate of disability-based hate crime in Northern Ireland as an epidemic. What do we do about it? We think that we need a stand-alone piece of hate crime legislation. We have been calling for that consistently. I note that the Justice Minister previously said that she and her party, as stated in its manifesto, were committed to a stand-alone hate crime Bill. That position has moved to having some provisions of some kind in a sentencing Bill. While it is clear that sentencing provisions are going to be a major part of hate crime legislation, by way of strengthening the guidance for the judiciary in what constitutes an aggravation in relation to hate crime, that is not the totality of hate crime legislation. A range of other things would be in a stand-alone hate crime Bill and, of course, the purpose of having a stand-alone Bill is to allow us to debate the full gamut — the context — of hate crime facing persons with disabilities and, indeed, other protected characteristics. We would be able to scrutinise in detail the statistics and the definitions of hate crime, which is often one of the most vexed and challenging questions that people have when it comes to hate crime, and we would be able to unpack and interrogate those questions and hear from stakeholders.

That was a fulsome defence of his party colleague. I was not attacking his party colleague the Justice Minister. I think that she wants to take action in this area. I will say a couple of things. Number one: it is important that we are all held to account for what we have promised and what we deliver. That includes the Justice Minister. I am candid about that. Number two: it is also true to say that, while I agree with him that we have been shamefully collapsed for about half of the past decade — his party and my party will not disagree on that — it is also the case that we have been back now for getting on for 10 months. Most of the Order Paper today and, indeed, most of the Order Papers in most of the time since we have been back, have not been about legislation, so it is, I am afraid, hard to say that we do not have time to do legislation when we have acres of space in the Order Paper that is taken up by motions. Important though those issues are, they are not practical legislative action. That is an important point to make. However, I look forward to seeing the legislative programme delivered upon. For the legislative programme of 2024, we are far behind schedule already, so perhaps, in the next fortnight, we will see a whole surge of Bills being introduced in the Assembly. That would be great. Let me get back to the central point about why a stand-alone hate crime Bill, which had a particular focus on dealing with what Leonard Cheshire calls:

"the epidemic of hate crime against persons with disabilities"

is so important. It happens, as I said, in a context in which we have failed people with disabilities. We have failed to protect them, not just by their lights but in comparison with neighbouring jurisdictions. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what he intends to do about that and also where we are with the social inclusion strategies. I know that work has slowed down on all of those. In fact, it appears as though work has stopped entirely on some of those. Perhaps he could correct me where I am wrong on that. It is also important to say that a disability strategy was commissioned by the Minister's predecessor, Deirdre Hargey, not long before we broke up for an election and then had a subsequent collapse. It would be helpful to understand where that strategy and study are, because, like so many of the strategies and reviews that go on in this place, it appears to have disappeared into the ether. In the broader context of services and provisions for disabled people, it would be helpful to understand where that is. I will touch very briefly on the DUP amendment. I speak in a personal capacity, not on behalf of others. While it is important to acknowledge that people have sincere views on those issues, the substance of the motion is about the rights of disabled people. I totally acknowledge people's putting down amendments, but I am focused on the question about the rights of disabled people. It is important to say that, if we are serious about delivering on the rights of disabled people, we should be able to pass legislation. I look forward, given what the DUP put down in an amendment today, to hearing what the Communities Minister has in store in legislation to protect and enhance the rights of disabled people, because we have not had any of those promises delivered. Our amendment is about adding to the motion by being clear that we need stand-alone hate crime legislation to protect and defend people in a whole range of protected categories but, in particular, today, to protect disabled people, who face an epidemic of hate crime. I commend our amendment.

1,328 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:40 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification