Interviewer: Megan Belcher
Interviewee: Roger Berry
Introductions
Megan (00:00:03):
Okay. Right. We are recording. So the things I just want to say at the beginning are,
basically within these interviews, if you could only try to refer to your own actions and
obviously talk about general things that might be of public record, but just we’re kind
of trying to avoid really specifically talking about individual people.
Roger (00:00:26):
Okay.
Megan (00:00:29):
Obviously, it’s slightly different for you, because all of your colleagues would have
been publicly in that role, so it’s a bit different, that’s just what we’re saying to
everybody, where it might be private citizens whose names are coming up. Obviously, it’s
a bit different.
Megan (00:00:45):
So everything that we are going to discuss will be placed in the care of the Museum
Service, which has a process in place for secure storage of data, which is GDPR
compliant. Well, the process for the interview, because it’s an oral history interview
rather than a back and forward, I’ll be nodding along to your answers, rather than giving
you verbal cues.
Roger (00:01:13):
Okay. Okay.
Megan (00:01:15):
If you see me doing this, don’t panic. I am engaged. It’s just we want to capture your
voice more than mine, if that’s okay with you?
Roger (00:01:24):
That’s fine.
Megan (00:01:27):
So, things to say, it is the
Roger (00:01:36):
Megan (00:01:37):
Yeah. And this interview is part of our
Beginnings
Megan (00:01:46):
Can you tell me a little bit about your activism or Disability rights background?
Roger (00:01:54):
I guess I first got engaged when I was an [inaudible 00:01:57] Councillor back in the
Roger (00:02:39):
But essentially, I became more and more aware of the issues that Disabled people faced.
I mean, obviously
Megan (00:03:28):
Okay. So you said that was in the
Becoming a Member of Parliament
Roger (00:03:37):
That was the scene in
Introducing the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill 1993
Roger (00:04:37):
And that’s really when I was elected in
Megan (00:05:48):
Amazing. So you say that you were working quite inclusively with
Roger (00:06:07):
The aims of Alf… I mean, it was just one bill. It was the same bill. I mean, Alf’s
bill was designed to secure equal rights for Disabled people and it was meant to cover
tackling discrimination in employment, housing, et cetera, et cetera. It was meant to
set up a Disabled rights commission that would advise government on how to improve
legislation. So the bill that I picked up was exactly the same as Alf’s bill, and it was
the same bill that the
Roger (00:06:49):
So what that meant was, there was actually an organisation that became the Rights Now
campaign that originally had the interesting acronym, VOADL, which was
Rights Now!
Roger (00:07:40):
And so it was a coalition and this coalition existed before I’d got in parliament, as I
say to support Alf’s bill. And this coalition was incredibly well organized and running
and ready to pick up Alf’s bill and support whoever was the lucky MP to pursue that. And
that’s essentially how the right… We then thought, “Well, VOADL’s a pretty daft
acronym. People won’t understand it.”
Roger (00:08:17):
And there were various… I mean, the government was hostile. I mean, the then
government basically said, “All we need is more education and persuasion.” This may
sound familiar. And we pointed out that there’d been decades, indeed centuries to have
education and persuasion, and it hadn’t yet given the same rights to Disabled people
that, for example, protected others from discrimination on grounds of race and gender.
So basically the parliamentary process then became rather complicated, which I can go
into if you want me to, but I mean, that was the start of the campaign. The government
clearly didn’t want it to happen. The
Roger (00:09:08):
My own view was that I couldn’t see any way that the then conservative government was
going to accept the bill. They’d wrecked Alf’s bill. But there was a unique opportunity
to campaign on an issue that eventually, we hoped we would win through on. And that’s
essentially what we did. We used parliament as a process, really for mobilizing people’s
activities. The establishment never hands down legislation, they never give you things
that they think you shouldn’t have. And at the time, the establishment did not think
there should be any specific legislation protecting the rights of Disabled people. So we
knew that this was a… We’d use parliament to build on the campaign and hopefully it
someday in the future, we would get the kind of legislation actually that we now have,
although that’s another story. We’ve still got a long way to go.
Megan (00:10:03):
Okay. So I will definitely go into the whole parliamentary processes in a minute, but
you were talking about the hostilities that the establishment and the government had
towards the group, the
Roger (00:10:45):
There clearly was and still is, and probably always will be a conflict in a sense between
the of and the for. I mean,
Roger (00:11:56):
So essentially the control of the organisation is in the hands of non-disabled people.
So, that tension was always there. But in terms of campaigning, I think both in terms of
the civil rights Disabled persons bill and to date, there is an enormous amount of
cooperation. I mean, when organisations can work together, they can achieve far more
than if they’re fighting each other. But the reality is, an organisation of Disabled
people is clearly not the same as organisations that are not run by Disabled people, but
are seeking to work for disabled people.
Parliamentary manoeuvers
Megan (00:12:32):
Yeah. I completely understand that. So let’s go into the process of your putting the
bill in, and it being read within the committee. Can you talk through what happened and
any issues that arose?
Roger (00:12:50):
Well, the interesting thing about the system then, I think it’s still the system now, is
that the member of parliament who is promoting the bill can effectively choose who sits
on the committee. I had, I won’t mention the name unless I’m allowed to, it’s not a
public record, but there was a local MP who was totally opposed to the legislation and
wanted to sit on the committee. And I said, no, for the simple reason that on a
committee, if you’re opposed to a bill, you just keep tabling amendments, you run out of
time, the bill never gets out of committee. And I know that this individual is perfectly
clear about that was what he would do. He went on to engage in a similar wrecking tactic
a bit later.
Roger (00:13:34):
But in the committee, I had to have people I knew who would give the bill a fair hearing.
I appointed MPs on a cross party basis. There were members of parliament from all
political parties who supported the bill. I mean, obviously there were more from some
parties than others, but I was very keen to have a broad coalition, including
Roger (00:14:26):
And to cut a long story short, the then dramatic event was that, I mean, normally you
would expect the government minister responsible for dealing with this bill, i.e.
Wreckers
Roger (00:15:15):
And it was essentially at that so-called report stage that we saw 80 odd amendments
tabled by conservative backbenchers, one of whom was the man I’d kept off the committee,
which effectively resulted in wrecking the bill because we’d run out of time. I mean,
they were wrecking amendments. I mean, 80 amendments at report stage, the final debate,
you can’t get through them. So the bill fell because there hadn’t been time for
parliament to debate all these amendments.
Roger (00:15:50):
And I mean, at the time, all of the backbenchers, there were five Tory backbenchers who
tabled these bills, they all claimed that this had nothing to do with the government.
Blocking the streets
Roger (00:16:55):
So the next stage was… We thought, “Well, we’ve got to keep trucking.” And we
organized a big rally. I mean, I didn’t organize it, but the movement organized a big
rally in
Roger (00:17:38):
And then the most helpful thing that came out was that the media discovered that the key
organizers, sorry, administrator of the
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
Roger (00:18:34):
And eventually, and the demos carried on and members of parliament were being lobbied in
their constituencies, et cetera. And that eventually led to a situation where the
government said it would then consult on its own Disability Discrimination Act, which was
carried in
Roger (00:19:40):
And the problem was that, I mean, the government had been quite clear about it, they
really didn’t want this legislation. It was being opposed very strongly by the
Roger (00:20:06):
So, that was where we were. But it meant that there was now a recognition that
parliament not only could, but had legislated for some, albeit modest, rights for
Disabled people. And it just meant that from there on, various other piece of
legislation would be introduced until eventually under different government we got a new
Disability Discrimination Act. We got the Disability Rights Commission established. And
then of course in
Megan (00:21:01):
Definitely. That’s actually one of my questions. Okay. So I understand the timeline.
What was your person involvement with the conservative act? Were you involved at all in
terms of what went into it?
Roger (00:21:22):
No, no. No, it doesn’t work that way. No, I wasn’t. I mean, I took part in the debates
with great interest, as did many other colleagues and proposed amendments, which were not
accepted. At the end of the day, the government had a very, very clear majority. They
had their piece of legislation. They weren’t going to tackle education. They weren’t
going to establish a Disabled Rights Commission. They were quite clear. I mean, they
still genuinely argued, well, they still argued that this was really all about persuasion
and education and stuff. It wasn’t about legislating. And they were quite open about
legislation did run contrary to their deregulation policies. And because they were
rights, I mean, it did.
Roger (00:22:17):
I mean, the government of the day, it was deeply into deregulation on a big scale and
what we were about was more regulation. And so there was a fundamental conflict of
approach to what kind of society and what kind of role for government we felt was
appropriate. So there was no… I wasn’t asked for advice, but in the debates,
obviously along with other colleagues, I was trying to table amendments to strengthen the
’95 Discrimination Act. I don’t think we won any of the votes. So what went to Her
Majesty for signing was the document the government wanted.
Megan (00:23:06):
Okay. So after the document… Well, not the document, the bill was brought into law,
what was the process for the previous broad church group? Had it completely disbanded
and your involvement with it?
Roger (00:23:24):
Yeah. No, it didn’t completely disband. And there was, interestingly, I mean, there are
various all-party groups in parliament and we had an all-party Disability rights group or
all party Disability group, which I was section, then chair, and it was a cross party
group. So we had a conservative as vice chair and so, or vice versa. I can’t remember.
But it was a cross party group. And that group, we used to meet regularly and we would
lobby for changes in relation to Disability issues across the piece. And outside of
parliament, I mean, it was of course the case that organisations of and for Disabled
people carried on working and lobbying. And they would support legislation that they
felt was moving the cause forward and obviously oppose things they felt were holding
things back. And so I think in fairness to all the organisations that originally got
involved, I think most of them carried on campaigning for better legislation, further
improvements to make legislation more comprehensive.
Looking back
Megan (00:24:37):
Okay. So I know you said earlier about looking back in hindsight, is there anything that
you wish could have been done more? Obviously with the bill, but also just in terms
of… Actually no, I’m getting confused now. So just looking back, is there any
comments you’d like to make about any of the processes about what you thought could have
gone better or could have been improved on at the time, obviously with hindsight?
Roger (00:25:14):
I mean, I think in terms of the campaigning, I mean a number of us spent a lot of time
meeting Disability groups, and learning in my case as currently a non-disabled person
learning a lot from Disabled people’s experiences. And I guess we did… I mean, all
sections of the movement, we had lots of meetings and campaigning. Looking back on it,
the one regret I’ve got is that we didn’t actually try to mobilize support in local
government much more, which is a bit odd given that my experience had been originally in
local government. And I think that [inaudible 00:26:00], I mean there were good local
authorities. I mean, the GLC and I would argue the [Avon 00:26:06] also, and other good
local authorities were doing some good stuff, working with Disabled people, asking the
right questions, trying to agree about how they could improve life chances for people in
their particular local areas.
Roger (00:26:19):
I think a disadvantage of being a parliamentarian is that there’s so much work to do
there and it becomes all encompassing. We tended, I think, to not look outwards enough
and I think perhaps we did lots of meetings, but I’m not sure we paid enough attention
trying to support from local authorities and to work with local authorities. Although
the good ones always supported the campaign, but the others we could have spent more
time, I think working on. But there’s only 24 hours in the day and some things can be
done, some things can’t be done, but that’s a regret.
Megan (00:27:03):
Okay. So I know you mentioned it earlier about what you thought about the policy changes
after the
Roger (00:27:24):
Well, I mean there was an issue of course, about whether the commission for racial
equality and Disability rights… Sorry, the Disability Rights Commission and so on
should be merged into a single Equalities Commission. At the time I thought, and I
think… There was a division in the civil rights movement. There was a division about
somebody said, “No, there ought to be a single commission supporting equality for
Disabled people. There ought to be a simple commission for racial equality, dealing with
racial inequality issues and so forth.” I thought, because I could think of lots of
other areas of inequality that weren’t covered by either. I mean, neither directly
addressed class inequality, income inequality.
Slashed budgets
Roger (00:28:17):
So I was persuaded that inequalities and human rights commission had the right, that was
the all-embracing organisation that could operate effectively across equal rights issues,
because people don’t fall into particular categories. If I happen to be a black Disabled
woman, then maybe I think the Equality Human Rights Commission would deal with my
concerns more than just having to deal with three organisations. So, let’s be clear
about this, there was an advantage. The problem, I certainly wasn’t happy about part of
the leadership of the Equality Human Rights Commission, and I perhaps better not be more
explicit unless you press me, there were some very good Disabled activists involved and
they were excellent, but at some of the more senior levels, there were some issues.
Roger (00:29:08):
But then after the
Roger (00:30:08):
I mean, for the
Roger (00:31:11):
So I think it’s about enforcing legislation, I think it’s about providing resources to
ensure that’s done properly. And I think when it comes to, for example, social security
issues, which are mega. That is about [inaudible 00:31:26] providing the money to ensure
that the social security system does provide people with what the legislation says they
should have. So I think the current situation is perhaps critically about, not only
seeking to improve equal rights legislation that we’ve got, but it’s also about the
enforcement and resourcing it properly. But it’s also the case that in the case of the
Disability Rights Movement, I mean, there’s no doubt that Disabled people are listened to
more than was the case
Looking forwards
Megan (00:32:28):
Okay. So I think the final question would be, in terms of your struggle in the process
in the
Roger (00:33:01):
I think first of all, today I think the whole independent living issue is a much livelier
issue… I mean, it’s also been a very important issue for Disabled people, but I think
for public policy, I think much, much more needs to be done to ensure that Disabled
people have an independent living experience that they want, rather than what’s imposed
upon them. So, I mean, there are specific things that need to be done.
Roger (00:33:38):
I just think people have got to keep speaking out. I mean, I just think… And building
alliances. I mean, I think the equal rights movement, I mean the history of it, it’s
very interesting. I’ve recently watched the Mrs. America TV program. Now that was quite
interesting. The campaign for women’s rights in
Roger (00:34:25):
And what Mrs. America the… I mean, it’s true, historically it is true that in the
Roger (00:35:42):
And so I guess, what just heartens me about this in a sense is it’s the inevitability of
gradualism. And so I think what I’m trying to say is, I think whether it’s the
Disability Rights Movement or any other equalities movement, I think is about picking
issues, single-mindedly focusing on some key issues, in a sense one at a time to make
further progress. I mean, social security, for goodness sake, has to be a priority.
It’s a priority, not only for disabled people, but for non-Disabled people as well, but
it’s failing disabled people mega. Absolutely. And maybe the emphasis should be on
picking two or three really key issues for disabled people and focusing resolutely on
those. But that’s where I think I’m being more pessimistic and think that we can’t do
everything at once.
Wrapping up
Megan (00:36:40):
Perfect. Thank you so much. So we’ve covered a lot today, but is there anything you’d
like to bring up that we haven’t gone over already? Anything that sticks in your mind?
Roger (00:36:53):
I don’t think so. I think I’ve probably had my fair whack.
Megan (00:37:01):
Okay. So do you require any restrictions on the use or availability of your interview or
any part of it at this point or in the future? You can change your mind at any point and
just let us know.
Roger (00:37:13):
No. No, you can just edit the less clear bits. No, no, that’s absolutely fine. No,
that’s…
Megan (00:37:22):
Perfect. So I am basically, the process now is going to be that we’ll get it transcribed
and then I’m going to go through and do a whole bunch of coding and pick out the key
themes.
Roger (00:37:35):
Okay, sounds good.
Megan (00:37:36):
Anything that comes up, would you be happy to do a second interview?
Roger (00:37:39):
Yes, of course I would. Yeah. Yeah.
Megan (00:37:41):
Ah, that’s amazing. Thank you so much.
Roger (00:37:44):
I mean, personally, I’d find it interesting just to see the… I mean, you’ve recorded
it, if you want to send me the link, I’d find that interesting. And if it… Gosh, the
terrible thing about that is, then there’ll be things that I wished I hadn’t said and
things I wished I had said, hopefully more of the second than first. But no, seriously,
I mean if it’s no trouble to you, just ping me the link. But you can do whatever you
like with it. That was the deal. And I leave it to you, Megan, to make the judgment.
Megan (00:38:16):
Perfect. Okay. So I’ll download it and then I’ll send it over to you. I’ll go through
the consent form in a minute and just check that everything’s signed that needs to be
signed.
Roger (00:38:26):
Sure. Yeah.
Megan (00:38:26):
And yeah, I’ll hopefully be in touch with you soon. Well, I will be in touch either way,
but potentially to do a second interview.
Roger (00:38:32):
That’s great.
Megan (00:38:33):
Amazing. Thank you so much, Roger.
Roger (00:38:35):
Well, good luck with the research and I really hope it goes well. It’s a really
interesting project.
Megan (00:38:41):
Thank you. We appreciate you being part of it.
Roger (00:38:44):
You’re welcome, Megan. Thanks a lot. Take care.
Megan (00:38:45):
Have a good day, bye.
Roger (00:38:45):
Bye.