The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said the court’s ruling, which dismissed discrimination cases against two airlines, had “narrowed the rights” of disabled air passengers.

The three judges ruled that international rules on air travel – the Montreal Convention – should take precedence during flights over UK law and a European regulation on accessibility and discrimination.

The ruling means that disabled people will not be able to claim compensation from an airline if they face discrimination during a flight.

The EHRC had funded the appeals of two disabled men, Tony Hook and Christopher Stott.

Stott had booked a return flight with Thomas Cook to the Greek island of Zante for himself and his wife – his carer – in September 2008 from East Midlands Airport. They had been promised adjacent seats, but on the return flight were not allowed to sit next to each other, which made it difficult for Stott’s wife to attend to his personal care needs.

At trial, a judge had ruled that Thomas Cook breached Stott’s rights under the European regulation, but rejected his damages claim because of the Montreal Convention.

In Hook’s case, British Airways failed to make the seating arrangements the airline had promised him and his family for flights to and from Paphos in Greece in July and August 2008, which made it difficult for his care needs to be met. Hook and his family found the flights so distressing that they pledged never to fly again.

BA had successfully applied at an earlier hearing to have Hook’s damages claim struck out, again because of the Montreal Convention.

In dismissing the two appeals, Lord Justice Maurice Kay concluded that, although there had been “real injuries to their feelings”, this had taken place under the Montreal Convention and not the European regulations, so their compensation claims for “injury to feelings” could not succeed.

EHRC had argued that the Montreal Convention – which covers injury, death and loss of baggage – was “irrelevant” to the rights of disabled travellers because it does not deal with discrimination.  EHRC is now considering taking the two cases to the Supreme Court.

Andy Wright, managing director of Accessible Travel and Leisure, said he was “not surprised” by the treatment the two men and their families had received.

He said the EU regulation had helped protect disabled people as they passed through the airport and boarded and disembarked from aircraft, but airlines were “a law unto themselves” once the plane was airborne and were “not answerable, in my opinion, to any governing body who has the power to prosecute or uphold human rights issues”.

He said airlines can “avoid showing any form of human decency” by blaming decisions on health and safety legislation or the Montreal Convention.

Even the involvement of EHRC has had no real impact because “they are not taken seriously by the airlines as they have no real power or authority”, he added.

John Wadham, EHRC’s legal group director, said: “The decision renders the regulation regarding air travel for disabled passengers toothless.  It offers no protection for disabled travellers who are discriminated against while flying. It also means that disabled passengers cannot get compensation even after an airline has been found to be discriminatory by the courts.”

A Department for Transport spokesman said: “We are currently considering the judgement from the court of appeal in the matter of Stott versus Thomas Cook and Hook versus British Airways.  This is a complex legal area and we are carefully considering the implications of the ruling and how best to address the issues that it raises.”

The Labour MP Tom Blenkinsop said many disabled travellers, particularly stoma bag-users, had been left humiliated after experiences at airport security checkpoints in the UK and Europe.

He spoke out as he introduced his new airport security (people with disabilities) bill, under the Commons ten-minute rule.

Blenkinsop said that one constituent, who has had treatment for cancer and now uses urostomy and colostomy pouches, had faced “humiliation” at several European Union (EU) airports.

She told him that security staff at Budapest airport had wanted to examine her underwear, “despite her attempts to explain that she had colostomy pouches”.

He said: “She was required to attempt to explain that to them in public, in front of fellow holidaymakers in the security queue – an experience she described as ‘totally degrading’.”

The same constituent was also poorly treated at an English airport, while a second disabled traveller, from Ballymena in Northern Ireland, faced a distressing public search at Liverpool’s John Lennon Airport.

His research has revealed similar cases at airports throughout the world.

Blenkinsop said that, despite the need for security procedures, airport staff should still “act with compassion, humanity and common sense”, and not violate passengers’ “fundamental and inalienable right to be treated with dignity”.

His bill would force the government to ensure that all UK airport security staff were “trained in preserving the dignity of stoma patients, while maintaining our security”.

It would also oblige the Foreign Secretary to urge the European Commission to introduce regulations on such training throughout the EU, while the government would have to lobby the International Civil Aviation Organization on the introduction of compulsory training.

Although the bill will receive a second reading on 30 March, ten-minute rule bills rarely become law.

The Department for Transport was unable to comment on Blenkinsop’s bill.

News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com

The warning was issued by the Labour MP John McDonnell, who was taking part in a debate on the future of the factories.

McDonnell said the 54 factories would close unless there was a “change of attitude” from the government.

He said: “This is a fight for those factories, and if the workers want to fight with whatever means possible—industrial action, occupation—and we cannot persuade the government to reconsider, I will be joining them.”

Last month, Remploy workers handed Downing Street a petition of more than 100,000 names, organised by the GMB union, which called for the government to stop the threatened closure of the remaining factories.

Labour MPs lined up during the debate to condemn recommendations on Remploy contained in a report by RADAR chief executive Liz Sayce on the future of employment support for disabled people.

Sayce’s report calls for an end to government ownership and funding of Remploy, and the closure of factories which are “not viable”, but says others could become social enterprises, co-operatives, or “mutuals” owned by employees, with the help of short-term government subsidies.

The report also calls on the government to double the number of disabled people receiving support through the Access to Work scheme.

But Ann Clwyd, the Labour MP who secured the debate, said: “In a period in which unemployment is rising, it is pie in the sky and cruelly misleading to suggest that expanding the Access to Work programme will result in more work for disabled people.”

The disabled MP Dame Anne Begg said that closing the Remploy factories would mean “fewer opportunities for work experience to give people the skills, expertise and background that will allow them into open employment”.

She added: “We cannot do away with the factories if we are serious about getting people with severe disabilities into open employment.”

The only strong backbench support for the idea of closing sheltered factories and encouraging disabled people to work in mainstream employment came from the Liberal Democrat MP Stephen Lloyd, who has a hearing impairment.

He said: “Having disabled people living, studying and working alongside non-disabled people is vital to achieving a more cohesive society.”

He added: “The key, for me, is that it is time finally to address the low expectations that some disabled people have, as well as to challenge stigma that comes from outside.

“That is why it is so important that disabled people should become more visible in open employment.

“The subsidy could be better used to transform Remploy factories into individual viable businesses and to support more Remploy workers into open employment.”

Anne McGuire, the shadow minister for disabled people, accepted that the disability movement believed sheltered factories should be closed.

But she argued that there should “still be a place within our range of opportunities for supported factory employment”.

Another Labour MP, Nick Smith, said: “I am fearful that Remploy closures in places such as Abertillery will lead to its workers moving not to private sector jobs with the appropriate support, but to joining the dole queue alongside former incapacity benefit claimants. That is the reality of what will happen in many parts of the country.”

Maria Miller, the minister for disabled people and the only Conservative MP to speak in the debate, said Remploy’s latest accounts showed that it cost £25,000 to support each of the remaining 2,200 disabled members of factory staff.

She said that the issues facing the Remploy factories were “not new”, but that their operating loss had increased to tens of millions of pounds, while the modernisation plan introduced under the Labour government had “simply not addressed the fundamental weakness in the business model”.

She added: “I want to make it clear that I have not yet made a final decision about the consultation [on Sayce’s report], but I am persuaded that there is a need for change and that the Sayce review suggests a persuasive model for such change.” 

News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com

Campaigners say that the documentary – presented by the veteran BBC journalist John Humphrys – was “shockingly poor” and little better than “propaganda” for the government’s welfare reforms.

The BBC has received 136 complaints about the programme, of which “about 45” mentioned its coverage of disability benefits.

The programme, The Future State of Welfare, claimed that government figures showed that “three-quarters of new claimants who were tested were deemed not to merit” employment and support allowance, the new replacement for incapacity benefit.

In fact, government figures show that of those tested, and once the many successful appeals are included, only just over half of claimants have so far been found fit for work.

The documentary also failed to point out the extensive criticisms of the severity, inaccuracy and inflexibility of the controversial “fitness for work” test, the work capability assessment (WCA).

Instead, Humphrys told viewers that “more stringent” tests had been brought in to “try to flush out people who are claiming on health grounds when they should not be”.

He also failed to point out that government figures show that incapacity benefit fraud is just 0.3 per cent of spending.

A BBC News spokesman said the programme could not be described as “disablist” because “those who are genuinely unable to work through disability or incapacity should not be impacted by the change in policy we examine”.

He refused to accept that the BBC should not have used the “three-quarters of new claimants” figure, or that the programme-makers had misunderstood what the figures actually showed.

The programme-makers have also been criticised for asking pollsters Ipsos MORI to put a “leading” and “loaded” question about IB to members of the public.

The pollsters asked those taking part if they agreed with the statement: “We need stricter tests to ensure people claiming IB because of sickness or disability are genuinely unable to work.”

Tom Mludzinski, a senior research executive with Ipsos MORI, said the company did not believe it was a leading question.

He said: “We had the chief executive and the managing director look at the question to make sure it wasn’t leading.”

But he accepted that few of those questioned would have known what the WCA actually entailed.

He said: “I’m sure it is not a great deal [of people] but that is not to say that people that don’t know about it don’t have an opinion.”

The Labour MP John McDonnell said he was “shocked” by the “offensive” documentary, which “bears no relationship to reality” and was “based on prejudice”.

Disabled activist John McArdle, co-founder of Black Triangle, which campaigns against the unfair use of the WCA, said he was “disgusted” by the programme, which “reinforced stereotypes of people on incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance”.

He said: “We have been working solidly for the past couple of years to dispel these myths and programmes such as that are grossly irresponsible in that we see a responding rise in hate crime and victimisation of disabled people.”

The disabled blogger Mason Dixon, Autistic, who has complained to the BBC, said there were “more omissions, half-truths and blatant untruths in the programme than there are minutes in it”.

He said there was “no intention to be balanced or rigorous” with the “investigation”, and added: “Talking points which are common among government ministers and newspapers hostile to benefit claimants were presented as concrete facts and clearly were intended to advance the shared agenda of all of them towards Britain’s existing welfare system.” 

The BBC spokesman said Humphrys had interviewed a woman with ME who had gone through a WCA and – he claimed – “clearly outlined how distressing she had found it”.

He added: “Both the BBC and John Humphrys consider the programme to be a success – it challenged preconceptions while remaining a balanced and accurate analysis of both emerging policy and public opinion in this highly contentious area.”

News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com

Adam Lotun was one of a handful of wheelchair-users who were told the committee room in Westminster Hall – the oldest part of the Palace of Westminster – was already “full”.

They were later told by other campaigners that there were a number of vacant seats, but Commons staff had refused to remove chairs to make space for more wheelchair-users because it might cause disruption to a later debate.

Instead of being able to watch the debate on 12 October in person, the group of wheelchair-users were taken to a crowded passageway outside the Commons cafe, where they were told they could watch it on a television screen.

But because the area was so busy and noisy, there was no induction loop and the pictures were not subtitled, Lotun was unable to follow the debate.

He has now lodged a complaint with House of Commons authorities, and is considering legal action for disability discrimination under the new Equality Act.

Lisa Nandy, the Labour MP who secured the debate, told MPs that some wheelchair-users were not able to fit into the room because “the majority of chairs were not removed because it may cause disruption to a later debate”, and that the Commons had fallen “far, far short” of the standards that disabled people should expect when they visit parliament.

The Commons speaker, John Bercow, said he attached the “greatest possible importance to all of our proceedings being accessible to everyone” and ordered an investigation by the Commons head of diversity.

That investigation has now concluded that “while errors were made, and should never have happened, these were not made maliciously” and were “the result of tensions created by trying to meet the needs of visitors and guests within the constraints of an historic building”.

A spokesman for the speaker later appeared to dispute the account given by Nandy in the Commons chamber, and said there were just two vacant seats during the debate and that Commons staff “decided that, because of their location in the middle of seating rows, to fill them would have disrupted the wheelchair users and others with mobility impairments who had already been admitted”.

He added later: “We are not disputing what Lisa Nandy said.”

But he was unable to clarify exactly what happened before the debate.

He said that, as a result of the incident, “we are looking at how debates are set up and the appropriateness of location”.

He said the incident had also caused “greater priority” to be given to improving training for frontline staff and the provision of information on access to the parliamentary estate.

An updated diversity and inclusion strategy will be published shortly.

News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com

London Rally

Thousands of disabled people and other campaigners took part in a series of anti-cuts protests last weekend in more than a dozen towns and cities across the UK.

The rallies and marches took place under the banner of The Hardest Hit, the campaign organised by the UK Disabled People’s Council and members of the Disability Benefits Consortium.

They want the government to stop its cuts to disability benefits and services for disabled people.

In London, more than 250 people attended a rally outside the mayor of London’s offices at City Hall, on the south bank of the Thames.

Disabled activist Dawn Willis travelled from Devon to attend the protest, she told protesters, because people with mental health conditions were dying because of the cuts.

She said some people were killing themselves, while others were giving up their claims for benefits because they couldn’t face being assessed by the private company Atos Healthcare.

Kirsten Hearn, chair of Inclusion London, said: “The cuts in public spending disproportionately affect disabled people. We must fight back. That is why we are here today.”

Another disabled activist, Ellie Southwood, said: “Today, up and down the country, thousands of disabled people are proving that we will be heard.”

She called on Maria Miller, the minister for disabled people, to guarantee that no disabled person would lose their “hard-fought independence” as a result of the cuts.

After the rally, the disabled comedian and activist Liz Carr said: “I think we need to show the media and the government that there is strength in numbers, that there is a voice and it is not just an elite few on blogs and social media.”

She said the protest had brought together groups that would not normally work together to “show their anger and fear”.

She added: “I think people are genuinely terrified about what the next few months are going to hold for them.”

Disabled activist and blogger Lisa Egan said she was at the protest because if her benefits were cut she would not be able to afford to live, as she was too ill to work.

She said: “I depend on benefits. You take them away and I have got nothing.” 

John Robinson said he and his family were worried about the possibility of losing his disability living allowance (DLA), which he uses to lease a car through the Motability scheme, which he “could never afford without DLA”.

Julie Rana, another disabled protester, said she was at the rally because “if we are not careful and we do not campaign enough a lot of disabled people will not be able to afford to live”.

An estimated 1,000 people attended a Hardest Hit protest in Edinburgh, with speakers including the disabled peer Lord [Colin] Low, and Iain Gray, leader of the Scottish Labour party.

Another 1,000 campaigners marched through the streets of Cardiff, while 500 took part in a march through Bristol city centre and a rally in College Green. Speakers in Bristol included Labour MP Kerry McCarthy, who criticised the city council for cutting support and services for disabled people.

More than 400 people took part in the Manchester Hardest Hit protest, which was supported by disabled Coronation Street actress Cherylee Houston and two of her co-stars.

Speakers at the rally, outside the Town Hall, included disabled blogger Kaliya Franklin, who told fellow campaigners: “We will not sit quietly by while these cuts are made.  We must continue to let our MPs, to let our peers and councillors know how our benefits and services really help us to live our daily lives and what losing our independence means.

“We want our dignity, we want our independence and we need a welfare system that supports people with the real costs of living with a disability.”

An estimated 500 protesters attended a march and rally in Norwich, with speakers including Jaspal Dhani, chief executive of the UK Disabled People’s Council, and Mark Harrison, chief executive of Norfolk Coalition of Disabled People.

Those who joined the march included David Rowntree, drummer with the band Blur and now shortlisted by Labour to fight the Norwich South seat at the next general election.

Dhani said afterwards: “Today’s protests demonstrate just how much disabled people, their friends and family are going to be affected by this government’s cuts and the many broken promises it has made to protect disabled people.

“Remember it was disabled people who campaigned for and won laws to tackle discrimination. We can and must do it again to resist these cuts.”

In Brighton, about 250 people took part in a rally in Jubilee Square, while about 150 people attended a protest at a hotel in Belfast, and another 300 protested in Victoria Square in Birmingham.

An estimated 350 people took part in the Hardest Hit protest in Nottingham, while 400 attended a march and rally in the centre of Leeds, with speakers including the Leeds Labour MP Hilary Benn, the shadow minister for communities and local government.

Paul Williams, a disabled carer, told the Leeds rally: “I am on a very low income. I can only manage because I get the lower rate of DLA, which is about £150 a month.

“My monthly fuel bill eats up most of the DLA. I don’t smoke. I don’t drink. I don’t gamble. I don’t have a car. I don’t go abroad. I don’t buy new things. One week out of four I run out of money to buy food and I just have to get by until some money comes in. I am already poor. I couldn’t survive without DLA.”

There was also a smaller Hardest Hit protest in nearby Bradford, organized by Bradford and District Disabled People’s Forum.

More than 1,000 protesters took part in a rally in Newcastle city centre, while a smaller event took place in nearby North Tyneside. The previous day there had been a rally at Sunderland Civic Centre.

Two days after the Newcastle rally, Labour MP Catherine McKinnell, who had taken part in the protest, asked disabled people’s minister Maria Miller in the Commons to respond to protesters’ concerns.

Miller told her: “I regularly meet all the major organisations that are involved in the march.”

She said the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health were spending an extra £7.2 billion on social care, an extra £3 million on user-led organisations and £180 million on disabled facilities grants.

Miller added: “Those are all additional areas of expenditure that disabled people should welcome.”

 News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com

This month I’m writing for Disability Now.  Please visit their site and do give me a call or email your comments.

Kind regards, Tracey.

The decision not to bring any charges over the alleged abuse at the Solar Centre in Doncaster was made just three days after the head of the CPS, and a leading chief constable, spoke publicly of their determination to correct their organisations’ past failures in dealing with disability hate crime.

Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, and Stephen Otter, the equality and diversity lead for the Association of Chief Police Officers, spoke out last week at the launch of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) major report into disability-related harassment.

The report accused public bodies of a “systematic, institutional failure” to recognise such harassment.

The latest decision by the CPS in south Yorkshire follows a three-year battle for justice by families of former users of the day centre.

An internal NHS investigation, which reported in 2008, found evidence of 44 incidents between 2005 and 2007, involving abuse of 18 people with learning difficulties and high support needs.

The report by the trust which runs the day centre, Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (RDaSH) – which was leaked to the media last year – provides few details of the incidents, although it makes it clear that nine different members of staff claimed they had witnessed abuse.

But Disability News Service (DNS) has seen safeguarding reports into the abuse of two of the 18 service-users, which detail clear evidence against at least three former staff members.

These two reports raise serious questions over why the police and CPS have twice failed to bring any prosecutions against the three members of staff, referred to as “A”, “B” and “C”.

In 2007, South Yorkshire Police investigated allegations of physical assault, but the CPS said there was “insufficient evidence” to bring charges.

Last year, after the RDaSH report was leaked, the force reopened its investigation. This time it investigated possible allegations of ill-treatment under the Mental Health Act, after DNS questioned why such charges were not considered in 2007.

But last week, the force said it had been told by the CPS that there was still “insufficient evidence to proceed” with any charges.

Now, after DNS questioned why no charges were possible when RDaSH appears to have taken at least nine witness statements describing ill-treatment, the CPS has agreed to re-examine its decision.

Martin Goldman, the chief crown prosecutor for Yorkshire and Humberside, has told DNS that his deputy will “look into the issues”.

A CPS spokeswoman said that Naheed Hussain, who is responsible for the South Yorkshire area, would examine whether the statements detailed in the RDaSH report were passed to the CPS by the police.

Some relatives of former users of the Solar Centre are now considering seeking a judicial review of the decision not to bring any charges.

And at least three of the families are likely to lodge complaints with the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Adrian Milnes, step-father of Richie Rowe, one of the disabled men allegedly abused at the day centre, said: “The trust, the Care Quality Commission [the care watchdog], the police and the CPS have all behaved absolutely atrociously.”

He accused the authorities of “trampling over the human rights” of Richie and other former users of the Solar Centre.

Valerie Kirsopp, mother of Robert Kirsopp, another of the men allegedly abused, said she was “absolutely devastated” by the latest CPS decision.

She said: “The abuse was so blatant and continued for three long years. To think what he went through on a daily basis. I just think Robbie has been really let down.”

The uncle of another former service-user said he had “no faith” in the police and “wasn’t surprised” by the latest decision.

He said: “I feel let down that someone hasn’t done their job, whether it is the police or the CPS.”

Meanwhile, South Yorkshire Police has refused to answer crucial questions about its latest “investigation”, including whether it made any efforts to interview service-users themselves.

It is also unclear what action the force took over the RDaSH statements described in the two safeguarding reports.

A police spokeswoman said the force was “unable to provide any further details of the actual investigation, any evidence/allegations brought forwards and any witness statements taken”.

This week, a spokeswoman for Keir Starmer also refused to comment on the case, despite his pledge at the EHRC launch.

Below, DNS can summarise some of the allegations detailed in the two safeguarding reports.

The report on the abuse allegedly experienced by Richie Rowe describes how:

• Witness H reported seeing A “turn Richie Rowe…in his wheelchair to face the wall using pillows to stop him moving” for up to 15 minutes
• Witness Q saw A and C “kick Richie’s wheelchair whilst he was sat in it from one side of the room to the other causing Richie to crash into patients and the walls”
• Witness Q saw A and C “lift Richie out of his chair and throw him onto the floor”
• Witness E saw A and C each grab one of Richie’s arms and legs and “throw him onto trampoline and say ‘oh look he’s hit his head’”

A report on the abuse allegedly experienced by Robert Kirsopp describes how:

• Witness E saw A “grabbing and forcing Robert to the floor to clean up a spilt drink”
• Witness J saw A “pushing Robert around the room and pricking him with a needle”
• Witness E saw A “pinning Robert against the wall” and hitting his head
• Witness G saw B “push Robert to the floor to clean up a spilt drink” and smack his face
• Witness F saw B “punch Robert in the head”

The alleged abuse took place between 2005 and 2007 at Doncaster’s Solar Centre, in the grounds of St Catherine’s Hospital, and involved at least 18 adults with learning difficulties and high support needs.

The news of the settlements came as police finally confirmed that they have reopened their investigation into the alleged abuse.

South Yorkshire police originally investigated allegations of physical assault in 2007, but failed to produce enough evidence to press any charges.

Last year, lawyers for some of the abuse survivors threatened to seek a judicial review if the police did not reopen their investigation.

Disability News Service understands that South Yorkshire police are now investigating possible charges of ill-treatment under the Mental Health Act, which has been used to bring charges successfully in several high-profile cases of abuse of people with learning difficulties.

A report by the trust that runs the Solar Centre – Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (RDaSH) – described how staff allegedly hit service-users and used “inappropriate force”, as well as detailing other allegations of ill-treatment.

Allegations were made against four members of staff, although all four were said to have denied all the claims of abuse.

Information in a “safeguarding” report seen by Disability News Service details how one disabled man was allegedly slapped, punched, threatened by staff and deliberately pricked with needles.

A second safeguarding report describes how a second young disabled man was allegedly kicked in his wheelchair from “one side of the room to the other” causing him to “crash into patients and the walls”; was lifted out of his wheelchair and thrown onto the floor; and was grabbed by two members of staff from his wheelchair and thrown onto a trampoline.

David Greenwood, from Jordans Solicitors, who is representing three former users of the day centre, welcomed the trust’s decision to settle the compensation claims.

He said: “It could have become a fairly complex investigation, but once the trust had finished their liaison with the police they came to a fairly swift decision. They have to be given credit for getting on with a decision to compensate victims.”

A court has approved settlements agreed between the trust and two of his clients, with a third settlement likely to be approved by a judge this autumn.

The nephew of one of Greenwood’s three clients said he had been told his uncle was treated “very badly” at the Solar Centre.

He said: “He used to always lean away whenever you came near him.”

His uncle will receive a smaller sum – £5,000 – than other claimants, as there is believed to be less firm evidence of the alleged ill-treatment he experienced, even though it is accepted that he was probably abused.

An RDaSH spokeswoman said the trust was aware of five claims for compensation, and added: “A number of clients and former clients of the Solar Centre have brought claims against [RDaSH], alleging that some time ago they were the subject of acts of abuse carried out by a small number of carers who worked at the centre.” 

She said events at the centre had “been the subject of a detailed enquiry carried out by the trust, following which systems have been reviewed and changed”.

She said two claims had been concluded, while three other cases were “in progress”.

A number of other relatives of former or current users of the Solar Centre are also believed to be considering or taking legal action against the trust.

Sir Philip Craven, the IPC president and a former Paralympian, first made his comments earlier this week in an interview with the BBC, in which he said the word “disabled” needs to be “removed from the lexicon as it pertains to human beings”.

He repeated his call today at the International Paralympic Day (IPD) celebrations in London’s Trafalgar Square.

He told Disability News Service that the London 2012 Paralympics “could well be a step in the right direction” in removing the word “disabled” from use.

He said: “What I object to is the use of the word ‘disabled’ about an individual.

“‘Disabled’ pertaining to an individual is pure negativity. It doesn’t allow the individual’s personality to shine through.”

He said he would “definitely not” describe himself as a disabled person, although he added: “An individual has every right to call themselves what they want.”

But Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson, who won 11 Paralympic gold medals, said it was important that the word “disabled” could be used.

She said: “I was an athlete but I am a disabled woman. It is part of my identity and part of who I am.

“I would rather the barriers [in society] were removed rather than worrying about language.”

She said she received many emails in the House of Lords from disabled people telling her about the discrimination they have experienced.

She added: “Just because we had a Disability Discrimination Act, the Paralympics is not going to solve all the problems of the world. Until the last barrier is gone we cannot stop fighting.”

And Ade Adepitan, the TV presenter and former Paralympic wheelchair basketball medal-winner, said he also believed there was a need for the word “disabled”, although the biggest change needed was in “people’s hearts and minds” and not in the words used to describe disabled people.

But he added: “First and foremost, people should look at everyone as individuals. We know all disabled people are different.”

Maria Miller, the minister for disabled people, said she had some sympathy with the aim of trying not to “categorise people in very simplistic terms”, because “everybody is an individual”.

But she said she did not believe 2012 should be used as an opportunity to try to rid society of the words “disabled” and “disability”.

She said: “I think there are an awful lot more important things to think about.”

IPD saw 20 Paralympic sports showcased for members of the public, and featured appearances from scores of Paralympic athletes, as well as the prime minister, David Cameron, London’s mayor, Boris Johnson, and Lord [Sebastian] Coe, who chairs the 2012 organising committee.

Tickets for the 2012 Paralympics are on sale from 9 September to 26 September.