Mr.
Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that
intervention because, indeed, that was the next point to which I was
coming.
Medical
downgrading permits the retention of people who have become ill or
disabled in service, and that is a welcome development. The ability of
the forces to adapt in that way is highly commendable, but it is only
possible for two reasons. First, as my hon. Friend said, the military
have a duty of care to the service member and their family. A service
member who becomes disabled because of their active service is already
fully trained to the required standard. Just because somebody loses a
limb, for example, it does not mean that they lose their years of
training and the experience that they have gathered on operations.
However, that does not imply that it is feasible or desirable to
recruit individuals who are not able to meet the rigorous physical
aspects of initial military training, and that the standard should be
lowered and we should have a military that consists of some people who
are able to be deployed and some who are not.
If hon.
Members look at the points that the EHRC has made, it seems that it
accepts that service in the armed forces is different and is not like
just another job. The EHRC simply differs from the Government and us on
how to recognise that difference. It does not accept the blanket
exemption of the armed forces from the Disability Discrimination Act
1995, but it does recognise that if the armed forces were to come
within the DDA, some specific rules would have to be applied to them to
recognise their special nature. This is not a discussion about some
huge principle; it is about how we recognise that what we ask of people
who serve in the armed forces is different. The Government’s
conclusion about how we do so is right, and we support
that. Another
area of reservation and interpretative declaration that the Minister
mentioned is in the area of education. We support that because we
recognise that parents and children should have the opportunity to
choose the education that is best for them—sometimes that will
be in a mainstream environment and sometimes it will be in a special
school environment. I have had experience of that in my constituency. A
number of years ago, before I was elected to the House, we had a number
of
battles in which parents strongly took the view that education in a
special school environment was the right thing for their particular
children. They fought hard to retain that option when it was proposed
that it should be removed. The Minister’s proposal to make sure
that that choice remains in place is right. Ensuring that the choice
remains in place does not in any way change Government policy about
whether special schools are desirable. The Minister’s proposal
enables parents to retain that choice and that is
right. The
other area that I want to mention—the Minister dwelt on
this—is the area around the reservation because of the lack of
an independent impartial review system for benefit appointees. The
Minister has already explained that the reservation is there for the
moment and that once the Department has put a proportionate system in
place to protect disabled people, it will not need to be there. The
Minister has explained the process that will take place to put that
system in place, but I did not hear—although I may have missed
it—a target timeline for how long that will take. I recognise
that it might not be possible to give a precise indication, but some
guideline—whether it will be a year, two years or
longer—might be helpful for the Committee.
The last
point that I want to put on the record is on the optional protocol. The
Minister has made it clear that the Government will sign the optional
protocol. He also made it clear in the written statement that he made
to the House that the Government’s position was that that did
not set a precedent for acceding to other complaint mechanisms, which
will still be considered on a case-by-case basis. My view, and that of
our party, is that we have no problem with the Minister signing the
optional protocol. Given our well developed legal system and the number
of opportunities that there are for people to challenge the Government
if they think that their rights are not being defended, I do not think
that signing the optional protocol adds very much. However, it also
does no harm, and we therefore have no complaint about it.
In
conclusion, we very much support the convention, its early ratification
and the areas where the Government have entered reservations and the
interpretative declaration. On that basis, we urge the Committee to
support its
ratification. 4.50
pm
Mr.
Davey: Mr. Atkinson, it is a great pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship; on that point, I agree with the hon.
Member for Forest of Dean, but I am afraid that I disagree with him on
a number of other points. My party and I certainly agree with and
welcome the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with
disabilities, because it will have an impact not only in this country,
but around the world—if we can get it signed up to by many other
countries. However, the case for the Government’s declaration
and the reservations is not yet proven.
I am
particularly concerned by the lack of consultation—we had a
round, which was picked up by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and
the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that. I hope that the Minister will
explain to the Committee why there was such limited consultation. Given
that that is the case, while in one or two areas the Government say
that they are
keeping the reservations under review, I hope that the Minister is able
to say, today, that they will keep all of them under review and come to
this House in 12 months. That will allow interested parties, both in
and out of Parliament, to give their full reaction to the reservations
and engage fully with the Government to see whether they can be
removed. Let me deal with each matter in
turn. It
may well be that, through the interpretative declaration on education,
the Government simply want to clarify
that “nothing
in the Convention requires the Government to work towards the eventual
elimination of special schools in the
UK”; but
other countries that have special schools for children have not felt
the need for such interpretative declarations. Therefore, I hope the
Minister has a case to make about why we need it. Liberal Democrat
Members see a role for special schools, and that is not the issue of
debate. However, we want to ensure that there is a move towards the
inclusive agenda—that, I believe, still remains a Government
policy, and we want to ensure that that happens. I hope that there is
nothing in here that can in any way be misinterpreted by those who read
the debates and look at what the Government are doing. I hope the
Minister is able to clarify that. I accept that there may be nothing to
worry about in the interpretative declaration, but given that other
countries have not found the need for that, I am interested to hear a
little more from the Minister on that
point. The
more serious concerns that I have are about the reservations, which I
will go through in turn. With respect to the armed forces, it seems
that the reservation is rather blanket. I do not think that anyone in
this Committee would demur from the idea that people on active duty,
who have to take some gruelling physical activity to defend this
country and our interests, need to be physically fit, and one can
understand that concern. But as I understand it, the DDA requires that
people are judged on individual merit rather than stereotype and
prejudice. There is almost a false argument being put up here, so I
think that the Minister has a real difficulty to try to make and
justify the case. Moreover, it is already the case, as has been
mentioned, that the MOD recruits people who have some degree of
impairment. So the Minister needs to explain why the blanket approach
is needed. Surely, it is a question of the MOD having objective and
necessary job criteria when it is recruiting, and not a blanket
exemption for people with disabilities. One only needs to start
thinking of individual jobs or cases to see that the blanket exemption
seems to be over the top.
Mr.
Harper: My point was that, in the modern operations that
we ask our armed forces to do, every single member who serves in
uniform has to be able, ultimately, to fight on the front line, in
combat. The reality for our armed forces deployed in operations on the
front line—I was recently in Afghanistan visiting my local
regiment, the 1st Battalion The Rifles—is that they all have to
be combat-ready. There are no jobs available on the front line, in that
deployed operation, in which one cannot, ultimately, be combat-ready.
That is why there is the need for that blanket
exemption.
Mr.
Davey: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is inconsistent
in his remarks. In response to the valuable point made by the hon.
Member for East Devon, the hon. Gentleman had to admit that members of
the
armed forces who had received injury or impairment through active duty
had been allowed to stay within the armed forces. He tried to repair
that inconsistency by saying that they had gone through the training,
but unfortunately, because of the impairments that they may receive on
active duty, they would not be able to do what he has just said. So,
the blanket exemption is not the correct
approach. Mr.
David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): Would it be
appropriate to remember the case of Douglas Bader? He lost both legs in
the inter-war period, but was determined to rejoin the Royal Air Force,
did so and served with great distinction. I am sure that his politics
were not those of the Government Benches, but no doubt the Minister is
aware of Douglas Bader and his actions and exploits during the war
without his natural
legs.
Mr.
Davey: I am grateful for that intervention. The hon.
Gentleman makes the point rather better than I did. One can also think
of people with learning difficulties—suffering from severe
dyslexia, for example. That may be of concern in some posts, but for
many fighting posts those people may be physically extremely fit. The
learning problems may not affect their ability to do the dangerous job
that we ask of
them. The
Government have still to make the case. I believe the Secretary of
State said that they are prepared to keep the matter under review. I
would like to hear a little more about what that means—is that
under review or simply that they will think about it at some time in
the future, when they can be bothered to get around to it? It is not
good enough to have blanket exemptions when it comes to human rights.
Not only have the Government failed to consult properly, but they have
failed to make the
case. Let
us remember the exemptions applied to the police and fire service in
the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which were lifted in
2005. No one has suggested that that has impacted on the ability of
both those services to do their jobs—if so, I hope that they
will try to make that argument, because I have seen no evidence to that
effect. The Government are on weak territory here. They will have to be
more precise than blanket
exemptions. On
immigration, the blanket exemptions also need scrutinising. The Joint
Committee on Human Rights report says in paragraph
69: “Read
literally, this reservation could disapply the Convention in its
entirety in so far as its protection might relate to people subject to
immigration
control.” Let
us think of some examples that we might be worried about. Imagine
asylum seekers who are escaping trauma, torture and being genuinely in
fear for their lives under all the terms of the 1951 convention, but
who have a disability and are unable to make themselves properly
understood because of that disability. I would like to understand about
their rights as disabled people actively seeking asylum in this country
because they are in fear for their lives—would that disability
be taken into account? Perhaps I have misunderstood how that blanket
exemption will arise, but I hope that the Minister shares my concern;
just because someone is disabled, we would not want to take away rights
under the 1951 convention. I assume and hope that we would not. It
would seem to be taking away the rights of the most
vulnerable people imaginable. I am sure that the Government would not
want to be party to that, so I would like some clarification on that
reservation. The
final reservation relates to benefits appointees—those who are
asked to look after the rights of people with mental health problems,
for example, who cannot necessarily claim their benefits. Under the
convention, the idea is that there are safeguards for people with the
mental health problems that I have outlined, so that their appointees
are reviewed periodically to ensure that they are right and proper to
take on that role. I understand that the Department is actively looking
at such matters to see how it can meet that part of the convention, but
the Minister did not really address himself fully to that important
point. The
Department is working towards a proportionate system of review, and I
am sure that it is doing so in good faith. Of course, we do not want
something that is too bureaucratic or too complex and costly, but my
concern about what we have been asked to look at today is that I have
not seen a time scale. On what time scale can the House be assured that
the Department will implement a proportionate system of review? We need
to know, and we need to receive some guarantees about it. We should not
allow small print on an explanatory memorandum to convince us that we
have no need to worry about such matters because the Government have
given an assurance. We want clear timetables; that is the least that we
should be demanding for those people who, due to lack of physical and
mental capacity, have to rely on another
person. Unlike
the Conservative spokesman, I am not satisfied with the way that the
Government have approached matters, nor am I satisfied that they have
made the case for their reservations or the interpretative declaration.
I look forward to receiving a fuller reply from the
Minister.
5.2
pm Mr.
Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): On behalf of my
constituents in Kettering, many of whom are disabled, I too am not
satisfied with the Minister’s explanation. Like me, many people
are unhappy whenever the Government sign up to something and then have
lots of exemptions, reservations and exceptions. The United Nations
convention is extremely important and has attracted a lot of interest
throughout the country, especially from disabled people. Scope, a
member of the United Nations convention campaign coalition, which
represents 33 organisations that are interested in such matters, has
collected more than 50,000 signatures from across the country urging
Her Majesty’s Government to ratify the UN convention in full,
without reservation or limitation. That is a substantial body of
popular opinion, and the Minister’s remarks this afternoon will
not be regarded by many of those 50,000 people as adequate to justify
the reservations that the Government have put forward. It is important
to remember that the UN convention is the first international treaty in
history to give millions of disabled people across the globe
comprehensive human rights, yet it seems that Her Majesty’s
Government are not signing up completely to that historic
occasion. We
have gone through the four major reservations in some detail, but some
of the main points of issue have been missed in the debate. Let us
consider article 12.4
on benefits and guardianship. The Government have proposed a reservation
in that area, yet the article would provide safeguards for the exercise
of substituted decision making. That includes a requirement for regular
reviews by an independent and impartial authority for those appointed
to claim and collect benefits on behalf of another person due to that
person’s lack of physical or mental
capacity. The
Government have argued inadequately that no such review system is
currently in place and therefore it is necessary to place a reservation
on the article. However, the Department for Work and Pensions has
claimed separately that it is
already “actively
working towards a proportionate system of review to address this
issue”. In
the light of that, surely there is a strong argument for rendering the
reservation unnecessary and without meaning, as the Government have
already clearly stated their intention to progressively realise that
right, which is specifically allowed for in the scope of the
convention.
| 
