Mr.
Winnick: The hon. Gentleman has criticised the Government.
I have some sympathy for what he said, as I have for the Liberal
Democrat spokesperson. However, it is interesting that the hon.
Gentleman’s own Front Bench echoes what the
Government have said, because his Front Bench—falsely, I
believe—shares the Government’s view that the
reservations are necessary. While he criticises the Government, perhaps
he will have a go at his own Front Bench—but of course I do not
want to stir it
up.
Mr.
Hollobone: I am grateful for that intervention. As the
hon. Gentleman knows, the job of humble Back Benchers is to stand up on
behalf of our constituents and make the Government accountable for the
decisions that they make. I look forward to a similar opportunity,
perhaps in a year’s time, to make the same points to my hon.
Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, currently on the shadow Front
Bench, when he occupies a different post.
The second
reservation is about immigration and public health, covered by article
18. The Government have proposed a general reservation on that article,
which will allow them to further refuse entry to disabled persons on
the grounds of infectious disease. There is no one in the House who is
more in favour of strong immigration controls than I am, but since the
Government already have the power to quarantine and transport people if
there is evidence of infectious disease, the reservation is
unnecessary. If it is not, perhaps the Minister could provide a better
explanation than he has provided up to now.
With regard
to inclusive education, covered by article 24, the
Government have outlined that they intend to make an interpretative
declaration on article 24, which relates to inclusive education for
disabled children and young people. The proposed declaration would make
it clear that the UK general education system includes both mainstream
and special schools. We all understand that. However, there is a strong
body of opinion that says that the convention provides an opportunity
to take proactive steps to improve access to mainstream education so
that parents have a genuine choice—a wider choice than
heretofore—in schooling their child. There is a strong case that
many more parents of
disabled children would choose a mainstream school if they were
confident that it could meet their child’s
needs. While
mainstream schools have only a poorly enforced duty to admit disabled
pupils and no clear financial incentive or encouragement to develop
inclusive practice, the situation will not improve. There is a strong
argument that the reservation that the Government propose would act as
a significant disincentive for schools to pursue inclusion.
Furthermore, the Government stance is inconsistent with their being a
signatory to the Salamanca statement made in
1994.
The
Chairman: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon.
Member, but may I remind him and possibly other members of the
Committee that the order is about specifying the convention as a
Community treaty and not about the reservations that have been entered?
The Minister wisely, or unwisely, introduced that as a matter of
background. I have allowed Members to discuss that, but could the hon.
Member bear in mind what we are debating and keep his remarks as close
as he can to the substance of the order?
Jonathan
Shaw: Flesh out the Salamanca
statement.
Mr.
Hollobone: Absolutely. I am most grateful, Mr.
Atkinson, for your wise counsel, but I want to take up the invitation
by the Minister to flesh out the Salamanca
statement.
The
Chairman: Order. That was what I was hoping to
avoid.
Mr.
Hollobone: I think, Mr. Atkinson, that you will
appreciate more than me that, when we are incorporating UN or other
conventions into EU law, the people who elect us to this place would
want us to ensure that what we are signing up to will be in the best
interests of the country. In that regard, the fact that the Government
are not signing up to the convention in its entirety will be of concern
to many and, as has already been demonstrated, of significant concern
to 50,000 of our electors. The point that I want to make is that it is
Government policy. We signed up to the Salamanca statement, which
says,
“to adopt as a
matter of law or policy the principle of inclusive education, enrolling
all children in mainstream schools, unless there are compelling reasons
for doing
otherwise.” The
convention allows time for the Government to plan, to change the
environment to build capacity and to challenge and change negative
attitudes and practices. I do not believe that the reservation will
achieve what the Government want it to
achieve. Finally,
let me turn to article 27, which relates to the armed forces. The
Government say that a reservation is necessary there to ensure that
military personnel are able to meet a worldwide liability to deploy.
However, neither the DDA nor this convention place a duty on any
employer to employ an unqualified disabled person or anyone who does
not meet the minimum requirements of the job role. The obligation is to
ensure a non-discriminatory and accessible working environment when it
is reasonable to do so. As has been clearly stated, the armed forces
are already retaining servicemen and women who become disabled on
active
service.
5.11
pm
Jonathan
Shaw: The hon. Member for Kettering has just delivered the
Lucinda Roberts speech. It was verbatim from Scope’s brief, with
which all Committee members were furnished. The parliamentary campaigns
officer obviously put a lot of effort into it and I am sure that she is
delighted to have every word on the record.
I am
grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Forest of Dean to
ratify this important treaty. Other hon. Members echoed the importance
that this treaty has for disabled people in the UK and around the
world. We have a good consensus on the matter.
Let me turn
now to the hon. Gentleman’s questions about the length of time
it takes to ratify a convention. Putting aside Lord Lester’s and
my exchange, he will know that the average time to ratify a convention
is around four years. We have been getting on with the task. There have
been complex discussions around all of the domestic legislation
involving various different Departments of Government and devolved
Administrations on which we needed to reach agreement. We have reached
agreement on all these
aspects. The
hon. Member for Forest of Dean will appreciate that coming up against
Lord Lester is formidable. As for his point about the convention, I
specifically recall thinking that I needed to take some advice in order
to move on the discussion at that point during the Committee. As I
said, four years is the average, and we have been making good progress.
I do not accept that we have been dragging our
feet. In
response to the accusation that the hon. Gentleman levelled at the
Department about the consultation, he will be aware that my
predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling
(Mrs. McGuire), issued statements in the House on the
progress of ratification on 6 May 2008 and also sent further letters to
the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon
(Mr. Dismore). The letters were very detailed in their
explanation as to where we were. Those were published. There were
further letters on 24 September. In that correspondence, my right hon.
Friend signalled that there were areas, particularly relating to
independent living and cultural services, in which we expected to have
a reservation, but a lot of work was being done by the Office for
Disability Issues and by her to reduce the number of
reservations. We
take the matters under discussion extremely seriously. We are talking
about the power of attorney—people being able to draw benefits
on behalf of someone who is physically or mentally incapacitated. As
the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, we need to ensure that
the system is not too bureaucratic, and I think that by and large it
works well, but we found that we were not in compliance. If we are not
in compliance, we need to put in a reservation. He asked when. I am not
able to tell the Committee when, but we need to be getting on with the
work and we need to involve disabled people and their organisations to
arrive at what he described as a proportionate
system.
Mr.
Davey: I am grateful to the Minister for replying. I
understand that he may not be able to give an exact date, but he has to
give us a backstop date so that the situation will not drag on for
years. Is he not prepared to commit to a backstop date that gives his
officials plenty of time to consult and put something in place?
There has been other legislation from Government aimed at developing,
rightly, better advocacy services for people with mental health
problems. Clearly, an infrastructure has been developed there. The
Minister will understand that it is quite worrying for the Committee to
hear him give no backstop date by which this should be
achieved.
Jonathan
Shaw: We have been painstakingly detailed about ensuring
that the domestic legislation is compliant. When we found that it was
not compliant, we needed to make that declaration. Obviously, if we
went ahead with ratification and did not have due regard to
deficiencies that exist at the moment in terms of compliance, around
the corner we would find ourselves in a difficult position. I cannot
give the hon. Gentleman the date that he seeks, but I can give a clear
signal that it is our wish to see this reservation removed as soon as
possible and we are getting on with the task of involving disabled
people and their organisations to come up with a proportionate approach
in the way that he
advocates.
Mr.
Winnick: My hon. Friend has said that the Government are
not dragging their feet and I work on the basis that the present
Government never drag their feet. That said, will he accept that there
are Government Members who are concerned about the reservations? That
concern is not confined to Opposition Members. In so far as it is
possible for the reservations to be removed in the near future and
along the lines that my hon. Friend has been describing, that would
certainly be good news for
us.
Jonathan
Shaw: I repeat to my hon. Friend that it is our intention
to remove this reservation just as soon as is practicable. What is
custom and practice at the moment—relatives collecting benefits
on behalf of people who have a physical or mental
incapacity—works well. My hon. Friend would not thank me if we
went ahead and put in a system that caused a number of difficulties in
its application. He would be writing me strongly worded letters saying,
“Why didn’t you wait until you had worked out the system
properly?” We will work out the system properly and we will get
on and do that as quickly as we
can. On
other matters, I am sorry if the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton
feels that we have not yet proven the case for the reservations in
respect of the armed forces. It is not about recruiting disabled
people. What currently happens is that people are redeployed. It is not
employment; it is about service. There is a significant distinction
between the two. We are pleased that the Opposition support that
measure. We have set the matter out in detail in a number of cases. He
referred to the DDA and, of course, he might be aware that the armed
forces are exempt from the employment provisions within the 1995 Act.
We are clear that we will keep all the reservations under review, and
we have said that. The monitoring bodies will obviously ensure that the
convention is being properly implemented, but it is proportionate and
right that the armed forces have that
reservation. The
hon. Gentleman mentioned liberty of movement. Again, I have said that
we will review that matter in 12 months’ time. The
hon. Member for Kettering also raised that issue. We must ensure that
we have proper safeguards in place and that if there is a danger to
public health, we can properly detain people seeking entry into this
country. Again, I do not think that our constituents would thank us if
we did anything that might put that in jeopardy. However, as I say, the
matter will be subject to review and we will assess whether such a
provision needs to be put in. We do these things with appropriate
caution. It is vital that if we have a concern about public health, we
have the right mechanisms in place to protect the public. We will keep
the matter under review and we will involve disabled people in that
process. Mr.
Davey: Both in respect of the reservation on the armed
forces and the liberty of movement, I am still not satisfied. The
Minister gave examples in those areas with which I think all the
Committee would agree. However, my question was, why is there a blanket
exemption? The nature of a blanket exemption means that there will be a
lot of people who should not have been exempted and who have rights. A
blanket exemption is denying those rights. Will the Minister apply
himself to the issue of the blanket exemption in both those areas? We
all accept that there are individual cases in relation to which it
makes sense that people should be excluded, but it is the blanket
exemption that is concerning us
all.
Jonathan
Shaw: I do not think that it concerns us all, as the hon.
Gentleman says. I think that there was quite a lot of consensus. In
terms of blanket rights, is he referring to the DDA, as he was in his
remarks?
Mr.
Davey: In my remarks I gave examples where the DDA had
been applied to the police and fire service and it had been removed
because it was felt that there were better ways to ensure the efficacy
of those services that did not trample over an individual’s
rights. I was quoting the DDA to strengthen my case that a blanket
exemption was not
needed.
Jonathan
Shaw: Well, as I said, the military are exempt from the
DDA. We are clear that the armed forces should be exempt from this
convention. We have set out our case, which is supported by the
Opposition. If the hon. Gentleman feels that disabled people should be
able to join the military and that this reservation should not be in
place, that is a matter for him and his
party. I
believe that I have answered the point about liberty of movement. We
will review that matter in 12 months’ time. The final
reservation that has been referred to is that of the review for the
benefit appointees, on which we have had an exchange. As I have said,
we want to remove that, but we need to have the system in place before
doing
so. As
I said at the beginning of my remarks, this is an important convention,
which we want to ratify as soon as we can. Laying these orders is a
necessary part of the process. They build on the proud record of this
Government in assisting disabled people through a policy for
independent living—whether that is by helping students with the
Aimhigher disabled grant, improving Access to Work through the
announcement of the doubling of that fund, or strengthening the DDA,
which has been referred to. The DDA was quite toothless until we
provided what was necessary, because it was optional. The hon. Member
for Forest of Dean knows
that— [Interruption.] Well, we are involved
in politics and people need to look
at the records of the two parties that seek to govern this country. Our
policies, our commitment and our resources stand us in good stead on
that. However, I
am pleased that there is, by and large, a consensus on this convention.
I commend it to the
Committee. Question
put and agreed to.
Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft European Communities (Definition
of Treaties) (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities) Order
2009. 5.26
pm Committee
rose.
| 
