Memorandum submitted by the United Nations
Convention Campaign Coalition
I am writing to you on behalf of the UNCCC following
your meeting on 18 November. We had 10 member organisations observing
at the Committee. We were heartened by the strong support given
by your committee for consulting disabled people and their representative
organisations; and your effective questioning of the Minister
for Disabled People around the excessive secrecy; the strong support
given to the urgent need to ratify without reservation the UN
Convention ion the Rights of People with Disabilities. We would
like to make the following points.
Equality 2025 was mentioned several times
by the Minister to demonstrate that the Government is consulting
disabled peoples organisations on the Convention. Equality 2025
is a group of individuals appointed by the Government to advise
them on disabled issues and to act as a conduit. They are not
a representative organisation. Equality 2025 has had to struggle
quite hard to be allowed to provide any advice on this issue.
The Government has only held one meeting with representative disabled
peoples organisations since adoption on 30 March 2007. This was
on 4 December 2007 and despite numerous requests for further meetings
none has been called. In its Statement on the Purpose of Equality
2025 para. 2.2 it says "The network will not replace any
existing government consultation mechanisms nor be used by government
instead of consultation".
Transparency. Our 27 disability organisations
share your Committee's concerns about lack of transparency on
this issue and urge you to publish a report of your deliberations
And the evidence you have received to inform other members of
Parliament. This will also aid the Government to become more accountable
in the procedures they are using to ratify this Treaty. As we
understand it the Minister only has to lay his proposal before
Parliament for 21 days. Therefore we fully endorse your call for
draft proposals to be published by the Minister before this occurs.
Dependent Territories. We believe that
the Convention should be ratified for UK Overseas Dependent Territories
and Crown Dependencies as well. It is not clear why this is not
being pursued by the Government.
Reservations. We were pleased to hear
that reservations on independent living and sign language interpretation
appear to have been dropped. However, as we have no substantive
wording or reasoning for this withdrawal, neither we nor your
Committee have any way of knowing if this may come back into the
frame at a later date.
UNCCC was concerned to hear that new reservations
had emerged since Ann McGuire's letter to you of 24 September.
Benefits and guardianship. We are concerned
that the DWP are raising objections which could be accommodated
within the existing safeguarding system on appointees which still
has to be reviewed by a supervisor in DWP. Article 12(4) is clear
that it does not require disproportionate measures as safeguards.
The DWP should surely change its procedures to accommodate the
need for a proportionate independent review in accordance with
Article 12.4 rather than raising a reservation.
Article 18 Immigration and Public Health.
We agree with members of your committee the Government already
has powers to quarantine people and planes etc if there is evidence
of infectious disease. And this would be allowed under the terms
of the Convention as a non-arbitrary deprivation of mobility or
nationality.
We have serious concerns that this reservation
may be a smoke screen for reject disabled asylum seekers and immigrants
because they have an impairment. Jacqui Smith told your Committee
on 27 October as Home Secretary that she knew of no plans for
a reservation. Where has this suggestion come from?
Ministry of Defence. The exemption from
the DDA is out of date and out of step with Equality and Human
Rights. The MoD has said it only wants this reservation on recruitment,
yet the Minister said the main reason was for tactical deployment.
There is no need for this reservation. There are already grounds
for occupational categories and competencies in the DDA. We were
told that the European Commission had also got this reservation
as an option. What the Minister neglected to tell you was it was
British Government representatives who insisted on this-as we
are reliably informed by the European Disability Forum. Incidentally
the British Dyslexia Association found that 60% of Special Forces
were dyslexic and had to provide the MOD with advice on reasonable
adjustments.
Education Article 24. We still see no
need for the reservation/ interpretive declaration the Government
are suggesting. The progressive realisation clause which will
allow for the range of provision under the current state system
to slowly evolve inclusive capacity. We cannot however accept
that separate special schools can be seen as inclusive provision.
This makes the concept of inclusive education meaningless.
We were particularly concerned to hear that
the Minister said that one of the reasons for including special
schools was to meet the needs of certain disabled children. The
Government in the 2001 SEN Disability Act specifically got rid
of this as a reason to send children to special schools against
parental wishes. The other argument seemed to be about parental
choice. We do not believe that human rights can be limited on
the basis of parental choice. The state has to provide a quality
education not a choice. This concept also contradicts the principles
of the Convention and the contents of Article 7 which gives increasing
weight to the views of the child with their evolving capacity.
We are not convinced that the Devolved Administrations
are in agreement with the proposed reservation to Article 24.
In particular, we greatly doubt that the Minister for Education
in Northern Ireland concurs with any proposed reservation/ interpretive
declaration to a UN Human Rights Treaty.
Optional Protocol. We agree that individuals
should have the right to go to the Committee if they have exhausted
judicial procedures. It cannot support the development of Human
Rights if people in the UK have this right in areas of European
Competency and not in others.
Lastly we share your amazement that 41 Countries
have ratified with four reservations and the UK on their own are
contemplating four reservations. We would want to point out that
other signatories of the Treaty are very likely to challenge the
UK Government if they go ahead on this basis.
The position of the Campaign remains that the
Convention should be ratified without reservations, including
reservations disguised as interpretive declarations.
Richard Rieser
Chair of the United Nations Convention Campaign Coalition
| 
