European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Order 2009

I have to say that when I walked into the Moses Room this afternoon, I did not entirely expect the sort of debate that we have just had, but the Grand Committee should be grateful for the very full explanation that the Minister gave to an order that, on the face of it, can be described as nothing less than opaque. Thank goodness, then, for the Explanatory Memorandum, which, although brief, shorter than either the speech made by the Minister for Disabled People when he introduced the order in another place or that of the noble Lord himself, is some guidance to what we are discussing this afternoon, namely the United Nations convention. Interested as I am in parliamentary procedure, I will not be going into the parliamentary actions of treaty-making, or rather, as has been pointed out, the lack of them. They are for another day. I would point out, though, and I think I am right in so doing, that Governments usually sign treaties—one thinks, for example, of war treaties—in some degree of haste and the ratification depends on the number of signatories. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, with his vast experience, will be able to confirm that. To go back to the convention, its purpose is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal treatment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms of all disabled people so that they can participate fully in society. Who better to remind us of that need than the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell? As the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, noted from the Minister’s speech, it is a reaffirmation of these human rights for disabled people. There are, as I understand it, no new rights involved, but one of the questions we ought to ask is where this reaffirmation springs from. Is it a previous UN treaty or is it something else? As the Explanatory Memorandum sets out, this treaty confirms the obligation of the United Nations states to protect, promote and ensure the human rights that all people already have on an equal basis to those of able-bodied people. These are, of course, very wide and encompass several political, economic, social and cultural rights. I have lost count of the number of times over the past 20 years that I have had said to me that disabled people are people first and disabled second. My second question to the Minister is what rights able-bodied people have that disabled people do not. I accept that all too often disabled people are treated as second-class citizens across the world, but I would like to hear the Minister’s answer, particularly as I do not believe that this is the case across the European Union. In this country, as has been pointed out, we have the Disability Discrimination Act, which we strengthened only recently, with all-party support. I understand that it has its equivalent in other EU countries. Since the EU believes that it is necessary, we have to agree today’s order willy-nilly. Despite the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we on this side of the Grand Committee agree with the Government that a few exceptions are needed. The tenor of the remarks of all noble Lords who have spoken is this: are these reservations new, and are they needed now? I think that is a reasonable paraphrase of the debate that we have had so far. My honourable friend the shadow Minister for Disabled People, Mr Harper, listed the exemptions in another place. There is an exemption for service in the Armed Forces, which, when able-bodied, do such a magnificent job in helping other nations secure peace around the world and on their own in Northern Ireland, although, mercifully, they are not needed there in such numbers as previously. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Lester, speak of compatibility. Our own DDA excludes them too. However, if they become disabled in the course of their service, there is no requirement to keep them on in another capacity within, say, the Army, or indeed in any other of the Armed Forces. In many cases this would be a waste of their training, and I hope that the MoD, which does so well for disabled veterans, will take that on board. The Minister will correct me, as he loves to do when I am wrong, but I do not believe that this reservation is to do with recruitment. Does he agree that it applies to the retention of troops who become disabled in the course of their armed service? Should our reservation not make that clear? Another exemption retains the right to maintain Immigration Rules, which in essence give us the right to screen immigrants. I believe that this is entirely for health reasons. We agree with that too, although we note that the Government intend to review this in a year’s time to see whether it remains a useful tool in our public health armoury. Perhaps the Minister will expand on that. How confident can we be in this timing, though? The Minister for Disabled People committed the Government to laying this order by the end of last year and we have it three months later—not exactly, to quote from the Minister’s speech, at the "earliest opportunity". There is a third reservation, which concerns the DWP itself. The convention requires a regular review of what it calls "substituted decision-making" by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body. The DWP has no review system for people who are appointed to claim and collect benefits on behalf of disabled people. I understand that the department is working towards just such a review. I would therefore be grateful for a progress report, both now and as things evolve. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, majored on the interpretative declaration that makes clear that our general education system includes both mainstream and special schools. I am glad that this is so because I believe, perhaps unfashionably, that in most cases disabled children are better off in mainstream schools. The conventional education wisdom on this point has varied, I note, during my time in this House. Nevertheless, there are those for whom special schools are appropriate—indeed, are vital. Although education is not my subject and never has been, I think the Government are in a bit of a muddle here. On the one hand, they have a stated belief in special schools; on the other, local authorities are allowed to close them. I would be grateful for a response on that point. Will these reservations and the interpretative declaration be attached to the ratification that the EU sends to the UN? How exactly does all this work? As I said earlier, this order does not permit the UK to ratify the convention. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, also said, no parliamentary debate is needed at all.