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

My understanding is that the reservation is to deal with the point that for some children specialist provision—which I think that there is agreement should be a part of our inclusive system—may be some way from the home. I think that that is why that reservation is lodged. I see the noble Lord shaking his head. I will certainly review that and I am sure that we will pick that up more specifically in our response to the JCHR report, but I think that that is the purpose of the reservation. The thrust of the convention is the right to have education in your local community, but some special schools may be some way away from someone's local community. We see inclusion as being about the quality of a child's experience and providing access to a high-quality education that enables them to make progress in their learning and to participate fully in the activities of their school and community. I am conscious that there is not an identity view among noble Lords about the extent to which special schools should be maintained, but I am trying to set out the Government's current position on education and special schools. Given that that is the Government’s position, it is appropriate to have both the declaration and the reservation—the latter, perhaps, on the narrow point that I have just outlined. One noble Lord raised the issue of Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Executive has been fully consulted throughout our work towards ratification of the convention and we understand that the Executive support the proposed basis for ratification. No concerns have been previously raised about the proposal to enter the declaration and reservation on Article 24. My honourable friend Jonathan Shaw is seeking clarification from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister about Northern Ireland's overall position. A number of noble Lords asked about the Armed Forces. The rationale for the reservation is based on the need to maintain the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces, and that relies on teams consisting of fully able personnel who can meet a worldwide liability to deploy. Armed Forces personnel therefore need to have a robust constitution both physically and mentally to serve in situations where they may be called upon to work for prolonged periods under difficult and stressful conditions in arduous terrain. It has been suggested that the fact that the Armed Forces retain a number of personnel who become disabled in the course of their duties, a point probed by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is evidence that the reservation is necessary. We would not agree that there is a clear moral obligation for the services to look after personnel who have been injured. Rehabilitation can often best be facilitated within a military environment, particularly as the individuals concerned often have relevant experience which can be exploited to the benefit of all serving. Cases are considered on an individual basis against manpower requirements, and while the services have continued to retain those people injured on operations who wish to stay, where necessary in an alternative role, they do not artificially create posts to accommodate them. There is a fundamental difference between retaining someone who has relevant military experience and recruiting someone with no previous experience and is unable to meet the standards required.