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

I am grateful to my noble friend. I was attaching myself not so much to the formal reply or explanations in the memorandum as to what the Minister himself said, as I understood it, in his opening comment about this not conferring rights. I understand that that underlay part of the Government’s argument that for the avoidance of any doubt about whether they were amending the law, they would be required to include these reservations. However, there is some certainty about this. It is important that Parliament should not be uncertain before the treaty is ratified. Notwithstanding the desirability of ratification being expeditiously concluded, if there are new rights, they ought to be clearly set out in an explanatory memorandum or in authoritative statements. If they are not, what is the intention? If domestic law does not reflect the requirements of the convention, the Government should indicate their intention to move towards accepting the agreed international standards. There has been a definitional point in respect of the education of special needs children. The position is very different in Germany from that in Britain. Fewer children are in comprehensive education in special schools in Germany than in this country. I recall in earlier evidence to the Joint Committee that the Government indicated that they were not interested in the views of other countries in ratifying, that comparisons were not really a matter that exercised them and that some countries entered into such commitments because they were aspirational. Such ambiguity is not appropriate for this country. I accept that we have stated an acceptance of the need to conform our domestic law with the international law to which we subscribe. The particular points have been made so well made by the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Lester. What I am most concerned about is that the process should allow that clarity to be fully displayed before Parliament, so that Members of Parliament can give their full-hearted consent to what is being done. Notwithstanding the fact that the convention has, from the evidence deployed earlier by the Government, reached this stage under the allotted time by quite a margin from that of certain other UN conventions, I fear that because these issues have not been built into the process for ratification, they will be opened up for discussion not just with special interest groups but more widely with their representatives in Parliament. I hope that we see this debate as one that reflects a transitional state in which the Government are moving towards the recognition that the Ponsonby Rule will not suffice and that in a modern legislature we have a duty to take on the burden of implementing these international obligations. I had hoped that by this time we would have seen the Government’s proposals for the Constitutional Renewal Bill published in a form that takes account of what was said about it by the Joint Committee on which I have the honour to serve. It seems to be slipping back in the parliamentary Session and one must express some concern about that. This is an important matter and it is not new. The Wakeham commission recommended that there should be a joint committee to scrutinise such legislation and pronounce on its importance, and indeed that has been progressively part of the Government’s own thinking. However, I fear that there has been some recoiling on this and that it is almost in a sense an accident that we are holding this debate. I say that because it is not conceived as appropriately necessary for Parliament to underpin and, indeed, along with the Government, take credit for the enhancement of the protection of human rights—in this case the rights of those with disabilities. Although I understand the narrow focus of the debate, I hope that the Minister will feel able to give some indication of the Government’s intentions with respect to scrutiny by Parliament, confirm that we are moving in that direction, and further confirm that it is not their intention to confine the debate. The apology given in written evidence so far for not revealing the information requested by the Joint Committee explained that there was a need for speed. Of course that could have been foreseen and responded to earlier, and I hope that we can have a reassurance from the Minister on these points.