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

First I must apologise to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for not being here to hear their opening speeches. What can one do? I am a passionate speaker on behalf of haemophiliacs, so I had to support an amendment in the House, but I am equally passionate about this issue. One cannot be in both places at once, so thank you so much for allowing me to come in now. The significance of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is immense. It represents an international acceptance that disabled people are disadvantaged in society due to social, economic and environmental barriers, and not because of their physical or mental conditions. In the disability world, we call that the social model. Disabled people have campaigned for this definition of their status for more than half a century. This convention reaffirms disabled people’s inalienable human rights to freedom, respect, equality, dignity and autonomy and it charts positive steps that Governments must take to make these rights a reality. Most significant of all, this convention, the first international human rights treaty of the 21st century, is a genuine product of partnership, of co-production, between disabled people and Governments. The principle of partnership captured in the phrase, "Nothing about us without us" must continue as this treaty is implemented. That is why I must share with noble Lords my grave disappointment that the Government on this occasion have failed to involve disabled people and their organisations in the last stage before ratification. Oh dear, what a shame. We had such a good record on partnership work. It was only on 3 March, with the publication of the Explanatory Memorandum, that the Government set out in detail their proposed reservations and declarations in the areas of education, immigration, employment and legal capacity. This was the very first opportunity for disabled people and others, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to examine these reservations and declarations. No formal consultation has taken place. It is extremely disappointing that a Government with such a proud record on disability rights, respected around the world for their efforts, should have decided that reservations and declarations were necessary, still worse that they were unwilling to consult on them. Of course, what do disabled people think? "What have they got to hide?" So silly. As time is short, I shall confine my comments to the reservation regarding education, as it is my passion and, of course, because it concerns me the most. I find it extremely sad that the Government should take issue with part of the convention intended to encourage the progressive realisation of an education system that extends belonging and provides the very best start in life for every child, disabled or not. By keeping a place for segregation in the education system, the Government are, I believe, signalling their acceptance of a two-tier system status quo. Many of us, and certainly the disability community, who are campaigning for inclusion feel that this reservation will keep the status quo and move us no further on. Segregated special schools represent progress not yet made. It is an exercise in doublespeak to describe schools that separate disabled children from their non-disabled peers as inclusive, as the Government now seek to do. Such provision, often requiring children to attend residential schools many miles from their home, is not in my view compatible with the spirit of the convention for private and family life. One can sympathise with parents deciding, in the absence of viable alternatives, to send their child to such a school, but it is not choice; it is Hobson’s choice.