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

I understand the point that the noble Lord is pressing me on. I see that the Box is scribbling a note and coming to my aid, so perhaps I might come back to that before I have finished dealing with the rest of the debate. A number of noble Lords spoke about the reservations and the interpretative declaration. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked whether the Government agree that there should be as few reservations and declarations as possible. Our answer to that is yes, clearly we do. However, we do not consider that the handful we are proposing are excessive in this context, and we are proposing to enter them only where we consider there is a need. The noble Lord also asked whether the Government should be committed to making the legislative and other changes necessary to enable them to be withdrawn as soon as possible. The Government have made clear that the reservation in respect of arrangements for the review of benefit appointees will be removed when the proportionate system of review is introduced and the reservation in respect of liberty of movement will be reviewed after 12 months. The need for the other reservations will also be kept under review and where reservations become redundant they will be withdrawn. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, raised the same point and asked whether there should be a commitment to review all reservations in 12 months. All the reservations will be subject to periodic review and where they are no longer needed they will be removed. The noble Baroness particularly emphasised the need for that review and I anticipate that the Equality and Human Rights Commission, in its role as part of the independent monitoring framework, will ensure that the Government are mindful of that, and rightly so. There were many comments on education issues, not all taking the same position, from the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell and Lady Thomas. Concern has been expressed that the reservation and interpretative declaration in respect of education are unnecessary and that other countries with education systems similar to ours have not found it necessary to enter either. Germany was mentioned several times, including by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I reiterate that, although I cannot comment on the basis on which other countries may have come to their conclusions when ratifying, the UK Government consider both the declaration and the reservation unnecessary. I note the concern expressed by noble Lords that the education reservation and declaration represent a change in policy. Let me be very clear: that is not the case. The purpose of the proposed declaration and the reservation is to maintain the present policy and legislative provision for inclusive education, which, in the UK, includes a range of provision including mainstream and special schools. I assure noble Lords that they do not represent a dilution of our commitment but are intended to make the UK’s current position clear. The interpretative declaration is proposed to make it clear that the UK’s general education system includes both mainstream and special schools and thereby clarifies how the UK Government interpret the convention. That will make it clear that special schools are considered part of the UK’s general education system and that parents have a right to express a preference for a special school. The reservation is proposed to allow for specific circumstances where disabled children's special needs may be best met through specialist provision, which may be some way from their home, so that they will need to be educated outside their local community. That also maintains parental choice for schools outside the local community.