The Perils of Overcomplicating - the Government and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

I was playing snooker recently. I had various options for my next shot, none of which was particularly appealing. I could take the long red, but could easily miss, which would leave my opponent with a possible red from which he could get on to a colour. There was a short pot at a tricky angle. This was also missable, it would open up the pack, there was no guarantee I’d be on a colour, and I could leave my opponent on. He could then get onto a colour and the reds would be available.

I stood pondering while my opponent checked his watch, visited the lavatory, and bought a pint. I was thinking multiple shots ahead, running through a bewildering array of scenarios and what-ifs: I had overcomplicated the problem to the point where I was frozen by indecision. I had lost sight of the long-term game plan (winning), and was so overwhelmed by details and fears that I had failed to spot an easy safety shot: simple, effective, in line with the game plan.

To anyone who has followed the Government’s progress on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, this scenario will be depressingly familiar. The British Government, which already has some of the world’s most comprehensive disability equality legislation, has missed its own deadline to ratify this Convention, much to the chagrin of the disability movement. It has proposed more reservations and declarations than the other 43 countries who have already ratified combined, on defence, on immigration, on education, largely to counter the fears of its own civil servants as to the effects of the legislation. Amidst these worries about miscellaneous legal and bureaucratic complications it has lost sight of the bigger picture, and now seems like a rabbit frozen in headlights.

The Ministry of Defence wants reservations, even though the idea that equality legislation meant immediately forming the 1st Battalion, the Power Chair Regiment was debunked years ago. The Department for Children, Schools and Families wants reservations on education, to preserve Special Schools, despite already being committed to inclusive education. Granted the immediate abolition of Special Schools would be a disaster and parents should be allowed a say in how their children are educated (education is more important than ideology; if 60 years of disastrous political meddling with education has taught us anything it should be that). But the Convention does not suggest immediate abolition. The Convention sets a goal, inclusive education, which we all agree is a valid goal, and allows time to make that happen properly, without rushing things; Progressive Realization are the key words here. The Home Office wants reservations on Immigration for public health reasons, even though it’s doubtful whether anyone at the Home Office was even born the last time someone was refused entry to the UK on the grounds of disability.

Rather than excessively worrying about the details of implementation, the Government would do well to remember what the UN Convention symbolises, and what it is meant to achieve in the long run. Britain’s dithering on this matter sends worrying messages to other countries and to disabled people, who will be wondering why we find it so difficult to ratify a Convention which states what successive Governments are supposed to already believe; that disabled people are full and equal citizens with equal rights to inclusion and self-determination. It’s really not that complicated.