Mr. Markus Schefer:

I thank Deputy Wynne for the questions. On the co-ordination issue, it is an issue on a horizontal level. It does not just pertain to social and health services, but to all aspects of Governments. For example, the security services need to be included. Policing and construction need to be included. Every department of government needs to be co-ordinated. That is the purpose and focal point of Article 33.1. The convention leaves open to member states whether they create one or more focal points. However, it is important to have one focal point that has the ability and power to link together all Government entities and to co-ordinate across all administrative borders, which in my experience is a quite a task. Administrations are usually structured vertically and they do not have much interaction. A member state needs to have one entity. It is important that entity is hierarchically suitably located and not on a low level because low level focal points in this area usually do not have the capacity to bring on board government entities that might be resistant to a common policy footing, including local government. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, very often services are being provided by local government. This is where good intentions very often come to an end and are not transformed into action. A member state needs to have focal points on local government as well because it, too, is structured vertically. There must be close interaction with central government or otherwise it will not work. It is a task to create an entity that can effectively work across established borders within administrations and such entity needs to be located at a hierarchically relatively high level.

On the impact of non-ratification of the optional protocol, the optional protocol in effect puts some pressure on the Judiciary to abide by the UNCRPD in that it opens up an avenue against the decision of the highest court. Once a domestic remedy has been exhausted a complaint can be filed with the committee. Where this is a possibility, it transforms into some pressure on the Judiciary to take the UNCRPD seriously and not simply to ignore it. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, to ratify the optional protocol a member state needs to have a legal means in place for people in judicial proceedings to invoke the rights in the convention. To do that in a dualist country requires incorporation. In the UK, the lack of incorporation of the UNCRPD hampers the effectiveness in judicial proceedings despite the UK having ratified the optional protocol.

On the shift from the perception of disabled persons as service-users to rights-based bearers, this week we had European hearings on de-institutionalisation. It has become clear that de-institutionalisation will not work as long as persons with disabilities are viewed as objects of Government benevolence and users of services that cost a lot. This mental shift needs to be take place to enable de-institutionalisation and vice versa. By starting de-institutionalisation we contribute to a change in societal views. We cannot wait for one part to happen in order that the other can start. It is a shift that will require some time. It is not a development that can be completed by tomorrow morning. It will require time and this is more of a reason to start now and start intensively.

Deputy Wynne mentioned attitudinal change.

In the end, the effectiveness of the convention relies on attitudinal changes. That is partly why the convention contains a provision for measures to create some sensitivity in society. Article 8 is a provision that not all of the UN human rights treaties contain. We are here not just as a legal matter but to change society, with the timeframe that entails.