However, the MoD wants to be given a full opt out before the Government ratifies the convention.
Kevan Jones, the Veterans Minister, described the EHRC's calls as "misguided" and "smacked of tokenism".
Mr Jones said: "If you have an Army where you do not send soldiers to war then you create a force with two classes of soldiers and for reasons of morale and unit cohesion that could not be allowed to take place.
"To suggest that you have that situation (with the retention of disabled servicemen) is wrong. It is quite right that soldiers who are disabled through their service, such as soldiers injured in Afghanistan, are retained by the service.
"The idea that you could recruit disabled people and then not deploy them on operations wouldn't be good for anyone."
Shouldn't we start from a position of 'What is Disabled'?
It as as the honourale Arrser points out , misguided. It is right to try and offer continued employment to those disabled in service, but to recruit those who may be unable to pass the Army entrance tests?
Where does it end, how many times would the entry guidelines have to be rewritten?
As much as I hate to say it the Labour minister who was in the article came up with some pretty good points. We can not have a two tier Army/Air Force/Navy split between deployable and non deployable. The arguement that it will make more personnel available for operations is pretty weak. Each unit has a set amountof LSNs and all MCM Div are interested in is making sure each regiment is fully manned or as close to it as possible. They won't careif have the LSNs are filled with disabled personnel. When it comes to ops the regiments will then have to trawl to make up the numbers thus putting even more people out of harmonisation.
Hmmm the first Battalion the wheelchair warriors maybe? Imagine all the Challengers with blue badges on. Wheelchair access for assault courses (imagine the ramp to get over the wall and how will they do the rope swing?)
If we retain (as we are doing so already) some of our injured troops to take on home duties ie admin support in training establishment and bases, we are helping our wounded out AND filling quotas.
There was a one armed Armoury NCO at Blandford for years. If necesary rerole existing civvie clk jobs in to uniform (albeit minus x factor) essentially a local contracted soldier (as per MPGS) et voila. Same for storeman, etc maybe even range staff.
No Serviceman would complain that he was off to war AGAIN, but the guy in the stores wasnÂ´t if the guy in stres was diffi a leg due to mine strike, would they? The Welfare office could get a welfare clk who was injured.
The MPGS and the AWS, is already part of the AGC, so maybe AGC (Wounded Solders*) as the corps and MCM have a base knowledge of local contracts and welfare. It would save the Forces money too, as they would be getting someone in work who might otherwise just draw a war pension.#
*CanÂ´t think of a better title # I am not deriding this by the way, just thinking like a bean counter
We LOOK AFTER OUR WOUNDED.
We meet the EU quotas.
Civvies get teh chop.
Some of the retained personnel could be difficult to fit in to the system ie RSM to Pay Clk
On a serious note I agree with keeping in those who have been injured through service and employing them as best we can where possible, but how would a two tier armed forces work?
Would we take away the x factor from those who joined up disabled? What roles could they take up without it being seen as discriminatory? How would we train two streams of recruit, the able bodied and the less able (whatever the correct term is today)? Would the obese be able to claim that they were disabled (cos its me glands innit) and therefore excused phys? Once we let them in we'll be getting sued by every potential recruit who has been refused entry on medical grounds.
We HAD a two tier system for quite some time, right up until 1992 +/-
You had the Army and you had the WRAC. There were specific posts for Males (any capbadge) and WRACs.
ie a Signals Sqn could have a WRAC SSM, a R Signals SQMS, WRAC & R sigs Tp SSgts and the same divi up for others. On move out, the SSM would be replaced by another WRAC, nothing else. Promotion boards sat separetly too.
ie. You have a Disabled List. (for want of a better term). Then you locate jobs for them. ie Range Staff, non-deployable Clks (Welfare Clk straight away), CDT teams, Admin and Support at the ATRs and other training establishments. ie RAOs, Medics, MT, SQMS. I am not suggesting instructor slots should be taken over by such a list, nor ruling it out. Phase 1 might be a bit tough to find someone to do such a role in the main (although I wouldnÂ´t rule it out) but Phase 2 could be easily filled (excluding some ie Combat Engr).
There are literally thousands of jobs that could be carried out by a P7. Some are. My last troop had several permanent P7s, and several long term. This just clarifies the situation.
Re X factor. I woud say it would depend. They would have to have reduced, as they wouldnÂ´t be deployable. Those on local contracts would get the X factor as MPGS.
I am aware of some lads minus limbs deploying, so perhaps there is an existing system that can allow for soldiers to deploy with disabilites. So a transfer to the disabled List wouldnÂ´t be mandatory.
The idea of a list would also set out a certain number of slots, that would prevent the Armed Forces becomeing swamped with undeployables, and would provide a "safe" channel for promotion through a seperated system.
Re recruiting of Disabled. Unfortunatly we haev the capablility of producing far too many as it stands. Without recruiting them.
But a two tier system would be discriminatory, different pay scales for the disabled would be discriminatory. Not employing them in the first place is discriminatory.... Easiest option is to only discriminate against them once and not employ them.