COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS CONSIDERS REPORT OF UNITED KINGDOM

Committee on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights
13 May 2009


The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has considered the fourth and fifth periodic reports of the United Kingdom, on how that country implements the provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Introducing the report of the United Kingdom, Vijay Rangarajan, Constitution Director in the Ministry of Justice, said the United Kingdom was fully committed to a vigorous development of economic, social and cultural policy, and had consistently pursued a progressive agenda, largely through the "Welfare State", and could point to sustained progress on social inclusion and increased funding for education and healthcare, as well as measures to eradicate child poverty, as evidence of its commitment to domestic realisation of the rights set out in the Covenant. While there had been significant progress, the United Kingdom acknowledged that there was room for improvement, and continued to set challenging targets for improvement in those areas which still posed difficulties, and to pursue a range of measures including legislation, policies, and programmes which advanced the principles and objectives set out in the Covenant. The Government believed that its progressive social policy ensured that the rights in the Covenant were being delivered.

Among the questions and issues raised by Committee Experts were whether the United Kingdom was reconsidering its position with regards to the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights, as a large part of the population would consider these to be part of the rights to be defended under the Bill of Rights; whether the financial crisis had had an impact on employment and unemployment, and what measures were being considered to rectify these; whether there were specific programmes to reduce unemployment for workers from ethnic minorities including Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Caribbean or Black Africans; what the Government was doing in the context of its forecast that it would fall short of its target to reduce child poverty by half by 2010; whether there was a human rights approach to the anti-poverty reduction strategy and whether it integrated economic, social and cultural rights in line with the statement adopted by the Committee on poverty in May 2001; and whether Scotland was more disadvantaged in terms of education than England or Wales and what was the nature of these differences.

In concluding remarks, Mr. Rangarajan said the delegation was very grateful for the degree of intensive engagement, and was genuinely looking forward to the concluding observations, that should give the United Kingdom a steer on the genuinely difficult and intractable problems which had been discussed. The delegation had done all it could to provide detailed answers, trying to focus on results rather than on initiatives and on the results of the action the Government was taking. It was clear that there was still much work to do, and the United Kingdom looked forward to the work continuing. Among the issues brought to the Committee's attention was the discussion on a United Kingdom Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, and it was clear that the Committee also considered this as an opportunity for the United Kingdom, and any Expert should feel free to contribute to the national process.

Also among the delegation of the United Kingdom were representatives of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly Government, the Home Office, the Government Equalities Office, the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, the Department for Children, Schools and Families, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health, the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the United Kingdom Mission in Geneva.

The next meeting of the Committee will be at 3 p.m. on Friday, 15 May, when it will release its concluding observations and recommendations and conclude this session.



Report of United Kingdom

The combined fourth and fifth report of the United Kingdom (E/C.12/GBR/5) says the Human Rights Act was implemented on 2 October 2000. It works in three main ways. Firstly, it places all public authorities under a statutory obligation to act compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights, and allows a case to be brought in a United Kingdom court against a public authority which fails to do so. Secondly, it requires that all legislation must be read and given effect, so far as it is possible to do so, in a way compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Finally, the Act requires United Kingdom courts to take account of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg when determining a question which has arisen in connection with a right in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a European Convention on Human Rights right unless it is required to do so by primary legislation that cannot be interpreted in any other way.

The Government is committed to the Millennium Development Goals and is therefore focusing its efforts on the promotion of sustainable development and reducing poverty worldwide. As part of this approach, the Government promotes the realisation of human rights by developing policy, practice and partnerships that integrate human rights and development. The Government does not dispute that economic, social and cultural rights are as important as and indivisible from civil and political rights. However, this does not mean that all human rights require identical approaches. The United Kingdom’s policy has been to take legislative measures within the scope of each right where these have practical and beneficial effect to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has various policies, programmes and legislative measures such as the Education Act and the Disability Discrimination Act which are designed to help people to enjoy their rights. The Government has introduced a significant amount of legislation and administrative measures towards the realisation of the rights contained in the Covenant.

In November 2004, the Government introduced the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act, which was the biggest overhaul of domestic violence legislation for thirty years. The Act has been rolling out in stages and in December 2006, the Prime Minister announced that the remaining provisions would be introduced from July 2007. The Government also ring-fenced £32 million for women’s refuges. This money is expected significantly to improve the number and quality of refuge places currently available.

The Government believes that, within the boundaries set by law (particularly under the Children Act 2004) the use of physical punishment is a matter for parents to decide. It would be inappropriate to suggest to ordinary parents that they cannot distinguish between smacking and criminal violence, or that one usually leads to the other. The Government supports parents’ freedom and responsibility to choose what is best for their own families. However, criminal violence or abuse on children will not be tolerated and domestic courts will deal with those adults whose actions overstep the mark.

The report of the United Kingdom also has two addenda. The first (E/C.12/GBR/5/Add.1) contains data on the Crown Dependencies of the United Kingdom, namely the Bailiwick of Guernsey and its dependencies, the Bailiwick of Jersey, and the Isle of Man. The second (E/C.12/GBR/5/Add.2) contains data on the Overseas Territories, namely Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falklands Islands, Gibraltar, St Helena, and the Turk and Caicos Islands.

Introduction of Report

VIJAY RANGARAJAN, Constitution Director in the Ministry of Justice, introducing the report of the United Kingdom, said the United Kingdom placed high value on the work of the Committee and of other United Nations treaty-monitoring bodies, and viewed the monitoring process led by Expert Committees as an essential element in the protection and promotion of rights internationally, and a catalyst for achieving meaningful change. The United Kingdom was fully committed to a vigorous development of economic, social and cultural policy, and had consistently pursued a progressive agenda, largely through the "Welfare State", and could point to sustained progress on social inclusion and increased funding for education and healthcare, as well as measures to eradicate child poverty, as evidence of its commitment to domestic realisation of the rights set out in the Covenant. While there had been significant progress, the United Kingdom acknowledged that there was room for improvement, and continued to set challenging targets for improvement in those areas which still posed difficulties, and to pursue a range of measures including legislation, policies, and programmes which advanced the principles and objectives set out in the Covenant. The Government believed that its progressive social policy ensured that the rights in the Covenant were being delivered.

The Government saw provision of these rights as a progressive endeavour, and noted that different jurisdictions took different approaches depending on their constitutions, their history, and their social and economic conditions. The Committee should be in no doubt about the United Kingdom's commitment to meet its obligations, especially in the current economic climate - indeed, the economic situation had heightened the need to ensure that people's basic economic and social needs were fulfilled. The United Kingdom was taking action internationally, nationally and locally to help people and businesses to cope with the financial downturn. In the domestic context, the United Kingdom had continued to make progress in key socio-economic areas since the last reporting session in 2007, and its commitment to the Covenant's objectives had been notably reinforced by the establishment of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which came into operation on 1 October 2007, to eradicate discrimination, reduce inequality, protect human rights and build good relations, ensuring that everybody had a fair chance to participate in society. Along with the Scottish Human Rights Commission and Northern Ireland Human Rights commission, the United Kingdom had a full complement of human rights commissions.

The United Kingdom labour market was increasingly designed to encourage women, single parents, older workers and those with disabilities to be economically active. The Government worked closely with trade unions, business organizations, and other interested parties on employment law and policy issues, and would continue to bring forward measures to ensure that the legal framework remained up to date, that the rights of employees were adequately protected, and that all workers who should be aware of and benefiting from these rights were doing so. Clear progress was being made in health and education reforms across the United Kingdom - education standards had risen at all levels and across all major ethnic groups since the last report. Meanwhile, the new National Health Service Constitution for England brought together for the first time the principles, values, rights and responsibilities that underpinned the National Health Service in England. The United Kingdom was home to a rich diversity of communities, faith groups and cultures, and the Government positively encouraged the freedom of these communities to express themselves in a creative and free environment.

Questions by Committee Experts on articles one to five of the Covenant on the right to self-determination; the obligation of States Parties to achieve progressively the full realisation of the rights in the Covenant; the equal right of men and women to enjoy economic, social and cultural rights; the limitation of these rights for the purpose of promoting general welfare; and the prohibition of limitation of any rights under the pretext of them not being recognised in the Covenant

Committee Experts raised a number of questions and issues, including, among others, what action had the Government taken to institutionalise cooperation with non-governmental organizations; whether the Parliament took into account human rights when deciding upon a course of action; whether the United Kingdom was reconsidering its position with regards to the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights, as a large part of the population would consider these to be part of the rights to be defended under the Bill of Rights; whether the Government was considering signing and ratifying the Optional Protocol; measures taken by the State Party to increase awareness of the Covenant and its provisions among public officials such as the police and judges and how this could be increased; what was being done to ensure that vulnerable groups in the United Kingdom could assert their civil and political rights as there appeared to be a gap; why there was no National Human Rights Commission for England, Wales and Scotland; why corporal punishment in the home was still allowed, in particular as this appeared to indicate that the Committee's recommendations were neither taken seriously nor into account; and what was the impact of the law and practice of counter-terrorism measures on economic, social and cultural rights and whether there was sufficient opportunity for judicial review of infringements of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to effective remedy when these were violated. Committee Experts also mentioned that the format and presentation of the report exactly followed the methodology and were exemplary.

Response by Delegation

Responding to these questions and others, Dr. Rangarajan said with regards to the Committee's recommendations, the United Kingdom took these in quite a formal sense, as being advice as to the fulfilment of its obligations, which it took very seriously, under this and other international conventions. The process that the United Kingdom went through to prepare for the examination showed that it did indeed take what the Committee said very seriously, and tried to answer them in great detail. On incorporation of Covenant rights, their justiciability and their treatment in the British justice system, the delegation said this issue was recognised as an important one had been anticipated to a significant degree. The United Kingdom’s approach traditionally to fulfilment of international obligations had been generally not to incorporate them directly into domestic law. There were some exceptions, such as the European Convention on Human Rights given effect by the Human Rights Act, and some provisions of European Community law. However, the position with regards to the Covenant was that the United Kingdom was committed as a matter of international law to the progressive realisation of these rights in the different jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. This had been an ongoing concern for the Committee. The United Kingdom was mindful of the Committee's General Comment number nine on domestic implementation. There were some important points to make in this regard - in terms of realisation of economic, social and cultural rights, what had been achieved should be looked at, rather than just legislative formalities, and the political commitments to the future realisation of these rights. The United Kingdom had been committed to the fundamental principles underlying the Covenant since World War II for many years, and this could be seen through a range of factors, including the Welfare State, free State education, and free National Health Service access according to need. Although it may not be expressed in terms of compliance with the Covenant, there could be no doubt that the Government and the people of the United Kingdom were committed to the principles of the Welfare State.

More could of course be done to make the language and the text of the Covenant better known, the delegation said. The allocation of resources was a matter for democratically elected members of the Parliament and devolved legislatures and elected local authorities, and not one for judges. There were overseas instances where judges had perhaps gone further than would be acceptable in the United Kingdom in making resource allocation decisions, and where to draw the line between political decisions and judicial decisions was an important question.

United Kingdom legislation did put a range of enforceable duties on public authorities and confer legally enforceable rights on individuals in the fields of health, housing, education, social security and equality, among others, and there were a great deal of different ways in challenging the decisions of public authorities if a person believed that their economic, social and cultural rights had been violated.

There was a whole system of tribunals in which these rights could be asserted and the Government was taking steps to unify the tribunal jurisdiction to make it simpler. Decisions by public authorities could also be challenged by way of judicial review.

The Green Paper on Rights and Responsibilities was under consultation, and recognised that economic and social rights did not currently have the same degree of constitutional status as civil and political rights, and suggested that enforceable new provisions on a range of matters including housing, equality children's rights and sustainable development could be included. The paper canvassed a range of options in relation to legal effect and enforceability on a continuum from a political and symbolic statement to directly enforceable rights for individuals. The Government's view up to now had been that it did not see that a new set of direct enforceable rights were appropriate, But this was a genuine consultation. The views of all parts of civil society including NGOs were being sought as would be the views of this Committee.

The Government had given a considerable amount of thought over recent years on how to raise awareness of the population as a whole as to human rights, as there had been speculation by critics about whether the whole human rights project was a viable one. However, the Government was determined to educate people on the value and necessity of human rights. The Ministry of Justice had implemented a programme to raise awareness of human rights among public officials and considered that it was making very good progress. It had acted to counteract myths on rights that appeared in the press, and had developed in collaboration with some NGOs a new element of the educational syllabus on human rights. However, it was true that this concentrated more on the rights in the Convention on the Rights of the Child than on this Covenant.

In terms of the practical evidence as to whether people actually understood their rights or not, the Government accepted that the general public did not know the list of rights that were set forth in the Covenant. However, it believed that the public did understand, generally speaking, what their social and economic rights were. The tribunal system was founded on the remit that it existed to help people protect and uphold their rights, and last year there were over 245,000 applications to Social Security Tribunals, and over 171,000 to asylum and immigration tribunals, as well as large numbers to other tribunals, showing a huge amount of activity where people were bringing questions about their rights to legally-constituted tribunals, where their cases were being heard flexibly and cheaply, with rapid decisions and rapid redress. However, more needed to be done - the Ministry of Justice would not stop its attempts to raise public consciousness to even higher levels. The Government accepted that there was not widespread knowledge in the United Kingdom that these rights could be assessed, and invited the Committee to advise on how best to promote and publicise rights in a meaningful way that would allow the average person in the United Kingdom to instantly and happily access information in their regard, the delegation said. There were now three national human rights institutions, and these would have a major role in educating the public. There was no particular structural weakness in their position as three separate bodies.

With regards to Overseas Territories, the delegation said the United Kingdom's relationship with these was modern, based on partnership, shared values, and the right of each territory to decide whether it wished to maintain the link with the United Kingdom. The Territories had their own Constitutions and domestic law, and conducted their own domestic affairs. The protection and promotion of human rights within their borders was mainly the responsibility of the Governments of those Territories. One of the key areas that the United Kingdom was taking forward with the Territories was constitutional reviews of their existing Constitutions, and it was pressing the Territories to include fundamental human rights chapters, reflecting at a minimum the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. The United Kingdom would not agree on a new Constitution that did not do so. On the Sovereign Base Areas, in Cyprus, the Government had not extended the provisions of the Covenant to these bases. It did not consider that the Covenant applied to the British Indian Ocean Territory as it had no permanent inhabitants; members of the Armed Forces, officials, and contractors spent only brief periods there. On the United Kingdom’s reservations which covered its remaining Territories, the delegation said that some reservations may need updating, and it undertook to review these with the Territory governments concerned.

On corporal punishment in the home, the Government did not condone smacking, and wished to progress to the point where it was considered unacceptable by the vast majority of parents, as a last resort if used at all. It seemed that most parents did not smack their children, but the Government did not consider that they should be banned from doing so by law, and the Government did not wish to criminalise those that did, and instead aimed to help parents through parenting classes to provide better ways of disciplining their children. This had proved effective. The law on physical punishment had already been strengthened, and children had been given greater protection against assault, without criminalising smacking, which would have criminalised many parents, the delegation said. Reasonable punishment did not cover incidents in which the child was physically injured and parents could be prosecuted for assault causing actual or grievous bodily harm. The Welsh Assembly Government was also opposed to corporal punishment. The Government of the United Kingdom was seeking partnership with stakeholder groups to promote non-violent forms of discipline.

Nobody had anything to fear on the impact of counter-terrorism measures on economic, social and cultural rights, the delegation said. There were measures to curtail the activities of people suspected of being terrorists - these inevitably touched upon their rights, but in all cases legal remedy was available through judicial review or statutory rights to appeal. People subjected to detention were held in locations that were subject to inspection on the A6 reservation. Those whose immigration status did not permit them to work did not have the right to work, until they had permanent residency status, when they could enjoy this right and the same access to the job market as any other United Kingdom national. With regards to the Equalities Bill, United Kingdom discrimination law protected people due to their listed specific characteristics. The Immigration Law made decisions based on immigration status; immigration status was not a list of characteristics such as gender and race. On why maternity and pregnancy protection was included in the list of characteristics requiring protection from discrimination, this had been illegal as regards employment in the United Kingdom for the last 30 years, and the Bill would outlaw discrimination also outside the workplace. The Bill would state that the rights of pregnant women and new mothers following the birth of children were protected by the public sector duty so that public authorities had to consider the impact of policies and programmes on this group, which had not been the case until now.

On positive action, positive action in the workplace already existed and businesses could advertise to attract under-represented groups when looking to recruit. The Bill extended the way positive action could be used, bringing it to the point where if there were two equally qualified persons applying for a post, the appointment could legitimately be made for the person of the under-represented group. As for the status of the Bill itself, when enacted, it would have the force of law, and there was no higher status. There would be guidance to public authorities and others, and it would be backed up by enforcement. While the United Kingdom considered that it had made progress, this was not yet sufficient, Dr. Rangarajan said, and more remained to be done, and work was being done in this regard. A combination of the Lord Chief Justice, Judicial Appointments Commission and other bodies, including the Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, had constituted an independent panel to consider how to change the judicial appointments system in order to ensure more diversity in the judiciary at all levels. The way the judiciary was appointed was by merit alone, and this was a statutory requirement.

With regards to the Optional Protocol, the delegation said the United Kingdom Government was not opposed to the principle of individual petition to the United Nations Committees, and in that frame of mind had engaged positively in the discussions on the Optional Protocol to this Covenant, which would establish that right, but remained to be convinced of the added practical value to the people of the United Kingdom. This Committee and other Committees were not courts, and could not award damages, or produce rulings on the meaning of the law, whilst the United Kingdom had strong and effective laws against discrimination or other violations of human rights for which the individuals concerned could seek reparation through the courts. However, the United Kingdom did wish to test out whether this would be of added value for the people of the United Kingdom, and had ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women with this in mind. An independent reviewer into this process had found that signing the Protocol had not led to a big change in the application of rights of women in the United Kingdom, and that there had been very little use of the Protocol by women's groups to advance the situation of women in the country, however, sufficient evidence had not yet been garnered to determine the usefulness of this mechanism to people in the United Kingdom. In the meantime, the Government would consider signing up to other complaints mechanisms on a case-by-case basis, and had signalled its intention to sign the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

On urban regeneration in Northern Ireland and the need to ensure that programmes targeted the most needy groups, the delegation said that in the United Kingdom any significant policy changes were examined for their impact, and where possible there was a quantitative assessment on hard numbers, including on regeneration projects. In a period of economic downturn, it was even more important to continue these programmes. There was a need for targeted and directed regeneration programmes in the most disadvantaged areas. The Government had developed a new and innovative partnership strategy. The delegate from the Welsh Assembly government outlined many projects aimed at entrepreneurship within Wales. These projects were specifically targeted to under-represented groups. The United Kingdom was closely monitoring the interpretation of rights in practice. With regards to ILO Convention 102 and why three parts of that Convention had not been ratified, the United Kingdom had a comprehensive system of payments for those injured at work, but ratification of part Six of the Convention would have required free medicines for those injured, whereas the United Kingdom had a statutory charge for medicines. Ratification of part Eight would have required maternity benefits to be paid equal to certain percentage of salary, and in the United Kingdom maternity benefits were paid at different levels according to the mother's employment history. The third part of the Convention that was not ratified was part Nine, on income replacement benefits for those unable to work due to illness or disability, and the United Kingdom provided comprehensive cash benefits in this regard.

On the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands, there were no exact numbers, but there were about 1,000 Chagossians living in the United Kingdom, and three to four thousand in Mauritius and the Seychelles. British citizenship had been granted to a large number of Chagossians who had a right to abode in the United Kingdom, where when they were settled they had the same rights under the Covenant as other British citizens resident there, including social security, the delegation said. Concerning to what extent Covenant rights were incorporated into development policies, the United Kingdom supported programmes that provided access to education and healthcare, and programmes protecting the vulnerable. Developing countries should be allowed to set their own policies to meet the Millennium Development Goals. The United Kingdom worked with countries to ensure greater participation of civil society and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and took a case by case approach, believing that by engaging it had a better chance of encouraging change than by disengaging with those countries that did not allow NGOs full participation. On formal consultations with civil society and NGOs in the United Kingdom, the Government welcomed and valued their input in programmes and policies, particularly on those targeted at persons most at risk of exclusion. In 2004, the Government reviewed its position on a whole range of international documents, including the Covenant, and it was difficult to determine why some of the reservations remained standing, as they appeared to be out of date, including some on the text of the Covenant.

Responding to brief follow-up questions, Dr. Rangarajan said on whether to incorporate and how to handle economic, social and cultural rights, these related to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and to the democratic process which was an essential element to realising these rights. In no sense could the Government be described as hostile to these rights, nor to their incorporation into the Bill of Rights, or the Northern Ireland Bill of Rights. It was particularly important that these rights be included with the consent of the communities there, as part of the process that they owned. The United Kingdom was reticent to directly incorporate the Covenant mainly for legal reasons. Parliament wished to legislate in this regard. However, many of the rights were entirely legally enforceable, including with legal aid for the poorer members of the community. It was not in the Government's interests to enact counter-terrorism measures that would produce the opposite effect to that which it sought, and it was working to prevent radicalisation and people being drawn into terrorist acts. The Government needed to make sure that any denial of rights in this respect was not counter-productive, and there was a huge amount of work in this respect, and the Government was making great efforts.

Questions by Committee Experts on article eleven: the right to an adequate standard of living including adequate food, clothing and housing

Among issues raised by Committee Experts in this regard were the situation in Northern Ireland and what steps were being taken to address the problem of the lack of social housing for Catholics in particular, as well as the situation in Wales and Scotland where the waiting lists for social housing seemed to increase every year; the lack of social housing for the disabled; whether the Government was going to meet targets for reducing the homeless by 2010 and whether the number of homeless was declining; and whether there was a legally-enforceable right to housing as a correlation to the freedom from homelessness.

Response by Delegation

Responding to these questions and others, the delegation said with regard to the chronic shortage of social housing and the number of people on the waiting list, in terms of the former, the Government was investing considerably in new social housing. There was an investment of over eight billion pounds in housing. Whilst the Government was aware of the waiting list issues, what it was attempting to do was increase the supply, and also prevent homelessness, ensuring that people could find their own accommodation without having to resort to the homeless process. Under legislation, people who were homeless or at risk of homelessness applied to local authorities for assistance. The number of households that were accepted as homeless was a reflection of a number of decisions that local authorities had made under housing legislation. Early intervention by local authorities did not mean that households had to go through the statutory route. Statistics showed that statutory homelessness, i.e. people who met all the criteria of homelessness, had decreased. Fifty per cent of local authorities were meeting the target to reduce temporary accommodation by 50 per cent by 2010. With regards to the poor quality of housing conditions in 2002, this was largely due to the large number of households living in bed and breakfasts - the majority were now in self-catering accommodation. There was an over-crowding reduction programme, and that was operating for households in social housing and not yet in the private rental sector.

Since 2002, the Government had extended the categories of priority need to include 16/17 year olds and other vulnerable groups. In Scotland, the Scottish Government had also taken action to widen the categories of priority need, which changes came into effect in 2004. The Scottish Government’s goal was to remove categories of need completely by 2012 and instead there would be an enforceable right to housing, the delegation said. The Scottish Government was making efforts to limit the right to buy by tenants of social housing, ensuring that that housing remained in the pool, and a number of local authorities had exercised that power, and this appeared to be increasing.

It was important in the context of homelessness and rough sleeping that the economic downturn did not increase these and undo the work of recent years, Dr. Rangarajan said, and a lot of spending at the moment focused on home owners and those at risk of mortgage repossession, and to help those in temporary need to meet mortgage payments so that they did not end up homeless. Rough sleeping was an issue of the more extreme end of homelessness. There had been a 74 per cent reduction in this since 1998, and this was being sustained. There was a target to end this by 2012, and there was a strategy called No-one Left Out that was working in this regard.

Responding to these questions and others, the delegation said there was a requirement to help homeless households and those at risk of homelessness. Local authorities have produced strategies to prevent homlessness and this had led to a 62 per cent reduction in acceptance of homelessness. There was a need for homelessness prevention to extend in a meaningful way to all category groups - housing options needed to be offered to non-priority groups, and for local authorities to recession-proof their housing options. There was a strong safety net for homeless people, or those at risk. There was an increase of access to the private rented sector, due to the economic downturn, and an access programme. Extending the prevention approach to non-priority groups reduced the number of homeless and reduced the trauma of this phenomenon.

Questions by Committee Experts on articles six to nine, on the right to work; the right to decent work; the right to form or join trade unions and the right to strike; and the right to social security

Among the questions and issues raised by the Committee Experts were whether the financial crisis had had an impact on employment and unemployment, and what measures were being considered to rectify these; whether there were specific programmes to reduce unemployment for workers from ethnic minorities including Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Caribbean or Black Africans; whether asylum seekers, given the excessive procedural delays, could be given access to the labour market; what was the situation with regards to equality of pay as the percentage of gender inequality was reportedly high; what was the situation with regards to work in prisons; what specific measures and provisions were available to disabled persons to make their way into work; did the Government have a measure of obligatory quotas for employers to hire a number of persons with disabilities in order to increase their participation in the labour market; what measures and mechanisms were in place to provide persons with disabilities with qualifications and skills to get jobs in the market; what was the proportion for compassionate leave; what had changed with regards to the standard rate of maternity pay since 2005; and whether the four pillars of United Kingdom policy on the right to work were really in line with article six of the Covenant.

Response by Delegation

Responding to these questions and others, Dr. Rangarajan said the four key elements, macro-economic stability, diversity, and others were the policies and techniques to achieve socio-economic development and full and productive employment. Full employment was the objective to be achieved as far as possible and flexible working was encouraged. Technical guidance and training programmes also helped in this regard. With regards to the Government Equality Office and the wage gap between men and women, the delegation said in 2007-2008 it stood at 22.6 per cent, and there had been a steady decrease in this. Since 1970, though this figure represented a slight increase in the gap, the overall trajectory remained downwards. There was a slightly higher pay gap difference within the private sector. Among younger women workers the gap was less pronounced, being of 5.9 per cent from age twenty to twenty nine. After thirty, it increased to 18.1 per cent, and from forty to 30.6 per cent. As well as the age difference, there was also a difference with regards to full- or part-time employment. By shining a light and making the gender pay gap more transparent, the shift would be towards equal pay, and this was underway.

On what were employment and unemployment figures in percentage terms and the economic downturn, the delegation said latest figures were that the employment rate in March this year was 78.6 per cent, down 0.5 and 1.3 per cent on the previous three months and the year. By comparison, the numbers of people claiming benefit was 1.51 million, up 57,000 on the previous month. The unemployment rate had increased to 7.1 per cent, up 0.8 per cent. The economic downturn had had a negative impact on employment, and the Government had a wide range of measures to counteract this.

There was a programme which provided help directly to people with disabilities in work or their employers to defray the extra cost of their transport to work, such as the need for a taxi rather than public transport, or special equipment needed in the workplace, or access to the workplace requiring changes, the delegation said. There was a wide range of measures, but there were more needed, but the combination of extra protection, extra support, and advice in work, as well as education for the younger alongside their non-disabled peers was, the Government considered, appropriate and sufficient. Until 1995 there had been a quota for the employment of persons with disabilities, of up to 3 per cent. All sides accepted that this was a failure, and a decision had been taken with the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act in 1995 that there was an uneasy mix between a quota and saying that the disabled should be treated as equals, and therefore the decision was to remove the quota and ensure the protection against discrimination that the Act required.

On the revised Social Charter and whether the Government intended to ratify this, the delegation said the Government was going to look at the annual reports of those countries that had signed up to the Social Charter, and would in particular be looking at some of the practical interpretations of the Charter. But there was no timeframe, nor any decision not to sign or ratify the Charter. On pension reform, and what the Government was doing on this, a major reform of pensions would come into force next year. The legislation had been passed by Parliament and would be implemented in 2010. Its main aim was to make it easier for certain groups such as women to qualify for the social insurance pension, and the major element in that was to reduce the number of years needed to qualify for a full pension rather than a pension at a reduced rate. On the level of pensions and the minimum cost of living, the Government had given particular priority to addressing pensioner poverty, and had lifted 900,000 pensioners out of poverty, and continued to seek measures to help the remaining, including increased communications, making it easier for pensioners to get the social welfare payments they were entitled to. The United Kingdom was required by law to maintain the value of the State pension in line with the movement of prices in general, and had done so, and had given a commitment that in the coming year, when prices were expected to decline, that it would not reduce benefits.

Questions by Committee Experts on articles ten and twelve, on protection of the family, mothers, and children; and the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health

Questions and issues raised by Committee Experts included what was the United Kingdom doing with regards to the issue of male life expectancy in the entire country but in Scotland in particular; how
did the Government's policy to allow universal access to HIV/AIDS treatment tally with its refusal to allow HIV/AIDS medication to asylum seekers free of charge; what was the Government doing to publicise the Covenant among health practitioners; what was the Government doing to ensure equal protection of the right to health in prisons; what was being done to inform patients afflicted with Alzheimer's and dementia and their families of their rights to get continuous medical care; what was the Government doing in the context of its forecast that it would fall short of its target to reduce child poverty by half by 2010; whether there was a human rights approach to the anti-poverty reduction strategy and whether it integrated economic, social and cultural rights in line with the statement adopted by the Committee on poverty in May 2001; what remained to be tackled with regards to human trafficking; whether there was an human rights impact study of the Olympic Games and what lessons had been learnt from the Beijing Olympics in this regard; whether there was a systemic effort by the Government to work to remedy the inequalities in access to economic, social and cultural rights that were in existence because of original disparities; and how did the Government assess the effectiveness of providing social services through private actors and were the latter applying the rights-based approach and assuming the duties of the Government under human rights law.


Response by Delegation

Responding to these questions and others, the delegation said with regard to ethnic minority employment issues, the Government was committed to narrowing the gap - ethnic minorities made up a large percentage of the working population. In terms of a future labour market for ethnic minority groups, 17 per cent of primary school children were ethnic minorities, and clearly there was a large future pool here. High concentrations of ethnic minorities lived in deprived areas, and by concentrating on these, funding was targeted to the ethnic minorities. The Government was mainstreaming efforts into mainstreamed policies and programmes, and making sure that it was working with the local authority partners in this regard. In terms of response to the economic downturn and why the New Deal programmes had been revamped, in terms of headline statistics, the economic slowdown was having a significant effect on the labour market, but the Government was working towards solutions. There were now 29.2 million people in work. In terms of the international picture, the United Kingdom continued to have one of the highest employment rates in the world, with the lowest employment rate among all G7 countries. The Government was focusing very much on active intervention, and had revamped its reform agenda. The Future Jobs Fund totalled 1.1 billion, and some of this would be targeted for young people and more for disadvantaged groups.

Since 1997 the New Deal programmes had helped nearly 2.1 million people into work, and had helped to almost eradicate long-term youth unemployment, and reduced adult long-term unemployment by two thirds. However, the market had changed in 11 years, and the programme needed to be updated. Thus, the flexible New Deal had been introduced, and this provided a range of support programmes, including focusing on people on how to sustain work, and the budget supported funds in this regard, the delegation said. On the minimum wage, the independent Low Wage Commission had recently recommended an increase to this, and the Government had accepted this recommendation. As far as young people were concerned, the Low Pay Commission had confirmed its belief that there should be different rates for different bands of young people, according to the market, but that 21-year-olds should get the adult rate. The Government had accepted this, but only from 2010, due to the current economic situation. On domestic workers, under the Working Time Regulations they did get rest periods, both daily, weekly, and annually, comparable to other workers. On statutory maternity leave, the current was 52 weeks, and from April 1997 the maternity allowance period had been increased to 39 weeks. This was in the Government's view a generous regime in relation to maternity and paternity provision, and it welcomed the contribution provision which the Equalities and Human Rights Commission had made to the debate in this regard, and the latter's proposals were being taken seriously.

The Government had responded very quickly to a judgement by the European Court of Human Rights in the field of trade unions, and there were provisions within the Employment Act 2008 which provided extra autonomy for trade unions to exclude or expel on the grounds of political membership, the delegation said. With regards to asylum claims, there had been long procedural delays, but this was no longer the case - they were either integrated or the cases were removed from the country. There were no longer procedural delays, but the Government was very sensitive to those who had been waiting a long time for a decision. On access to the labour market for asylum seekers or failed asylum seekers, the Government believed that entering the United Kingdom for economic reasons was not the same as seeking asylum, and that it was important to distinguish between the two. Thus it was important to determine the situation of asylum-seekers as soon as possible. Making it possible for asylum-seekers to work might increase the number of applicants with no real reason, and the Government was thus wary of undermining the integrity of the asylum system and the managed migration system if it drew back in this regard. If somebody was an unsuccessful asylum applicant, but could not return home due to no fault of their own, they were eligible for support. Families with children under 18 did not have their support switched off at any point prior to their departure from the United Kingdom.

The Government offered a number of voluntary return schemes that assisted people to return to the country from which they came, the delegation said. On healthcare for people in the community, there was access to secondary health care. Treatment for any person who was considered to immediately or urgently need care would be made available regardless of whether the individual had funds to pay for it. There was thus no reason for the individual not to seek healthcare in the community. The United Kingdom was very keen to ensure that those detained received the very best healthcare, and all removal centres contained a medical centre, and detainees had access to National Health Service secondary and tertiary care. On measures to help disabled persons to gain the skills for the labour market, the Disability Discrimination Act applied to all schools, colleges and universities and required them to make reasonable adjustments to ensure access for disabled persons. Schools and local authorities had duties to identify and assess provisions to supply disabled children's needs. On the provision of disabled housing in Scotland, the Scottish Government agreed that there was a need for greater provision of both affordable housing and for housing suitable for the use of persons with disabilities, and was increasing investment in this over the next few years.

Questions by Committee Experts on articles thirteen to fifteen, on the right to education; compulsory free education; and the right to take part in cultural life, and to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications

Committee Experts raised a number of questions and issues, including a request for an explanation for drawing a distinction between residents of European Union States and non-European Union States with regards to educational fees, and how was the requirement for length of residency in Britain reconciled with the Convention; what was the nature of the strategic objectives were being developed to reduce the gap between disadvantaged children and others; what was the current school drop-out rate and could it be broken down in terms of minorities; whether Scotland was more disadvantaged in terms of education than England or Wales and what was the nature of these differences; what were the statistics on the number of minority persons able to benefit from educational programmes; and what reforms were going to be undertaken to ensure proper integration of the various minorities.

Response by Delegation

Responding to these questions and others, the delegation said with regards to child poverty, the United Kingdom target and the heavy emphasis of policy in this area was to end relative child poverty, which was defined as 60 per cent of median income before housing costs, and this allowed comparisons to be made with the United Kingdom's performance and that of other countries. The Government was committed to ending child poverty - there was a target by 2010 of halving child poverty, and it was in question as to whether the Government would achieve that target. However, already Government policies had lifted 600,000 children out of relative poverty. More remained to be done - recent statistics went to March 2008 and did not take into account a range of further measures that had been introduced since then and which the Government believed would lift a further 500,000 children out of relative poverty. There were eight major measures whose effect was yet to be seen, and these included increases in child tax credits, which had been increased ahead of inflation every year. There had also been improvements in terms of ensuring that what the Government gave with one hand, it did not take away with the other. For example, child benefit payments would be ignored when calculating housing benefit. However, the Government did not dismiss the gravity of the situation, and this was a major objective and priority, and had been the beneficiary of major injections of cash by the Government, and this would continue, despite the economic downturn.

With regards to the report, it said that water was not a free-standing right nor an element of a right - and Dr. Rangarajan said he wished to correct the report, and the Government recognised this right as an element under Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The delegation said that with regard to the document Human Rights in Healthcare, the delegation understood the issues with regard to calling this "healthcare" rather than "human rights in health". This was because the latter term, health covered a very wide range of issues, and the document was aimed at health-care professionals specifically. On the issue of the lack of awareness of human rights among doctors and other health-care professionals, the above-mentioned document had been widely circulated, and there had also been a learning event on the issue of human rights and training. There was an ambitious target to reduce health equalities by ten percent by 2010, including life expectancy and infant mortality. Although the life expectancy gap was now wider, the life expectancy had in fact increased since the baseline figure had been determined.

There was a robust package of measures to tackle alcohol misuse in Scotland, the delegation said, and the Scottish Government was investing millions of pounds both to prevent alcohol misuse from developing and also to treat those who had already developed these problems. Scotland had the highest rates of suicide in the United Kingdom, and therefore suicide prevention had been identified as a high priority for the Scottish Government. It was a major part of the health improvement plan that had been published by the Government earlier this year. There was a target of reducing suicides by twenty per cent by 2013, and there had already been some small success, but it was too early to say if this would be sustained.

Mental health care was delivered in prisons, the delegation said, as were other forms of medical care. People eligible to be transferred were moved out of prison as soon as possible, and prisoners with severe mental health issues could be transferred to secure National Health Service facilities under the Mental Health Act. Commissioning responsibility for mental health care and treatment was transferred to primary health care trusts in 2006, and all prisoner mental health care services were mainstreamed within the National Health Service. On lack of awareness with regards to dementia and Alzheimer's, this was a very important issue for the Government, and in 2007 the Department of Health published a strategy for people with dementia including Alzheimer's, focusing on three key themes: improving awareness; early diagnosis and intervention; and improving the quality of care. Care for people with dementia would be transformed with better training for general practitioners and the establishment of services staffed with specialists to provide early diagnosis and treatment. Within the National Health Service operating framework, dementia was a key priority. Since April 2006 the Quality and Outcomes Framework had rewarded doctors and general practitioners who kept a register of patients diagnosed with dementia and carried out reviews of their care, rewarding them for providing good quality care to those patients.

Women had access to safe and legal abortion in the United Kingdom, the delegation said, and the Government had ensured that women had early access, and was also working hard to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies through improving education and implementation of the Teenage Pregnancy and Sexual Health Strategy. With regards to domestic and family violence, one in four women would experience domestic violence during their lifetime, and 85 per cent of domestic violence victims were women. A series of reforms and process changes had encouraged more reporting, putting the victim at the centre of the process, and this had produced some dramatic changes, including a dramatic fall in the number of cases, and the prosecution rate also increasing. The Government was committed to ending violence against women and girls, and was engaging in consultation in that regard.

There had been up to 100 convictions for trafficking and others for conspiracy for trafficking, the delegation said. The Government took a multi-sectoral approach to trafficking, and aimed to provide wrap-around services for victims. On the issues of family reunification, there were currently about 500 cases pending decision. On the issue relating to the changing of the immigration rules, the minimum age at which someone could sponsor a spouse had been raised from eighteen to twenty-one - this was very much aimed at tackling forced marriages. The benefit of this was very much balanced by the very small numbers of young people who could not act as a sponsor. The delegation was not aware of any issue of child labour in the fishing industry, but if further details could be provided, then the issue would be looked into. If children were employed, they were likely to be covered by the protective provisions of the Children's Act of 1933.

The United Kingdom Government did not consider itself as bound as a matter of law by the General Comments or the interpretations of the Covenant contained therein, but considered them as a general guide as to what the Committee thought and expected, the delegation said. With regards to General Comment number nineteen on the right to social security, the United Kingdom did provide all nine of the elements included in the Comment. In higher education, residents of European Union countries qualified for some support according to European Union obligations; and fees for education could not be higher than that charged United Kingdom residents. Students from other countries could be charged by Universities at the levels the latter considered appropriate, and that the former were willing to pay. Higher education was free at the point of entry for United Kingdom and European Union residents who met the eligibility criteria.

In response to brief follow-up questions, Dr. Rangarajan said that one of the highest priorities of the Government at the moment was to minimise the impact of the economic downturn on employment. ILO Convention 117 was an update to an earlier Convention which the United Kingdom had ratified, and it did not consider the changes relevant to the country.

Concluding Remarks

VIJAY RANGARAJAN, Constitution Director in the Ministry of Justice, in concluding remarks, said the delegation was very grateful for the degree of intensive engagement, and was genuinely looking forward to the concluding observations, that should give the United Kingdom a steer on the genuinely difficult and intractable problems which had been discussed. The delegation had done all it could to provide detailed answers, trying to focus on results rather than on initiatives and on the results of the action the Government was taking. It was clear that there was still much work to do, and the United Kingdom looked forward to the work continuing. Among the issues brought to the Committee's attention was the discussion on a United Kingdom Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, and it was clear that the Committee also considered this as an opportunity for the United Kingdom, and any Expert should feel free to contribute to the national process.

MARIA VIRGINIA BRAS GOMES, Committee Vice-Chairperson, also in concluding remarks, said the Committee thanked the delegation for the information provided, updated replies, and the efforts made, and the Committee looked forward to some information in writing. The request for opinions and advice had been taken on board, including on making human rights information more accessible to different publics, and this would be fed into the concluding observations that would be released next Friday. This should be the beginning of a new reporting exercise.

_________


For use of the information media; not an official record