UNITED KINGDOM PRESENTS REPORTS TO COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS ON COMPLIANCE WITH COVENANT

CESCR
28th session
6 May 2002
Morning





Delegation Queried on Legal Guarantees for Equality,
Justiciability of Rights, Law on Asylum-Seekers,
Overseas Development Assistance



The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights this morning started its consideration of a fourth periodic report, divided into three reports, from the United Kingdom, questioning a Government delegation on the 2001 law on asylum-seekers, the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights, the absence of human rights commissions for Great Britain, the United Kingdom's overseas development assistance, and legal guarantees for equality, among other things.

Introducing the reports, Paul Fifoot, Consultant of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom, said that the Crown Dependencies and the Overseas Territories were self governing so far as matters arising under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights were concerned, and the devolved administrations in the United Kingdom had a wide competence in those matters.

He said that the various jurisdictions did not all share the same concerns, nor did they necessarily perceive the ways of dealing with their concerns in the same way. He added that it could not be expected that the legislation or practices concerning those jurisdictions would be the same. Self government and devolution were designed to enable the peoples and administrations to deal with those matters as they saw fit in the light of local circumstances and the needs of their populations, he added.

The Committee Experts raised a number of questions on such issues as the 2001 law on asylum-seekers, the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights, the absence of human rights commissions for Great Britain, the United Kingdom's overseas development assistance, and legal guarantees for equality, among other things.

The United Kingdom delegation was also made up of Henry Steele, Overseas Territories Consultant, Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Mark Pethick, and Susan Dickson, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Howard Roberts, Solicitor General, Guernsey; David Robilliard, Advisory and Finance Committee, Guernsey; Nisha Bismillah, International Relations/Policy Officer, Jersey; J. F. Kissack, Chief Secretary, Isle of Man; Luelle Todd, from the Ministry of Health and Family Services, Government of Bermuda; Medita Wheatley, Secretary-General, National Commission, British Virgin Islands; Roy Bodden, Minister for Education, Human Resources and Culture, Cayman Islands; Elijah Silcott, Labour Officer, Government of Montserrat; Fiona Kilpatrick, Joint International Unit, Department for Work and Pensions; Katie Driver, Divisional Manager for the School Inclusion Division, Department of Education and Skills; and Susan McCrory, Paul Bentall, Bob Last and Edward Inglett, from the United Kingdom's Permanent Mission in Geneva.

The United Kingdom is among the 145 States parties to the International Covenant and as such it is obligated to submit periodic reports to the Committee on how it is complying with the provisions of the treaty.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m., it will continue its consideration of the reports of the United Kingdom and will hear the response of the delegation to questions raised this morning.


Reports of the United Kingdom

The fourth periodic report of the United Kingdom, divided into three reports, is contained in documents E/C.12/4/Add.8, E/C.12/4/Add.7 and E/C.12/4/Add.5. The reports provide detailed information on activities aimed at implementing the provisions of the Covenant in the United Kingdom, Crown dependencies and Overseas Territories.

With regard to the situation in the United Kingdom, the reports enumerate the legislative, administrative and juridical measures undertaken by the Government and the respective authorities in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Among other things, the reports note that in 1998, three Acts of Parliament were enacted which devolved, or provided for the devolution of wide responsibilities for many of the matters comprised in the Covenant to legislative assemblies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. In Northern Ireland and Scotland, the Acts also established ministerial systems with responsibilities in respect of devolved matters. In Wales, a committee system was established for the exercise of executive functions. The provisions are different in each case, reflecting the particular circumstances of the respective territories.

The reports also give account of the economic, social and cultural rights situation in those territories, focusing on employment, the right to work, social security, nutrition, education, health, family and the rights of persons with disability, among other things. Within the United Kingdom most disabled people are able to make effective use of mainstream employment services and training programmes.

The report on Crown dependencies, which include the Isle of Man, Bailiwick of Guernsey and States of Jersey, says that the Isle of Man is a relatively small territory, with no large urban centre to speak of; the total population is 71,714 people; it is taking steps towards achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the Covenant; and the Government supports the principle that all people have the same rights and responsibilities. With regard to Bailiwick of Guernsey, the report says that the island remained committed to adopting appropriate measures to ensure the equality of men and women in all spheres. The States of Jersey have endorsed the principle that all forms of discrimination on grounds of sex, whether against women or men, should be removed.

The third separate report deals with Overseas Territories which include Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, St. Helena and Turks and the Caicos Islands. It says that the relationship between the United Kingdom and its Overseas Territories is now to be based on a new partnership. While the United Kingdom Government is confident that human rights are generally respected and protected in all the Territories, it recognizes that there is still a need for further measures to be taken. The population of Pitcairn is 66 persons: 31 males and 35 females. Due to the eruption of a volcano from 1995 to 1997, the population of Montserrat has been reduced from 10,402 to 4,000 because people left to neighbouring islands.


Introduction of Reports

PAUL FIFOOT, Consultant of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom, said that Crown Dependencies and the Overseas Territories were self governing in so far as matters arising under the Covenant were concerned, and the devolved administrations in the United Kingdom had a wide competence in those matters. The various jurisdictions did not all share the same concerns, nor did they necessarily perceive the ways of dealing with their concerns in the same way. It could not be expected, therefore, that the legislation or practices in those jurisdictions would be the same. Self government and devolution were designed to enable the peoples and administrations to deal with those matters as they saw fit in the light of local circumstances and the needs of their populations.

Mr. Fifoot said there had been developments since the three reports were filed in January last year, such as increased provisions for the National Health Service, pension credits, parental responsibility, child benefit and income benefit, further assistance for child carers, and tax relief for research and development.

HENRY STEELE, Overseas Territories Consultant of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom, said that he was accompanied and assisted by representatives of some of the individual Territories, which was an innovation in the Government's practices. In special circumstances in the past, the United Kingdom had brought representatives of a particular Territory to help the Committee with their special expertise. But this was the first time that the Government had tried to extend that practice to all the Overseas Territories. The practice would help to demonstrate the Territories' own commitment to human rights and it would enable the United Kingdom to get Governments and peoples of the Territories more directly engaged in the reporting process.


Discussion

At the beginning of the discussion, several Committee Experts raised a number of questions. An Expert recalled that a new law on refugees had been enacted in 2001 and strict controlling of persons from certain countries had been reinforced. Why had this focused on Tamils, Kurds and Afghans? With regard to family reunions, some refugees had to wait at least for four years before their family members could join them from abroad. Why did the United Kingdom not consider the provisions of the Covenant and the European Social Charter or the European Convention on Human Rights on equal footing? In the United Kingdom, the principle of equality was not affirmed within the country's legal system. Did the State envisage to enact a provision guaranteeing the equality of persons before the law?

Speaking on self-determination and non-discrimination, another Expert asked why the interests of the Overseas Territories were defended by the Foreign Office instead of the Home Affairs Office. He said he was happy to see delegations directly coming from the concerned Territories.
Another Expert said the report was excellent and full of information. Then he asked about the present situation of negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom concerning the island of Malvinas or the Falkland Islands; and between Spain and the United Kingdom with respect to the future of Gibraltar.

An Expert remarked on the absence of a national plan of action for human rights as anticipated in 1993 by the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action on human rights. In addition, there was no national human rights commission within the spirit of the Paris Principles on national human rights institutions. He asked about the main focus of the statutes of the proposed human rights commissions, which were still in the hands of parliamentarians. What mechanisms were available to take into consideration the provisions of the Covenant when the United Kingdom was designing policies on health and housing? With regards to overseas development assistance (ODA), did the United Kingdom take into consideration that the recipient was implementing the provisions of the Covenant? Did the United Kingdom take into account the human rights aspect of a recipient country in its direct investment undertakings?

The issue of asylum-seekers had been considered very seriously by the European countries and this had led them to design policies on refugees, an Expert noted, asking the delegation if the Government had assessed the social and economic cost of asylum-seekers. The Expert was of the view that the flow of refugees was due to the tyrannic political practices in their countries of origin; and they left their countries to escape such tyranny. He asked if the United Kingdom had the intention to invest, economically and politically, in the countries of the refugees to lessen its own burden at home.

An Expert asked if the teaching of human rights education involved all persons involved in law-enforcement as well as teachings within the spirit of the Covenant. With regard to persons seeking asylum, a new form of discrimination was arising because of the introduction of a new law in 2001, he said.


Response of the United Kingdom

In response to the questions raised by the Committee Experts, the members of the delegation said that the Covenant was given effect in a multitude of policies and practices.

The United Kingdom had a number of equality provisions, the delegation said. However, it was difficult to frame a law on absolute equality. For the moment, the United Kingdom was not intending to introduce a general law on equality in England.

On the issue of the human rights commission in Northern Ireland, the delegation said that the institution was established to advise the Government on matters pertaining to human rights, particularly in the process of drafting a law. Although the commission had the power to make inquiries on human rights violations, its mandate was not to investigate such acts.

The United Kingdom had no plans to establish human rights commissions for England, Scotland or Wales, the delegation said.

The United Kingdom had endeavoured not to do business with countries that had a bad reputation in human rights records, the delegation said.

There were large numbers of persons claiming asylum in addition to those individuals entering illegally into the country through the help of criminal groups, the delegation said. The law of 2001 was a reaction to the high number of asylum seekers in the country and a means to resolve the problem. Persons coming from the former Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Iran and Afghanistan had been categorized under an emergency situation.

The United Kingdom had been progressing in inter-communal cohabitation, the delegation said. Further efforts had been made to get community leaders to be involved in matters of education. The inter-communal incident in South Hampton had now calmed down.

Medical students were not directly taught human rights in their syllabus, the delegation said.

In some Overseas Territories, the human rights provisions of the Covenant were not incorporated in their Constitutions, the delegation said. In others, the justiciable provisions were added with regard to economic, social and cultural rights.

No negotiations were going on between Argentina and the United Kingdom with regard to the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, the delegation said, adding that each side preserved its previous position. The United Kingdom wished the state of conflict to be one of cooperation, which was not the case at present. With regard to Gibraltar, the sovereignty issue would be decided only by the people of Gibraltar; and the full consent of the people should be certain to any step for self-determination. The United Kingdom could not exercise any forceful action to alter the sovereignty of Gibraltar.

Responding to follow-up questions raised by Committee Experts, the members of the delegation said they did not say that economic, social and cultural rights were not justiciable. However, the various specific articles of the law were applicable in giving effect to the Covenant, which contained general provisions.

There were a number of human rights commissions dealing with various issues, which did not necessitate the establishment of other commissions either within the framework of the Paris Principles or any other nature, the delegation said.

The Government was preparing legislation on anti-discrimination on grounds of race, sex or national origin, the delegation said. For the time being, the Government could not go beyond that.

In further questions, the Committee Experts asked about the proportion of refugee or migrant workers in the labour force; the methods used to ensure equal treatment by employers; the proportion of success of complaints of unequal payment lodged by women; the rate of work accidents; and the number of disabled persons who worked, among other things




* *** *