3. PROMOTING AND PROTECTING THE RIGHTS AND DIGNITY
OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
(a)
(24245)
5937/03
COM(03) 16
(b)
(24258)
6041/03
SEC(03) 116
|
Commission Communication: "Towards a United Nations legally binding instrument to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities".
Recommendation to the Council in order to authorise the Commission to participate in the negotiation of an international legally binding instrument to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities.
|
| Legal base: | (a) —
(b) Article 300(1)EC; information; unanimity
|
| |
| Document originated: | (a) 24 January 2003
(b) 31 January 2003
|
| Deposited in Parliament: | (a) 5 February 2003
(b) 6 February 2003
|
| Department: | Work and Pensions
|
| Basis of consideration: | EMs of 20 February 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report: | None
|
| To be discussed in Council: | Date not set
|
| Committee's assessment: | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision: | (a) Cleared
(b) Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
3.1 In December 2001, the Government of Mexico put forward
UN Resolution 56/168 which called for consideration of a Convention
on the human rights of disabled people and for the formation of
an Ad Hoc Committee to prepare it. The Resolution was supported
by the Third Committee (on social issues) and adopted in the UN
General Assembly without a vote.
3.2 The first Ad Hoc Committee took place between 29
July and 2 August 2002. Besides some discussion of the scope of
a Convention, the meeting invited proposals for content (from,
amongst others, "regional commissions and inter-governmental
organisations, as well as non-governmental organisations"),
and called for a further meeting. This is to be held in June.
The documents
3.3 Document (a) is a Commission Communication supporting
the principle of a legally binding UN instrument to promote and
protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities, outlining
why the European Community should be actively involved in the
development of such an instrument, and signalling that the Commission
intends to seek a mandate from the Council to conduct the negotiations
on behalf of the Community. The Communication suggests that thematic
instruments like the Convention on the Rights of the Child add
value and complementarity to the more general Human Rights instruments
and might provide a model for the proposed Convention, in tailoring
the application of human rights rather than in creating new rights.
It outlines the EU rights-based approach to disability, as reflected,
in particular, in Directive 2000/78/EC Establishing a general
framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, and
notes that 2003 is the European Year of People with Disabilities.
Finally, it suggests some guiding principles for a future
Convention.
3.4 Document (b) is the draft Recommendation which formally
seeks the mandate flagged above in the Communication. The document
briefly covers the same ground as the Communication before stating
"it is important that the European Community confirms at
international level its overall strategy with regard to disability,
the core of which is a shared commitment by all Member States
to combat discrimination on this ground."
The Government's view: document (a)
3.5 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the
Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Malcolm Wicks) tells
us that, as document (a) simply supports calls for a legally binding
instrument and as its wording is broadly in line with the position
papers produced after the last Ad Hoc Committee, there are no
policy or financial implications for the UK at present. However,
the financial implications of any proposed Convention would need
to be considered and a Regulatory Impact Assessment prepared.
3.6 The Minister points out that the Commission asserts
Community competence in the field of combating discrimination
on the basis of Article 13 of the EC Treaty and Directive 2000/78/EC.
He tells us that the Government is considering the extent to which
the Community has acquired exclusive external competence in the
field of disability discrimination by reason of the adoption of
Directive 2000/78/EC.
The Government's view: document (b)
3.7 The Minister makes the same point about the need
to consider the financial implications of any proposed Convention.
He also repeats the concern about Community competence in the
field of disability discrimination. In addition he says:
"The Recommendation, if accepted by the Council of Ministers,
would confer a mandate on the Commission not only to participate
in the negotiations for the proposed UN Convention, but to lead
and conduct negotiations on behalf of the European Community at
least on certain aspects of the Convention. The UK Government,
while welcoming the participation of the Commission, would
resist the Commission replacing the role of the Presidency in
the negotiating process.
"It is standard practice for the Presidency to be the single
voice of the European Community in UN meetings. The UK Government
would prefer the Presidency representative to continue to represent
the European Community in any future negotiations.
"The UK Government considers that the Commission is entitled
to participate by contributing only on matters directly
relating to EC policy. If this proposal is accepted by the Council,
it will extend the present limits of Commission competence in
this UN context."
Conclusion
3.8 We have no problems in principle with a UN Convention
in this area. However, like the Minister, we question the leadership
role the Commission is proposing for itself in negotiations. In
this respect, we ask the Minister:
(1) whether his concern stems primarily from the Commission's
assertion of exclusive Community competence in relation to disability
discrimination or from its bid to lead negotiations on behalf
of the European Community;
(2) whether other Member States share the UK's concerns;
and
(3) whether a Recommendation, if accepted by the Council
of Minister, can confer a mandate on the Commission, or whether
a Council Decision is required.
3.9 We are content to clear document (a). However,
we will keep document (b) under scrutiny until we have the Minister's
response.
| 
