Joint Committee On Human Rights Twenty-First Report


7 Poverty, inequality and access to services

102. Poverty and inequality are the central concerns of economic, social and cultural rights. The CESCR has emphasised[138] that poverty constitutes a denial of rights under the Covenant. It has stressed the importance, in human rights terms,[139] of a participative approach to poverty reduction involving those directly affected by poverty. The significance of inequality and social exclusion for economic and social rights protection is at its most acute in a wealthy society such as that of the UK. The CESCR's concluding observations reflect this, highlighting problems of poverty and unequal protection of the rights of particularly vulnerable groups.

103. The CESCR raised concerns under Article 11 ICESCR, which protects the right to an adequate standard of living, including the right to adequate housing. It noted the persistence of high levels of poverty, particularly in Northern Ireland and amongst ethnic minorities, people with disabilities and older persons, and the increasing gap between rich and poor.[140] It raised particular concerns in relation to high levels of child poverty, and highlighted the persistence of poor quality housing and fuel poverty.[141] The CESCR urged the government to continue to address poverty and social exclusion as a matter of high priority.[142]

104. Levels of child poverty raise issues in relation to the UK's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as under the ICESCR.[143] A number of the CESCR concluding observations mirror those of the Committee on the Rights of the Child[144] (including in relation to discrimination, housing, minimum wage, poverty, human rights education and integrated education). The Children's Law Centre and Save the Children Northern Ireland stress in their evidence the importance of the Covenant rights for children, and warn against the "compartmentalisation" of children's rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, arguing that: "the ICESCR is a crucial UN treaty in terms of the potential of the rights it holds to positively impact on the lives of those children and young people most disadvantaged."

105. The Government's written evidence confirms that it "regards the fight against poverty and social exclusion as central to its entire programme"[145] and recognises that a number of groups are disproportionately affected by poverty, in particular ethnic minorities; people with disabilities; children and women.[146] The evidence emphasises the government's efforts to reduce child poverty and recent falls in the levels of "absolute" child poverty.[147]

106. Whilst this report is not an appropriate place to address the detail of government policy on poverty and social exclusion,[148] in our view the Covenant rights should provide a framework and an additional impetus for government policy in this area. The obligation of progressive realisation of the Covenant rights under Article 11 and Article 2.2 ICESCR should provide the standard against which government progress in poverty reduction is assessed. The Covenant obligations of the progressive and non-discriminatory realisation of rights, which we set out above, require continued and measurable progress; safeguards against retrogression; clear targets and benchmarks for poverty reduction; and the equal treatment of vulnerable groups. In our view a rights-based approach can assist government in addressing poverty, and Parliament and civil society in scrutinising its success in doing so. The periodic reporting process before the CESCR can provide an important forum for assessing this progress against the Covenant standards.

Discrimination

107. Article 2.1 protects against discrimination in the application of the Covenant rights, and Article 3 makes specific provision for non-discrimination on the grounds of gender. In its concluding observations the CESCR noted the—

Continuing de facto discrimination in relation to some marginalized and vulnerable groups in society, especially ethnic minorities and persons with disabilities, in various fields, including employment, housing and education.[149]

Following from this concern, the CESCR noted that it—

… regrets the unwillingness of the State party to adopt comprehensive legislation on equality and protection from discrimination, in accordance with Articles 2.2 and 3 of the Covenant.

108. The Committee "strongly recommended" that the UK enact such legislation, and it urged the government "to take more effective steps to combat de facto discrimination, in particular against ethnic minorities and people with disabilities, especially in relation to employment, housing and education".[150]

109. The level of inequality in housing, employment and education in regard to the two groups identified by the CESCR, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities, is well documented, including in evidence to this inquiry, and is recognised in the government's written evidence.[151]

110. These inequalities should be considered in the context of the legislative framework of the UK's equality laws. As UK legislation has developed incrementally, from the 1970s onwards, it has become increasingly complex and piecemeal, with differing standards of protection, and differing scope of protection, applying in relation to discrimination on each of the protected grounds, which are currently race, gender, disability, sexuality and religion.[152]

111. We have received extensive evidence, both in this inquiry and in our inquiry into the structure, functions and powers of the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights, voicing support for a Single Equality Act. [153] Although the government has not declared its opposition to the idea of a Single Equality Act in principle, it has deferred work on such legislation, and has rejected suggestions that it is a necessary basis for the successful operation of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights.[154] In our report on the structure, functions and powers of the CEHR, we expressed the hope that priority would be given to addressing the need for harmonisation of the equality legislation. We urged that a Single Equality Bill should be introduced to "level up" the laws against discrimination on all grounds, and in particular to extend protection against age, sexuality and religious discrimination to the provision of goods and services, and to place a positive duty on public authorities to promote equality across all the equality strands. A robust and coherent legislative framework is of prime importance in securing the delivery of basic economic, social and cultural rights that the CESCR identifies in its concluding observations. We urge the Government to give a higher priority to the development of a single Equality Act designed to 'level up' the laws against discrimination on all grounds, and in particular to extend protection against age, sexuality and religious discrimination to the provision of goods and services, and to place a positive duty on public authorities to promote equality across all the equality strands.

A free-standing right to equality

112. The CESCR's concerns regarding inequality in the delivery of employment, education and housing rights also highlight the limits of the non-discrimination guarantees in the HRA. The Human Rights Act incorporates Article 14 ECHR, which guarantees non-discrimination in the protection of the other ECHR rights. However, its reach is limited to the equal protection of civil and political rights, as it does not provide a "free-standing" right to equality where the Convention rights are not engaged. Such a free-standing equality right is established in Protocol 12 of the ECHR, which has not as yet been ratified by the UK, and does not therefore form part of the Human Rights Act. In its recent review of international human rights obligations,[155] the government supported in principle the inclusion of a free-standing right to equality in the ECHR, but declined to adopt the Protocol. The review cited the government's concern that the impact of the Protocol on domestic law would be difficult to predict, and that the scope of application of the Protocol, and the availability of a defence of objective and reasonable justification for differential treatment, remained uncertain pending clarification by the European Court of Human Rights.

113. We do not agree with the Government's view that uncertainty as to the application of Protocol 12 justifies the UK's continued refusal to ratify. The experience of implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 does not support the government's suggestion that incorporation of Protocol 12 in domestic law would be likely to lead to an "explosion of litigation".[156] On the contrary, there is every reason to expect that the UK courts would apply the new Protocol in accordance with the settled principles of Strasbourg jurisprudence, including the principle of objective and reasonable justification of discriminatory treatment. Moreover, ratification and incorporation of Protocol 12 would support international law obligations already undertaken by the UK, under Article 26 of the ICCPR and Article 2.2 of the ICESCR, which guarantees non-discrimination in the protection of the ICESCR rights. We recommend that the Government should ratify Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights, and that Protocol 12 should be included amongst the rights protected under the Human Rights Act.

114. A free-standing right to equality is also contained in Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Although the UK is party to the ICCPR, it has not yet accepted the right of individual petition under the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, which would allow individuals to bring complaints to the UN Human Rights Committee, including in respect of Article 26. We consider below the question of acceptance of the right of individual petition under the ICCPR, which would allow individuals to bring complaints to the UN Human Rights Committee, based on ICCPR rights including Article 26.

Rights of individual petition

115. Ratification of rights of individual petition under the Conventions that protect against race and gender discrimination would also provide individuals with an important tool to combat the inequality the CESCR identifies. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) contain important protections for economic and social rights. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), in Article 26, contains a free-standing guarantee of equality which would also support the rights guaranteed by the ICESCR. The Government has decided, following its recent Review of International Human Rights Obligations, to ratify the optional protocol to CEDAW, but rights of individual petition under other UN instruments will not be accepted until an assessment is made, in two years time, of the impact of accepting the CEDAW right of individual petition.

116. We welcome the decision to allow the right of individual petition under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and we urge the government to consider acceptance of other rights of individual petition at an early stage. We would not anticipate a high incidence of recourse to these procedures. The majority of human rights issues should be capable of resolution within our domestic legal and political systems. Nevertheless, and in particular in the absence of domestic incorporation of the human rights protected in international law under the UN treaties, the right of individual petition provides an important "long stop" of accountability for people in the UK. In our view, the government should consider the need for the right of individual petition under these treaties in light of the concerns about de facto inequality highlighted by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Homelessness

117. Article 11 ICESCR protects the right to housing, as part of the right to an adequate standard of living. The right has been interpreted by the CESCR as going beyond a right to shelter, to extend to a right to "live somewhere in security, peace and dignity".[157] In its concluding observations, the CESCR noted with concern the persistence of homelessness, especially amongst certain groups of society, such as ethnic minorities, and high levels of alcoholism and mental illness amongst the homeless.[158]

118. The government responded to this by highlighting practical initiatives designed to address the problem, including the establishment in March 2002 of a Homelessness Directorate (for England) charged with investigating and addressing the underlying causes of homelessness; the establishment of a Homelessness Monitoring Group for Scotland;[159] the adoption of a national strategy to tackle homelessness by the National Assembly for Wales[160]and the review of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive homelessness strategy in 2002.[161] However, since the CESCR's concluding observations were issued, levels of homelessness have continued to rise.[162] NGOs pointed out that not all marginalised groups affected by homelessness are being reached by these measures, or included in government strategies.[163]

119. Provision of housing for the homeless is the subject of a comprehensive legislative framework in the UK.[164] The Homelessness Act 2002, which came into force in July 2002, imposes a duty on local authorities to provide housing for the homeless. It requires Local Housing Authorities to carry out a review of homelessness in their area and to adopt a homelessness strategy.[165] Statutory protections against homelessness do not, however, protect certain groups of asylum seekers.[166] The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 allows for all support to be withdrawn from an asylum seeker who cannot be shown to have claimed asylum within a reasonable period of arrival in the UK. During the passage of this legislation through Parliament, we drew attention to the likelihood of these provisions breaching Article 11 ICESCR, as well as Article 3 ECHR.[167]

120. Following its coming into force, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 gave rise to particularly acute problem of homelessness and destitution for asylum-seekers deprived of benefits under section 55 of that Act. Reports by the Greater London Authority and by the Refugee Council provided evidence of acute and widespread destitution resulting from the application of section 55.[168] Withdrawal of support was challenged in a series of cases as in breach of freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR, culminating in the case of Limbuela before the Court of Appeal.[169] In that case, applying Article 3 ECHR, the Court of Appeal held that for the government to withdraw support from people unable to find support from other sources, without any clear plan as to how they should be provided for, would amount to a breach of Article 3.[170]

121. In response to the Court of Appeal decision in the Limbuela case, the use of section 55 to deprive asylum seekers of support has been largely suspended, pending a government appeal of the case to the House of Lords. We reiterate our conclusion stated during the passage of this legislation, that the application of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is likely to breach human rights standards. The levels of homelessness and destitution which reliable evidence indicates have in practice resulted from section 55 are very likely to breach both the obligation of progressive realisation of rights under Articles 9 and 11 ICESCR (since they represent a regression in the protection of these rights for asylum seekers), and the obligation to ensure minimal levels of the Covenant rights to the individuals affected by section 55.

Access to Higher Education

122. Article 13 (2)(c) requires that "higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education." In its concluding observations, the CESCR expressed concern that the introduction of tuition fees and student loans under the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 was inconsistent with Article 13(2)(c) and "has tended to worsen the position of students from less privileged backgrounds, who are already underrepresented in tertiary education".[171]

123. These issues have been the subject of extensive parliamentary debate during the passage of the Higher Education Act 2004, which abolishes the current systems of tuition fees and replaces them with a system allowing universities to charge variable "top-up" fees, payment of which may be deferred. The impact of this step on accessibility of higher education to those on lower incomes is a matter of considerable controversy. The government has stressed the potential of the legislation to enhance access to higher education, by abolishing the payment of up-front fees; however it has been criticised by student organisations and trade unions as limiting access to higher education. We have not inquired into the merits of the new legislation in any detail. Both the government and its critics have argued the case for changes to the funding of higher education from the standpoint of the desirability of increasing access to it. In its implementation and review of the Higher Education Act 2004, the government should explicitly recognise the obligation of progressive realisation of access to higher education under Article 13 (2)(c) of the ICESCR.

Religious segregation of education in Northern Ireland

124. The CESCR's concluding observations express concern that "the educational structure in Northern Ireland continues to be heavily segregated on the basis of religion, despite the increased demand for integrated schools"[172] and reiterates the recommendation made in its 1997 concluding observations that measures should be taken to establish additional integrated schools where there is demand for them. This reflects the concluding observations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which also recommended increased budgetary provision and incentives for integrated schooling in order to meet parental demand in Northern Ireland.[173]

125. Education in Northern Ireland is primarily provided through either Protestant or Catholic schools. Although relatively few schools provide integrated education, there is a statutory duty on the Department of Education to encourage and facilitate the development of integrated education, and that measures have recently been taken to make it easier for new integrated schools to qualify for public funding.[174]

126. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) pointed out that, in Northern Ireland, religious segregation of education was a matter of parental preference and was not imposed by the State. It opposed any imposition of integration,[175] but favoured enhanced financial support for integrated education, and expressed concern that there were families who wish to avail of integrated education but were unable to do so. The Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) pointed out in that although there has been an increase in funding for integrated schools in Northern Ireland in recent years, demand had not fully been met.[176]

127. The provision of integrated or segregated education is a complex issue both in policy and in human rights law terms. Under the ICESCR, States Parties agree their commitment to education that will "promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups" (Article 13 (1)). The States Parties also undertake "to have respect for the liberty of parents … to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions." The CESCR general comment on the right to education notes the importance of the cultural acceptability of education.[177] Parental choice is also a component of the right to education protected under Article 2 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR, as incorporated under the HRA. It provides that "the State shall respect the rights of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions." Nevertheless, where education by religious institutions is funded by the State, the Privy Council, upholding a decision of the Supreme Court of Mauritius and drawing on international human rights standards, has recently affirmed the duty to ensure that such educational provision does not discriminate against children from other religious backgrounds.[178]

128. We agree that the unavailability of education that is not segregated along religious lines, in Northern Ireland or indeed elsewhere in the UK, may raise issues in relation to education rights under the ICESCR. Both the ICESCR, and education rights protected under the HRA,[179] require that parents' convictions should be respected in the education of their children. Under an education system segregated along religious lines, however, that may not always be effectively achieved. In particular, where education is solely provided in segregated schools reflecting the two main religious communities, there may be implications for the adequacy and cultural acceptability of educational provision for children from other minority religious or cultural groups. We recommend that the financial support provided for integrated education should be assessed having regard to human rights considerations under the ICESCR.


138   Statement on Poverty and the ICESCR E/C.12/2001/10 Back

139   Under both the ICESCR and the Declaration on the Right to Development Back

140   Concluding Observations, para. 18 Back

141   ibid., para. 20 Back

142   ibid., para. 37 Back

143   Tenth Report, Session 2002-03, The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, op cit., para. 66 Back

144   Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on the UK Report, September 2003 Back

145   Appendix 1, para. 159 Back

146   Appendix 1, para. 163 Back

147   ibid., para. 168 Back

148   For a thorough consideration of government policy on child poverty, see Report of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, Report on Child Poverty, March 2004. The Report recommended a comprehensive UK-wide strategy for reducing child poverty, which would establish a clear policy framework to be pursued up to 2010. Back

149   Concluding Observations, para. 14 Back

150   ibid., para.31. These recommendations are reflected in the concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, September 2003. Back

151   Appendix 1, para. 162, et seq Back

152   The relevant legislation includes: the Equal Pay Act 1970; Sex Discrimination Act 1975; Race Relations Act 1976; Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000; Race Relations Act (Amendment) Regulations 2003; Disability Discrimination Act 1995; Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003; Disability Discrimination (Pensions) Regulations 2003; Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003; Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003; Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003. Regulations on Age discrimination are expected to be introduced shortly. A Draft Disability Discrimination Bill was published in December 2003. Back

153   Written evidence of Democratic Audit (Appendix 11), The Children's Law Centre and Save the Children Northern Ireland (Appendix 6), JUSTICE (Appendix 15). Eleventh Report, Session 2003-04, Commission for Equality and Human Rights: Structure Functions and Powers, op cit., para. 46. See also the Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Race Discrimination, September 2002. Back

154   QQ 96-98 Back

155   International Human Rights Instruments: the UK's Position. Report on the outcome of an inter-departmental review conducted by the DCA, July 2004, Appendix 6 Back

156   ibid., Appendix 6 Back

157   General Comment No. 4 on the Right to Adequate Housing Back

158   Concluding Observations, para. 19 Back

159   Appendix 1, para. 243 Back

160   ibid., para. 248 Back

161   ibid., para. 259 Back

162   Shelter press release, 14 March 2004. 215,910 households were found to be homeless last year (up 11.4 %) and 95,060 homeless households are now in temporary accommodation (up 13.4% since Dec 2002). ODPM homelessness statistics, March 2004 (Quarter 4, 2003) Back

163   Disability Rights Commission (Appendix 2), Children's Law Centre (Appendix 6), ATD Fourth World (Appendix 5)  Back

164   Homelessness Act 2002 Back

165   Questions have, however, been raised about the efficacy of implementation of the Act in practice: The Act in Action, An assessment of homelessness reviews and strategies, Shelter 2004. Back

166   First Report, Session 2001-02, Homelessness Bill, HL Paper 30, HC 314 Back

167   Twenty-third Report, Session 2001-02, Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill: Further Report, HL Paper 176, HC 1255 Back

168   GLA, Destitution by Design: Withdrawal of Support from in-country asylum applicants: An impact assessment for London, February 2004; Refugee Council, Hungry and Homeless: the impact of the withdrawal of state support on asylum seekers, refugee communities and the voluntary sector, April 2004. Back

169   SSHD v Limbuela, Tesema and Adam [2004] EWCA Civ 540 Back

170   ibid Back

171   Concluding Observations, para. 22 Back

172   Concluding Observations, para. 23 Back

173   Concluding Observations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child: United Kingdom, October 2002 Back

174   Under the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. Appendix 1, paras. 321-326 Back

175   Appendix 4, para. 44 Back

176   Appendix 9 Back

177   General Comment on the Right to Education, para. 6. Back

178   Bishop of Roman Catholic Diocese of Port Louis and Others v Suttyhudeo Tengur and Others, Privy Council Appeal No. 21 of 2003, Judgment of 3 February 2004. Back

179   Article 2, Protocol 1 ECHR. X v UK (1978) 14 DR 179; Belgian Linguistics Case (No. 2) (1968) 1 EHRR 252. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 2 November 2004