UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Reservations and Interpretative Declaration

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Reservations and Interpretative Declaration - Human Rights Joint Committee Contents

3 Reservations and interpretative declaration

21. In our last report, we concluded that the proposal that the UK make at least the same number of reservations to the Convention as all 43 existing State Parties combined was extremely worrying.[29] Although we had inadequate information to reach a firm conclusion on the necessity of the reservations being considered by the Government, we had doubts about the necessity of each of the reservations or declarations being considered and their compatibility with the object and purpose of the Convention.[30]

22. We called on the Government to publish the draft text of its proposals for reservations or declarations, together with an explanation of its view that its proposals were compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, and therefore permitted as reservations. We have commented on the Government's refusal to conduct a consultation on the draft reservations, above. The Government's opinion is that the Explanatory Memorandum provides reasons to support the Government's view that each reservation is necessary and compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.[31] We are satisfied that the Explanatory Memorandum sets out the Government's view (that its proposals for reservation are necessary), subject to a notable exception which we consider below. While we may disagree with them, the Government's views are clearly discernible from the contents of the Explanatory Memorandum. We regret, however, that the Explanatory Memorandum provides no explanation of the Government's view that its proposals for reservations and an interpretative declaration are compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

23. We bear in mind that reservations to international human rights treaties are generally scrutinised closely by international monitoring bodies, given that the expression of rights in human rights conventions are obligations owed by States directly to individuals within their jurisdiction, not to other States.[32] For example, in guidance on reservations compatible with the object and purpose of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights explained:

inter se

[…]

24. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights recently reiterated this approach and highlighted that the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities will address any reservations or declarations lodged by States in their periodic review of State reports under the Convention. She has urged States to be aware that similar monitoring bodies have consistently expressed the view that reservations "diminish the scope of protection afforded by [human rights] treaties".[34]

25. International monitoring bodies, such as the new Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities will scrutinise reservations closely and will be quick to call for their removal if they appear to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the Convention.

26. We welcome the Government's view that the UK should not accede to any treaty unless domestic law and practice are capable of complying with its obligations.[35] Signature of any new international human rights instrument should provide an opportunity for an audit of national law and policy with a view to removing any incompatibilities with the rights guaranteed before ratification, in so far as possible.

27. We expressed our concern, in our first Report on the Convention, that the Government's approach to ratification appeared to involve asking Government Departments and Devolved Administrations for a "wish-list" of reservations or interpretative declarations and that it was unclear whether departmental requests had been effectively challenged. The evidence presented by the Minister for Disabled People reinforced our view that ultimately, requests from Departments were subject to very limited scrutiny as to whether they were compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.[36]

28. In its response, the Government rejected this impression, arguing that the Office for Disability Issues had worked very closely with Devolved Administrations and Departments "on emerging issues". This liaison had involved "scrutiny, discussion and challenge at all stages resulting in a significantly shorter list of reservations and declarations than was first identified".[37] We cannot accept the Government's reassurance that the Office for Disability Issues has been responsible for challenging requests for reservations or interpretative declarations without some scepticism, not least because the process of arriving at the current list of reservations and the interpretative declaration has been so opaque. The list presented to Parliament is very similar to the list of issues which was being considered in May 2008, when the possibility of making reservations was first announced by the then Minister for Disabled People, Anne McGuire MP.[38] Since then, one reservation being discussed has been dropped and another has been proposed.[39] Acceptance of new international human rights standards should not trigger a "wish-list" approach to potential reservations from departments seeking to protect existing policies and practices. We note the Government's argument that the Office of Disability Issues has been involved in scrutinising, discussing and challenging individual proposals for reservations but regret that the majority of the reservations outlined to us last year have survived that scrutiny process apparently unscathed, despite the existence of serious concerns in relation to many of them, as we discuss below.

29. We are conscious of the difficulties that we have experienced in persuading the Government to remove reservations once they are in place. We and our predecessor Committee repeatedly recommended that the Government should withdraw reservations to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), including an immigration reservation which we and our predecessor Committee considered was neither necessary nor compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.[40] In response to each of these recommendations, the Government maintained its view that the reservation was necessary and compatible with the object and purpose of the UNCRC.[41]

30. The Government finally withdrew its reservations to the UNCRC in September 2008, sixteen years after the Convention was ratified, in January 1992. This experience illustrates that, once in place, it can be difficult to persuade the Government that reservations to international human rights treaties are not required.

31. Our experience in scrutinising the United Kingdom implementation of the UNCRC is that reservations, once in place tend to persist even where UN monitoring bodies, parliamentary committees and civil society organisations are united in the view that they are unnecessary and incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. We start our scrutiny of the reservation and interpretative declaration proposed for this Convention from the standpoint that there should be as few such statements as possible, preferably none, and that where such statements are necessary, the Government should be committed to making the legislative and other changes necessary to enable them to be withdrawn as soon as practicable.

32. We consider each of the Government's proposals for reservations and its proposal for an interpretative declaration below. Our consideration aims to provide Members of both Houses with our views on three questions:

Are the proposals necessary?
Are the proposals compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention?
Are there any other additional matters about the Government's proposals which both Houses should consider?

Special schools and parental choice: Right to education (Article 24)

33. The bulk of the evidence which we have received on the Convention has related to the Government's proposal to lodge a reservation and an interpretative declaration in respect of the right to education. The Explanatory Memorandum explains:

The Government intends to enter an interpretative declaration to make clear that the UK general education system includes both mainstream and special schools, thereby clarifying how the UK Government interprets the Convention. […] A reservation will be entered to allow for circumstances where disabled children's needs may be best met through specialist provision.

34. The reservation proposed states:

The UK reserves the right for disabled children to be educated outside their local community where more appropriate educational provision is available elsewhere. Nevertheless, parents of disabled children have the same opportunity as other parents to state a preference for the school at which they wish their child to be educated.

35. The interpretative declaration includes an express commitment to inclusive education, but expresses the Government's view that any general education system may include both special and mainstream schools:

The United Kingdom Government is committed to continuing to develop an inclusive system where parents of disabled children have increasing access to mainstream schools and staff and which have the capacity to meet the needs of disabled children. The General Educational System in the UK includes mainstream and special schools, which the UK Government understands is allowed under the Convention.

36. Article 24 of the Convention provides:

State Parties recognise the right of persons with disabilities to education. With a view to realising this right without discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunity, State Parties shall ensure an inclusive education system at all levels and lifelong learning […]

In realising this right, State Parties shall ensure that:

(a) Persons with disabilities are not excluded from the general education system on the basis of disability, and that children with disabilities are not excluded from free and compulsory primary education, or from secondary education, on the basis of disability;

(b) Persons with disabilities can access an inclusive, quality and free primary education and secondary education on an equal basis with others in the communities in which they live;

(d) Persons with disabilities receive the support required, within the general education system, to facilitate their effective education;

(e) Effective individualised support measures are provided in environments that maximise academic and social development, consistent with the goal of full inclusion.

37. Like all other economic and social rights in the Convention, the right to education is subject to the principle of progressive realisation according to available State resources.[42]

38. Two broadly opposing views were represented in the evidence which we received on this issue. On the one hand, a number of witnesses argued that the reservation and interpretative declaration are necessary to ensure that special schools remain an option for children and adults with disabilities whose educational and development needs cannot be met in another setting.[43] Some witnesses argued that parents should be entitled to request this type of provision for their severely disabled children or those with complex support needs.[44] This provision might necessarily be provided away from some local communities, but may be the best provision to meet their child's needs.[45] For example, RESCARE, an organisation representing children and adults with learning disabilities and their families, told us:

39. Mr Simon Burdis added:

40. On the other hand, a number of witnesses, including the UN Convention Campaign Coalition, representing 33 disabled people's organisations; the EHRC and the NIHRC, argue that this reservation is not necessary or compatible with the concept of the progressive realisation of inclusive education envisaged by the Convention. The EHRC considers that this reservation lacks aspiration and represents a change in UK policy, as it appears that the UK now openly accepts that segregated special schools will always play a part in the general system of education in the UK. They had understood that previous policy aspired towards mainstream schools becoming progressively more inclusive, including through the increased co-location of specialist and mainstream provision. The NIHRC express a similar view.

41. The UN Convention Campaign Coalition told us:

42. Disability Action expressed their concern about the inclusion of special schools within the UK understanding of its general education system:

43. We note the wide spectrum of views that have been expressed in respect of the need for the Government's proposed reservation and interpretative declaration in relation to education. We regard the wide divergence of views as a good indication that the relevant provisions of the Convention leave considerable scope for disagreement about their meaning. On one reading, the Convention requires States to move progressively towards the elimination of special schools. On another view, the Convention permits States to continue to provide education at special schools, provided they are also working to increase access to mainstream schools. The justification for entering a reservation or interpretative declaration in relation to provisions whose meaning is unclear is likely to be stronger for that reason.

44. We see no necessary contradiction between requiring States to take steps to increase access to mainstream education on the one hand, and allowing them to maintain special schools for those whose needs are such that it would not be in their interests to be educated in a mainstream setting. A commitment to progressive realisation of inclusive education does not in our view entail a commitment to the elimination of special schools. We can see, however, that the provisions of the Convention could be interpreted in that way and we therefore understand why the Government feels it necessary to enter a reservation and an interpretative declaration to make clear its understanding that a commitment to inclusive education is not incompatible with the continued existence of special schools.

45. At the same time, we understand the concern expressed by some witnesses that the justification provided by the Government for its proposals - being based on the need to maintain special schools as part of the general education system and focusing on parental choice - could be interpreted as indicating that the Government is moving away from the current statutory position, which contains a strong presumption that a child who has special educational needs must be educated in a mainstream school unless this would be incompatible with (a) the wishes of the child's parents or (b) the provision of efficient education of other children.[50] These are the only reasons why mainstream education can be refused for a child with special educational needs. The relevant Departmental Guidance on the duty to educate in a mainstream school states:

46. We welcome the restatement in the Explanatory Memorandum of the Government's commitment to inclusive education. We are concerned, however, that the scope of the reservation and interpretative declaration may send a confused message to people with disabilities about the purpose and intention of the Government's position. We call on the Government to confirm that nothing in its reservation and interpretative declaration is intended to enable the Government to dilute in any way the current strong statutory presumption in favour of mainstream education for children with special educational needs. We also ask the Government to confirm that the purpose of its proposed reservation and interpretative declaration is simply to clarify that nothing in the Convention requires the Government to work towards the eventual elimination of special schools in the UK. If this is the purpose of the Government's reservation and interpretative declaration, we accept that a lack of clarity in the Convention may necessitate a reservation and an interpretative declaration which is compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

Service in the Armed Forces: Work and employment (Article 27)

47. The Government intends to enter a reservation to the Convention in respect of service in the armed forces. Service in the armed forces is already exempt from the application of the Disability Discrimination Act (as amended). The Explanatory Memorandum explains the Government's position:

The Government has decided to exclude members of the Armed Forces in the DDA because Armed Forces personnel need to be combat effective in order to meet a world-wide liability to deploy, and to ensure that military health and fitness remain matters for Ministry of Defence (MoD) Ministers based on military advice, not for the courts.

[…]

Recruiting non-deployable people, or those with limited deployability, would have an impact on the general levels of non-deployability within the Services and would run the risk of creating a two-tier system between those who are deployable and those who are not. This would have an adverse effect on morale and operational effectiveness by placing undue stress on those fit to serve on the frontline and who would have to absorb the increased operational turn-around and frequency of operational tours.

48. The text of the proposed reservation provides:

The United Kingdom ratification is without prejudice to provisions in Community law that Member States may provide that the principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation, in so far as it relates to discrimination on the grounds of disability, shall not apply to the armed forces. The United Kingdom accepts the provisions of the Convention, subject to the understanding that its obligations relating to employment and occupation, shall not apply to the admission into or service in any of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown.

49. The Explanatory Memorandum makes clear that this reservation is the subject of ongoing discussion with the European Commission. The current draft proposals for ratification by the European Commission would permit, but not require, Member States to make a reservation of the type proposed by the Government. So far, no EU party to the Convention has entered a similar reservation.

50. Article 27 of the Convention recognises the right of persons with disabilities to work, on an equal basis with others. State Parties are required to safeguard and promote the realization of the right to work, including for those who acquire a disability during the course of employment.

51. In our last report, we expressed our view that the Government should consider removing the existing exemption for service in the armed forces from the Disability Discrimination Act (as amended) in the forthcoming Equality Bill. We stressed that evidence should be provided to support any justification provided by the Ministry of Defence that the existing exemption is necessary.

52. The evidence which we received on this proposal argued that the reservation was unnecessary to achieve the objectives of the Ministry of Defence. For example, Leonard Cheshire told us:

53. The EHRC agreed with this view and said that:

54. The Explanatory Memorandum explains that Ministers wish to retain the discretion to take decisions about capacity to serve based on "military advice", without the scrutiny of the courts. We have seen no evidence to support the Government's position that this exemption is justified and appropriate, other than the desire expressed by the Ministry of Defence to retain control over the assessment of fitness for service. We note the conclusion of the EHRC in respect of the removal of a similar exemption from the Disability Discrimination Act (as amended) for police forces:

55. We doubt whether the continuing exemption from the Disability Discrimination Act (as amended) is necessary. While this exemption remains in force, we acknowledge that the reservation proposed by the Government is necessary to achieve the Government's policy objective. In our view, the existing exemption is inconsistent with the requirements of the Convention and would be subject to challenge without a reservation. We reiterate our recommendation that the existing exemption should be reconsidered in the Equality Bill.

56. The breadth of the exemption is such that it proposes to exempt the armed forces in their entirety from the requirement to treat service personnel, or those who seek to apply for service, without discrimination on the grounds of disability. This would extend to exempting all armed forces from the requirement not to discriminate without justification against existing service personnel who incur a disability in the course of their service. This reservation would permit the armed forces automatically to discharge a service person with disabilities, without justification, simply on the basis that he or she has a disability. Given the breadth of the proposed reservation in respect of service in the armed forces - seeking as it does to remove a major public authority entirely from a basic provision on non-discrimination in access to employment - we consider that it is open to challenge as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.

57. The EHRC has suggested that an amendment to the Disability Discrimination Act to provide express justification for service in the armed forces, based on the provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act and limited to combat effectiveness, could be justifiable.[55] If the Government decides to lodge a reservation in the terms it proposes, or any alternative based on the principle of combat effectiveness, we recommend that the Government should commit to keep the reservation under review and undertake to reconsider the necessity for the reservation within 6 months of Royal Assent being granted in respect of the forthcoming Equality Bill.

Immigration: liberty of movement

58. It has been clear since May 2008 that the Home Office would be seeking an immigration based reservation to the Convention. In our last Report, we criticised the lack of clarity in respect of the proposals for this reservation, noting that it was unclear whether the Government was proposing a reservation in respect of specific immigration and citizenship rights or whether the Home Office was simply seeking a "catch all" reservation intended to cover some as yet undetermined policy objective.[56]

59. The Explanatory Memorandum explains that the Government proposes to enter a reservation in respect of liberty of movement:

A general reservation will be entered in order to retain the right to apply immigration rules and to retain the right to introduce wider health screening for applicants entering or seeking to remain in the UK, particularly in the event of a global health emergency, if this is considered necessary to protect public health.

This clarifies the Government's understanding that the Convention does not create new or additional rights for non-UK national disabled people relating to the entry into, stay in and departure from the United Kingdom.

60. The Government proposes a reservation in the following terms:

The United Kingdom reserves the right to apply such legislation, insofar as it relates to the entry into, stay in and departure from the United Kingdom of those who do not have the right under the law of the United Kingdom to enter and remain in the United Kingdom, as it may deem necessary from time to time.

61. The breadth of this proposal is clear when contrasted with the narrower interpretative declaration on immigration rights made by Australia:

Australia recognises the rights of persons with disability to liberty of movement, to freedom to choose their residence and to nationality, on an equal basis with others. Australia further declares its understanding that the Convention does not create a right for a person to enter or remain in a country of which he or she is not a national, nor impact on Australia's health requirements for non-nationals seeking to enter or remain in Australia, where these requirements are based on legitimate, objective and reasonable criteria.

62. The Explanatory Memorandum explains that the UK's proposed reservation is intended as a general reservation to the whole Convention, and is not specifically targeted at Article 18 and the right to liberty of movement.[57] This is consistent with the evidence which we took from the Minister for Disabled People, that the Home Office was seeking reservations or declarations in respect of immigration and citizenship, "with particular but not necessarily exclusive focus on Article 18 of the Convention".[58] We regret the lack of clarity in the Explanatory Memorandum in respect of the implications of the proposed reservation on liberty of movement for the requirements of the Convention. The breadth of the proposed reservation and its purpose is entirely unclear. We are disappointed that the elastic text of the proposed reservation confirms our earlier concern that the Home Office is seeking "catch-all" protection for any policy relating to immigration and nationality against the full application of the rights recognised by the Convention.

63. The Government's proposal is nearly identical to a similar reservation to Article 22 of the UNCRC which has recently been removed.[59] The justification proposed by the Government in respect of that reservation was similarly vague and accompanied by the explanation that nothing in the UNCRC was intended to create any further legal obligations in respect of those subject to immigration control.[60] We consider that our predecessor Committee's conclusions in respect of the immigration reservation to the UNCRC apply with equal force in respect of this proposed reservation. It is neither necessary nor compatible with the object and purposes of the Convention.

64. There is nothing in the Convention which would grant additional rights to people with disabilities in respect of the right to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. The only positive requirement of the Convention is that State Parties shall recognise the rights of persons with disabilities to liberty of movement, to freedom to choose their residence and to a nationality, on an equal basis with others (Article 18, emphasis added). This may include a requirement to make reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities, including making appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate burden on the State if needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the equal enjoyment of the right to liberty of movement. However, in our view, the obligation to make reasonable adjustments is one familiar to all public authorities in the United Kingdom. Adjustments or modifications do not create new rights, but enable disabled people to exercise the same rights as everyone else without discrimination.

65. We are particularly concerned about the Government's proposal that this reservation may be necessary in order to deal effectively with public health emergencies. We agree with a number of our witnesses that the Government already has broad powers to deal with public health emergencies and to control entry into the United Kingdom for the purposes of protecting public health.[61] We considered these powers most recently in our scrutiny of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, which provided for the wide-spread reform of the Government's powers to deal with risks to public health.[62] These powers apply to all people, regardless of whether they have disabilities or not. In our view, there is nothing in the Convention which would require an amendment to the existing law or which could limit its effectiveness. We agree with a number of witnesses who wrote to tell us that this amendment appeared to conflate disability with the risks posed to public health by disease. We consider that this approach illustrates an unfortunate lack of awareness of the rights of people with disabilities.

66. Disability Action, a Northern Irish NGO, told us that this reservation:

67. In our recent report on the Borders, Immigration and Citizenship Bill, we considered the potential for the Government's proposals to accelerate naturalisation by individuals participating in "active citizenship" to have a discriminatory effect on people with disabilities. This provides a good example of how the Convention might affect domestic immigration policy. There is nothing in the Convention which would require the Government to grant citizenship to people with disabilities on a more favourable basis than others. However, the right to liberty of movement without discrimination in Article 18 of the Convention restates and bolsters existing rights of individuals to enjoy treatment without unjustified discrimination in the protection of the law (guaranteed by common law)[64] and in their enjoyment of Convention rights, such as the right to respect for private and family life (as guaranteed by Articles 8 and 14 ECHR).[65]

68. We are concerned that the Government is pursuing a broad, general reservation related to immigration control. The Government has not provided an adequate explanation of its view that the proposed reservation is necessary. In any event, we consider that there is nothing in the Convention or in domestic law which could justify a reservation of the breadth proposed.

69. Read literally, this reservation could disapply the Convention in its entirety in so far as its protection might relate to people subject to immigration control. In our view, this is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and does not constitute a valid reservation.

70. We recommend that the Government abandon this reservation. We consider that it is both unnecessary and inconsistent with the object and purpose of the Convention.

71. We note the Government's commitment to review this proposed reservation within 12 months. If the Government proceeds to lodge this reservation, we recommend that the review, 12 months after ratification, should provide a clear analysis of why the Government considers the reservation is necessary and compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. This review must answer the concerns we have set out above and should contain examples and evidence to support the Government's views on the continuing need for the reservation.

Review of benefits appointees: equal recognition (Article 12(4))

72. The final reservation proposed by the Government involves the guarantee in the Convention for all disabled people of equal recognition before the law. [66]

73. Article 12(4) of the Convention recognises that people with disabilities who lack capacity may need additional protection in order to secure equal recognition in domestic legal systems. It provides that States shall ensure that domestic measures which deal with the exercise of legal capacity (for example, the ability to take legally binding decisions for oneself) shall provide for "appropriate and effective safeguards to prevent abuse in accordance with international law". Such safeguards must include that laws and other measures which address capacity:

"respect the rights, will and preferences of the person, are free of conflict of interest and undue influence";
"are proportional and tailored to a person's circumstances';
"apply for the shortest time possible"; and
"are subject to regular review by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body".

74. The Explanatory Memorandum explains the Government's view that domestic law on benefits is incompatible with the last of these requirements:

There is currently no review system for Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) appointees, i.e. people who are appointed to claim and collect benefits on behalf of another person due to that person's lack of physical or mental capacity.

75. The Government proposes a reservation in the following terms:

The United Kingdom's arrangements, whereby the Secretary of State may appoint a person to exercise rights in relation to social security claims and payments on behalf of an individual who is for the time being unable to act, are not at present subject to the safeguard of regular review, as required by Article 12.4 of the Convention and the UK reserves the right to apply those arrangements. The UK is therefore working towards a proportionate system of review.

76. The EHRC agrees that the current system for benefits appointees is incompatible with the requirements of the Convention and commends the DWP for its commitment to address this issue of incompatibility:

77. Most of the submissions we received on this proposal argued for an urgent solution to remove the identified incompatibility with the Convention and regretted the need for the reservation. Witnesses agreed that new measures should be brought forward to remove the incompatibility as soon as possible. Some witnesses argued that a reservation was not necessary, but others told us that although the reservation was necessary, action should be taken swiftly to allow the UK to withdraw the reservation.

78. In effect, the Government accepts that the current domestic law is incompatible with the requirements of Article 12(4) of the Convention. We welcome the recognition by the Government that the existing treatment of benefits appointees is incompatible with the requirements of the Convention. We agree with the Government's analysis and consider that, without any change to the current provision, a reservation is necessary.

79. The equal protection of the law for people with disabilities is a key element of the package of rights recognised by the Convention. Without equal protection of the law, many other rights may be out of the reach of people with disabilities and particularly those who lack capacity. By reserving the right to maintain in force measures which do not provide the safeguards required by the Convention, the proposed reservation is, in our view, open to challenge by other States as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. However, in our view, the risk of challenge is substantially reduced in the light of the commitment by the UK Government to work towards a compatible and proportionate system of review for benefits appointees. We recommend that the Government publish details of its proposal for a new review mechanism for benefits appointees, together with any necessary legislative changes and the timetable for reform, without delay. In keeping with the requirements of the Convention, we recommend that the Government publish its plans for consultation and that the Department for Work and Pensions should consult with disabled people and their organisations. The Government's proposals will be scrutinised for compatibility with the Convention and should be designed to facilitate removal of the proposed reservation.

80. This reservation was first raised publicly in evidence to our Committee on 18 November 2008, almost two years after the UK signed the Convention. During this time, a number of welfare reforms have been enacted, including the Welfare Reform Act 2008. In addition, amendments to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were included in the Mental Health Act 2007. These were opportunities to address the issue of benefits appointees, which were missed and we note that there are no proposals for reform in the Welfare Reform Bill which is currently before Parliament. If legislative changes are needed to implement the Government's plans to create a system of review for benefits appointees, we recommend that the Government consider making appropriate amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill.

29 DRC Report, paras 52. Back

30 Ibid, para 90. Back

31 DRC Reply, paras 12 - 14. Back

32 See for example, Effect of Reservations on Entry into force of the American Convention (Articles 74 and 75), Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 67 ILR (1982) 558; Belilos v Switzerland, (1998) 10 EHRR 466, paragraphs 47- 60; Office of the High Commissioner, General Comment No 24, Issues relating to reservations made upon ratification or accession, 4 November 1994, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.6 Back

33 Ibid, paragraphs 7-9 Back

34 Annual Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Thematic Study by the Office of theUN High Commissioner for Human Rights on enhancing awareness and understanding of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 26 January 2009, A/HRC/10/48, para 20. Back

35 DRC Reply, para 16. Back

36 DRC Report, para 39. Back

37 DRC Reply, para 4. Back

38 DRC Report, paras 3 - 8 Back

39 DRC Report, para 8. Over the course of the past year, a reservation was being considered in respect of cultural services, which does not appear in the Explanatory Memorandum. A number of additional matters were being discussed in May 2008, including in relation to capacity and mental health, in respect of choice or residence. Although it was clear that issues relating to capacity were being considered, this was not clearly related to the issue of benefits appointees now proposed to be subject to reservation. Back

40 See for example, Tenth Report of 2002-03, The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, HL Paper 117, HC 81, para 65; Seventeenth Report of Session 2001-02, Nationality Immigration and Asylum Bill, HL 132, HC 961, para 17; Tenth Report of Session 2006-07, The Treatment of Asylum Seekers, HL 81, HC 60, paras 173 - 182. Back