Daily Summary related to Draft Article 23
SOCIAL SECURITY AND AN ADEQUATE STANDARD OF LIVING
Prepared by Landmine Survivors Network

Volume 3, #6
January 12, 2004

Afternoon Session
Commenced: 3.25 pm
Adjourned: 6:05 pm

RIGHT TO SOCIAL SECURITY AND TO AN ADEQUATE STANDARD OF LIVING

Jamaica asserted that paragraph 1 of Article 26 needs to be broadened either to introduce social protection or to note that it includes social protection and insurance. As it is now phrased, the whole range of provisions of social protection are not covered. Regarding the issue of self-employment, in most developing counties there is a coverage gap for people with their own business. We need to introduce special measures so that persons, who do not enjoy formal employment, are covered under the social security provision.

Ireland noted that the article as it is in the Chair’s text appears to conflate 2 separate rights. Article 9 of the ICESCR does not give much guidance. Article 13 (a) of the Mexican text constitutes a more fruitful approach as compared with Article 26.1 of the Chair’s text.

WFDB noted that many deaf-blind people do not have any security. Often their only protection is through the family.

With respect to Article 26 (2) of the Chair’s draft, the WBU proposed inserting a reference to clean water. Clean water plays a role in prevention as all human beings need water. Advocating the right to clean water in the convention would entail prevention, without specifically naming it as such.

Sweden pointed to Article 26 (4) which implies that families of PWD have “rights.” The representative emphasized that this is a convention on the human rights of PWD and not the family members of PWD families. Addressing the adequate standard of living of PWDs might entail addressing PWD families, but it is important to avoid referring to the “rights” of family members.

India proposed that Article 26 (2) of the Chair’s draft be qualified, at the end of the paragraph, with the language “not below standards prevailing in the country.” Article 26 (3) does not seem relevant and might even be eliminated, as it relates to questions of access, mobility and non-discrimination. India urged that this article be elaborated by referring to paragraphs (a) (b) (c) and (d) of Article 13 of its own text. The representative concurred with previous comments that in developing countries the family is often the PWD’s only support.

With respect to the right of PWD to found their own families, the WNUSP noted that if one is the head of the household, there are children and family members to provide for. This is one way of addressing this issue; another is in the context of children with disabilities, which has already been raised. Regarding the expression “to look after” in Article 13 (c) of the Indian draft, WNUSP noted that this term, in English, has a paternalistic connotation. Regarding the reference in Article 13 (d) of the Indian draft to “access to legal guardianship,” the representative recalled comments by Inclusion International advocated that those paternalistic forms of guardianship be done away with.

Volume 3, #7
January 13, 2004

Morning Session
Commenced: 10:17 AM
Adjourned: 1:03 PM

RIGHTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY AND TO AN ADEQUATE STANDARD OF LIVING (cont.)

Venezuela noted that although PWD live throughout the world, most live in developing nations, where they are among the poorest of the poor. In this regard, the Convention should include a right that most PWD do not possess today, that is, the right to social security without any tax restrictions or the requirement for prior contributions. Without this right, the majority of the PWD cannot obtain essential goods, including medicine and food, and important technical assistance and services such as wheelchairs, alternative transportation, etc. Social security is very important for particularly vulnerable PWD, such as those who are ill, unemployed, pregnant, or those with severe/multiple disabilities. Social security assistance is also important with regard to family care-givers who cannot work and contribute income to the household because they must stay home to care for or assist the PWD. In such cases, financial constraints also prevent families of PWD from participating fully in society. In this regard, only social security can provide for many of the needs of disabled people and their families. This is a matter of equality and an article on social security should ensure that legislation on this issue allows for equitable treatment and should reflect the other points made.

Landmine Survivors Network agreed with the EU’s proposal that there should be a distinction between social security and a proper standard of living, as such a distinction is made in the CESCR.

Slovenia offered full support for paragraph 4 as it refers to the case of children and persons that are not in institutions, or being taken care of by their families. It should address the idea that families should receive assistance for not only disability-related expenses, but also for counseling. In any case, the best guarantee for independence and social security is employment.

China commented that as all PWD should have access to social security insurance. State Parties should adopt measures to guarantee that all PWD have access to this, even if they are employed, as employment can be inadequate. The measures should also provide favorable treatment for PWD, especially those who are unemployed, ill, elderly or pregnant. Social security should also guarantee that those PWD who cannot find employment, are able to enjoy a minimum standard of living.

Volume 3, #9
January 15, 2004

Morning Session
Commenced: 10:30 AM
Adjourned: 1:03 PM

SOCIAL SECURITY AND AN ADEQUATE STANDARD OF LIVING

Venezuela recommended that the article also secure, in more detail that currently exists in para 1 (a), the provision of the technical and functional aids – visual, auditory, mobility related – without which they would not be able to exercise their rights.

Canada noted that the second para was drafted as a parallel to ICESCR and “access to clean water” was an addition to the provisions in that article. In order to avoid creating new rights this should be deleted.

The coordinator noted that perhaps access to clean water could be assumed to be included with the right to food.

WNUSP responded that there may be other source instruments besides the ESCR that mention this right. Additionally, the sub para (c) should be reworded so the PWD, and not their family members, are the central subjects. Sub para (d) should be broadened so that access is guaranteed beyond government housing programs, to private housing as well, in a nondiscriminatory fashion.

China called for the removal of “severe and multiple disabilities” in 1(c) since the emphasis in this subpara is the challenges posed by situations of poverty, which affects all PWD. The entitlement of various forms of financial assistance alone is insufficient, and income generation and self employment should be added to this list. The last clause in this paragraph, “which should not become a disincentive to develop themselves” should be deleted.

Ireland found “a large number of problems” with this text. It is indicative that Article 9 of the ICESCR, upon which this text is based, is 2 lines long. Ideally, the article should not extend beyond the first paragraph. Failing that, the following amendments / concerns were raised: 1(c) extends the range of the subjects of this convention, which would present “grave difficulties”. 1(d) is overly prescriptive to the point where existing programs for government housing for PWD would be excluded. 1 (e) would need to be qualified with “appropriate” to “identify need” because income alone would not be a sufficient basis for determining tax benefits. 1 (f) does not take into account that life and health insurance are typically provided by the private sector, which is different from the obligations of the state provide health care. Canada’s position on the provision on “access to clean water” reflects Ireland’s concern about rewriting existing rights. This provision has been addressed as a part of the right to health, for example, and is an implementation measure of the right to an adequate standard of living, but should not be listed as a separate right. These rights are generally “couched in the language of progressive realization.”

Lebanon proposed that another important vulnerable group, the elderly, be specified in I (b).

Inter American Institute on Disability echoed Venezuela’s position functional aids and highlighted the importance of breaking down social security into its components as this was a broad term. PWD deserve dignified housing so that they can move around within their home.

Republic of Korea generally supported this article but sought clarification on whether the “earmarking” of government housing programs might add some potential inflexibility. Most of the subparas begin with the obligation to “ensure access”; however many PWD don’t know which programs they may have access to, so the need “to inform” PWD should also be made clear.

WBU recommended a definition of “severe” disabilities for the purposes of 1 (c). Access to clean water is essential for separate mention because of the access issue – PWD often cannot get to clean water which is essential even for food; the lack of it, among other things causes blindness. The paragraph on life and health insurance 1(f) should be retained.

Thailand supported China’s position on severe and multiple disabilities. It proposed an amendment to para 1(f), which it “strongly supported”, that takes into account that life and health insurance are mostly provided by the private sector. However, “states have the tools to regulate” this. States should “through legislative measures” ensure that any insurance cannot discriminate based on disability. This provision should remain in this article or the one on health. Regarding tax exemptions, this subpara should be amended to add “and their purchase of assistive technologies aiming to enhance their independence” so as to ensure that PWD are burdened by taxes.

Sierra Leone made the general comment that this convention should be geared to the majority of concerned states, which are developing countries, for whom the reality of implementation is a major issue. There is a large gap between the obligations in this article and states’ capacity to implement. In Sierra Leone, for example, there is no governmental housing as such to begin with. The purpose of this meeting is to come to some form of a convergence of views.

Ecuador echoed the views of previous speakers regarding their socio-economic conditions, supported the inclusion of access to water and suggested an additional phrase “basic services.”

Inclusion International questioned the term “severe” as it is applied often to people with intellectual disabilities, highlighted concerns with the EU’s position seeking to “water down’ this article, and emphasized the need to help PWD living in poverty.

Back to Draft Article