UN Convention on the Human Rights of People with Disabilities
Sixth Ad Hoc Committee Daily Summaries
A service brought to you by RI (Rehabilitation International)

Volume 7, #7
August 9, 2005

MORNING SESSION

ARTICLE 23 - SOCIAL SECURITY AND AN ADEQUATE STANDARD OF LIVING (cont)

The Facilitator (Jamaica) recommended that delegates review the Secretary General's Report to the 39th Commission for Social Development, "Enhancing Social Protection and Reducing Vulnerability in a Globalising World" (E/CN.5/2001/2), which addresses from a conceptual point of view issues that are relevant to the context of Article 23 such as social security, social assistance, nutrition, and shelter.

The Chair summarized yesterday's discussion stating that many had supported moving para 2 to the beginning to create a more logical structure. The subparas in para 1 were described as too prescriptive, particularly (e) which deals with tax exemption, and the latter part of (d) which requires earmarking of a percentage of government housing. Many opposed the language in (c), "severe and multiple disabilities," although there was support for ensuring special attention for persons facing myriad problems. Suggestions were made to add "minorities" to (b), following "women and girls." Others asserted that the issues in (b) were already dealt with in the chapeau. The issue of access to clean water was taking on a life of its own; it is addressed in General Comments 12 and 15 on Articles 11 and 12 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), Article 14.2(h) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and Article 24.2 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

The United Kingdom on behalf of the European Union (EU) stated that the draft mixes up two separate articles of the CESCR. It endorsed New Zealand's proposal to swap paras 1 and 2 because adequate standard of living is a broader concept. In para 1(a), the word "necessary" should be replaced with "appropriate" which is used throughout the Convention; "necessary" is harder to define. In para 1(b), reference to particular groups "particularly women and girls" should be deleted. In para 1(c), the words "to cover" should be replaced by "with," because it is not possible to cover every expense. In the second part, the words "including adequate training" should be deleted. Suggestions would be welcome for possible replacements of the phrase "severe and multiple disabilities," which is difficult to define. Although generally this Convention is for PWD, Serbia and Montenegro is correct in stating that "families" are relevant in this particular context. In para 1(d), "governmental" should be replaced with the broader term "public"; the second part of the paragraph should be deleted as it is too prescriptive. As stated by Japan and New Zealand para 1(e) should be deleted. In para 1(f), the term "services" should be inserted after "insurance" to prevent discrimination in insurance services. It reiterated its proposal to replace the last phrase, "without discrimination on the basis of disability" with the phrase "on the basis of objective criteria." As New Zealand stated, a State cannot impose absolute obligations on private entities, but there should be an objective process in place. In para 2, as New Zealand and the Chair stated, a reference to access to clean water is important; however this is a different issue from the others addressed in this para. Therefore it should be addressed in a new second sentence: "State Parties shall ensure that PWD have access to clean water on an equal basis with others." Now that this issue has been removed from the first sentence, the obligations in it can be strengthened from "safeguard and promote" to "ensure." Also, the word "will" should be replaced with "shall" for the sake of stylistic conformity.

Kenya suggested using the broader term "social support" instead of "social security" because most people in Africa, if employed, work in the informal sector where the social security concept does not apply. It endorsed reversing the order of para 1 and para 2. In 1(a), "social" should be inserted before "services" and "technical aid" should be inserted before "devices." In para 1(c), the role of families should be stressed, not deleted. Services provided for persons with "severe and multiple disabilities" should not be dependent on income or poverty, but should be provided regardless of income; therefore the phrase "living in situations of poverty" should be deleted. Although para 1(e) is too prescriptive, the original idea might be clarified by linking tax exemptions and benefits to the extent of disability, not just to the fact of disability. It could be rewritten as follows: "ensure access, in respect of disability, to tax exemptions or other tax benefits for equipment, assistive devices and services to the extent that such exemptions are necessary to mitigate the disability." Discrimination by insurance companies is rampant and therefore para 1(f) is necessary to oblige State Parties to issue specific regulations covering private entities. As with environmental regulations, State Parties should able to require private entities to comply.

The Chair pointed out that Jordan had also suggested using "social safety nets" to broaden the scope. He asked the Committee whether more elaborated references as suggested by Kenya and Jordan should be used.

Chile supported changing the order of para 1 and 2. Improving the quality of life of PWD and their families is an ethical imperative. Many families with a PWD find it impossible to participate in the development of their community. Other social circumstances, such as lack of access to medical care and women's roles as caregivers, increase the economic and social impact on families. Extending assistance to families is just and proper. This Article will have the effect of providing more comprehensive care, especially if it includes a gender perspective. Paragraph 2 should invoke quality of life for PWD and their families in terms of food, housing, basic health services, and drinking water. This can be progressively implemented, but should be an ongoing permanent objective.

In para 1(a), there should not be an exhaustive list of services and supports, and the word "assistance" should be changed to "support." The word "severe" in para 1(c) should be kept because without it the paragraph would lose the urgency of ensuring special support. Perhaps the terms should be made more precise without drawing distinctions between PWD. There are PWD in extreme situations who should not be left out. While supporting the concept of "access to housing" in para 1(d), Chile questioned obliging States to regulate private housing providers. However, States unquestionably do have the authority to place mandates on builders and to maintain priority allocation for housing. Because customs duties can make imported assistive technology prohibitively expensive, the broad tax exemption provision in para 1(e) is welcomed. Chile supported Kenya's position. Para 1(f) should ensure availability of life insurance without discrimination, particularly in the private insurance industry, and where pre-existing conditions preclude obtaining health insurance.

Jamaica stressed the need for a developmental focus, not just a traditional human rights approach, to empower PWD. In the chapeau, the phrase "social assistance" should be inserted after "social insurance" to ensure a broad understanding of social security. As stated by the EU, families' issues are relevant and should be included in this Article. Citing a particular case of discrimination by insurance companies, Jamaica underscored the importance of para 1(f), addressing non-discrimination in life insurance. In the example, the re-insurer was based outside of Jamaica, which illustrates why international cooperation is so important; both local insurers and their parent companies have to make necessary changes in policies. The order of paras 1 and 2 should be reversed.

The Chair noted another suggestion to elaborate "social security" reflecting sentiment among some countries that the term is not sufficiently comprehensive.

South Africa underscored the developmental focus of "social security." It falls within the scope of socioeconomic rights and a social wage. In para 1, the chapeau should read, "State Parties recognize the right of all PWD to social assistance, income maintenance, including social insurance." Para 2 of the current text should read, "State Parties recognize the right of all PWD to adequate standard of living and sustainable livelihood for themselves." The list in this para should also include: "adequate food security, access to clean water and sanitation". Progressive realization of people with disabilities' socioeconomic rights cannot be compromised. This can be achieved though taxes, rebates, and grants.

Uruguay agreed with Chile on para 1(d) and (e) because they are prescriptive. The objective of is a convention that would be ratified by the largest number of states, and implemented comprehensively. Uruguay has provisions for specific tax exemptions, but no general exemption and therefore, it is skeptical about such a provision in 1(e). Para 1(f) should be limited to life insurance on an equal basis with others and without discrimination. Health insurance should be covered in Article 21, on the Right to Health.

Norway supported reversing the order of paras 1 and 2, adding that the wording of para 2 should closely follow CESCR text. It endorsed the EU's suggested language for dealing with the issue of access to clean water. The phrase "safeguard and promote" in para 2 should be changed to "ensure" in conformity with the CESCR; also the term "on an equal basis with others" should be inserted after "PWD." Norway supported using the term "social assistance" in para 1, and agreed with Israel that this Article should explicitly define social security as government support for PWD with no income. Para 1(a) should be retained, and the special groups should be deleted from para 1(b). Government subsidies are covered in (c) and (e) and they should be merged to read: "ensure access for PWD to government support for disability related expenses with particular emphasis on PWD living in poverty"; this would emphasize the needs of poor PWD, while refraining from prescribing how States must do this. "Severe and multiple disabilities" should be deleted from para 1(c); the emphasis should be on the amount of expenses incurred instead of on the particular disability. PWD are a part of their families, and so this reference should remain, but Norway is flexible in deference to states who have strong views on this point. Para 1(d) is too detailed, especially the reference to "earmarking"; the list that follows "housing programs" should be deleted. Health insurance should be covered in Article 21, Right to Health. The provision on life insurance seems too detailed, but Norway remains flexible.

The Chair cited several references to "social security" in existing conventions that this Committee could consider. The WG text follows Article 9 of CESCR which mentions "social security and social insurance"; as well as Article 5 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), which speaks of "social security and social services"; and Article 11 of CEDAW, which refers to "social security, particularly in cases of retirement, unemployment, sickness, invalidity and old age and other impairments to work."

Sudan endorsed reversing the order of paras 1 and 2. In para 1(a) "free of charge" should be added at the end because assistive devices are essential and PWD are generally poor. In para 1(e), the words "ensure access by PWD to tax exemptions and tax benefits in respect of their income except for those obligations ordained by some religious teachings" should be inserted at the end, because some religions do not permit exemption of taxes, for example Zakat in Islam. In para 1(f), the words "where applicable and when they do not come into contradiction with any religious teachings" should be inserted at the end. Some religions do not accept the concept of life insurance, so there is a need to distinguish between health and life insurance. In the first sentence of para 2 the term "and not confined to" should be added after "including" because the list does not include everything.

The Chair responded to Sudan's last suggestion to clarify that "including" has been taken to mean "not confined to" throughout the convention. Inserting the term here would cause problems in its other provisions. Where the text uses the word "including," the examples are not meant to be exhaustive.

Australia was flexible on the issue of paragraph ordering. It endorsed the EU's proposals to delete the second half of para 1(d), from "including through earmarking" onward, and to delete all of para 1(e), dealing with tax exemptions. Because the Australian government does not control the private sector, it supported New Zealand's proposal to have governments "encourage" access to life insurance in para 1(f).

Mexico supported reversing paragraphs paras 1 and 2. "Social assistance" should be deleted because it is not related to social security. The mention of special groups in para 1(b) is still being deliberated so the reference should be put on hold. The phrase "poverty reduction strategies" should be deleted because it does not relate directly to social security, although it may be an indirect factor. As proposed by other delegations, the last part of para 1(d) should be deleted, and so should the overly prescriptive para 1(e). Subparagraph para 1(f), dealing with insurance, will require further elaboration because such requirements cannot be imposed on private entities. As proposed by Uruguay, the words "on equal terms" should be inserted in para 1(f) in order to avoid any reverse discrimination. Access to clean water should be included in para 2 in a formulation that reflects this as a "service". Progressive realisation remains a concern for Mexico until a decision is reached on how it should be included in the Convention.

Thailand endorsed many of the proposals made by Israel. While it is difficult to define "severe and multiple disabilities," it is important to maintain this element. Thailand suggested the term "impairments" instead of "disabilities," as impairments can be diagnosed while disability is socially constructed. As proposed by the EU, the word "government" should be replaced by the broader term "public" with respect to housing in para 1(d); this term also be used in Article 13, Access to Information. In para 1(a), the term "technology", which has a broader and more conceptual meaning, should be inserted before "device" which is a specific and tangible object. The substance of para 1(e) should be retained and the words "including their disability-related spending" should be inserted. For some countries, tax benefits are an alternative solution. PWD spend more money than nondisabled people in their everyday lives. If tax benefits can be related to these additional expenses it would be very helpful. Life insurance, addressed in para 1(f), is not available for many PWD in developing countries, but a person can buy life insurance from the same company's affiliate in another country. States must find ways to impose nondiscriminatory practices on private multinational corporations which sell policies of different standards in different countries.

The Chair cited relevant paras from "Enhancing Social Protection and Reducing Vulnerability in a Globalising World" (E/CN.5/2001/2). Para 7.e outlines two concepts under social protection: "social assistance," which encompasses the transfer of resources to groups deemed eligible due to deprivation; and "social insurance," which is social security financed by contributions and based on the principles of insurance ie protection against risk. Para 8 further elaborates that countries vary in their social protection systems. In its narrowest interpretation these are occupational related public and private social insurance schemes. So social security remains an integral part of social protection. However social protection is a broader concept that also encompasses social assistance programs for the elderly, poor and other vulnerable groups through noncontributory schemes. Social protection should be seen in a holistic way and integrated into political, social, and economic goals. The Chair surmised that the broader term "social protection" may be more appropriate terminology to ensure that PWD are covered especially in light of comments from delegations whose countries do not have specific social security schemes as such.

Cameroon agreed with the applicability of the notion of social protection because it covers all of the mechanisms by which states, of varying forms of social organization, provide PWD and vulnerable populations even minimal assistance to improve their standard of living. This is especially the case in countries where community-based forms of caregiving prevail over systematic social security programs. Such minimal assistance for an appropriate life for PWD should include access to drinking water, as outlined in para 2. Para 1(c) should include host families who care for children with disabilities; they need assistance also.

Costa Rica endorsed Uruguay's statement on the distinction between life and health insurance. The public or private nature of insurance must be secondary to the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of disability because, as Thailand stated, such discrimination against PWD occurs all over the world. Housing programs in para 1(d) should be developed according to principles of universal design. This requirement should be a clear obligation because such programs use public monies which should not be used to create additional barriers. The rest of this para is too specific. It agreed with Mexico's comments on 1(b), that the reference to poverty eradication should be reflected elsewhere, and the inclusion of specific groups should be contingent on the outcome of the ongoing debate on this issue. Para 1(c) should refer to "all PWD, in particular persons with severe and multiple disabilities." The provision on taxes in para 1(e) is too specific and should be replaced by Kenya's proposed language. Paras 1 and 2 should be reversed.

Mali agreed that paras 1 and 2 should be reversed. "Social security" should be replaced with "social protection" in para 1 to broaden the concept. Social protection includes social security, social assistance, and alternative health financing. "Social insurance" should be replaced with "social assistance" or "social aid" to encourage states to provide assistance to vulnerable groups.

Yemen noted that in Yemen social security is taken to have a broader meaning but was flexible on this wording. It recommended strengthening the chapeau of para 1 by replacing the term "recognize" with "guarantee." In para 1(a), the term "gratis" should be inserted after "necessary." In para 1(c), "severe" is a relative term; any disability can be severe and the word does not connote a special disability. Therefore "severe" should be deleted, but "multiple disabilities" should remain. Given its length, para 1(c) should be reformulated. Tax exemptions in para 1(e) should be dependent on the level of income, as well as to disability. Yemen agreed with Sudan on the religious caveats to life insurance in para 1(f) noting that Islamic scholars disagree regarding the permissibility of life insurance.

The Chair noted that life insurance is similar to issues that have arisen elsewhere which are permissible in some countries but not in others. It will need to be made clear that this is a nondiscrimination issue and there is no intention to change national or religious laws.

Argentina endorsed New Zealand's proposal to reverse the order of paras 1 and 2, and to delete "severe" in para 1(c) which is an unclear concept. If the reference to "families" is to be retained its meaning and applicability must be made clear, along with the type of assistance granted. As commented by others, it will be difficult for the state to impose the obligations described in para 1(f) on private insurance companies. As proposed by Uruguay, issues related to health should be covered in Article 21. "Access to water" should be kept in para 2 because it is essential for an adequate standard of living; the provision also appears in Article 24(d) of CRC and Article 14 of CEDAW. As stated by Mexico, the progressive nature of the provision should be clarified, either within the Article or elsewhere, perhaps in Article 4.

Qatar proposed replacing the word "families" in para 1(c) with "their parents and those who care for them." The aim of the provision is to ensure that state assistance reaches PWD directly. "Social security" should be retained in para 2 because this term includes social protection and social support.

Malaysia agreed with proposals to restructure this Article. The reference to "social insurance" should be deleted from para 1 because it is overly prescriptive and anyway is a core component of "social security". Malaysia takes note of the Chair's references to similar concepts as they appear in existing human rights conventions. However it is of the view that social security as applied to PWD has a broader meaning than that in other human rights conventions. As proposed by Japan and the EU, the phrase "severe and multiple" should be deleted from para 1(c) because the terms are subjective and may limit the Article's application. In para 1(d) "public" or "publicly-funded" should replace "governmental" in order to strengthen the provision.

India agreed the order of paras 1 and 2 should be reversed with a corresponding change in the title of the Article. The phrase "adequate standard of living" in para 2 covers more than clothing, housing, food, and access to clean water. These items should be deleted because they are overly prescriptive and are covered by the term "adequate standard of living." The concept of "progressive realization" should be mentioned. The term "social insurance" is not widely understood and appears superfluous in combination with "social security"; "social protection" is often understood as "social security." Paras 1(a) and (b) should be retained. The reference to "severe and multiple" in para 1(c) potentially creates operational difficulties as well as classes of disability, and should be removed. The term "family" should be defined. Paras 1(c), (d) and (e) are too prescriptive; para 1(c) should be reformulated and para 1(d) and para 1(e) should be deleted. Para 1(f) should be considered in the context of a State's authority over the insurance industry. Some countries have such authority; others do not, especially in regard to health insurance.

Brazil supported retaining references to poverty reduction, particularly in para 1(b) and (c). "Severe and multiple" should be deleted in para 1(c). Brazil supported Uruguay with regard to para 1(f).

China endorsed Mexico's and Argentina's proposals to address progressive realization in the chapeau, as well as the Jamaican proposal to expand the definition of social security. As other delegations have commented, paras 1(d), (e) and (f) are too specific and contain possible loopholes. They should be merged into a general provision for which China reiterated its proposed language, introduced at AHC 3: "promote access by PWD, in particular living in situations of poverty, to assistance from the State in areas such as housing programs, taxation, life and health insurance, and respite care."

Oman stated that "social security" varies from country to country, reflecting social assistance programs for those unable to satisfy minimum needs of daily living. Social security usually has separate systems for people who are privately employed and those who are self-employed. The word "earmarking" should be deleted from para 1(d). National housing programs should benefit all and give priority to PWD.

Israel clarified that life insurance, addressed in para 1(f), is usually provided by private entities and should therefore be removed from this Article. Health insurance, on the other hand, is usually provided by the public sector and should be covered in the relevant article, Article 21. There should be "fair and objective criteria" for insurance terms and decisions, as that is the extent of what can be demanded from the private sector, as elaborated in Israel's proposed text at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6israel.htm

Canada proposed separating "adequate standard of living" from "social security" because they deal with different economic and social rights. While these rights are interrelated, combining them into one provision could perpetuate negative assumptions about PWD. Other rights, such as the right to work, addressed in Article 22, are closely related. The aim is to remove barriers so as to promote full inclusion in all aspects of life. The provisions should be adaptable to changes over time, and therefore overly prescriptive text should be avoided. So as to emphasise the commitment to achieve substantive equality the phrase "on the basis of equality" should be inserted into the para 1 chapeau. Para 1(a) concerns accessibility and mobility issues and should be covered in Articles 19 and 20. In para 1(b), the word "equal" should be inserted before "access"; and the phrase "the aged" should be replaced with "older persons." The last part of para 1(b), "and to take into account the needs and perspectives of persons with disabilities in all such programmes and strategies," should be deleted because this is already covered in Article 4(2), General Obligations. The EU amendment to para 1(c) should be adopted. In para 1(d), the language should be changed to read: "States Parties ensure equal access by PWD to all government housing policies and programs to promote full inclusion"; this should be covered under the adequate standard of living provision. The reference to tax benefits in para 1(e) should be deleted because it allows States no flexibility. The issue in para 1(f) is already covered in Article 21, Health, and in Article 7, Equality. The chapeau should be changed to read: "States Parties shall take measures to eliminate discrimination in the enjoyment of this right"; or else "States Parties shall guarantee the enjoyment of this right by all PWD on the basis of equality." The phrase "access to clean water" should be deleted from para 2 because it is unnecessary, as is the phrase "right to adequate food." Article 11 CESCR covers water adequately. Alternatively, Canada would support the EU's proposal if the word "clean" were replaced with "safe." The issue of "progressive realization" in para 1 should be covered in Article 4, General Obligations. Accordingly its language at the end of "taking steps to promote..." can be deleted. Canada's proposals are online at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6canada.htm

Uganda supported using the term "social protection" in the chapeau because of its inclusiveness. In para 1(c), the words "severe and multiple" should be maintained; however the word "or" should be inserted after "and," and a definition of severe should be added. The term "family" is vague and should be replaced with "primary caregiver" because people who spend a lot of time caring for PWD have no time to earn a living. "Public" should replace "government" in (d) and "percentages" should be deleted to make it less rigid. Uganda endorsed reversing the order of paras 1 and 2.

United States endorsed India's proposal to include references to progressive realization in both paras 1 and 2, with the addition of the word "progressive" before "realization". Access to water is not a right under international law, is not recognized either in the UDHR or the Covenants, and should therefore be deleted.

Russian Federation supported replacing "social security" with "social protection" in the title and text to reflect the broader issues covered in this Article. "Social protection" is also more harmonious with the idea of "adequate standard of living." Regarding para 1(c), all PWD living in poverty should have access to government support to cover disability related expenses; the listing of expenses should be retained. The meaning of "severe and multiple" is unclear; all families with PWD need assistance. The words "earmarking percentages" should be deleted from para 1(d) because they are too specific and could have negative consequences. Access to governmental housing should be stressed in a generic way. In para 1(e), "exemptions" could be replaced with the broader term "benefits," which is also easier to accommodate in domestic policies and possibly with NGO involvement.

The Philippines agreed to reversing the order of paras 1 and 2. In para 1(a), "necessary" should be replaced with "appropriate," and "devices" should be replaced with "assistive technology." In para 1(d), "public" should replace "government," and the words "non-discriminatory access to private housing programs" should be added; the rest of the para should be deleted. As some delegations have stated, the tax policies in para 1(e) could be discriminatory; however, this provision is strongly supported by some Philippine disabled people's organizations (DPOs). "Insurance" should be replaced with "services" in para 1(f), and this provision should be moved to Article 21.

Senegal endorsed reversing the order of paras 1 and 2, and agreed with Oman and Mali regarding the terms "social security" and "social protection." These terms are used interchangeably in Senegal. Because one term affects employed people while the other affects those who are unemployed, the term "social protection" should be used. As noted by Yemen, there are religious problems with the concept of life insurance. As suggested by Cameroon, clarification is needed regarding the type of assistance given to families, particularly surrogate or host families. There is an enormous gap between developed and developing countries, so some provisions need to be open ended keeping the needs of developing countries in mind.

New Zealand supported mentioning "families" in this provision, as family members also need an adequate standard of living, and opposed the term "primary caregiver" because other family members, such as children of PWD, should also have an adequate standard of living. PWD care for their families too; all situations should be covered. Both PWD and their families incur additional costs incurred due to disability; that fact should be mentioned para 1(c) and (e). These issues are addressed by New Zealand's proposal for para 1(d) bis, available online at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6nz.htm . Senegal's point on surrogate families should also be addressed. Regarding para 1(f), insurance companies make assessments based on actuarial data, using the likely risks associated with an individual. Problems arise when insurance companies impose blanket prohibitions or charge premiums that are not based on the degree of risk. Therefore the words "without discrimination" should be replaced with "fair and reasonable manner"; this suggestion is similar to the EU's proposal. States could also create other protection measures, such as a complaints board for hearing cases of insurance companies charging too much or basing denials on unreasonable grounds. It endorsed Israel's proposal for Article 23 bis, though that need not necessarily be a separate provision.

Namibia endorsed reversing the order of paras 1 and 2, and agreed with Thailand on the importance of addressing disability related expenses. The needs of PWD should be taken into account by private insurance companies. Private entities can be regulated to not exploit or humiliate PWD. Insurance is broader than just life and health insurance.

Australia supported Canada's proposal to separate the issues into two articles and to recognize the implications for later jurisprudence. Canada's other proposals will also improve the article.

El Salvador endorsed Costa Rica's proposal to move the health-related issues to Article 21, separating them from other issues, as well as Uruguay's proposal requiring life insurance to be available to all on equal terms without discrimination based on disability. The order of paras 1 and 2 should be reversed.

Statements from UN Agencies, NGOs and NHRIs

The International Labor Organization (ILO) welcomed the provisions for income replacement and social protection benefits, but expressed concern about the linkage with other provisions such as the right to work and vocational training. Social security provisions should not be a disincentive to vocational training, becoming a "benefits trap" for PWD. The ILO suggested an amendment http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/documents/ahc6iloda23.doc, providing for periodic reviews, adequate support and barrier free access to the open employment market for PWD. In order to dismantle existing "benefits traps," para 1(b) should include a reference to rehabilitation.

The International Disability Caucus (IDC), noting that 80% of the 600 million PWD live in developing countries, many in poverty, endorsed separating "adequate living" and "social security" into two articles to be consistent with existing human rights law. In lieu of two separate articles, a restructuring of para 1 and 2 would be welcomed.

There needs to be more attention on "affordable housing" and "access to water." Because most PWD do not live in government-provided housing, it is necessary to ensure accessible housing for the full inclusion of PWD in their communities. Housing should not be predicated on the provision of unwanted services. The "right to water" has been recognized in Article 14(2)(h) of CEDAW and Article 24(2) of CRC, and has also been recognized by the CESCR Committee as a prerequisite for realizing other human rights. (See General Comment 15 to Articles 11 and 12 of the CESCR on the right to water, and General Comment 12 to Article 11 on the right to food.) Access to clean water must not be lost. Access to social security should be ensured and not be made dependent on accepting unwanted services. The retention of para 1(f) on insurance, whether by private or public entities, is welcomed. This is particularly important for those countries where insurance is a prerequisite for health care. The IDC reiterated that the Article must adequately address women and girls who face multiple discrimination in their access to poverty reduction programs, housing, food, water and social assistance.

Inter-American Institute on Disability, on behalf of the IDC as well as the Ibero-American Network for PWD and their Families, explained that reaching an adequate standard of living for PWD presupposes the recognition of the additional expenses they incur due to their disability. This applies particularly to those living in poverty. If the public does not assist, the family becomes even more impoverished. Therefore, public policies must subsidize the additional costs, in order to promote the goal of inclusive development. These subsidies should not replace or jeopardise any other poverty reduction or income support measures. Public policy must ensure a basic income level for PWD that ensures a dignified and fulfilled life. The greater difficulties encountered by PWD must be taken into account. These support systems must be flexible. Accepting such assistance must not be made dependent on accepting particular services.

AFTERNOON SESSION

ARTICLE 23: SOCIAL SECURITY AND AN ADEQUATE STANDARD OF LIVING (cont)

Statements from UN Agencies, NGOs and NHRIs (cont)

National Human Rights Institutions cited paragraph 11 of General Comment 5 on Persons with Disability by the CESCR Committee, relating to the regulation of actions of the private sector. It can be found online at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/4b0c449a9ab4ff72c12563ed0054f17d?Opendocument.

Inclusion International highlighted the level of dependency that PWD regularly experience, and their need for recognition and access on their own terms. In some countries, social security is only available to those who work. PWD are human beings, who are born with rights.

Society for the Protection of the Unborn Children referred to the statement made by the Chair following their intervention on Article 21, Right to Health. It repeated and rebutted paragraph 94 of the Chair's Report of AHC5, which could create new sexual and reproductive rights such as a right to abortion. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc5reporte.htm While paragraph 94 might accurately reflect the discussion, it does not offer any legal protection against an interpretation of the outcome document as creating new rights. The Chair's Report only reflects the legislative intent of those drafting the Convention now, not the intent of those who will ratify and interpret it in the future. It is the legal opinion of the Society that para 94 may be persuasive but is not binding on a juridical body like national and regional tribunals and international compliance committees. No legally binding convention or treaty contains language on "sexual and reproductive health services" as part of the right to health. If the intention of this committee is not to create new rights, then unprecedented and vaguely defined language should be avoided.

The Chair stated that the final language of the Convention is far from resolved. He noted that the intention of the drafters is an overriding principle of treaty interpretation. There was no intention to create any new rights; nothing of the kind had been suggested. The rules of societies will not be changed. The text merely states that applicable laws should apply to PWD on an equal basis with others.

Mental Disability Rights International endorsed Canada's and Australia's proposal for splitting this Article, because its two provisions are formulated in different terms in international human rights instruments and are also interpreted in different ways by national and regional courts and regional and international human rights bodies. The right to adequate standard of living involves many separate individual rights that are in no way limited to the social assistance aspect of government policy, and therefore should not be confused with the right to social security, assistance or protection. Otherwise this Article might limit the rights of PWD in relation to other groups. As a substantive matter therefore a separate Article 23(bis) should guarantee the right to social protection.

Principles of community integration, individual autonomy and development and social inclusion should be expressly linked to the subject of each article as well as in General Principles Article 2. In the absence of these textual links within the Articles they will largely reiterate existing human rights law for PWD. This will also address the concerns as noted by the ILO of "a benefits trap." Accordingly the words "in an inclusive environment" should be added at the end of para 2 on the right to an adequate standard of living. An even better formulation would be to add: "in an inclusive environment and directed towards promoting individual development, autonomy and social inclusion." Whichever formulation states come up with, it should direct government programs to: [1] promote individual development, autonomy, and social inclusion; [2] be provided in an integrated environment; and [3] be consensual, designed by and in collaboration with the person involved.

It is essential to ensure, either in this Article 23 or in Article 22, that work should never be a requirement for PWD receiving social security or social services. Work performed by PWD as part of rehabilitation or social service programs should be compensated.

The Chair summarized the discussion of Article 23, noting that there was strong support for reversing the order of paras 1 and 2. The suggestion to split the Article into "adequate standard of living" and "social security," came late in the debate and Canada had asked colleagues to reflect on it. In para 2 some delegations suggested deleting the list, but others supported keeping it, particularly the reference to "clean water."

There was a long debate over whether to use the term "social security" or "social insurance"; other terms were suggested, including "assistance," "safety nets," and "protection." Delegations should be looking for a phrase with broad meaning in terms of state assistance given that some domestic jurisdictions don't recognize "social security".

Concern was raised that the subparagraphs were overly prescriptive, and that prescriptive terms could become outdated. In para 1(a), proposals were made to insert "free of charge." The Chair referred to the concept of affordability, as mentioned in other parts of the Convention. There were proposals to qualify the reference to "devices" and to replace "necessary" with "appropriate" for conformity's sake. Proposals were made to delete the reference to particular groups in para 1(b), but there was one proposal to add indigenous PWD. Most opinions favored removing the provision. The last part of para 1(b) repeats a provision from 4(2). Most speakers wanted to delete the words "severe and multiple disabilities" from para 1(c) because of the difficulty of defining these terms. Suggested changes included using the more measurable term "impairments," and deleting "severe" but keeping "multiple." A defining aspect of the discussion was concern for PWD living in poverty. The reference to "families" in para 1(c) should be retained; suggestions were made to extend this provision to caretakers. "Public" should replace "governmental" in para 1(d) and "earmarking percentages" should be deleted. There was strong opposition to para 1(e) as too prescriptive and potentially problematic, but others wanted to retain it. Conditioning this entitlement to disability-related expenses was suggested as a way to ensure that it did not unfairly benefit some PWD, such as the wealthy or those who have their own businesses. The reference to "life insurance" in para 1(f) could be problematic in some countries and some religions. If retained, this provision must ensure that a right to life insurance is not created. Delegations discussed state interference in this context and proposed various formulas, which should need further consideration in the effort to preserve the essence of the provision. Some suggested that "health insurance" might better be covered in Article 21, Right to Health. Finally, the issue of "progressive realization" has been suggested again, for inclusion in this article and/or in Article 4; it will have to be revisited.

ARTICLE 22 - RIGHT TO WORK

The Chair opened the discussion by referring to the previous debate on including references to "sheltered workshops," which had raised concerns that this would put PWD in a less favorable position with regard to the general labor market. The Chair also mentioned the issue of "reasonable accommodation," as reflected in footnote 93 of the WG text. He pointed out that during AHC4 the Committee had considered "reasonable accommodation" in the context of Article 7. Furthermore, a proposal had been made to include families in the interest of promoting the rights of PWD to reasonable accommodation. Views differed on the distinctions between affirmative action and reasonable accommodation and the extent of states responsibility to reasonably accommodate.

Japan suggested streamlining paragraphs which were overly prescriptive. Paragraph 22(a) articulates a principle and should therefore either be merged with the chapeau or deleted. There are two schools of thought for achieving job equality, one emphasizing reasonable accommodation and the other focusing on affirmative action programs such as quotas. In fact these are complementary approaches and therefore both 22(d) and 22(e) should be retained. Paragraph 22(f) adds no value and should be deleted. Paragraph 22(i) should also cover the private sector, or should be deleted. Paragraph 22(j) should be covered in Article 5, Promotion of Positive Attitudes.

Sudan proposed addressing dual discrimination by inserting at the end of 22(a) the words "and more attention is to be paid to the employment of women with disabilities." The following sentence should be added to the end of 22(g): "the individual inflicted with any type of disabilities during job performance shall be returned to work in an adequate placement service that suits the disability."

Serbia and Montenegro endorsed the chapeau proposed by the EU at AHC3 http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc3eu.htm, and Canada's proposal to make 22(a) plural. It also voiced support for New Zealand's proposal to insert "career," and South Africa's proposal to insert "life long training" in 22(b) http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc3eu.htm. Japan is correct in stressing the importance of 22(d) and (e). Paragraph 22(e) should use the wording proposed by the EU at AHC3. The EU proposal at this session moves the WG text of 22(h) to 22(a). Its text on "conditions of recruitment" should be replaced with Serbia-Montenegro's proposed language: "with regard to conditions of application for a job, hiring, employment, continuing employment, etc." As proposed by Japan, the provision in 22(j) should be covered in Article 5. Serbia and Montenegro had proposed a provision for "sheltered workshops," which should be a reserve option with the open labor market a first choice -- but where sheltered workshops do exist, they should offer meaningful work, and working conditions should not be inferior.

Yemen stated that work is important in order for PWD to earn a living and to have pride and dignity. Where PWD have problems obtaining work, a quota system is necessary. In Yemen the goal is for 5% of public sector employees to be PWD. This quota will eventually end, when it is no longer needed. Yemen reiterated its proposed Article 21 bis, Rehabilitation and Adaptation, which will come before Right to Work and these are related. The second sentence of the chapeau of Article 22 should be rewritten as follows: "States Parties pledge to take appropriate measures." The commitment in 22(e) should be strengthened and "acceptable" should replace "reasonable" accommodation because "reasonable" has different meanings. Regarding 22(f), states cannot oblige the private sector to employ PWD; instead, governments should offer incentives such as tax abatement or investment.

The Chair clarified that the term "reasonable accommodation" in 22(e) is a term of art used elsewhere in the Convention and is defined in Article 7(4) of the WG text.

Kenya proposed inserting "on an equal basis with others" after "work" in the chapeau. It proposes a new 22(k), as follows: "promote employment of PWD in the informal sector through the creation of an enabling environment and the provision of incentives and necessary support services, including training and preferential access to credit."

Australia recommended that this Article more closely reflect existing relevant ILO instruments, which cover all of its issues but in a less prescriptive manner. Australia opposes provisions that include quotas because they are ineffective. Requiring employers to hire PWD, as opposed to merit-based appointments, creates negative attitudes toward PWD. Quotas tend to skew placements away from PWD that have higher support needs.

New Zealand endorsed the EU's proposal for improving the structure of this article and others to improve its language. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6eu.htm With regard to substance, NZ is satisfied with the content and comprehensiveness of the existing WG text, which covers all the distinct but interlinked rights that make up the right to work: the right to equal employment opportunities from Article 6 of the CESCR, the right not to be discriminated against from Article 26 CCPR, the right to the same employment rights under law as everyone else or just and favorable conditions of work from Article 7 of the CESCR, the right to form and join trade unions from Article 8 of the CESCR, freedom from slavery from Article 8 of the CCPR; and Article 11 CEDAW.

NZ does not support additional proposals for rights that are not specifically related to work, like alternative models of employment or sheltered workshops. Prescribing measures such as particular models and supported employment services risks reducing the protections provided by the rights mentioned earlier and could become outdated. It should be noted that such measures are not precluded by the absence of such language. This Convention is aspirational in nature and should aim for an open and inclusive labor market, whether formal or informal, without aiming for lesser ideals.

As proposed by Japan, 22(a) should be incorporated into the chapeau since it describes an outcome rather than a measure, and this is reflected in the EU proposal as well. The wording of 22(h) is awkward, and it should instead reflect Article 7 of CESCR.

Mexico stated that the principle of equal right to work should be reflected in the chapeau. The Article should stress full participation, not just equal treatment. Paragraph 22(b) should be strengthened by the addition of training, especially professional training. For the sake of clarity, 22(c) should be split into two paragraphs, one covering the labor market, the other addressing self-employment. Rather than specific provisions such as quotas, there should be more general text on encouragement and incentives. The concept of "reasonable accommodation" has to be clearly stated; this could also be placed in Article 7 or in Definitions. As proposed by New Zealand, 22(h) should be clarified by conforming to Article 7 of the CESCR with additional language emphasising work practices: "access to work must not create direct or indirect discrimination." Paragraph 22(i) should also cover employment in the private sector. The contents of 22(j) are important but should be moved to Article 5, Promotion of Positive Attitudes. Other cross-cutting issues should be addressed, either in this article or elsewhere, like employment as a form of rehabilitation - in Article 21, Rehabilitation - and the prevention exploitation - in Article 12, Freedom from Violence and Abuse.

Senegal stated that Standard Rule 7 and the WG text use different wording, especially in discussing the employment of PWD in the private sector. As Yemen has noted, most employers are in the private sector. Developing countries should call on investors in the private sector to determine what must be done so they can hire PWD, without incurring any losses. Many times a facilitator is needed to match employers with workers. Attempts in Senegal to impose mandatory obligations on private employers to hire PWD have been opposed by employers. Therefore tax benefits and incentives should be used instead. Once accessibility issues are resolved, employers who have hired PWD are pleasantly surprised because they come with the same qualifications.

The EU proposed to strengthen the chapeau by incorporating 22(a) therein. The proposed chapeau would read: "States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to work on an equal basis with others; this includes the right to the opportunity to gain a living by work freely chosen or accepted in a labour market and work environment that is open, inclusive and accessible to persons with disabilities. States Parties shall take appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the realization of this right, including measures to:" Para 22(h) is the most important and should be moved up to 22(a). "Assistive devices" are covered in Article 19, Accessibility. "Vocational training" appears in the EU's proposed Article 17, Education, and should be taken out of 22(b). The "open labor market" is covered in the proposed chapeau and should be taken out of 22(c). Quotas, and other specific measures which might not stand the test of time, should be removed from 22(d). "Reasonable accommodation" in 22(e) is a phrase that has a particular meaning, whereby it cannot directly be provided by the state, so this para should be reformulated: "ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided to PWD in the workplace." PWD should be specifically referred to in 22(g). "Conditions of recruitment" should be added to 22(h), which is the key provision. The EU expressed interest in New Zealand's proposal to follow CESCR language. Subparagraph 22(i) is covered by text in 22(c) and (d), and should be deleted. Finally, 22(j) is covered by Article 5, Promotion of Positive Attitudes. The EU agreed with New Zealand in opposing mention of "supported employment" and looks forward to comments from civil society on this issue.

Morocco endorsed Sudan's proposal to add "women" to 22(h). It also proposed adding "elimination of all forms of exploitation at the workplace," and providing for compensation for firing to 22(h).

The Republic of Korea reiterated its proposal for the second sentence of the chapeau which should begin: "States Parties shall set a leading example in the employment of PWD and....." reflecting its position that both states and the private sector have a responsibility in this regard. In 22(d), "encourage" should be kept because it is more realistic that the proposed replacement, "ensure." Its overly specific measures should be balanced by adding "and other appropriate measures" after "quotas." It reiterated that "compensation and benefits" should be included in 22(h).

Costa Rica stated that this Article is too prescriptive. The aspirational 22(a) belongs in the chapeau. Costa Rica shares the ILO's goals but rejects its use of the term "decent work" because there is no such thing as indecent work. Instead the Article should aim to achieve "decent working conditions," i.e., productive employment with just remuneration, security in the workplace and social protection for families. This presupposes prospects for personal development, freedom to organize and to participate in decision-making, taking the gender perspective into account - all the elements of economic progress. Language should be incorporated from existing documents. Quotas are not necessarily the best approach; affirmative action measures might be more effective. There is a danger in creating lists. The special needs of PWD should be reflected rather than copying international norms such as the ILO and corresponding provisions Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the CESCR.

Brazil, citing its domestic practice of using quotas in the private and public sector, supported quotas as one option, possibly as a temporal measure.

Cameroon identified three thematic parts to this article, the general principles in the chapeau; the work environment; salaried work and self-employment, and proposed several amendments accordingly. Firstly, the chapeau should begin with the second sentence, guaranteeing the right: "States Parties shall take appropriate steps." Paras 22(h) and (i) contain too much detail, which overlap with each other and with the issues in the chapeau, all dealing with equal treatment and equal opportunity. Secondly, 22(a), (e) and (b) promote a good environment. Thirdly, in 22(d), incentive measures should be used to promote job creation for PWD, particularly in the private sector. There should be a separate paragraph promoting self-employment which could say "take appropriate measures to promote the creation of independent jobs for PWD, especially through technical or financial support and the granting of tax advantages." The following subparagraphs should be deleted: 22(f), which is adequately covered by 22(g); 22(i); and 22(j), which is already addressed in Article 5.

Thailand supported moving 22(a) in the chapeau, with the following addition: "on an equal basis with others without discrimination based on disability." There is some merit in retaining affirmative action and quotas; the Republic of Korea's proposal could be a good alternative. Thailand endorsed the Japanese statement to retain references to both schools of thought - reasonable accommodation and affirmative action. Paragraph 22(i) needs to call on governments to set good examples. Obligations on the private sector are difficult to monitor in some countries. Alternatively, if 22(i) is deleted, the public and private sector could be addressed in 22(c) by inserting the words "promote employment opportunity and career advancement for PWD in the open labor market both in the public and private sector." The EU proposal to place this issue in 22(b) is also an option. This Article needs to be streamlined, keeping only the substantive provisions and not lowering standards. ILO Convention 159 http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C159 is a standard that should be met.

South Africa proposed several amendments so the current text would promote equal opportunities for PWD in the mainstream economy by mandating fair labor practices, occupational safety, equal remuneration and benefits for work of equal value and reasonable basic conditions for employment. The transformation of sheltered workshops into viable businesses is vital, and positive measures should be taken to promote job procurement for PWD. The words "and economic empowerment" should be added after "equal opportunity" in the first sentence of the chapeau, and the rest of that sentence should be deleted. The term "general" should be deleted from 22(b), and "life long learning" should be added at the end. The words "affirmative action" should be added to 22(d), and clear targets should be set for the employment of PWD. The word "abilities" should be deleted from 22(j).

Canada cited General Comment 5 of the CESCR Committee on the persistent discrimination of PWD in the field of employment, and presented a proposal (http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6canada.htm) focusing on removing and preventing barriers to employment and creating an open labor market. Reasonable accommodation, while covered in Article 7, is of such importance to the employment issue that it should be highlighted in Article 22. Reasonable accommodation should require employers to enable PWD to duties of employment. These accommodations usually do not cost much. Canada imposes a duty on employers to accommodate PWD and includes financial assistance for the personal support and assistive devices to be productive. The EU proposal should be adopted, particularly the insertion of 22(a) into the chapeau. The chapeau's equality principle should be strengthened, and it should use the broader term "labor rights" because it encompasses participation in unions. A new 22(a) should be added, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability by employers. Paragraph 22(e) should be moved up to 22(b) to highlight the principle of reasonable accommodation. The components of 22(b), (c), (f) and (g) should be combined into a new 22(c), which should be revised to include entrepreneurship, preparing for and returning to employment, and transition programs. As proposed by the EU, 22(d) should be streamlined and prescriptive language should be removed. The focus of 22(h) should be equality, following Article 7 of the CESCR. Labor rights should be moved to a new paragraph, 22(h) bis because this is a different issue. As the EU, Cameroon and others have stated, the concepts of 22(i) and (j) are already covered in Articles 18 and 5 respectively. The problem of "sexual harassment" should be addressed in the Article, consistent with the approach of mainstreaming a gender perspective into the Convention.

Chile pointed out that social systems which try to compensate for the lack of employment with benefits and assistance cannot be a substitute for powerful impact of work. The ILO conventions have not resolved the problem of discrimination. The Article needs stronger provisions on access to work and protection against discrimination. PWD in addition encounter hostile work environments. States should ensure that promotional measures such as incentives introduced to encourage hiring of PWD are used for the intended purpose and are linked to nondiscriminatory measures. Otherwise such promotional measures can be abused and can have a distorting effect. Incentives alone are insufficient; equality of opportunity, non-discrimination, labor rehabilitation, support measures, and reasonable accommodation are also central elements. Applying one measure will make this an article on assistance. Chile endorsed the Canadian proposal.

Holy See noted the article recalls Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the right to work. The various bodies in the world of labor and both the direct and indirect employer should foster professional training, support, and productive activity of PWD. Structures should be set up to find or create jobs for PWD in public or private workplaces or in protective settings. There should be a reference to "decent work" in the chapeau. In response to Costa Rica's concerns to this phrase the Holy See explained its use as a term of art, emphasizing the qualitative aspects of work, its connection to human dignity, reflecting the priority of work over capital and the centrality of the human person as the decisive force in production over the market or technology. The test of decent work would be the improvement in the access PWD to work in its qualitative and quantitative aspects. The Holy See agreed with Australia, Mexico, the EU, and Canada that quotas are not the best legal method to reach the goal of 22(d). Instead, 22(d) should encourage employers to hire PWD. The words "fair wages" should be inserted after "including" in 22(h) in conformity with Article 7 of the CESCR. The word "dignity" should be inserted before "skills" in 22(j) because there is a responsibility upon states to promote the dignity of PWD in the workplace, independent of their level of skill.

Trinidad & Tobago agreed with Costa Rica that the text should be concise without listings. It endorsed the concept of an open and inclusive labor market, and opposed quotas in 22(d) because of the potential for abuse and the limiting effects on PWD. The Article should use general language, such as "appropriate or affirmative measures", which does not interfere with domestic practice, and which strengthens the principles of equal opportunity and reasonable accommodation. "Safety on the job" and evacuation should be considered for insertion. A special focus should be given to self-employment.

Oman proposed inserting "qualified" in 22(a) making it clear that the job market should be open to all PWD who are able to do a given job. The reference to labor or union rights in 22(h) should be in accordance with domestic legislation.

Argentina stated that the Article should not be confined to reiterating already existing provisions such as Article 6 of the CESCR; it should encourage States to take measures to ensure that PWD can effectively exercise their rights. The chapeau should be rewritten (see http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6argentina.htm). The issues in 22(a) and (f) are similar and could therefore be merged. The same applies to 22(b) and (g); these could also be merged. Paragraph 22(h) should include a reference to fair conditions for hiring. As noted by Brazil, the reference to quotas should be retained as one mechanism that governments may use to encourage hiring. Para 22(i) should be broadened to include a role for the state in promoting employment in the private sector.

Tunisia emphasised that work provides a social identity to PWD, so the objective of this article should be outline the measures needed to provide PWD the greatest number of jobs. In this regard the quota system can be a key element. When applied to both the private and the public sector quotas can ensure a minimum level of participation in the economy. Quotas should not be implemented as single measure, but with others. While there have been problems in implementation as noted by other delegations, quotas are able to bring about changes of attitude, and thereby achieve the fundamental goal of this article about the participation of PWD in the workplace. It agreed with proposals to include references to direct and indirect discrimination and decent work.

Uganda endorsed moving 22(a) to the chapeau and keeping the references in 22(d) to affirmative action, including quotas. It emphasized that these measures are put forward as examples and do not oblige or prescribe specific actions by states. Uganda endorsed including reasonable accommodation in 22(e). The private sector should be included in 22(i) with the public sector setting an example. Provided that both public sector and private sector are included, this provision could be merged with others, like 22(f).

India highlighted its high unemployment rate due to a large population and, in this context, proposed several amendments. The words "on an equal basis with others" should be inserted in the chapeau after "work," as proposed by Kenya, in order to recognize that PWD are on par with other persons seeking work. The reference to poverty does not seem relevant because these programs affect everyone. Given the economic nature of the right to work, it has to be realized progressively. Therefore, "safeguard and" in the chapeau should be deleted. The WG text for 22(a), (b), (c), (f) and (g) should be retained. Reference to "incentives and quotas" should be deleted from 22(d) since these measures are covered by the general reference to "affirmative action." The EU's proposal for 22(e) should be adopted, except that "ensure" should be replaced with "encourage." The subject matter of 22(h) is already covered in Article 7, Equality, and should therefore be deleted, as should 22(i).

Jordan proposed inserting a reference to child labor, given that this convention also covers children. Jordan supports the EU's proposal to streamline the article.

The session was adjourned.

The Sixth Ad Hoc Committee Daily Summaries is a public service by RI*, a global network promoting the rights, inclusion and rehabilitation of people with disabilities. RI extends its sincere gratitude to the Governments of Norway, Ireland, Canada and New Zealand for their generous support towards this project.

The Daily Summaries are translated into Arabic by Landmine Survivors Network, into Chinese by the National Secretariat of RI China, into French by Handicap-International, into Russian by the Russian Disability NGO Perspektiva and into Spanish by the Inter American Institute on Disability. The translations into Chinese, Russian and Spanish are facilitated by RI.

The Daily Summaries are available online at http://www.riglobal.org/un/index.html in MSWord; http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6summary.htm; http://www.worldenable.net; and http://www.ishr.ch

Reporters for the 6th Session are Roisin Dermody, Marianne Schulze, Tina Singleton, Robin Stephens; Editors are Laura Hershey and Zahabia Adamaly. Please forward any corrections or comments to Zahabia_a@hotmail.com.

Anyone wishing to disseminate the Summaries and/or translate them into additional languages is encouraged to do so, with the request that you please retain the above crediting language - thank you