Women’s equality in the UK – A health check

Recommendations

Info

Group in 2011 that little had been done to implement CEDAW. We are concerned to see that the Isle of Man’s report (Annex 6 of the Government report) demonstrates little activity, including no activity in relation to Article 5 of CEDAW. The Overseas Territories Firstly, we would like to hold up the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s (FCO’s) work with the Overseas Territories as an example of best practice. We would like to see the FCO’s accessibility, accountability and interest in women’s human rights set a bench mark for other government department work to promote human rights. CEDAW is a very important instrument for the OTs. With the exception of Gibraltar, the OTs are not members of the European Union and are also not signatories of the ECHR and so CEDAW offers a vital human rights safeguard in these areas. We are therefore delighted that Montserrat, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Anguilla took part in a high profile conference in 2010 to set three year CEDAW extension plans, alongside the British Virgin Islands and Turks and Caicos, who explored implementation. When we contacted Anguilla in 2011, we were particularly impressed with the jurisdiction’s commitment to CEDAW and women’s rights, for example with the establishment of a high profile weekly Gender Working Committee and the planned introduction of new domestic violence legislation. This appears to be a crucial time for these territories and we hope that the UK will demonstrate on-going support and monitoring. However, there is a need for greater consistency in the support provided to the OTs by the UK regarding CEDAW, for example why were all OTs not invited to the 2010 conference? Why has no similar work been carried out in the Falkland Islands (covered by CEDAW) and Gibraltar (which is not yet covered)? We understand that the 2010 conference did include some representatives from civil society, 6 but believe that the FCO could do more to empower civil society in the OTs to campaign for the extension and implementation of CEDAW. It is civil society who can hold their government to account and this key facet of democracy should play a part in the FCO and the jurisdictions’ own development strategies. We particularly recommend that the FCO and OT administrations engage with UN Women to promote greater participation of women in the OTs with the CEDAW reporting process. The UK Government has an explicit legal responsibility to ensure ‘good governance’ in the OTs. 7 How can the UK say they have met this obligation if they have allowed women’s human rights to be violated? Without better gender monitoring systems in place it is our position that the UK is not fully aware of the position of women in the OTs and so does not even know the extent to which women’s rights are violated in these territories. Recommendation: Our final and strongest recommendation is for a gender-monitoring post to be established in the UK to collect and collate data from the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories 6. The delegate list is set out in ‘Short report on the CEDAW workshop held in Anguilla 27-29 October 2010’ http://www.knowyourconstitution. ky/sites/default/files/CEDAW%20Workshop%20Summary%20%20Report.pdf 7. So, for example, in 2009 the UK suspended the government of the Turks and Caicos due to allegations of corruption, see: BBC News (2009) ‘UK imposes Turks and Caicos rule’, BBC News, 14th August 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8202339.stm 200 Women’s equality in the UK: CEDAW shadow report 2013
Annex 3: UK reservations and declarations under CEDAW In 2008 the CEDAW Committee commented that “the Committee welcomes the State party’s expressed intention to review regularly its remaining reservations to the Convention. It urges the State party to consider actively the withdrawal of its reservations, commencing with those that, in the opinion of the Committee, have the character of interpretive declarations or may no longer be necessary in the light of recent developments”. 1 The UK maintains a number of reservations on the CEDAW Convention. However, none of these reservations reflects a genuine conflict with the principles of the Convention and should be removed, as also recommended during the 2012 Universal Periodic Review. 2 When the UK ratified CEDAW in 1986 they entered a reservation concerning immigration. This stated that the UK reserved the right to continue to apply such immigration legislation governing entry into, stay in and departure from the UK as it deemed necessary and that the rights to laws relating to movement of persons and freedom to choose their residence and domicile detailed in CEDAW Article 15(4) were subject to the provisions of such legislation. This reservation purports to restrict the rights of women with an insecure immigration status, thereby serving to perpetuate the discrimination and disadvantage that many women in this situation experience. (See Article 9) However, according to a report dated July 2004 the UK has decided to withdraw this reservation although it is not clear when this will take effect. 3 We also express concern about the UK’s reservation to CEDAW Article 1 which states that they “do not regard the Convention as imposing any requirements to repeal or modify existing laws, regulations, customs or practices”. This fundamentally ignores the concept of substantive equality and undermines CEDAW’s implementation in the UK. (See Article 1) Recommendation: Ensure that the UK’s ratification of CEDAW no longer includes a reservation relating to Article 1 or immigration issues 1. CEDAW Committee (2008) Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Forty-first session http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/555/92/PDF/ N0955592.pdf?OpenElement Para 258 2. Ministry of Justice, Universal Periodic Review http://www.justice.gov.uk/human-rights/universal-periodic-review Accessed: 21/04/13 3. Department of Constitutional Affairs (2004) International human rights instruments: The UK’s position. Report on the outcome of an interdepartmental review conducted by the Department of Constitutional Affairs, Appendix 4 see Joint Committee on Human Rights (2005) Review of International Human Rights Instruments, Seventeenth Report of Session 2004-05. House of Lords and House of Commons http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200405/jtselect/jtrights/99/99.pdf Women’s equality in the UK: CEDAW shadow report 2013 201
Page 1 and 2:
Women’s equality in the UK - A he
Page 3 and 4:
Women’s equality in the UK - A he
Page 5 and 6:
Appendices (online only) Appendix 1
Page 7 and 8:
• the continued discrimination ag
Page 9 and 10:
• Develop a common model of analy
Page 11 and 12:
Article 9 - Nationality: One third
Page 13 and 14:
investment in social infrastructure
Page 15 and 16:
and increase the marginalisation of
Page 17 and 18:
have been no prosecutions in Englan
Page 19 and 20:
1 2 3 4 5 Introduction This is a Un
Page 21 and 22:
10 11 12 13 housing crisis, a ‘lo
Page 23 and 24:
1.1 1.2 1.3 Article 1 - Overarching
Page 25 and 26:
1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 Women’
Page 27 and 28:
1.17 1.18 1.19 Young women We are a
Page 29 and 30:
2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 consult to “remov
Page 31 and 32:
2.12 2.13 discrimination”. Howeve
Page 33 and 34:
2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 worsen gen
Page 35 and 36:
2.26 2.27 2.28 2.29 CEDAW and the l
Page 37 and 38:
3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 would “increase
Page 39 and 40:
3.15 3.16 3.17 and accountable EHRC
Page 41 and 42:
3.22 3.23 3.24 report is was partic
Page 43 and 44:
classes, migrants, and Gypsy, Trave
Page 45 and 46:
the institutional discrimination an
Page 47 and 48:
5.5 5.6 5.7 Case study: 8 Sandra li
Page 49 and 50:
5.12 5.13 5.14 issue. A more approp
Page 51 and 52:
6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Article 6 - Exploit
Page 53 and 54:
6.9 6.10 6.11 to the protection and
Page 55 and 56:
6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 Office’s own
Page 57 and 58:
6.24 6.25 6.26 women and increase t
Page 59 and 60:
6.31 6.32 6.33 6.34 infrequent lap
Page 61 and 62:
7.1 7.2 Article 7 - Political and p
Page 63 and 64:
7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 The House of Lords
Page 65 and 66:
7.13 7.14 7.15 7.16 7.17 Recommenda
Page 67 and 68:
7.21 7.22 7.23 Political representa
Page 69 and 70:
9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 Article
Page 71 and 72:
9.9 9.10 Mainstreaming gender in th
Page 73 and 74:
9.15 9.16 9.17 biased views towards
Page 75 and 76:
9.21 9.22 9.23 9.24 women. 47 (See
Page 77 and 78:
9.28 9.29 9.30 9.31 New family migr
Page 79 and 80:
9.35 9.36 UKBA, where men and women
Page 81 and 82:
9.39 9.40 9.41 9.42 • Do not redu
Page 83 and 84:
9.46 Research on immigration case m
Page 85 and 86:
10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 The Educat
Page 87 and 88:
10.13 10.14 10.15 10.16 boys and on
Page 89 and 90:
10.22 10.23 allow speakers to promo
Page 91 and 92:
10.29 10.30 10.31 10.32 Case study:
Page 93 and 94:
10.37 10.38 10.39 10.40 • Many wo
Page 95 and 96:
10.46 10.47 10.48 applications (fig
Page 97 and 98:
11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 Article 11 - Em
Page 99 and 100:
11.8 11.9 are 754,000 women working
Page 101 and 102:
11.14 11.15 11.16 11.17 11.18 The g
Page 103 and 104:
11.24 11.25 11.26 per week or they
Page 105 and 106:
11.31 11.32 11.33 Introducing more
Page 107 and 108:
11.37 11.38 Case study: 83 Jasmine
Page 109 and 110:
11.42 11.43 11.44 11.45 At the 2012
Page 111 and 112:
12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 of women and en
Page 113 and 114:
12.12 12.13 12.14 12.15 Translators
Page 115 and 116:
12.19 12.20 12.21 12.22 Barriers to
Page 117 and 118:
12.25 12.26 12.27 12.28 Gypsy and T
Page 119 and 120:
12.34 12.35 12.36 12.37 Older women
Page 121 and 122:
12.41 12.42 Recommendations: • Th
Page 123 and 124:
12.47 12.48 12.49 12.50 they are at
Page 125 and 126:
12.55 12.56 12.57 Case studies: 128
Page 127 and 128:
12.60 12.61 12.62 12.63 12.64 hospi
Page 129 and 130:
13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 Article 13
Page 131 and 132:
13.11 13.12 13.13 13.14 children ne
Page 133 and 134:
13.17 13.18 13.19 13.20 Welfare ref
Page 135 and 136:
13.25 13.26 13.27 13.28 because in
Page 137 and 138:
13.32 13.33 Case study: 57 “As a
Page 139 and 140:
13.36 13.37 allocation of resources
Page 141 and 142:
13.41 13.42 Homelessness, including
Page 143 and 144:
13.47 13.48 BME women would be left
Page 145 and 146:
13.52 13.53 13.54 13.55 with some l
Page 147 and 148:
13.60 13.61 13.62 effect to their p
Page 149 and 150: 14.6 14.7 14.8 disabled and lesbian
Page 151 and 152: 14.14 Gypsy and Traveller women suf
Page 153 and 154: 15.6 15.7 15.8 15.9 15.10 15.11 The
Page 155 and 156: 15.14 15.15 15.16 purport to be vic
Page 157 and 158: 15.21 15.22 15.23 Case study: 35
Page 159 and 160: 15.28 15.29 15.30 15.31 has not pro
Page 161 and 162: 15.35 15.36 behaviour by male priso
Page 163 and 164: 16.5 16.6 people being forced into
Page 165 and 166: 16.10 16.11 16.12 16.13 16.14 16.15
Page 167 and 168: 16.21 16.22 frequently women’s ac
Page 169 and 170: Recommendations: • Parents with c
Page 171 and 172: 19.6 19.7 19.8 as well as for our c
Page 173 and 174: 19.13 19.14 19.15 19.16 The Governm
Page 175 and 176: 19.22 19.23 19.24 19.25 VAWG is a c
Page 177 and 178: 19.30 19.31 19.32 19.33 DV is still
Page 179 and 180: 19.38 19.39 19.40 perpetrators thro
Page 181 and 182: 19.43 19.44 19.45 Support for victi
Page 183 and 184: 19.49 19.50 19.51 19.52 Recommendat
Page 185 and 186: 19.57 19.58 19.59 19.60 BMER VAWG p
Page 187 and 188: 19.62 19.63 19.64 19.65 VAWG in hea
Page 189 and 190: 19.70 19.71 19.72 Invisibility of s
Page 191 and 192: 19.77 19.78 19.79 A number of repor
Page 193 and 194: 19.85 19.86 means more provision. T
Page 195 and 196: Annex 1: The Devolved Administratio
Page 197 and 198: to 41.8% of rural men. 16 Rural are
Page 199: Annex 2: The UK’s relationship wi
Page 203 and 204: ESA - Employment and Support Allowa
Page 205 and 206: Annex 5: Acknowledgements Many than
Page 207: Women’s Resource Centre is suppor
show all

Women’s equality in the UK – A health check

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?