Human Rights Legislative Options Working Group meeting: 15 November 2022

• Wales Council for Voluntary Action (WCVA) / Human Rights Consortium (CW)
• Disability Wales
• Swansea University
• Tai Pawb
• Independent member
• Guest Participant Student Observer

Welsh Government officials

• Equality and Human Rights Division
• Legal Services
• Equality and Human Rights Division
• Equality and Human Rights Division

Apologies

• Women’s Equality Network (WEN) Wales
• Bangor University

The Chair welcomed members to the meeting and noted that a new member had joined the Group following an invitation from the Minister for Social Justice.

It was noted the previous meeting note did not record a discussion regarding timescales on proposed human rights legislation and if this would be completed within the current Senedd term. Rather than amend the previous meeting note, action will be carried to this meeting / meeting note.

Action 1: discussions on timescale for proposed legislation to be taken forward and members to be updated at a future meeting.

• Actions 1 to 3: completed
• Action 4: diary markers for proposed future meeting dates previously shared with the chair who requested these to be shared with all members.
• Action 5 : approaches have been made but no firm dates agreed.
• Action 6 and 7: in progress.
• Action 8: awaiting confirmation of dates from chair and members, these can then be shared.
• Action 9: not completed due to absence of lead official.
• Action 10: completed.

Action 2: diary markers to be sent out for proposed future LOWG dates, as previously agreed (up to June 2023)

An overview of the Group’s workplan was provided, and a shared OneDrive link was circulated for all members to be able to access, view and update relevant documentation so all are working from the same documents.

Action 3: all members to bookmark SharePoint link to LOWG documentation.

It was noted that, while it was preferable to schedule these sessions in diaries as early as possible, organising them in December would be increasingly difficult. It was agreed these sessions would be held as online sessions, rather than physical sessions.A proposed date of 23 January was suggested, and members were asked to provisionally block this date in their diaries pending confirmation.

Action 4: all members to block out 23 January in diaries for Scotland evidence sessions. 

Members were asked to share any thoughts in regard to evidence sessions.

It was stated Convention of Scottish local authorities (COSLA) had identified areas around environmental rights and it may be relevant to identify who works in this field, how they identified need and invite the person to the evidence sessions.  This was in relation to a right to a healthy environment, as SH stated it doesn’t sit with any current convention and if it was developed from scratch, it would be useful to see how they went about drafting this. It was suggested that it may be helpful to reach out to an external expert in advance of the sessions to cover some of the work and questions in advance.

It was agreed that it may be helpful to contact an external expert in advance of the sessions.

Action 5: an email will be sent to an external expert in advance of the evidence sessions in relation to questions around environmental rights.

It was noted that the Scottish task force may have recommended additional rights for LBGTQ+ people as well and was unsure if it had been taken forward or developed separately but felt this would be great to look into as well.

It was noted that the evidence sessions are about balancing what is identified and what members want to get out of the evidence sessions. In broader terms, asking in the sessions how colleagues went about identifying which rights they drew down on and where there might be gaps in international frameworks where bespoke rights are needed.

Action 6: Scottish colleagues to be contacted around the rights to a health environment and sourcing expertise and how they identified the relevant rights.

A potential representative from a sister organisation was identified, as it was felt it would be good to engage with people from civil society as felt the list points to mainly academics and people and public sector bodies.

It was acknowledged that the work undertaken in Scotland involved an extensive body of engagement with civil society that goes far beyond what has been initially scoped out and suggested a conversation around key organisations in addition to also consider a civil society panel

It was agreed this would be worthwhile.

Members were asked to share thoughts about how the day would be structured. The Chairs initial thoughts were in relation to having 3 panels:

1. Academic advisories.
2. Scottish Government and local authority colleagues.
3. Civil society organisations (2 groups, 1 group who were directly involved with taskforce and another group who engaged with by the taskforce).

This approach was agreed but it was felt there was some assumption that the taskforce work had been widely welcomed and there may be a need for an opportunity to speak with people who weren’t directly involved to see what the reaction is so worth testing out.

4 panels over the course of a day were suggested, but it may need to stretch to 2 days.  2 to 3 guests per panel with around 1 to 1.5 hour time slots.

It was agreed this would equate to around 30 minutes per guest, which equates to their experience in giving evidence to the Scottish task force. This allowed for a brief introduction, some discussion and questions.

A question was raised about whether a list of questions had been provided in advance of the session. It was confirmed that questions were not shared beforehand, and it was suggested that this approach could be a useful model to adopt for future sessions.

It was stated it would be worth sharing an introductory paragraph to invited, speakers outlining the groups work and what they are looking for. 

It was added (via chat) it would be good to ask, 'What would they do differently?'

It had also been suggested suggested the group should ask for:

• top tips
• challenges
• were challenges overcome?
• describe the process they went through

and the Chair agreed these are good points.

Action 7: The Chair to draft paragraph on what is needed from sessions.

It was stated in regard to ordering the sessions, listening to civil society in regard to how they saw the process at the beginning of the day would be preferable and then move to the evidence sessions. This is preferable because what tends to happen is people tell you what you want to hear.

The Chair agreed and members nodded and raised virtual thumbs up in approval of this suggestion.

Action 8: an initial brief to be drafted for evidence sessions and circulated to LOWG members

Action 9: all LOWG members to feedback on initial brief as quickly as possible.

It would be helpful to build in time for the group to debrief and reflect on what they have heard as it will be an intense day and people could go away and lose some of what has been heard.

It was suggested it may be good to add this debrief time in 2 different stages, time immediately after each session to briefly discuss initial reflections and agree the top takeaways from each session and then to discuss how to articulate the session findings into some sort of written document that can be attached and referred to as well as presented to the HRAG.

Agreement was expressed with the proposed approach, and views were invited on arrangements for note‑taking and recording sessions. It was suggested that the WG provide support on note taking so those involved in sessions won’t have the distraction of having to note down what is said as well as asking if recording the sessions is possible

It was suggested when the invites go out, they could inform people the sessions are to be recorded purely for note taking then deleted promptly after the meeting note has been completed.

Action 10: where sessions are to be recorded for note‑taking purposes only, this will be clearly communicated to participants in advance of the session.

A query was raised regarding capacity within the group secretariat to support with the sessions.

It was advised that this would be explored, but there is very limited capacity within the current team, so it may be preferable for the group to organise to record the sessions and let people know, so there is a raw transcript for them to work from.

A question was raised about the availability of a transcription function. It was confirmed that Microsoft Teams includes a transcription function and that this is generally accurate.

It was requested that WG colleagues have an internal conversation about the level of capacity to support the evidence sessions and to report back to the group with concerns so the group can see what they can do.

Action 11: WG to have a conversation about the level of capacity to support evidence sessions and inform the Chair of the outcome.

Any further thoughts about the evidence sessions were invited.

Question was raised regarding whether the group was looking at the work plan or if this had been done already.

It was stated the work plan is in draft form and had been touched on earlier because a big part of that plan is the evidence sessions and CW welcomed any further comments on the plan.

It was asked if work was to be completed at the end of March or if further steps are to be taken after this date.

It was shared the work plan is part of a longer-term plan and will be further informed by the Scotland evidence sessions. After the sessions a more long-term definitive plan will be put together, that takes the group beyond March 2023.

Issues mentioned by the WG in regard to their capacity and the capacity for work of the group were referred to as there was a need for clarity around whether the necessary resources to undertake the work planned were available.

The Chair was conscious there were issues in regard to capacity of WG staff and resources.

It was suggested that the group should refer to the evidence sessions and ask what resources were available to the Scotland Taskforce to undertake their work.

This was agreed as a sensible approach.

Action 12: LOWG to ascertain what level of support and resources were available to Scotland Taskforce while undertaking the evidence sessions. 

It was asked if Ministers were happy with the makeup of the group, and if a representative from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) would be joining so membership of the group could be finalised, aside from ad hoc experts who would be invited to speak at future meetings. 

It was confirmed this is correct and we are just waiting to hear from the EHRC who the representative would be to join the LOWG.

Action 13: WG to inform Chair of LOWG, CW once the EHRC representative has been confirmed by the EHRC.

Question was raised around if it would be positive to feedback to Ministers in relation to ensuring this valuable work is appropriately resourced.

It was agreed this would be helpful as the importance of this work needs to be highlighted and appropriate resourcing is an absolute priority. It was stated in a forthcoming meeting with MSJ this would also be raised internally but having these matters raised externally would be welcomed to illustrate the importance and need for further resourcing.

The importance of minuting this was agreed and noted, so it could also be shared at the HRAG. It is important that civil society takes this very seriously and there is a need that this is resourced appropriately from the point of the WG. There is a need to have commitment that appropriate secretariat support is available for evidence sessions and moving forward, to bring in further external expertise. 

SH agreed and noted the importance of minuting this important matter, so it could also be shared at the HRAG, SH felt it is of importance that civil society members of the group should be adequately resourced and WG listened to officials in regard to the level of anticipated work, so they are fully supported. Rather than placing the burden on a limited number of people, it is important to gauge what is needed and resource appropriately.

The critical and full agenda in human rights was recognised, including the UK BoRB as well as the potential work on policy and legislation to move this work forward. Capacity is a crucial issue for all members at the moment.

It was raised (via Chat) there was also the disability rights taskforce and could members request a meeting with the Minister to discuss and progress the issues.

The group was asked if they would like representations to be made, and asked for advice on this.

It was emphasised that there was no intention to suggest what the group should be saying but reinforced the BoRB is going to also be a very significant piece of work for the team’s already limited resources in terms of time and response.  While it was considered important that this should not detract from capacity to support the LOWG, it was acknowledged that resources are already limited.

Reflection was given to the discussions during the meeting and the anticipated impact of the BoRB, which is expected to place significant additional pressure on collective capacity and resources. There is definitely something to address with WG to ensure there are sufficient staff in the team to undertake the level of work required, and suggested he draft a letter to the Minister, which would be circulated to the LOWG group before sending it.

Requesting a meeting with the Minister was suggested. It was agreed a letter would be quicker however a meeting can raise things in a different way but would take more time, but may be good to keep this in mind following the Scotland evidence sessions, 

Question was raised around if it was worth reaching out to the Minister following the evidence sessions.

One member felt communication with the Minister in regard to budgetary concerns and resources is necessary and asked about potentially a best time to do this, to make it easier for the Minister to consider in terms of budgets.

It was shared that budget decisions are ongoing throughout the year, and it may be best to review the outcomes and work from the evidence sessions first because this would give a better perspective in terms of work strands and timelines.

The group were informed there is nothing to stop them from reaching out to the Minister by an initial letter outlining the group is planning the evidence sessions with Scottish colleagues and that the LOWG would like to draw attention to the issue around capacity with the BoRB and initial concerns around capacity to support the work of the LOWG group and they would like WG to consider this when they review the groups activities. 

Support was expressed for this approach, noting that securing meetings can take time and just flagging it up in a letter would be worthwhile, with an opportunity to meet with the Minister following the evidence sessions. Trying to meet with the Minister around February time but setting the meeting up in advance to get a date in the Ministerial diary was suggested, as this meeting may not happen until March.

The Chair agreed this was a sensible approach to take forward as an action. 

Action 14: a letter to MSJ to be drafted in in relation to the limited capacity of resources to undertake the volume of work and support the valuable work of the LOWG and to also request a meeting in February to discuss the work of the LOWG and resourcing. 

Members were asked to check diaries in relation to Scotland day on the 23 January, with a view of also identifying 27 January in case septate sessions are required.

It was shared that availability secretariat support may be limited to Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays dependent on what is agreed with WG in terms of resourcing for sessions. 

The Chair suggested 24 January, alongside the 23 in view of this.

The Chair would send out a doodle poll to members.

Action 15: a doodle poll to be shared with members in relation to availability for 2 days for Scotland sessions. 

A request was made for email contact details of Group members. It was agreed that contact details for members present could be shared with their consent, which was given. As other members were not present to provide consent, it was agreed that, until this consent is obtained, email correspondence should be forwarded via the Secretariat, who will circulate messages on behalf of the Group.

Action 16: email addresses of those who have given consent to be shared and any relevant member correspondence to be forwarded to the secretariat to forward to others until consent to share email addresses is given.

Action 17: Secretariat to contact other members to request permission to share email with LOWG members and chair.

Action 18: secretariat to organise publication of minutes.

Dates of Tuesday 10 January, Tuesday 14 March, Tuesday 17 May and Tuesday 7 June were provided for following meetings. Meetings would be held 11:00 to 12:15.

Members were asked if they could make 10 January, one member could not but was happy to have a separate meeting. The chair stated the meeting would go ahead on 10 January and thanked everyone for their time. It was noted that there was anticipation for the forthcoming evidence sessions and interest in the lessons that could be drawn from them. The period was described as a particularly significant and evolving chapter for human rights across the UK. The meeting was then closed by the Chair.