Human Rights Legislative Options Working Group meeting: 29 January 2025

Charles Whitmore (CW) (Chair), Wales Council for Voluntary Action (WCVA) / Cardiff University Wales Governance Centre
Victoria Vasey (VV), Women’s Equality Network (WEN) Wales
Dr Emily Kakoullis (EK), Cardiff University
Elisabeth Velina Jones (EVJ), Independent member
Alicja Zalesinska (AZ), Tai Pawb
Simon Hoffman (SH), Swansea University 
Jessica Laimann (JL), Women’s Equality Network (WEN) Wales
Melissa Wood (MlW), Contractor
Elinor Puzey (EP), Equality and Human Rights Commission

Welsh Government officials

Matthew Wellington (MW), Head of strategic equality Human Rights and delivery planning
Karyn Pittick (KP), Senior policy manager Human Rights
Danielle Burdett (DB), Policy manager Human Rights officer

Apologies

Sarah Nason (SN), Bangor University

Welcome

The Chair welcomed members and noted the flexible agenda for open discussion and updates on ongoing work. A welcome was extended to returning member, Elisabeth Velina Jones.

Recap of last meeting and interim work:

The Chair gave a brief recap of the last meeting.  A summary of the discussion follows: -

• MIW has been applying the template to treaty articles and has suggested adjustments.
• Consideration of a rights-based approach for written output but concerns expressed about losing the narrative of specific treaties.
• Welsh Government funding has been secured to retain MlW until the end of the 2024 to 2025 financial year.
• Regular meetings with Welsh Government officials and academics have been established to review MlW’s work and provide ongoing support
• Timelines and desired outputs for the end of the financial year and the end of the Senedd term. Emphasis was placed on developing a comprehensive work plan and vision for the future.
• The need for oversight and input from the group with the potential to allocate policy capacity for more involvement.
• Reference to the objectives for the current and next financial year resulting in a need for a conversation about the resource required to achieve the work plan.
• SH and MIW are collaborating to refine the methodology to ensure consistent application of the framework.

Action point: MlW to continue refining the template and address the identified complexities.

Action point: SH and MlW to collaborate on refining the methodology and ensure consistent application of the framework.

Action point: CW to develop a work plan and framework for the project, including suggested milestone steps and events.

Template effectiveness:

The group discussed the template and potential changes to the structure which included:

• A suggestion to restructure the template into three parts: fundamental purpose, deficits, and incorporation analysis to cover non-legislative and legislative options. This approach aims to make the work more efficient and provide clarity on where incorporation is needed and how deficits can be addressed.
  • The revised template will help clarify human rights gaps and also identify if there is an equality dimension. It will aim to guide policy decisions, even if incorporation isn't the final solution.
  • The importance of framing the work to align with Welsh Government's programme for Government commitment on incorporation and securing funding to address this for the next financial year was emphasised.

Stakeholder engagement:

• The importance of engaging with stakeholders, including race equality groups, to ensure comprehensive representation and input was highlighted

Future work and capacity:

• The Group agreed the need for more of MlW's time beyond March.
• Emphasis of the importance of framing the work to align with Welsh Government's commitment and the need to secure funding for the next financial year.

Competence and scope:

• Members raised concerns about focusing only on articles within competence and highlighted the need for early conversations with stakeholders to resource the deficit work.
  • The group discussed the importance of considering other treaties like ICESCR and ICCPR in the analysis.
  • The group agreed to focus initially on CEDAW and CRPD but to consider the interwoven nature of other treaties where these relate to CEDAW and CRPD.
  • Discussed the overlap between the group's work and the upcoming UK CEDAW consideration. Need to ensure alignment and avoid duplication of efforts.

 Summary of the chat comments: 

• Human Rights Tracker: Assists with articles within competence, though not all articles are covered.
• Competence Screening: Screening on CEDAW reveals deficits in competence. Recommendations to WG should reflect whether further competence may be needed.
• CEDAW and ICESCR/ICCPR: Viewing CEDAW through the prism of ICESCR and ICCPR could change the message on competence.
• UNCRDP Input: EK's input on Part 1 of UNCRDP would be helpful.
• Programme Constraints: Accept the constraints of the programme for government and try to achieve objectives within those constraints. Wider considerations can be addressed under another WG if politically feasible.
• Pilot Approach: Treat the current work as the beginning or a 'pilot' to ensure wider rights are considered in the future.

Action point: CW, SH and MlW to take the conversation forward and draw up a work plan and framework for the next steps

Actions

• Continue refining the template and address the identified complexities: MIW
• Collaborate on refining the methodology and ensure consistent application of the framework: SH and MIW
• Develop a work plan and framework for the project, including suggested milestone steps and events: CW
• Schedule individual conversations with members to discuss capacity and input: MIW
• Start scheduling a series of LOWG meetings for the year: Secretariat
• Take the conversation forward and draw up a work plan and framework for the next steps: CW, SH and MlW