Cyfarfod y Gweithgor Opsiynau Deddfwriaethol ar Hawliau Dynol: 9 Gorffennaf 2025

• Charles Whitmore (CW) (Chair), Wales Council for Voluntary Action (WCVA) / Cardiff University Wales Governance Centre
• Rhian Davies (RD), Disability Wales
• Victoria Vasey (VV), Women’s Equality Network (WEN) Wales
• Dr Emily Kakoullis (EK), Cardiff University
• Alicja Zalesinska (AZ), Tai Pawb
• Simon Hoffman (SH), Swansea University
• Melissa Wood (MlW), contractor
• Elisabeth Velina Jones (EJ), independent member
• Elinor Puzey (EP), Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) 

Welsh Government officials

• Lorna Hall (LH), Deputy Director, Equality and Human Rights
• Katy Benson (KB), Head of Human Rights
• Danielle Burdett (DB), policy manager Human Rights officer
• Stevie Powell (SP), Equality Policy and Government Business officer                              

Apologies

• Sarah Nason (SN), Bangor University
• Karyn Pittick (KP), senior policy manager Human Rights

Welcome

The Chair opened the meeting with a progress update. SH and MW reported near-completion of Article 10 templates and 2 narrative summaries, and encouraged members to provide feedback. They have started reviewing more articles, using previous input from EVJ.

Part 1 update

• SH discussed the challenges in applying the templates and conducting the initial sift analysis, particularly due to the volume of information and the complexity of determining the incorporation of articles. These challenges are outlined below.
  • Challenges in defining analysis boundaries and recognising Welsh Government legal colleagues' authority in making final decisions on article incorporation.
  • CEDAW presents challenge due to its internal diversity. Even within individual articles, there is a mix of intentions, objectives, outcome-setting language, anti-discrimination provisions, and action specifications. This complexity makes engagement with CEDAW analytically demanding. Challenges arise around exceptions and due regard, especially regarding the equality of opportunity reservation.
  • Consideration of carrying out a sift analysis.
  • LOWG's report should note emerging competency issues, with appropriate caveats. Consider what is useful for Welsh Government (WG), as the data may inform future discussions.
• WG Officials suggested revisiting and agreeing on the scope of the analysis to ensure it is manageable and to outline dependencies clearly for feasibility of incorporation.
• Members discussed the possibility of identifying dependencies and making clear recommendations, considering political will, infrastructure, and resources.
• There was a suggestion to concentrate on articles that offer the best hope for incorporation and making positive recommendations, while also considering the underlying purpose of each article.
• Members discussed cutting down through simple repetition.
• It was noted that if full direct incorporation isn't possible, there will be limited options for non-legislative measures, such as awareness, rights education, human rights schemes, and advocacy support. These could be addressed in a cross-cutting section of the final report.
• SH is currently looking at article 7.
• It was suggested that the group use a shared document for feedback and collaboration on the analysis.

Action: WG Officials and CW have a discussion to clarify scope of analysis and revisit expectations

Action: CW to create a shared OneDrive space with structured folders and tracking spreadsheet.

MW: part 2 update

• MW has been reviewing Articles 5 to 14, focusing on those that may be incorporated, based on EVJ's initial overview. Approximately three-quarters of the articles have been analysed to date.
• MW aims to make the analysis useful for WG by clarifying key deficits. Part 2 may guide future work, including United Nations (UN) reporting and Human Rights action planning.
• SH recommended that MW continue and complete the analysis of CEDAW and use a similar method for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled People (UNCRDP), focusing on identifying the substantive rights and considering incorporation and due regard.
• SH and MW can continue this work, but CW proposed reviewing progress and creating a shared space to track activities ahead of the Autumn stakeholder events.
• CW would like to have discussions with members around bringing them in on UNCRDP analysis work as there is capacity and some budget to do this.
• Members welcomed the shared space and questioned whether the term sift suggests that some articles receive less detailed analysis. They also noted that, while certain UNCRDP articles, such as Article 1, do not directly establish rights for incorporation, they remain essential for interpreting and understanding later sections of the document.
• It was confirmed that the sift will be about identifying articles that require deeper analysis but wants to avoid the sift analysis becoming dismissive about some articles.
• Part 1 aims to address elements of articles identified as interpretative provisions, which may result in some repetition within the report.
• An example of the Part 3 template was intended for the meeting, but capacity was too low at this time. A version should be ready to share with the group soon.
• RD asked about the CRDP analysis timeline, referencing ongoing consultations on the draft disabled people’s rights plan, which cites the UNCRDP. The UN has also commented on UK benefit cuts and related rights concerns. Several MPs have proposed Universal Credit amendments highlighting the UNCRDP, co-production with disabled people, and a rights-based approach. How will this work amplify or capitalise on work going on in this area?
• SH and MW aim to complete CEDAW work soon and begin UNCRDP. MW plans to start in early August.
• EK will be able to start looking at UNCRDP this month.
• Members discussed the timeline and capacity for completing the analysis, with SH and MW expressing confidence in their ability to meet the mid-December reporting deadline.

Action: SH to complete the sift analysis and upload it as a shared document for the group for feedback and comments.

Action: group members to provide feedback on the SIFT analysis once uploaded.

Action: MW to begin the analysis of UNCRPD at the beginning of August.

Action: CW to prepare for stakeholder engagement activities in the autumn to take preliminary findings out to the sector.

Action: continue conversations about bringing additional capacity into the project using available budget.

Action: follow up with officials regarding the Cabinet Secretary's invitation to discuss the LOWG’s work