Senedd Cross Party Group on Human Rights
30th June 2022
Online meeting
In attendance (individual attendance is recorded rather than organisational affiliation):
Sioned Williams MS Chair
Mick Antoniw MS Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution
Jane Hutt MS Minster for Social Justice
Simon Hoffman
Charles Whitmore
Karen Morrow
Karyn (?)
Kathy Riddick
Kimberley Mortimer
Lilla Farkas
Louisa Devonish
Matt Dicks
Nicola Evans
Paul Dear
Rhian Davies
Val Astom
Beronika Prikrylova
Vin Simms
Andrew Jenkins
Ana Palazon
Adele Rose-Morgan
Bethan Phillips
Carys Mosely
Catherine Folkes
Ele Hicks
Hannah Harvey
Huw Pritchard
Ioan Bellin
Jackie Jones
Jane Fenton-May
The Chair welcomed attendees and explained that the meeting was in response to the UK Government’s publication of its UK Bill of Rights Bill. The Chair particularly welcomed the attendance of two Minsters from the Welsh Government, the Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution (CG) and the Minister for Social Justice (MSJ).
The Chair stated that there are significant concerns about the Bill, including that the UK Government has chosen to ignore the findings of its own consultation on reform of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Chair also stated her grave concerns that the Bill represents an erosion of human rights protection in the UK, especially alongside other legislation introduced by the UK Government (e.g. on policing of demonstrations), and that elements of the Bill represent an attack on the human rights of minority groups, immigrants and anyone the UK Government considers ‘underserving’.
The Chair asked Charles Whitmore to provide a summary of the briefing prepared Charles Whitmore and Simon Hoffman in advance of the meeting. Charles summarised the key points from the briefing.
The Chair asked the CG to give the Welsh Government’s view of the Bill.
In summary: the CG stated that there was no case for significant change to the Human Rights Act 1998, or divergence from the European Convention on Human Rights or the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights stating that the court is ‘as much our court as any other court’. The CG went on to state that the UK Government is undermining the purpose of human rights and the role of the European Court while promoting the role of the International Criminal Court. The CG further stated that the UK Government seeks to undermine the universality of human rights when it sees it as convenient to do so. The CG indicated that where a Legislative Consent Memorandum is required in order for the Bill to progress this would not be forthcoming from the Welsh Government as Wales cannot support legislation which minimises human rights protection, no kind of support legislation which is contrary to international law. The CG made the point that the UK Government does not like scrutiny. He went on to suggest that the Welsh Government will need to look very carefully at what can be done in Wales to preserve the status of human rights and the jurisprudence of the European Court in Welsh law.
The Chair asked the MSJ for her view of the Bill.
In summary: the MSJ said that despite the unwelcome introduction of the legislation by the UK Government the Welsh Government remained determined to pursue its policy of strengthening and advancing equality and human rights in Wales. in this respect the MSJ stated that the Welsh Government is seeking to move forward with the recommendations from the research on strengthening and advancing equality and human rights (led by Swansea University, with Bangor University, Diverse Cymru and Young Wales). The MSJ confirmed that a Human Rights Advisory Group will be established to move forward the research recommendations on incorporation of international human rights into Welsh law. The MSJ also stated that guidance on human rights would be issued and human rights would be added to the Welsh Government’s Integrated Impact Assessment to ensure a robust and resilient framework in Wales to provide protection for Welsh citizens against the erosion of human rights resulting from the actions of the UK Government. In response to questions the MSJ confirmed that the Welsh Government is taking action on previous commitments in relation to CEDAW, including working on options for incorporation as well as an action plan.
The Chair thanked the CG and MSJ for their comments and opened the meeting for discussion of the Bill. The CG and MSJ remained in attendance to listen to stakeholder views.
There followed a wide ranging discussion on the implications of the Bill which were considered (without dissention) to be (in summary) unwelcome, unnecessary, contrary to the general principles of human rights, divisive, contrary to the principles of human rights universality, designed to diminish the human rights of those considered to be ‘undeserving’, likely to result in the diminution of human rights protection for all, and contrary to the approach to human rights taken in Wales. It was also clear from the discussion that attendees are unclear about the impact of the Bill on progress already made in Wales on human rights protection. A particular aspect of concern is the regressive approach taken toward positive obligations. It was noted that in many areas of devolved competence positive obligations are a significant aspect of human rights realisation.
A number of attendees made specific points concerning how to respond to the Bill:
The point was made that the UK government is determined to push through its proposal and it may be pointless to attempt to engage in any process which seeks to bring a degree of rationality to the draught Bill of Rights. It was suggested that it may be more effective to focus on mechanisms for political leverage including:
· the EU given the important placed by the EU on the UK's compliance with human rights as an aspect of the ongoing relationship between the EU and the UK.
· the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights who is currently visiting the UK and has offered a post-visit meeting with civil society stakeholders.
· via state party reporting mechanisms in relation to individual human rights treaties.
Attendees noted the importance of taking every opportunity to cause the UK Government embarrassment in the sphere of international relations by making it clear that its policies are regressive on human rights.
Attendees also discussed the need to counter the UK Government’s attempt to play to a populist playbook by explaining the consequences for individuals and communities of the UK Government’s regressive approach to human rights to the general public.
Attendees also noted the importance of pointing out at any opportunity that the UK Government is seeking to dismantle human rights protections which it has sought to rely on to deflect criticism of its policies in other areas, for example, in relation to convert surveillance and the work of the intelligence services. It was also noted that there is a degree of irrationality in the approach taken by the UK Government in its conduct toward international human rights and human rights in the UK, for example, the UK Government has supported (with some reservations) the Istanbul Convention which helps protect women from violence as a human right in international law, but is seeking to remove HRA protections from citizens add domestic level.