Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Prynhawn da. Welcome to the first meeting of the Equality and Social Justice Committee of this autumn term. I hope everybody had a good recess. We are a bilingual institution; the translation from Welsh to English is available simultaneously, and we very much welcome contributions in Welsh. I've had apologies from Jane Dodds. Otherwise, all Members are present. Are there any declarations of interest that anybody needs to declare? Okay, that's fine.

We'll move straight into our first evidence session on equality and human rights in Wales. I'm very pleased to welcome Professor Simon Hoffman from Swansea University, Dr Sarah Nason from Bangor University—both of whom were involved in the 'Strengthening and advancing equality and human rights in Wales' report that was published back in 2021—and Charles Whitmore, who's a research associate at Cardiff University and is involved in chairing one of the organisations taking forward the legislative programme. Thank you very much indeed, all of you, for coming in. I just wanted to find out what your current role is in taking forward the recommendations in the advancing and strengthening equality and human rights report. Obviously, this was published three years ago. Which of you would like to start? Simon.

My current role is I'm a member of the human rights advisory group, which the Welsh Government established to progress the recommendations. I'm also a member of the legislative options working group, which Charles is chair of. I'm also involved with the Senedd cross-party group on human rights, which has an obvious interest in how these recommendations are progressed. 

Very good. Charles.

Thanks. My name's Charles Whitmore. I'm a research associate with the Wales Governance Centre, but also with the Wales Council for Voluntary Action. I was asked by the Welsh Government to chair the legislative options working group. As with Simon, I'm also a member of the human rights advisory group, and I also sit on a number of different equality and human rights civic society organisations in connection with my capacity in the Wales Council for Voluntary Action as well.

Very good. And Sarah.

Since this report was published back in August 2021, over three years ago, what key developments have been taken forward by the Welsh Government, and how is it being monitored?

I think the most important development was, first of all, the Welsh Government's acceptance, or acceptance in part, of the recommendations. I think that was absolutely crucial. And then, following that, there was the setting up of the human rights advisory group and making sure its membership was representational in particular of civil society groups with an interest in equality and human rights. Recommendations 1 and 25, which relate to the setting up of the legislative options working group, were highly significant. It was actually part of recommendation 1. I think Charles may say something about that.

I think there's been progress in other areas. I'm aware of progress, for example, in relation to a statement of support for human rights to be used by public bodies across Wales. I know there's some good work ongoing by officials in relation to a human rights approach, which, again, was amongst the recommendations in the report, and on how to integrate human rights into the integrated impact assessments. So I think there's a lot of good work in the areas that I'm most familiar with in my current role.

In terms of other progress and how it's monitored, I think that it could be the case that the reports that are given to HRAG, the human rights advisory group, by officials on the progress that's being made could be put into the public domain more expeditiously. Because I am aware that there is good work ongoing, but I think in terms of transparency, accountability and monitoring progress, it would be very helpful if more of that was visible outside of the membership of HRAG itself, so that there could be monitoring. It could be, in fact, an acknowledgement of a lot of the good work that's going on, which at the moment takes a little bit of investigation to ensure that the work is being properly monitored.

Because the key thing is how this is impacting on citizens, particularly those with protected characteristics. That seems to me key, and these are the things that we endeavour to probe with the Welsh Government, particularly over budgets, but also in policy. So, how close are we to having a robust action plan that's going to really make a difference for citizens?

I can speak to the actions and work of the legislative options working group only, which pertain to recommendations 1 and 25. The terms of reference were agreed back at the end of 2022. Since then, we've held a number of evidence sessions with a variety of different stakeholders from Scotland who are working on similar ambitions. We've spoken to Government officials in Scotland, to civil society organisations, to civil society stakeholders. We took evidence from them and we've since drafted an interim report, which was submitted to the human rights advisory group and to the Welsh Government.

Since then, we've been working on a methodology, a framework, with which to analyse the various different UN treaties and rights, and in particular, those that are in the programme for government—so, the convention on the rights of disabled people and on the elimination of discrimination against women. We've developed that framework, and since then we've spent a significant part of our capacity applying that, piloting it, refining it and getting it to a place where we're confident in being able to deploy it to arrive at proposals for the Welsh Government in this space.

In terms of where we are at the moment, I'd say we're still quite a way away from an action plan in that space. The landscape is quite complex, it's very uncharted territory. We're not really aware of any work that has previously looked at the intersection between incorporating these human rights in the ways that we're looking at in the context of the constitutional settlement that we have and the limitations around our devolved competencies, so it has taken a while to develop that. I don't know if we're at the stage of being able to put a time frame against this yet.

Obviously, time marches on and we're only 18 months away from wrapping up this term of the Welsh Parliament, so that is some concern. Is there anything you wanted to add before I bring in other Members?

So, there is a lot of work, I think, ongoing from the Welsh Government and from other bodies such as the Law Council of Wales and the Pro Bono Committee for Wales and others. I think a lot of that relates to our research and response to a number of the recommendations that we made in the field of access to justice, understanding of Welsh law, access to advice and different aspects of the research. So, it's not just the elements around incorporation, but also the other recommendations that we made in the research. 

Thank you. Can I bring in Joel James now? 

Thank you, Chair. I suppose my next questions I'd like to ask are primarily to Charles in his role as chair of the legislative options working group. I'm conscious you touched upon them a bit there then when you were talking about it, but I was just wondering if you would give an outline of the main objectives and the scope of the working group first, for the committee. Thank you. 

Our understanding in terms of what we are to deliver to the human rights advisory group is, essentially, an outline of various different options and models that we could use in Wales to incorporate a variety of different international sources of human rights. We're looking at the moment specifically at the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The initial request from the Welsh Government was to focus on that, but there was also a willingness to go a little bit broader as well. We hope to look at things like ICESCR—the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—as well, which we feel is particularly important. 

The first stages of our work have focused initially on outlining the main features of what a proposed legislative framework would look like, and that's detailed in our interim report—some very early thinking on that. And then that report went to look in a bit more detail at which treaties and which rights, and those are listed in that document. Since then, working with officials in the Welsh Government, we've decided to narrow our focus a little bit and do a deep-dive into a couple of different specific treaties. We're going article by article and right by right, trying to distil the essence of those rights and look at what sort of duties we might be able to produce from those in the Welsh context. Our understanding at the moment is that we'd like to deliver that report on that work initially to the Welsh Government, and then set out an action plan beyond that, and some further milestones to arrive at a point that's closer to legislation.    

You mentioned earlier—. I get feedback, so I listen to myself talking; I don't really like the sound of my own voice. You mentioned there in your opening about the difficulties in terms of producing a timeline of the work that you do. Why is that? Why is there difficulty there? Because one of the concerns that has also been expressed—and I think it was touched upon by Simon there as well—is about the lack of information that's available about you that's been published. I think it was about five days ago that you published the minutes from your meeting in 2022. You've said yourself you meet quite regularly, you've had that interim report. That's not necessarily been made widely available at the moment. I was just wondering why that's the case.

I would say initially that, obviously, I'm very grateful for all of the time that the LOWG members have put into the work. It has always been the position of LOWG members that our meetings are minuted and recorded, and it has always been the position that we wanted those published in the public domain. As I understand it, from what is communicated to me, the delay in publishing the minutes of LOWG and HRAG is purely a matter of technical difficulty on the Welsh Government side. So, I'd say that the committee would probably have to write to the Welsh Government to enquire about that. 

It was also the position of LOWG that we wanted to work with the Welsh Government towards publication of our interim report. Certainly, it was written with the intention that it would be published, and, indeed, that we would use it as a document for further work with the sector to trial the ideas, to test them, to refine them, and to refine them further. It was provided to the human rights advisory group and the Welsh Government. So, again, you'd have to write to the Welsh Government, I think, to ask them for it. 

You mentioned the Welsh Government there. I was keen to get an idea of how involved they are with the group. Do they provide staff, do they provide funding? How are you resourced?

There is a group of officials in the human rights division in the Welsh Government. They help us with the secretariat of the group—very well, in fact. They help organise meetings, find dates in diaries, and they provide that logistical support. They minute the meetings, they work with Ministers to sign those meetings off, and with me to agree the text. So, there's that level of secretariat support that's there. 

I suppose this does link to your question around why the work is taking a certain amount of time, and I think it has been the position of LOWG members—and this will be, I think, expressed in a lot of our minutes—that there has been a concern around the capacity of the group to undertake the work. As I said earlier, this is quite a novel landscape to be exploring. There isn't really much evidence and research to draw on that can provide us a steer and a template, as it were, to design legislation or a legislative framework that is tailored to human rights and the devolved competencies that we have in Wales. So, we very much had to start from the ground up in the group in terms of developing that, because it was, quite simply, new. We didn't know how long that was going to take until we actually started trialling it and applying it. And then, in practical terms, I suppose, we—and maybe Simon can speak a bit about this as well—had to, essentially, cut down the framework to match the capacity that we had within the legislative options working group. The members are a mixture of academics and civil society organisations. We do not have any financial resource, so far, made available to us to pay for time to do the work, so, invariably, it proceeds at a pace that matches the voluntary capacity that the organisations can give and, coupled with the complexity of the question, it doesn't lend itself to rapid progress, I would say.

But I should also say that I am in conversation with officials. Quite recently, where we are going to have conversations, now that we have our template, they've invited conversation with me about what resource could be put in place to explore the next stages of the work. And, indeed, I have found some third sector funding, potentially, as well, that might bolster our capacity as well.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Julie Morgan.

Thank you very much, and good afternoon. I was going to ask about the incorporation of UN conventions and, looking at the current political and social climate in Wales, do you believe that incorporating UN conventions still holds value?

Yes, and I think the findings from the research still retain their salience. I think they are still findings that are significant, not least because they reflect historical position in Wales of the stakeholders who took part in the research. So, it wasn't a case of, 'We raised the issue of incorporation, everyone thought it was a good idea at the time, let's move on.' It's something that's been under consideration, under discussion in Wales, for a long time.

And then we found, during the research, that there were a number of studies that highlighted the value of incorporation, including things like raising awareness in the public space of human rights; signalling the importance of human rights within a democracy and a jurisdiction; providing remedies for violations of human rights, when they occur, even in jurisdictions that might otherwise appear to be rights respecting; influencing processes that contribute to policy development; and providing for enforcement and accountability. So, there were some general reasons why incorporation was important. And, of course, that chimes with the view of the UN treaty bodies, which is unchanged, that legal incorporation or legal recognition of rights is a significant step towards implementation and rights.

And, of course, it chimes with our experience on children's rights in Wales. We know, from research that I conducted along with Children in Wales in 2018 for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, that there's a value to incorporation—the due regard model and the children's rights Measure. Our research showed at the time that incorporation provides stronger recognition of children's rights in policy development, stronger visibility and attention to children's rights in policy. It provides an opportunity for policy advocacy, particularly by commissioners. And it provides—even the due regard model, which is considered, probably, at the weaker end of the scale of enforcement—for stronger accountability, particularly the due regard model in the political and public space. So, I think those reasons for incorporation still hold good.

I think there's another reason for incorporation. We've recently experienced a good deal of turbulence on human rights at the UK level. Things may be changing now, but it's still within memory, and it's quite a bitter memory, actually. One of the reasons for the research in the first place was how to protect human rights in Wales in the future. So, we may have a climate of human rights recognition in Wales at the moment, but who can say what the future holds? One of the things that incorporation does is it makes human rights protection enduring. I like Charles's phrase; I'm going to borrow his word: it makes human rights 'sticky', so they stick around for the future. I think that is particularly important.

And then finally, something that I don't think I covered in my submission in advance for the committee, which is that one of the things that we were asked about in the research was how we could better align some of the legislation in Wales. One of the things that came out of our research was that there was some cause for concern amonst civil society and, indeed, amongst public sector contributors that it was unclear what equality objectives there were in Wales and what were the objectives of the well-being of future generations legislation, that these objectives were stated in rather vague terms, whereas human rights provide more concrete objectives, so they could be used in order to give concrete form, if you like, to other legislation in Wales: Wales-specific equality duties, and the well-being goals under the well-being legislation. That was something that we recognised in our report. So, lots of reasons, I think, that incorporation should remain very firmly on the agenda in Wales.

And do you think that is the view, generally, of the stakeholders who were involved?

That was certainly the view of—. I'll be corrected if I'm wrong—there's a fellow researcher here—but I did not get the impression that stakeholders were talking necessarily about the here and now. They were talking about the here and now, but they were also talking about the future and where Wales can go in the future on human rights, and the need for protection, moving forward.

Yes, thank you. Did you have anything to add?

I suppose primarily from the perspective of working in administrative law, we're aware that there are so many duties on public bodies in Wales already. I think one of the big challenges is to make sure that whatever framework is enacted is clear and is consistent. We talk about process alignment in a number of ways in our research, but really what we're looking at is a set of duties that are really clear for public bodies, given their capacity and given the challenges that they face, and I think also given the challenges that people face in accessing justice as well. So, certainly my perspective, from the public bodies participating in the research, was the importance of all of the different duties that they're under aligning and making sense and being consistent with each other, and that incorporation can be part of that, as long as everything is a consistent and coherent framework. I'd be interested in to what extent future working, codification and consolidation can bring these things together as well. So, it's a question of the duties being clear and consistent, and that framework making sense is really important.

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. I'd just like to echo the point that Simon made, because this did form part of the early discussions we had in the legislative options working group. It formed part of the context for our work, but then also added to the complexity as to why work was challenging to progress, and that was purely that sense amongst the stakeholders of really needing to protect, as much as we could within the limits of devolved comptence, against regression, or legislation at the UK level that was certainly perceived as regressive on a human rights front. We had the Bill of Rights Bill. We had the Illegal Migration Act 2023. We had notwithstanding clauses used at the UK level that were trying to essentially remove the legislation from the remit of international human rights. And all of this was happening that was absolutely salient for our work, so we had to explore all of that. I suppose the added challenge there is that Wales is quite small, obviously, and we have a limited civic society sector, and the same people working in the LOWG were the same people that had to respond at the UK level to all this legislation that was coming at us at quite an alarming pace at times, as well, which was inevitably a massive drain on capacity, including mine and Simon's.

Chair, could I just add something very briefly? I naturally went to the research to confirm the view of stakeholders, but, of course, we have the cross-party group on human rights, which, as recently as July 2024, I think, asked via the chair for Ministers to confirm their commitment to incorporation, and there was no objection from anybody on the cross-party group—civil society members of the cross-party group—to that, and the impression I gained was that there was a good deal of support, ongoing support, for incorporation. And that's also the experience of the Wales civil society stakeholder group.

Right. So, going on, then, to the Welsh Government, have you observed any changes or any shift in view on incorporation from the Welsh Government?

The response to the letter was quite positive—the letter I just mentioned, from the chair of the cross-party group. I haven't seen, myself, any suggestion that there has been any backing away from the commitment to incorporation. I think, quite naturally, there is a desire to make progress in other areas—on policy, on policy frameworks, on action plans—and there is a concern that resources might be spread a little thinly when it comes to, 'Shall we progress legislation or shall we progress other mechanisms of implementation?' And my concern is that that kind of approach forces a binary choice, almost, between incorporation and implementation. It sets the two things up as oppositional. I'm very understanding of the resource demands on officials and officials' time and working time, but I think it's crucially important that we continue on the route towards incorporation, whilst also looking at other ways of, if you like, doing human rights in practice as we're going along.

So, the short answer is that I've seen no stepping away from the commitment, but I can understand that there's a need to think about priorities, and I would like to see the Welsh Government, given the recent changes in the Welsh Government, reiterate its commitment to the recommendations and to incorporation.

Right. Sioned, did you—?

Sioned, did you want to come in?

No.

Charles, you wanted to come in.

I was going to say that, certainly, at the official level, in the conversations I've had with officials, they've been resolute in constantly reaffirming the Welsh Government's commitment to incorporation. As Simon alluded to a little bit, there are probably some challenges around the limitations of capacity that we have in terms of wanting to look at incorporation, but then also consider implementation and what that looks like, and there are probably differing views, I would imagine, in the Welsh Government around the balance between those two. But, certainly, LOWG members have been quite clear that we feel from the Welsh Government that that commitment to incorporation is there; we'd probably just like to see a bit more financial resource made available to us so that we can progress those recommendations faster. 

Right. And so the work that you do on the working group, it's balanced between legislative and non-legislative proposals. How do you balance that?

So, again, the committee might want to write to the Welsh Government to request a copy of the legislative option group's work terms of reference, where that is addressed in there. It's certainly the case that LOWG members have wanted to focus on the legislative options for incorporation. But, indeed, when we spoke to colleagues in Scotland, they told us that, from their experience with this work, which is a few more years ahead of ours, it would be prudent to consider implementation and non-legislative measures on some level but to not get too lost in the detail at this stage. Certainly, we've focused on the legislative options so far, but there is a request for us to also consider non-legislative options that has come from the Welsh Government.

And the Welsh Government has asked you to do that. Have you considered any yet, or—?

I don't the work is at a sufficiently advanced stage for us to be looking at that level of detail, to be honest. 

Right.

The template that we have produced to, as Charles said, go through a right-by-right analysis of international treaty rights for incorporation does include some reflection on whether or not progress may also be made through other measures, non-legislative measures. So, the template that's going to be applied, which we would like to see applied in the future to this analysis, does account for that particular issue.

Yes. You mentioned the analysis of treaties on a right-by-right basis. Ddo you work at all with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office?

We haven't had any contact with the UK Government around this work so far. I'd say that the previous UK Government was not necessarily very open to progressing human rights, so that space wasn't really very open to us, not least because we were constantly looking at legislation that we felt was regressive. I'd like to think that that might be a space to open up with the work moving forward, potentially further down the line, but, as of yet, no. It might be the case that the Welsh Government might want to speak to the new UK Government in this space as well.

Right. So, what progress can you realistically expect now in the next 18 months, and what's holding you back? You've mentioned money as one thing, yes?

Money, but also time, essentially. It's a piece of work where we have to go through the analysis. It's desk-based work. We need someone to have the capacity and time to go through the treaties, to apply our template, to dig into the detail of how each right might be applied in Wales, and, indeed, how each right might deliver substantial change and an improved lived experience for people in Wales. That's the level of detail that we really need to go through. I think we just need the capacity to do that.

Once we have that in place, I think it would be good to have a conversation with colleagues in the Welsh Government about putting in place a timeline for the delivery of LOWG's recommendations and, indeed, what the next milestone for the Welsh Government might look like in the delivery of recommendations 1 and 25. I think that there's a number of different options that would be open to them in that space, but it would be good to have that conversation.

And are you in that conversation with the Welsh Government?

We are in regular conversation with them. We're not at the position where I think we can necessarily say for sure what the next milestone would be. Certainly, LOWG has discussed some options, so, for example—and I'm conscious this has come up at the cross-party group on human rights as well—where the talk of potentially reaching a Green Paper before the end of this Senedd term might be a desirable milestone, for example.

Right.

Sioned Williams, you wanted to come in.

Yes, and, Chair, I should just say for the record that I am the chair of the cross-party group on human rights. I know that's noted in the submission.

I think that you've made a really compelling case—well, you've all made a very compelling case—for the enduring need and usefulness of incorporation. We understand its importance in principle, which you've very eloquently spelt out, but it's the usefulness for other ways of legislating, isn't it, of making sure that other legislation is done with this in mind and is more effective. You say that, in principle, the Government is resolute in its commitment to supporting that approach, but in practice, has there been—? I note in the minutes of the last cross-party group on human rights, which led to the letter that you referred to, that you, Charles, talked about a cooling of enthusiasm towards legislative approaches, especially in regard to some treaties. So, I don't know if you could just speak a little bit to that.

Yes. This is outlined in our interim report, which is, obviously, going on for a year and a half plus now. So, I think there's a sense of that being a product of a slightly different time. As I say, back then we were facing quite challenging legislation from the UK Government, so very much our thoughts were on, 'What can we do to mitigate, for example, the UK's potential withdrawal from the European convention on human rights? What could we do if the UK Government withdrew the Human Rights Act 1998, potentially even the Equality Act 2010?' So, we were in that space, and, indeed, I think the Welsh Government was in that space as well. So, that lent itself to an initial consideration for us of, yes, looking at the CRPD and CEDAW, which are the programme for government commitments, but then also that invitation to look at wider rights. So, we were talking, for example, about economic and social rights; ICERD as well, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the UN's principles for older persons; bespoke LGBTQ rights, and, indeed, even a human right to a healthy and sustainable environment. So, we were in that space of wanting to explore all of that.

Over the course of LOWG's work, the political landscape changed, of course, as did the financial landscape, so the Welsh Government budget came in and was problematic for the voluntary sector; there were cuts across a number of different portfolios, and I think, in that context then, given the limited capacity we had, Welsh Government I think quite rightly steered us into focusing our analysis more on CEDAW and CRPD, because it gave us something to work on, something to focus on and they were the programme for government commitments.

So, that's kind of the context around how I think we've been channelled a little bit more towards those treaties, but it remains the case that LOWG has always been clear that, once we've developed and applied our template and we have a systematic approach to looking at how we can incorporate these rights within the Welsh legal context, we would like to see that applied to a wider range of rights as well, because part of this work, for us, is very much about addressing the patchwork approach we have to rights in Wales at the moment, and that it's a bit more equitable across the different groups of protected characteristics.

Very good.

Sorry. I think Simon wanted to just come in there.

Oh. Simon, yes.

Can I just add something? I think there are some other points worth making in relation to what might appear to be a cooling towards incorporation. I think it's worth mentioning—as we have mentioned—the turbulence at the UK level, but in terms of incorporation, that had a very practical impact in Scotland with the UK Government's challenge in the Supreme Court to the incorporation of the UNCRC legislation there. And I think it's quite understandable that there would then be a certain nervousness in Wales about whether or not we can actually progress incorporation of human rights generally. And Wales, I think, has always been quite creative within the boundaries of devolution, and I think, possibly, what might have cooled a little is that creativity—not the ambition to progress, but how we do it. I think, where that has pushed LOWG is to be, if you like, more forensic than we might otherwise have been, and to be more analytical on a right-by-right basis, rather than on a treaty-by-treaty basis. And although I think, personally, there are differences between where Scotland is going on incorporation and where Wales wants to go on incorporation, not least the limitation of—. Well, Wales is quite clear that human rights incorporation is going to be limited to the exercise of devolved functions. I think, still, that hostility towards what was going on in Scotland had a chilling effect on our work here in Wales. And even though there has been a change of Government, I think, in many ways, it might have been a good thing that we take that forensic approach to guard against any future challenge.

I think the other point that's worth making—and I don't think it's been said yet—is that I don't think we can achieve what was in the recommendation, which was legislation to be introduced before the end of this Senedd. I think that's unsaid, but it's worth saying it. I think the best we can think about is possibly a Green Paper and a timeline for how we move forward.

And finally, just a last question. I think, as Sioned said, you've made a compelling case for incorporation. What could we do on this committee to help move that along?

Okay. I think one of the things that would be useful, given where we are in the timeline and when the research took place and where we are now, and the change of Government we've had in Wales, a recommitment to incorporation, a statement—a public statement—of recommitment made to this committee from Ministers at the very highest level would be very helpful indeed. I think perhaps pushing the Welsh Government on what resources they might be making available, but I think there have been some positive developments, which Charles has outlined there, in terms of resources that might be forthcoming. I think publication, a request to publish the notes of HRAG meetings in particular, which will incorporate LOWG meetings, but again, I think there have been some developments there very recently, where those minutes have been published. And I think, in relation to other areas, work is ongoing. And I think, for me, it's more around incorporation, restating the commitment and giving a little bit more of an emphasis on that area of work—incorporation.

I'd just add that maybe maintaining an active inquiry brief and vigilance in this space, just to hold the work accountable on an ongoing basis, would probably be helpful as well.

I suppose I just want to probe a bit further. How much has the schizophrenic attitude towards human rights from the previous UK Government really hampered progress on this subject? I understand the Welsh Government won't want to enter into legislation that then gets knocked back and goes into the courts, because we could be doing something else with that resource. How significant is it that I understand that the Scottish Government has now dropped any legislation from its programme for government for the remainder of its term in office until 2026?

Obviously, the announcements around the Scottish Government's legislation are very, very fresh indeed. We haven't met in LOWG and discussed that development since that announcement, but it will probably come up, I think, at the human rights advisory group later this month, which is meeting. For me, I'd say the biggest hampering of LOWG's work as a result of the UK Government's legislation is actually a very pragmatic one, purely in the sense that, as I said earlier, the people involved in LOWG and HRAG that are trying to advance this work are the exact same group of organisations that have to constantly advocate against regressive legislation at the UK level. So, under the previous Government, the UK Government, that ate up a substantial amount of time and resource. It was, in fact, quite difficult to advance LOWG's work substantively, as the UK Government's proposals were not always clear around how they would function at the devolved level. That was not impact assessed, that was not clear from the legislation, so that needed unpacking. There was a need for Simon and me to support civil society in Wales to understand and to push back against those proposals. So, there was a double-edge of both pragmatic capacity drain, but also substantive lack of clarity around the impact that this legislation would have, and it was difficult for us to think about, substantively, what the legislative framework for a human rights Act in Wales would look like when we weren't entirely sure what the UK legal frameworks would look like even a year on.

Okay. Thank you for that clarity. Can I bring Carolyn Thomas in now?

Okay. Thank you. The report makes a number of recommendations around guidance on human rights. How effectively is the Welsh Government fulfilling its commitment to take a co-ordinated approach? Sarah mentioned earlier about making sure frameworks are clear and consistent for public bodies. So, just your views on that, really—about the co-ordinated approach from Welsh Government. Have they moved forward with that?

I think not being part of HRAG, I don't see as much on the progress that's been made in that area as perhaps compared to the others. 

I think there is progress being made in that area. One of the recommendations was a statement on the value of human rights, and I think certainly progress has been made in that area. One of the benefits of working on human rights in Wales is we are a small community, so there's a lot of involvement of stakeholders. But, of course, one of the issues that that raises then is that it takes time to work processes through. But I think progress has been made in that area on a fully consultative basis via HRAG. I think progress is being made on guidance, on a human rights approach, and particularly with reference to work that's already been done, for example, on a children's rights approach, by myself and my colleague Rhian Croke, but also in partnership with the Children's Commissioner for Wales on a children's rights approach, which is essentially a human rights approach for children. So, I think there's progress there in how that could be used as guidance on a human rights approach in Wales.

I think there is progress being made on the incorporation of human rights considerations into integrated impact assessments, and there's some really good work being done by the officials in that space. In many ways, all of this takes time, because—. I think, when we first presented the report, the fact that it had 40 recommendations and not three came as a bit of a surprise. But, I think, if you look at, for example, the output of UN treaty bodies, it's quite clear that you need to take a holistic approach to human rights; you need to work at all different levels. So, there's a lot of work that needs to be done, and I think, myself, I've seen some very good work that's going on—well, behind the scenes, really. It could be more upfronted, if you like, via HRAG minutes. But I'm confident we're getting there.

Okay. Yes, Charles.

Sorry. Just to add to what Simon has said, I fully agree with what he has said, but I should have said this in answer to your first question, Chair, obviously. The human rights advisory group does serve as a platform in terms of monitoring and reporting for the Welsh Government, to report progress against the recommendations in the ‘Strengthening and advancing equality and human rights in Wales’ report. So, they do report progress across the raft of recommendations to that group, and, as Simon says, they have reported on work on a statement of commitment for the Welsh Government and public authorities in Wales on human rights. I've also clocked that, yes, they are working on the integrated impact assessment work and developing tools and guidance in that space. They've been working on the curriculum-specific duties. They're quite a small team in the Welsh Government, the officials. It is a small team, and, as Simon says, there are a lot of recommendations. I understand they do a lot of work to support the Welsh Government's contribution to the UN committees as well. So, there is progress across the raft of recommendations, but, much like the LOWG's work, capacity is spread thin.

Thanks. I remember, as a councillor, we were having the reports presented to us, and then there was a list of measures at the end of the report, sort of financial implications, equality impact assessment and then the future generations well-being Act was added to it as well. But I think—. I guess, as a councillor, you'd need to really know what the equality impact assessment was, and so having clear guidance for everybody is really important, going forward, to make sure that it is actually happening, you're not just relying on officials or—. You know, making sure that that's happening. So, do you actually look at other organisations, then, as well, and make sure that they are following equality impact assessments, then, in human rights? Is that part of your role as well? 

It's not specifically what LOWG is looking at. So, we're looking in quite a narrow focus at recommendations 1 and 25, about incorporating human rights and making rights justiciable for people before courts and tribunals. LOWG is maintaining an awareness and looking broadly around things like guidance and impact assessments as a part of our consideration of implementation, when we do eventually arrive at legislation. So, it's on our radar, but it's not something that we're actively working on at the moment. 

Could I add something to that? It's just, in terms of progress made generally by, say, for example, public authorities in this area, they will obviously look to the Welsh Government for leadership, and, once the statement is published, for example, you would really hope that there would be some assessment of the take-up of that statement by public authorities in their own policy documents, and one of the spaces that I think you could look for that is in well-being plans—you know, to what extent are human rights now being integrated into well-being plans. And, when I last looked at them, it was very rare. There may be some mention of children's rights—for obvious reasons; children's rights are prioritised in Wales, and have been for a long time. But, actually, that would seem to be the point where you could monitor what is the take-up, what is the push down of human rights from the Welsh Government to public authorities and what is the recognition of human rights at public authority level.

In terms of what work other organisations are doing, it's difficult to assess, really. I come across pockets of good practice in my work, but my work is very limited. I put some examples into the submission I made for the committee of where, for example, children's rights have been integrated into the work of the city and county of Swansea, Cardiff Council and Abertawe Bro Morgannwg Health Board. So, there are pockets of good practice out there, and one of the benefits of a human rights approach is it is meant to provide principles as a way of guidance, but then develop a bank of templates, if you like, of case studies, of good examples for others to follow. So, the sooner we get there on a human rights approach for Wales, the sooner we can start to develop that bank of good practice. And I know—well, I'm fairly confident—there'd be a number of good contributions from across Wales there. 

I read that, in the report, you said:

'The obsession with well-being as a driver of public policy in Wales has potential to distract from progress on human rights'.

So, you wanted more concrete measures under 'assessing equality and human rights'. So, rather than—. Well-being is very generic and—. 

Yes, I think that was the finding from the evidence, that stakeholders felt that you could apply many meanings to the well-being goals themselves and they were, as you say, generic. I hesitate to use the word 'vague'; I wouldn't say they're vague, but they are wide-reaching, let's put it that way, as well as—. Human rights tend to be far more concrete; they relate to—. I think Just Fair refers to socioeconomic rights, for example, as everyday rights—so, things like housing, income, work, healthcare, social care. 

Sorry, I've gone off-topic here. The Welsh Government committed to carry out a review of the Wales-specific equality duties of the public sector equality duty. So, have you been involved with that work? 

I haven't, no. 

No. No, right, okay. And the Welsh Government committed to incorporating human rights into integrated impact assessments, which is what we discussed earlier. The Welsh Government has yet to report to the advisory group on the content of the new IAA template on guidance on human rights to accompany the IAA. Have you had sight of it, the integrated impact assessment? Okay, no, not seen that. 

I've seen versions of the integrated impact assessment; I wouldn't want to say which is the most recent version I've seen. And, as I say, I think developments in that space are looking positive. 

Okay. And we talked about actions for other organisations—local authorities we talked about—but the future generations commissioner, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Welsh commissioners, what progress do you think has been made by these organisations to take forward the recommendations in the report, do you think?

There were recommendations aimed at others with a role to play in human rights, and that's inevitable when it comes to human rights. It would have been a lot more straightforward if we'd found that the only people that had a role in human rights were Government, and we could have just focused our recommendations there, but that wasn't the case. So, we made recommendations that included recommendations aimed at the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I'm not aware of what progress is being made in relation to those recommendations by the commission. The most recent, I think, 'Is Wales Fairer?' report refers to progress on the Wales-specific public sector equality duty and the human rights approach by the Welsh Government. And in our report, we suggested that the EHRC may wish to give guidance in that space, but the 'Is Wales Fairer?' report refers to ongoing work by the Welsh Government.   

Okay, thank you. 

One of the problems here is that it's great to make declarations; it's really how do we have meaningful targets to enable us to assess what impact it's having on the lives of citizens. We can have Cardiff being a child-friendly city and Swansea a human rights city, but what impact does it really have on the child in Cardiff or the other individual in Swansea? How are we going to make this come alive for ordinary people? 

Yes. I think that's a real challenge because I think, for example, incorporation works and operates at a different level to day-to-day practice of human rights, and there are lots of layers in between; it's stratified, if you like. And one of the things that we found in the research, and I think we knew this as researchers in any event, is that it's extremely difficult, if not impossible—I think we actually said that in our research—to determine the causative link, if any causative link, directly between incorporation, for example, and the experience of human rights on the ground, simply because too many factors intervene: funding, policy, attitude, commitment—you know, events take place.

I think all we can really say is that incorporation sets the framework for a culture of human rights. So, human rights is done in policy, and you would hope that human rights reflected in policy would reflect in human rights experience on the ground, and there are certainly some examples of that in relation to children's rights, which we mentioned in our 2018 report. But I think there is this difficulty of what difference is it going to make.

But one of the things that we said in our recommendations—. I think we made two recommendations on monitoring, and that monitoring should be based on human rights targets, so concrete human rights targets. So, where you have human rights to, for example, an adequate standard of living, which includes adequate housing, adequate clothing, adequate food, you set targets in relation to those concrete objectives. And I think it was our conclusion that, by drawing on human rights, you would have more concrete targets for measuring progress in Wales.

Thank you. Sioned Williams. Sorry, Joel, did you want to come in?

Sorry about that. It was just a quick question, really, just to touch upon, Simon, what you mentioned there about human rights and how there seems to be a greater awareness of human rights towards children. And you mentioned earlier then about how Government organisations, maybe even third sector organisations, have a growing awareness of human rights. But what about the individual on the street, if that makes sense? I know a few years ago you mentioned, 'If you don't know what your human rights are, how do you know if they've been breached?' or something like that, if I remember rightly, and I just wanted to get your ideas there, because, from a councillor background—. I used to be a councillor, and the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 came in, and that was always being cited in planning meetings, for example, but no-one knew anything about it. The planning officers didn't really know how that fitted in with planning policy; the lawyers didn't really know where that fitted into it. And I think it leads on to a wider field, then, about judicial reviews and all that, and I just wanted to get your views on that, really.

Yes. I think raising awareness of human rights is crucially important, and one of the ways you do that, of course, is you signal that through legislation. It's got, if you like, a confirmatory role, legislation: this is what we value in Wales. Lots of people know about the Human Rights Act 1998, for example. They may not know the specifics of human rights within the legislation, but they know about the Human Rights Act, and I think that's the first step in terms of raising awareness.

I think the statement of support for human rights at the public authority level and the Welsh Government level appearing on all policies is significant, because a lot of people do actually read the Welsh Government policy, public authority policy, and if it's up there, front and centre, 'We support human rights, and this is how we support it in this policy', then there'll be a growing awareness of how human rights are relevant to what government in Wales is all about. But, actually, we did, in our report, as well, make recommendations on raising awareness of human rights in Wales, and to do that through a campaign that is addressed at members of the public, not just at Government officials or Ministers or Senedd Members or councillors, but at members of the public. Because, as you said—where you started—if people don't know about their rights, how are they going to take action to enforce their rights?

Charles.

I agree with everything Simon's just said, but also add that I don't think it's a coincidence that we have greater awareness in Wales around the human rights of children, when we have indirect incorporation of the UNCRC. So, I think it's absolutely an expectation—I think this applies across the board to law, really—that the level of awareness and culture shift that you'd expect when you introduce legislation is commensurate to the power of the duties contained therein. So, we've achieved quite a good degree of awareness with indirect incorporation of the UNCRC. I think the expectation is that we'd see a similar shift if we had direct incorporation of a wider range of human rights as well. I think awareness is absolutely key, and this does feature as a part of the legislative options group's work as well. We're considering the various different aspects of a human rights scheme, for instance, that we'd expect to accompany the legislation, which does feature educational measures as well as awareness-raising measures. So, that does feature as part of our thinking.

We're also thinking a little bit about administrative justice as well, and this touches on the previous question, Chair, around the difference this can make to people's lives. Because we're thinking, for example, around the powers of the ombudsman, for instance, and whether that's sufficient as an extremely accessible vehicle for people to enforce their rights; whether we need new human rights infrastructure in Wales to support better advocacy and awareness building, for example; whether we need new bespoke mechanisms within local authorities for human rights issues to be flagged specifically. Obviously, Sarah is leading on a lot of this thinking for us.

If I may, I think there are a number of recommendations that we have made around raising awareness and education where there has already been progress. We made a recommendation around the 'what matters' code to the new Curriculum for Wales, and having looked at the content of that new curriculum and the humanities section in particular, there's direct reference to the conventions, to accountability, to governance and to justice. As a parent, I've seen that in action as well, and I think it's working very well.

Recommendation 35 was about public legal education. I think the Law Council of Wales—. It was yet to be established at the time, so we made recommendations towards any law council for Wales that is established playing an important role in promoting legal education, training and awareness about specifically the distinctiveness of Welsh laws. That includes where we already have provisions around human rights and equality and how that might change in the future. They have two working groups in the law council; one is on education and one is a training working group. They've been discussing the baseline for the Welsh curriculum in Welsh university law schools, and the importance of understanding the distinctiveness of Welsh law. That then feeds into the profession. It then feeds into students who would go on to a number of different areas of work. They've also been doing some work around public legal education, and public understanding of the law that applies in Wales. So, it's not purely focused on equality and human rights, but it has a lot of potential to go in that direction.

And there's the important work that's done at a community level by the third sector. We've done some other research recently. It really goes back to that idea that human rights begin in small places close to home, and so it's the community-based organisations, community hubs, community centres, that have, I think, a real potential to engage with people, as do organisations like Citizens Advice and law centres. So, there is a lot of infrastructure there. It's struggling for a number of reasons, but I think that's the way to reach people. I think the work that was done by the independent constitutional commission for Wales as well gives us a really interesting example, because it's even more difficult to translate these high-level constitutional principles into people's everyday experiences than it is with human rights, and particularly social and economic rights. I think we can learn a lot from the work that they did in terms of engaging with the public.

One recommendation that I want to mention specifically is the need for the Welsh Government to take a lead in a public awareness campaign, in particular to tackle misconceptions about human rights. Given where we are at the moment in society, I think it's important that we get back on track with people's understanding of human rights being human rights for everyone, and to tackle some of the misconceptions that are being perpetuated about human rights, primarily as a result of some of the policies pursued outside of Wales. I think the Welsh Government now should take a lead in that space. It is one of our recommendations.

Thank you. Sioned Williams.

If I may, I'll differentiate between two things. One is the leadership on process, to make sure that they themselves, but also public authorities, follow the correct approach in taking human rights into consideration in developing their policies, because if they don't and they get it wrong, that will lead to scepticism. If people's human rights are not properly considered in policy, then it will lead to a good deal of scepticism and pushback against human rights more broadly. So, I think, at a process level, it's important that the Welsh Government take a lead in how you do human rights in practice at a policy level. 

I think in terms of campaigning, this is one of the areas—. In fact, in most of our recommendations, we provided a little bit of detail on what could be done. We had things like a public awareness campaign that might include a fact sheet on the key principles of human rights; campaigns in a range of media; a poster campaign targeted at public spaces. I remember a very good campaign—I can't remember when it was now—by the British Institute of Human Rights, which took individuals and said, 'I needed the Human Rights Act' when there was a threat to the Human Rights Act, explaining why an ordinary individual benefited from the Human Rights Act. And that's the other thing that we recommend: to build up a bank of case studies as to why human rights are important for people. So, I think the Welsh Government could take a lead in that space and, as I said, I think it's an important time for human rights in the UK and Wales, given where we are and the misconceptions that have been perpetuated about human rights generally. 

You're well aware, I think, as a committee of legal aid reforms and the impact on the sector—advice deserts, the closure of law firms, all of the impacts that these things have had. Significant reforms are needed to access to justice, but there are real challenges there in the context of devolution. I know that £12 million has been made available per year under the single advice fund. I think one of the benefits of that is that it has previously been on a shorter term period and now it's for a three-year period. I think it could be even longer than that, to be honest, to help the sustainability of the advice services that are delivering those kinds of funds. There has been some research, more around the root causes of need, and so on. So, I think the single advice fund is a good start and it is improving things. I think there has been some research into that approach, although I haven't seen the reports of that research yet.

We mentioned in the research as well that there is the national advice network in Wales and there are regional advice networks, and although they've not explicitly done work around raising awareness of human rights, that's something that could be done. We're in a position where access to justice is incredibly challenging, without some very significant changes. We still see, despite doing research in this field for a very long time, there has been a development of the public law bar in Wales and the availability of advocates from Wales, but we still see very few judicial review claims, for example, per head of population from Wales than we see from parts of England and some of the other devolved nations. Part of that, our research suggests, is that there are higher rates of settlement. There are actually higher rates of decisions being made right first time in the context of human rights and equality and other areas of public administration.

So, there are a number of reasons why you don't see that much litigation. Some of it is positive. I think some of it is because there is good decision making. But in other areas that is a struggle, because then we don't see so much of a court-based jurisprudence developing around the standards and that really strong level of enforcement. But we've seen a pro bono committee for Wales that's been established. I see that as a great job of bringing people together, sharing information, sharing best practice. But it's really important that that can't be a substitute for access to legal aid funding and advice, and neither can technology be a substitute for in-person advice. These things need to all come together.

I think it's something that both Charles and Simon have mentioned in a number of different ways: the courts are not the only place where we can have accountability and, to some degree, a level of enforcement. The Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, for example, produces an annual casebook that talks about equality and human rights. So, although they can't make binding decisions, they're not there to determine whether the law has been breached or not in that sense, failure to comply with human rights duties and equality duties is a potential example of maladministration and there are remedies that the ombudsman can give. We have the same, I think, in Wales—. Simon mentioned creativity; I think that context of the administrative justice sector that we have—so the ombudsman, the commissioners, the regulators and all of these different bodies—is quite a well-developed sector in Wales comparatively. They work well together, perhaps compared with some other nations, in terms of the degree of interaction between them and understanding of what each is doing and what each can deliver. So, there are a number of different ways we can improve access to justice that aren't necessarily always court based, as well.

Just to add to the point about pressures that the sector is under and the risks to the work that represents, I work very closely with Wales Council for Voluntary Action and we'd absolutely see the voluntary sector as a key partner throughout this work from the Welsh Government's perspective, but also, as Sarah says, in the delivery and awareness raising of human rights.

You're absolutely right, it is absolutely the case that the sector is under considerable pressure at the moment from a number of different fronts. I can give one example by virtue of the closure of Chwarae Teg, obviously a while ago, and the ripple effect that that has, for example, on this sector. So, we have Women's Equality Network Wales, for example, on the legislative options working group bringing the expertise around women's rights, but, of course, they've had to take on some of the work as a result of Chwarae Teg's closure, not necessarily with more funding. So, that's an increasing pressure.

More broadly, across the board, we see in the voluntary sector that organisations are, quite frankly, fighting to remain in place. The funding is that challenging. So, being asked to take on more work constantly, more advocacy services and support communities more and more as demand for their services increases is just very challenging for the sector.

My area of focus in my work is at the framework level for human rights. So, personally, I would like to see a human rights Bill for Wales, and I would like to see that enacted. I'd like to see it incorporate treaties that pay particular attention to socioeconomic rights, because they align very neatly with devolved competences. I would like to see greater awareness of human rights. I would like to see government—and I talk about government at all levels in Wales—more strongly promoting human rights as part of their day-to-day business. I would like to see processes that are closely aligned to human rights, for example impact assessments. I'd like to see a human rights approach. And then, moving forward in the future, I would like to see that translate into better human rights outcomes for people on the ground. As I say, it's difficult to establish the causative link directly, but I'm fairly confident that if we get the framework right, then it will have benefits for individuals on a day-to-day, lived experience basis.

To have that human rights Bill, for you—it's the first thing you mentioned—is of supreme importance.

Yes. For me, it would be, based on my commitment to human rights, my experience of children's rights in Wales and my understanding of the literature around human rights and research that's out there globally, and this research, crucially, that we carried out in Wales. 

Okay. Diolch. Charles.

Simon has put that so eloquently, I'll struggle to add to it, to be honest. Obviously, in my capacity as chair of the legislative options working group—our task is to deliver options for this—I would absolutely like to see legislation brought forward in this space. I suppose, on a slightly more personal professional level, one development I'd like to see is broader policy in Wales speaking more to the language of human rights. I'd like to see a slightly more holistic approach across how the Welsh Government delivers policy that uses the language of human rights to address that awareness issue and to make things a bit more consistent across the board, and also to plug the gaps we were talking about earlier about well-being and the connection with human rights, as well. So, I'd like to see our action plans, moving forward, framed in human rights terms as well, which is not always the case currently.

Just to add to that, I suppose, more generally, to see access to justice improved for people in a number of ways, with respect to all sorts of different legal rights and entitlements that they have, but to acknowledge that courts and tribunals are only a part of that; there are a number of different bodies that can be involved in that and supporting people and ensuring that their rights are respected, so going back to that thinking creatively about who can be involved in that and how.

Yes. Given that justice isn't devolved, what can the Welsh Government do towards achieving that aim of creating beter access to justice?

I think there are a number of things that it is doing. I mean, in the plan, 'Delivering Justice for Wales', I know there are areas of frustration, for sure, in there, but there are some areas of improvement. I think there have been some improvements in terms of getting data for Wales and understanding the access to justice data and disaggregated data so that we can know what actually is going on in Wales. I think there are some other areas—I mean, the tribunals will be an interesting development for Wales. They are, at the moment, a fairly narrow set of devolved tribunals, but there are important proposals there: for the new system to modernise, improve efficiency and to provide more independent structures, but the base aim of that is to improve access to justice for people in Wales. And there is likely to be, within that, an appellate tribunal for Wales, which could potentially even be a superior court of record for Wales, so it starts to show what that might look like in future and see the way that those tribunals will actually develop.

But, I think, probably in the access to justice space, a little bit like the human rights and equality space, we will potentially see some changes and there have been ongoing reviews into legal aid and early legal help and all of these issues, so there might be some more positive developments in terms of early legal help, as well, and community-based legal support, which will benefit Wales as well.

Diolch.

I have to jump in, because I mentioned the devolution of justice, but I suppose one thing that would be good to see—and I'm conscious that this is going to take place, or supposedly, based on the announcements that were made—the Scottish Government is going to be trying to engage the UK Government more constructively around opening up a more permissive space for ambitious reform in this space, so it would be remiss, obviously, to leave Wales out of that. So, it would be good to see a more collaborative discourse start to take shape between the Welsh Government and the UK Government that would enable us to take some of this forward more easily.

Very good. Has anybody got any further questions? Joel.

Thank you, Chair. It was just to touch upon the—. You mentioned there, Charles, what the Scottish Government are doing to look at maybe more collaboration with the UK Government and whether or not the Welsh Government could do that. Is there a concern, then, that the Welsh Government could be taking on too much, because, as you mentioned earlier, some of the issues that you’re experiencing are because of a delay on the Welsh Government’s side, sort of thing? Again, one of the things that always comes back at me from a casework point of view or an advocacy point of view, I suppose, when I meet with organisations, is that implementation gap. There are warm words coming from the Welsh Government, but on the ground it doesn’t get implemented. Is that a concern there, do you think?

I think certainly I’d like to see more resources made available to the officials to advance this work. I think that would help. It’s hard to say, to be honest, at this stage—I’m really not sure. In relation to what I was previously saying, I do think it’s quite important, more generally across the board, to open up better inter-governmental collaboration following the last few years of tensions we’ve had around the UK Government and the Welsh Government. There are significant capacity constraints. We know that our current human rights frameworks are difficult to apply. We know there are implementation gaps and we know that there are people who aren’t able to get their rights enforced. We’d like to see that addressed, but I think it’s a substantial body of work and there’s no getting around that it is going to be resource intensive to figure out.

Thank you.

One of the constant themes in our negotiations with the Government is around the need for integrated impact assessments, particularly around budgetary proposals and the impact it has on different protected characteristics groups. Is that resistance to do with capacity or is it a reluctance to open up a particular can of worms? Is this something that either the legislative options group or the human rights action group has actually discussed, because it’s the subject of a lot of correspondence with the Finance Committee and us, and the Welsh Government as well?

I don’t think officials have raised specific concerns with us on that level of detail of those integrated impact assessments yet. Certainly, it has featured as a part of our conversations. As I said earlier, we’ve been thinking about a human rights scheme and the multitude of measures that we see as needing to be implemented or strengthened as a part of a human rights Wales Act. Certainly, impact assessment has featured as a part of those conversations, as has the need to consider human rights budgeting, for instance, as a change in how we look at finance, moving forward. But, I don’t think we’re at the level of detail, unfortunately, yet where those concerns have been raised with us by officials.

I mean, you can see there’s a conflict in expending resources on something that you know you’re not going to have the resources to implement, but, if you’re not asking the questions, then you can’t even be intellectually interrogating the policy.

I think, from my experience of working on this, including on children’s rights impact assessments, I think there’s a distinction between what can go into the process—and, as I’ve already said, I think there’s some good work going on within the Welsh Government in integrating human rights into the integrated impact assessment—and then what that impact assessment is actually applied to. There’s been a long-standing issue in the field of children’s rights that a children’s rights impact assessment should be done on the Welsh Government budget generally, and we know about the resistance to that. I think the resistance to that is probably different to the resistance to integrating something into the process. That’s probably more a concern—I don’t know, but it’s probably more a concern—about resources and capacity to actually apply that, rather than, I think, what application of the impact assessment might turn up. I don’t necessarily think officials and Ministers or Cabinet Secretaries are necessarily afraid of the results of the impact assessment; I think it’s just a case of do they have the resource to be able to do it.

Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Unless there are any further questions, I’d like to thank you all for coming along today. I think the fact you’ve all made the journey to be here in person tells us a lot about your commitment to human rights, and we thank you for that. We will, obviously, be sending you a transcript of your evidence, and please do correct it if we’ve recorded it wrong. So, thank you vey much indeed, all of you, for coming. The committee will now take a break until 3.15 p.m., until our next session with the IMA.

Welcome back to the Equality and Social Justice Committee. We're now going to take our third evidence session on the EU settlement scheme and citizens' rights after Brexit. I'm very pleased to welcome three senior people from the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens' Rights Agreements: Miranda Biddle, the chief executive, Rhys Davies, the general counsel, and Victoria Peregrine, the deputy director of operational delivery. Thank you very much indeed, all of you, for coming along. I wanted to start by asking you to just summarise the key issues facing European citizens in Wales relating to the EUSS since we started on this journey in the last three years.

Thank you very much to the committee for having us today. I know that you have had some involvement and engagement with the IMA before, so I won't go back to the beginning; I'll look at the most recent period that we're looking at. I think there are four areas of key issues with EUSS applications and citizens that we particularly wanted to run through with you today, so I'm going to hand over to Rhys, who is going to talk a little bit about the first one. We'd like to talk to you about what we call the unknown cohort and those that we're not sure whether they need to or whether they have applied for the EUSS, and those with indefinite leave to remain. We're then going to talk to you a little bit about some of the challenges around gaining, sustaining and maintaining status. We will, of course, talk to you about digitalisation. I know that it's something that the committee are very keen to talk about. And then we'll talk about some of the empowerment work that the IMA is trying to do. So, I'll hand over to my colleague now.

Thank you. Diolch yn fawr. First of all, looking at some of the work that this committee has already undertaken, looking specifically at the statistics that the Home Office have published around EUSS applications, it's right to start off to recognise that there has been a huge volume of applications that have been determined and have been successfully processed to ensure that a large proportion of individuals who have applied have been able to secure the immigration status and the associated rights that they're entitled to. And I think, as time now elapses post deadline for applications to that scheme, as Miranda alluded to, there is this continued volume of late applications still being made to the EUSS, which indicates that there are still many people out there who still don't have the status. I think it is positive that there are persons who are still able to make applications to the EUSS and are able to secure status where they are entitled to it, and this can be seen as a success, but what we are less, perhaps, knowledgeable around is those individuals who still are yet to make those applications—so, as Miranda touched on, the unknown cohort; those people who are out there, we assume, we think, that still are unable to access the application process and able to access those services or those sources of advice to enable them to make that application. Very much so, I think these are cohorts who are much more difficult to reach, and I think that is true of whether that's a public authority, the Home Office, whether that is those advice providers, but also for us, at the IMA, trying to get the message across to some of these cohorts is very difficult.

Recently we met with the Consular Association in Wales, and we met with various consulates, including the Romanian consul. We know from the statistics that have been published recently that, of those who've made late applications to the EUSS across the UK, 34 per cent are of Romanian descent. That is a very large proportion, but what the Romanian consulate was telling us was that there remains large numbers of Romanian citizens in Wales in particular who are not aware or not knowing that they need to apply. So, there does remain this cohort who have yet to apply, and if we think about some of those who are possibly in that category, whether that's some of the work that this committee has focused on on the Roma community, but also those perhaps who have been here for just many decades, who have been here possibly before the UK even joined the EU, who have been told that they have indefinite leave to remain in the UK, and they suddenly find themselves told that, at this stage, they were meant to have applied to EUSS—. And I think, for us, it's about understanding the ongoing process for applying, how that process can be made as easy as possible for those who do have good reason for applying late to be able to secure their status, whether that is with or without support of those organisations who are funded and are able to support.

Well, I think the issue is—. You say 'good reason' for being able to apply, but anybody who is a EU citizen and who didn't know about this—. I think one of the big concerns we have is that there are now barriers being put up to make it easier to chuck people out, basically. And the people we're talking about are those who most need help, so members of the Roma community, people who are not digitally online, who may not be in formal work, maybe part of the informal economy, or maybe so elderly that they don't need to engage with the world of work. But all of these people are vulnerable people if they suddenly find they don't have rights as a citizen of this country that they thought they had, because they've been contributing for years and years. So, I think the fact that there's a continuous significant number of people continuing to apply remains a huge cause of concern, and as the Romanian embassy is telling you, there are a lot of other people out there who still haven't got in that late application.

So, I think, it's really—. If you can just outline why it's now so much more difficult than it was in the first instance to be considered, and the quality of the evidence that people need to apply, and that they may have great difficulty in providing paperwork and things like that.

Yes, I'll continue, and I think that this comes on to one of the second themes that we were going to highlight today around the key issues facing individuals—it is around that quality of evidence to assert status in the first place, but also to maintain that thereafter. But I think you're referring to the changes made to the reasonable grounds test. So, until very recently, there wasn't so much focus on the need to provide reasonable reasons for having applied late. That change came about in 2023, in August 2023, and we saw large volumes of applications then being rejected for having failed to give good reason for a late application. Now, we have looked at that from the independent monitoring authority’s perspective, and whilst in principle there is the possibility to undertake that process to ensure that good reasons are given for lateness, I think one of the focus areas for us was around this potential cohort, and it continues to be our focus, especially those who have had indefinite leave to remain and simply didn't know, as you put it, that they need to apply. And we know that the guidance was relaxed somewhat in January of this year to allow those who may reasonably be expected not to have known, and have had indefinite leave to remain.

But we do continue to monitor the different cohorts that will find difficulties in providing that evidence, as you put it, because I think what we're talking about here is many individuals who will not have clear evidence of paying tax, clear employment records, clear rental agreements. And it's about ensuring that the processes that the Home Office have in place cater for those possibilities and allow for individuals to be able to provide the information that they have to support applications. So, it's not a one-size-fits-all approach, and there is a case-by-case assessment of each individual who makes an application to the EUSS, and we will be continuing to monitor that going forward.

And you remain in contact, do you, with all the people who have had their applications rejected?

So, us personally at the IMA, we are not necessarily in contact with individual citizens, other than those who report a complaint to us. So, for example, if an individual feels that they have been accorded an incorrect decision, they might report to the IMA that the public authority, or the Home Office, has not ensured that they have their rights secured. So, we will then look at that complaint, and we will take that forward, but we won't have those individual experiences of each individual who have applied to the scheme. That will be more for the Home Office, who will have the records of each individual application. They will be communicating with each individual who will apply, rather than us at the IMA.

Okay. It's difficult to envisage how those people are going to have support to assert their rights. How will they find out about you if they didn't know that they had to apply by the deadline? 

So, I think that's what we're introducing. I think there are three groups for us at the IMA. The first group is those that didn't know or haven't yet applied. So, that was what we call the 'unknown cohort'. So, I think, in Wales, there has been—. I mean, nationally, there's been some success. The non-governmental organisations, the charity groups—you've had the3million and Settled here—have been really good at promoting reaching out into communities. Certainly, I think Welsh Government have done some really good awareness raising, and there are more factsheets and information available on the Welsh Government site than there are in the UK and some of the devolved nations. So, I think there has been a real effort at pushing out and telling people that they need to apply. 

And I think the proof is in the pudding a little bit. We had a quick look at the data before we came in, and there have been nearly another 125,000 applications in Wales alone in 2024. So, if I was feeling half full, I would be saying some of the awareness has been really good about reaching out to communities and saying when they need to apply. If I was feeling slightly less optimistic, I'd be saying that that shows the size of the iceberg. 

In terms of applications within Wales, we understand that, again, there's been an increase, of course. Roughly, 88.7 per cent of applications in Wales—so, when a citizen puts an application in, they have had their status allocated, but only half of those have got settled status. So, where this starts impacting is that second group. So, you know you need to apply, you apply, and then around half of those have pre-settled status. And that's the concern that I think we collectively share: is the system efficient? Do people know what evidence they need to provide? Are they being supported through those applications, and are they progressing quickly enough? And I think we would share the committee's concern that, as of the end of June, according to the Home Office figures, there are still 1,500 applications where citizens are still waiting for an outcome. So, the first group is those, 'Do they know they need to apply?', then they apply. There's then a little bit of a hold, and that's the pre-settled status. And that's the concern about having the right evidence and having the right information.

I think, alongside the Welsh Government, the charitable organisations and the citizen representative groups, the IMA also has a part to play in that, so that we do seek improved guidance from the Home Office, so what evidence is expected. We look at some of the key themes of refusals around eligibility, and we would highlight how that needed to be improved. But, as you say, there's intersectionality within that group, so some of that group won't have the evidence trail that's required. They may have additional vulnerabilities where they need some support, and there are some groups that need additional layers of support. And I think the committee have talked about that with children and young people, and also with the elderly population as well. 

Okay, thank you. Carolyn Thomas.

Which public bodies do you proactively monitor in Wales? 

Shall we go for a bit of both? 

Yes. Do you want me to start on the legislation—[Inaudible]?

Yes. 

So, I suppose there's a range of things that we do in terms of how we go about monitoring. I think one of the key things that we are required to do is to look at legislation that comes out across the UK, but particularly from the Senedd but also the Welsh Ministers. To date, we have been going about this by looking at any new legislation that is made that we feel can affect, or could affect, EU citizens. So, evidently, in terms of how we go about that, Welsh Ministers would be one of the key partners that we would look at in terms of the legislation that they make in relation to EU citizens. And to date, we have looked at three pieces of legislation that they have made that we feel concern EU citizens' rights. They have been in the areas of NHS charges, student finance and the recognition of professional qualifications.

I think one particular example is a piece of legislation that dealt with the charging for NHS treatment. We felt that that legislation incorrectly provided for the charging of unsuccessful applicants to the EU settlement scheme—so, those who have applied, and, during that period, had received healthcare treatment, and then, subsequently, been charged when they've been found to not to have rights in the withdrawal agreement. Whilst they were an applicant, we felt that they had the right. So, we raised that with the Welsh Government, and had conversations with policy officials at Welsh Government, and they recognised the issue and brought forward a set of regulations that corrected the issue within two months. I think that that, generally speaking, reflects the positive engagement that we have, generally, with the Welsh Government on these issues—and I'm sure Vick and Miranda could come in and add to that. But we've gone in to speak to their officials, we've spoken to their lawyers, and talked about the work that the IMA does, talked about how there is a shared responsibility to look at these issues in Wales, and to make sure that the experience of citizens in Wales that have wrestled with the withdrawal agreement is a positive one.

And we're pleased that you're engaging with the Senedd today as well—so the Parliament as well as the Government.

Absolutely. And I think it's a balance for us, with the reserved matters, so it's what goes across the four nations, of course with immigration not being devolved, and some of the benefits system not being devolved. So, I guess our challenge is that, when we're working with the Westminster-based policy and legislation, we also advocate on behalf of the devolved authorities. So, we will highlight good practice in Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland. We have, as you know, the devolved authorities joint meetings, to try and bring in that air of challenge as well. So, we have to balance with both. So, some of our engagement with public authorities would, of course, be the Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions, some of the housing elements. We've then got some of the local interventions that we're looking at. But we're also trying to build our reach in devolved authorities, so looking at joining up with other ombudsmen, regulators, other citizens-led groups, to make sure that we are pivoting where we need to, where it's a national, across-the-four-countries issue, and what is Welsh specific.

Okay. So, have you monitored any of the NHS health boards in Wales at that level? Have you done any monitoring there, as an example?

So, I don't think that, to date, there has been anything particular. Because I think that, when it comes to looking at the health policy, we focus on the policy, as opposed to at the transactional level, to date. And I think that the legislation I talked about, that was very much about the Welsh Government stated policy that would then be applied. And I think that, every time that we've looked at issues in the healthcare arena, we've always gone to the Welsh Government, I think, first, and resolved any issues. So, as far as I know, we haven't been made aware of any issues that have come up in a more localised setting, when it comes to access to healthcare or anything else.

If there are issues with legislation going through Welsh Government that you might have concerns with, how would we know about that, or the public know, having that awareness, so that there'd be a greater understanding of what's right and what's wrong, basically?

So, one of the things that we do do is to publish the reports that we do prepare in relation to any legislation that comes through, across the UK. And I think that one of the things that we can commit to doing is highlighting those reports to this committee, and others who may have an interest, where we do publish reports on a Welsh-specific piece of legislation.

That would be useful. Thank you. So, your 2024-27 strategy says that you will monitor Welsh legislation as part of monitoring and ensuring the effective delivery of citizens' rights. So, how do you do this, then?

So, I think the main way that we've tried to do that is looking at new legislation that comes through, as I mentioned earlier, and looking to see where there is the possibility that there may be something that could affect citizens' rights. So, we have done that today, we'll continue doing that today, and we'll publish our report, and after today, we'll commit to sighting the Senedd committees on those.

But I think it goes beyond that. I think there is a—. It is not guaranteed that every single issue that could affect a citizen is plainly set out in the legislation, so we do then derive insight from other sources of information. So, thinking specifically about some of the organisations that you've heard from already, like the3million and Settled, we'll engage with them regularly and they will tell us about particular issues. We'll look to see, 'Well, where does that derive from? Is it from the legislation, is it from the policy, is it at a transactional level?' And that could then inform further work that we could be doing in terms of, 'What does the legislation say and is there a problem at a more fundamental level, rather than individual decision making?' So, I suppose it's using all the different sources of information that we have, including complaints that we do receive, to build the picture.

Okay. Thank you.

Sioned just wanted to pick up on—.

I'm able to help with this one. So, an example of where we've delved a bit deeper is the looked-after children work we've done. So, the issues there were that some children who were in care were in a vulnerable position, would have relied on parents or caregivers or guardians to have made applications on their behalf. So, we did a piece of assurance work, in operations, where we contacted all the local authorities in Wales to understand their processes and their policies and how they safeguarded those rights in practice. That was a successful piece of work, and we were able to complete Wales first out of the four countries, and that's all been published now—I know it's mentioned in the report from last year as well. So, that was a great example: every local authority was contacted, and we were able to share best practice with the permission of Wrexham—they'd identified some really good practice—that was spread around Wales, and in that way, we can provide assurance without waiting for problems to arise with individuals.

I think I'd add—. So, we are looking at systemic issues. If something is reported to us by a complaint, by an individual citizen, from one of the support groups or, indeed, from a host organisation, we would then do that assurance exercise and then look, 'Is that something that we need to monitor directly or is it something that we can ask somebody else to do on our behalf?' So, it may well be that we take on more of that regulator role, that we would ask a public authority to assure us, with their own data and investigations, or it may be that we'd look at another regulator, an ombudsman, and ascertain whether they pick that up. So, some of the work we're looking at at the moment, for example, is with housing: what should be with the housing ombudsman? If it's a generic, systemic experience for citizens, irrelevant of their status, should we ask them to look at that? If it was health or education, should we be looking at the inspectorate framework? If it's health, is it the Care Quality Commission? So, I think, being really clear, there's a mix of: where do we provide additionality of that independence review, when can we get some of that evidence from others, and when should it be an investigatory assurance exercise from another body?

Very good. Carolyn, did you have any further questions?

Yes. Do you think that your approach is proactive enough, or do you think it's a little bit cautious, or do you think it's resources?

I might start, and I think it's about balance. I think it's about ensuring that we have a balanced approach to how we look at what issues may arise for citizens. I think we have a duty to receive complaints, so that has to be part of our process; we have to assess those, we have to look at what they tell us and look to identify the systemic issues. We have also undertaken that more proactive approach in terms of assurance pieces like the looked-after children work that Victoria mentioned, but I think there are a number of instances where stakeholders are bringing us issues, and that also gives us a different picture. I know that Miranda has recently met some organisations about how we can better use the data and information that they have to help inform our work. But I think in terms of being cautious, I think what we're looking to do is to have all the information before us, or the information that we need to make decisions, and that includes engaging with the public authorities as well, so we do regularly meet with public authorities to understand their new policies, to understand how they may affect citizens. So, I think, for me, it's about balancing all those different sources and trying to build a picture to identify where those systemic issues are.

Okay. Thank you.

Great, thank you very much. Julie Morgan.

Yes, I think it was Settled and the3million who said they thought you were too cautious. Did you discuss that with them?

We've had subsequent meetings, so I think Kate Smart, the chief executive officer, did indicate she was meeting with me the following week, after her attendance. I think there's a couple of bits of balance. I think some of the criticism, which I understand from Settled and the3million, is: do we wait too long, is our bar too high, are we asking for too much information before we take action? And some of that is difficult because there are many occasions—and Victoria might be able to go through some of those in a moment—when one complaint or one piece of information might be enough for us then to push forward and take some action; other times, you might need more evidence.

So, for example, Rhys has talked about student finance. So, one student coming forward with the evidence that they've had a different experience is easier for us to move forward. When there are some anecdotal perceptions of different treatments and a couple of examples with a big department, you might need more examples, and I think some of the frustration is, 'Why can we not be more proactive and say there might a problem here?' Now, one of the ways that we're addressing that with Settled and the3million and others is looking at how we can get some of the information from them and treat that in the same way as a complaint. So, some of the challenge that we will have is, if we have three complaints, somebody like Settled might have 300 contacts that's showing a very different story, so what we're trying to do is to collate those examples so that we can move forward, so bringing that information together. I think some of the other criticism was around litigation and what cases we take forward and what our strategy and approach is.

And I think, on that front, what we look to do every time there is a case that we feel has value and is providing additionality is to look at what we believe the withdrawal agreement says, and I think it is understandable with any legal document that there are always going to be different perspectives, there are going to be different views, otherwise us lawyers would be out of a job. And I think one of the things that we have found to date is that, on occasion, we will be on the other side of the fence compared to the Government; on occasion, we will have a different view to some of the sector representative organisations like the3million; and often we find ourselves in the middle, between, so ploughing a furrow where we feel is where the withdrawal agreement provides, and on occasion that does mean that when we go to court we might give a different opinion. But I think what comes out quite strongly in our litigation strategy is our view that we are there to provide additionality and to give the court all the material it needs to make the right decision. Now, that doesn't always mean that every citizen will have what they feel that they're entitled to, but I think what we try to do is to give the best view that we can in those cases.

Thank you.

Perhaps I can give an example.

Yes.

For example, there was a single complaint received from a citizen about the eligibility criteria for housing access in Pembrokeshire, and we took action on that, and we were able to do early case resolution with Pembrokeshire council to resolve that and correct the wording, so the eligibility criteria was reflected accurately. So, just an example. It's only something simple, but, to that citizen, it had a significant impact. But it does show that we only need one complaint to act, and sometimes we need no complaints to act because we can use other data sources to identify issues.

Thank you. Then to go on to the Home Office data, we understand that the available data doesn't break down by means of different countries. Is that true?

So, it is—. Sorry.

We'll both say. It does break down by country, but it doesn't break down by nationality. So, I think where the challenge is—. So, you can look if the applicant's nationality is seen as Polish, Bulgarian, Romanian. What it won't show is if they were born outside the EU, it won't show dual nationality, it won't show ethnicity. So, I think that's the point that's been raised with the committee in terms of, 'Is there a disproportionate experience for some citizens and how can you track that and evidence that in the data?' Is that what you were going to say?

Yes, that's what I was going to say.

So, in relation to Wales, how does that work out then? How does that give us—? How are we able to find out stuff for Wales?

So, the data that the Home Office produces is broken down at Welsh level. So, you can see Wales as a whole. You can also see each of the counties in Wales, and you can drill down the evidence in terms of age, demographic and country, but you won't be able to see nationality. So, it's difficult to get into some of that intersectionality. So, we briefly mentioned, like with the Roma population, the Roma population from one nation. So, it's hard to track through, 'Is there a disproportionate outcome?'

The Home Office data, you can break it down in terms of status—so, settled, pre-settled or rejected—but what's hard to do is that analysis of tracking repeat applications and splitting it down into the demographics, and that's because, currently, that's not collated or reported by the Home Office. I know that that is something on which we would share some frustrations with citizens' rights groups, because how do you challenge some of those perceptions and assumptions and see whether it's the case? We talked earlier on about some of those nations, and certainly when we talked to the consuls of Wales, they were saying, 'It doesn't feel right because we kind of know there's this many citizens from our country in Wales, but this is how many applications you've got, and that doesn't feel quite right.' So, there are some limitations to the data, currently.

Thank you.

So, just to clarify, following the landmark ruling that you managed to obtain in December 2022, these 40,000 plus citizens who've got pre-settled status, how will you be able to track that they are going to get permanency, now that the High Court has ruled that it was illegal to prevent that? In that there's a number here, obviously it wouldn't give us names, but how do you know that all these people have been informed that they don't need to reapply, that they can assume that they have the right to remain in this country?

Where to start? Part of the work that we have done following that judgment is to engage with the Home Office to understand how they will go about implementing that judgment, and they have announced a number of measures that they will put in place. Now, one of the things that they have done is to provide for an extension to pre-settled status, initially by two years, then subsequently by five years. But what the judgment actually says is that pre-settled status is lifelong. So, once you have the right under the withdrawal agreement, you have it. You do not lose it for failure to make a second application for settled status. And what we have at the IMA—. In terms of data or information about that cohort and whether or not they do upgrade to settled status or they do acquire permanent residents' rights, we don't have that information, but what we do have is the work that we are doing with the Home Office to assess their systems, to assess are those extensions being implemented, so getting that assurance from the Home Office to explain to us what processes they are following to ensure that that is happening.

And I think the additional steps that we sought to take following that judgment was to ensure that the practical impacts were also mitigated for citizens. So, the other steps that the Home Office have announced that they have now put in place are to remove expiry dates from third party checking services. So, as an EU citizen, when you come to being employed, when you come to enter a tenancy agreement, you will need to demonstrate that you have the right to do so. Now, what we have provided is that, if you are looking to secure a tenancy, what that landlord will not now see is an expiry date. So, we felt that, practically, that removes the risk—albeit an unknown risk—that they could be discriminated against because they are seen as someone with a temporary status, whereas the judgment was quite clear that it was not a temporary status. And one of the other steps linked to that is to remove the requirement to recheck. So, where you have temporary status under the immigration system in the UK, those third party checkers—so, your landlords, your employers—there is a requirement to recheck on occasion to make sure that they still have those rights. Now, as I’ve just mentioned, someone with a pre-settled status, that is not a temporary status under the withdrawal agreement; that is there until there is something that intervenes or happens to remove those rights, such as conduct or absence from the UK. And I think removing that requirement to recheck again mitigates that risk of discrimination that could arise because of an incorrect assumption that there is a temporary nature to pre-settled status.

Okay. But what capacity do you have, in light of the history of the Windrush generation, that the Home Office is adhering to the High Court ruling?

So, for the past—. Since the ruling, we have been in discussions with the Home Office around those processes. So, I think it’s for us to assess those processes, to understand what those processes mean, how do they apply to EU citizens, what fail-safes there are, what steps are they taking to assure themselves that no-one is falling through the cracks. But we also rely quite heavily on individuals. We also rely on sector groups to tell us where they are seeing problems. So, to give an example, we did, or were told of a couple of incidences where individuals had not seen their pre-settled status be extended on their UK visas and immigration status, which is their online tool that gives them their immigration status, and we took that to the Home Office. The Home Office were not aware of those instances and they took steps to remedy those. And as part of that, it’s about us checking with them, ‘Well, what are your processes? How are you making sure that this doesn’t happen again?’ And I think that is something that will be ongoing for quite some time. So, we have an existing work stream that will be monitoring the Home Office and how they ensure that those extensions are in place to, hopefully, limit any negative impacts for citizens.  

Thank you. Can I call Joel James?  

Thank you, Chair, and thanks ever so much for coming in this afternoon. Rhys, you touched upon there about the work you’ve been doing with the Home Office, and I just wonder if it was possible to get an idea, for the benefit of the committee, of how well you work with the Welsh Government and the UK Government, how you—you know, the logistics of it, sort of thing. And I know, also, you have sort of like a memorandum of understanding with the Welsh Government, and I was just wondering how effective that is as well. Thank you. 

That's a big question in many parts. Shall I start a little bit about the Home Office and some of the—? I guess it goes back to the point that I was saying before, that there are kind of two camps with our work; one because it’s a reserved matter, so you might be working to Westminster and committees and departments on behalf of the four nations. So, in terms of that relationship, we have regular practitioner meetings—with some departments, that would be weekly, with the Home Office and some of the big departments—so, looking at that practitioner to practitioner, getting the updates, working and seeing what’s happening.

We then have quite a close relationship with some departments that we're now looking at how can we improve public transparency. So, we would act as a critical friend for some of their publications. We are becoming more active at giving regular updates of what's being said and what isn't. We would routinely meet with senior public officials and Ministers, particularly for those reserved matters, because that's on behalf of all four. We would then meet, both at practitioner level and strategically, with cross-Government approaches, be that in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the collaborative approach, and we have a number of activities that we would work with. So, we've met with Jane Hutt. We would come and give information to yourselves. We have the devolved authorities group. And there is direct contact with Welsh Government as well. Indeed, we were due to host some of your colleagues a couple of weeks ago, but unfortunately I think we've had to rain check that because of somebody's illness. So, there's a range of activities that we would do at operational practitioner level, but also working with public officials and Ministers, to influence and to seek solutions to some of the problems that we have.

Sorry, I mentioned the memorandum of understanding that you have with the Welsh Government. Do you find that that's quite effective there in terms of knowing the roles that are set out for yourselves and the Welsh Government?

So, I think, in terms of the Welsh Government, as I mentioned earlier, there is a positive engagement there, and I think that is illustrated by the fact that they were due to come to Swansea last week. I think there is certainly an attitude to learn what we are doing operationally, how citizens' rights form part of policy making in the Welsh Government, and I think it is worth highlighting good practice. In terms of the integrated impact assessment template that the Welsh Government does have, there is a clear section there that deals with citizens' rights. I think, with memorandums of understanding, they are there more when things perhaps—. It sets the framework for the relationship and it helps to set the parameters, certainly, but I think it's more there for when things possibly go wrong, and I think, to date, with the Welsh Government, we have seen, because of the positive engagement that we've had and the example that I mentioned earlier in terms of the NHS charges regulations, that we haven't had to rely too much on the memorandum of understanding, but it is there to set the framework there, and not just for us but also for those people out there who don't know our work day to day, so those citizens of Wales who are interested can have a look to see, well, what is the nature of the relationship between the IMA and the Welsh Government. That is published on our website for all to see.

Do you think that there's anything more that the Welsh Government could be doing?

Sorry for the awkward question. [Laughter.]

It's not awkward. It's a good question, and I think it is a question that we need to be asking ourselves, and not just about the Welsh Government but across the board. There are questions. Could we be doing more? Could different public authorities be doing more? If we're talking about how can we find the best source of information, how can we make sure that we are able to influence change? I think, I suppose, one area that applies across the board is earlier engagement in terms of policies. Now, I don't think that necessarily in Wales we have seen policies that engage citizens' rights too often. and not in a dramatic way, but it's certainly something that we are calling for across the board, across the UK, that, where policy makers are thinking about making changes that could affect citizens' rights, then they could come to us more proactively to discuss things with us, because, if we possibly have seen something elsewhere, we can provide that information to get people to learn from best practice. And I think—. In the looked-after children work that Victoria mentioned earlier, we used Wrexham as one of the best cases, as a template for across the UK. That was the one that we pointed to, the processes that they had there: 'This is good practice. What you have currently in your local authority maybe could be improved—have a look at this to see how you could implement similar kinds of policies and processes, to ensure that no looked-after children fall through the cracks.'

Perfect. One of the issues that's often raised with us as a committee—. Obviously, we have a good working relationship with the Welsh Government. They come and we question them quite regularly and they highlight the short-term funding that they provide, what they're doing to raise awareness. But one of the things that gets highlighted to us is that, really, they should be looking more at longer term, almost generational. Is that something that you've picked up as well, in your dealings with them, really?

Yes, and it links with Rhys has said. I think MOUs are stand-alone. In Wales, we benefit from future generations and the commitment to anti-racism, where citizens' rights fall in. So, I think that appetite for cohesiveness and thinking proactively we've perhaps seen more in the devolved nations, and we certainly see it in Wales because of the legislation. But one of the bits that Rhys was alluding to is that we look at what's needed now but perhaps what would be beneficial or what does it genuinely mean for future generations—so, if we're spotting a trend or a potential problem now, what would happen later. So, that importance of your equality impact assessments when policy is being developed, but also doing that 'What if?' scenario. So, what if the children of this generation—? If we know—. We've talked about looked-after children, so we know that that's an issue now whilst they're children. If you extrapolate that into the future, what future challenges might they have with proving their digital footprint and what can we do now to equip them so that, in 10 years' time, they can do that? It's some of that longer term planning of what does it mean for the next generation or the generation after that. 

Perfect. Thank you. Chair, just one final question, if that's okay. So, last year, the Welsh Government's European Union settlement scheme co-ordination group was reconstituted, basically, into the European citizens rights forum. Do you have much interaction with them? Do you attend their meetings, or are you invited to them?

There are two members on it, but they're not the individuals in front of us today, according to the information provided by the Welsh Government. But, presumably, that's a way in which you can maintain contact with the wider stakeholders group and their concerns. So, your colleagues will feed back to you.

Absolutely. And we picked up the feedback from the previous committee of could that be stronger, could there be a different kind of engagement on those reserved matters, and that's something that we'll discuss and pick up and look to see if we can support as well.

Excellent. Thank you. Sioned Williams. 

That's like a killer exam question. [Laughter.] I guess the difficulty that I think there is sometimes is: do we know everyone who is impacted? So, that goes back to the first point that we were saying about the unknown quantity. We are looking at the moment at those with indefinite leave to remain, and I think there is a concern there. People did have indefinite leave to remain; they're now being informed that they need to apply for the scheme. And I think that creates more concern and evidence. I think, with the EUSS scheme, there have been some lessons learned, but it's those challenges of how do you provide your evidence trail of residence, which could be over a significant time. 

We were at the European Affairs Committee in Westminster in May, and I was sharing the story of a family that I'd met in Peterborough—an Italian family had been running a local business in Peterborough since the early 1960s, and it was a real shock to them that they suddenly found out that, actually, this was involving them too and that they needed to apply not just for themselves but for their children and their grandchildren, and one great-grandchild. And they were sharing that experience of, 'Well, I haven't kept all of the evidence to demonstrate that 50-year period. Does that mean there's now a problem?' So, I think we're all concerned about that risk of Windrush, and part of the challenge around Windrush was not knowing until it became a critical incident. So, I think it is something we're always mindful and watchful of, and we're concerned about are we in contact, does everybody know that falls under the scope. We have some concerns around how do you provide that evidence, and where's the backup and support—so, if you have a challenge, have you got an organisation to go to. With Windrush, you'll be very mindful there wasn't the same support, there wasn't the same help that you could go and get, and advice, until it became a critical point. I think some lessons have been learned cautiously, but it's something where we should never say never, and we should be very mindful of. That would be my view.

I think there are a couple of challenges. When you’re looking at national or country-wide policy, it’s slightly easier to share that. I think some of the challenges that we all face are when it then comes down to local authorities and smaller organisations, and how do you raise that awareness and keep that awareness. I think that’s the challenge. I don’t think it’s just for our work and for EUSS citizens; I think that’s across the board. I think there are some challenges when you look at specific vulnerabilities, where there are multiple needs, and how does that get challenging. So, if you are looking for housing provision, that can be challenging for all citizens or residents if you’re then having to prove and reprove your status on top. If you’ve got a scarce resource, how do you make sure that that’s allocated fairly in terms of the process?

In terms of the policy and the legislation, it doesn’t always feel like it, but, sometimes, that’s easier. It’s then around how that’s delivered on the ground and how do you keep going. We're mindful at the IMA that, of course, gaining status is a big focus for us still, because of those numbers that are still to get status, but as a citizen said to me at an event a couple of weeks ago, getting your status is a journey, it’s not an event, because even when you’ve got your status, you then need to continually be able to access your rights. I guess the Windrush bit is that fear of, 'Will that change, will there be slippage, will I be forgotten about, will I have to go through this process again?’

I think some of our challenges are reminding people of the rights under the withdrawal agreement, ensuring people have got that status, but, then, it’s about how do you maintain, so that people can exercise those rights, that they can thrive in their communities, and that we don’t just forget it for future generations. It’s not a one-off event; it’s something that needs to be continually monitored.

Thank you very much. The clock has beaten us. Just to say that we are going to be debating the most recent annual report in Plenary on 5 November. That's important because obviously Members of this committee are familiar with some of the complexities of this issue, but others may not be, so it will be an opportunity for us to explain to people why they need to worry about this. Somebody from your team might be interested in just seeing how that goes. Otherwise, we'll obviously send you a transcript of your contributions, and please do amend them if we've got it wrong. Thank you very much indeed for your attendance today. We look forward to remaining in touch with you. Thank you.

There are nine papers to note, and I wondered if you were content to approve them. Thank you.

The committee will next meet on 30 September, where we will have the first of our disability employment and payment gap inquiry sessions with a whole host of experts in this field.

Under Standing Order 17.42, can we now resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of this meeting? Thank you.