UNCRC (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 - part 2 and 3 (section 18) - statutory guidance: consultation analysis

Part 3 Guidance

Introduction

This section of the consultation document sought feedback on the draft statutory guidance on Part 3 (section 18) of the UNCRC (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. It is of particular relevance to public authorities listed in section 19 of the Act. The guidance aims to promote understanding, implementation and operation of Part 3 (section 18) of the Act which sets out the reporting duty on listed authorities. Part 3 of the Act sets out the following duties:

• Duties on Scottish Ministers to prepare and publish a Children’s Rights Scheme;
• Duties on Scottish Ministers to produce Child Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessments (CRWIAs), in certain circumstances;
• Reporting duty of listed authorities;
• Reporting duty of the Scottish Parliament; and
• Amendments made to the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, including the repeal of the current reporting duties under Part 1 (Rights of Children).

Consultation questions focused on Part 3 (section 18):

• Section 4: Reporting duties of listed authorities;
• Section 5: Publication requirements of reports;
• Section 6: Policy intention of children’s rights reports under section 18 of the Act;
• Annex B: Frameworks for children’s rights reporting; and
• Annex C: Scottish Government use of children’s right’s reports.

Q15. I have read the draft statutory guidance on Part 3 (section 18) of the UNCRC Act

	Number	Percent	Valid Percent
Yes	78	85%	97.5%
No	2	2%	2.5%
Not Answered	12	13%	nil
Total	92	(n=92)	(n=80)

Section 4: Reporting duties of listed authorities

Q16. Section 4, ‘Reporting duties of listed authorities’ is sufficiently clear on the reporting requirements under Part 3 of the Act

	Number	Percent	Valid Percent
Strongly Agree	16	17%	20%
Agree	51	56%	65%
Neither agree nor disagree	9	10%	11%
Disagree	3	3%	4%
Strongly Disagree	0	0%	0%
Not Answered	13	14%	nil
Total	92	(n=92)	(n=79)

The majority (85%, n=67) of respondents who answered the closed element of this question agreed or strongly agreed that Section 4, ‘Reporting duties of listed authorities’ was sufficiently clear on the reporting requirements under Part 3 of the Act. Very few respondents (4%, n=3) disagreed.

Reasons for support

Generally, respondents agreed that this section of the guidance was helpful, and that it clearly articulated the requirements in a detailed and comprehensive manner. Respondents felt this section was useful in understanding the reporting requirements, what was required and when, and that the reporting timescales/cycle and the requirements to publish were clear.

A large number of specific elements were also welcomed, and considered to be clear and/or helpful, including:

• The backward and forward looking approach to reporting so that public authorities would be required to evaluate progress and set goals for going forward;
• That the actions of all services need to be considered and not just the actions of children’s services;
• The information on what could be used for a baseline, and the evidence to be collected (although a few also felt the guidance could be clearer on how data is to be collected);
• The requirement for disaggregated data;
• The need to engage a diverse range of children and their caregivers;
• The opportunity to consider alignment of reporting;
• The non-prescriptive nature of the format of children’s reports; and
• The guidance on child friendly/easy read reports, as well as the requirement for children and young people to be involved in their preparation.

Caveats, concerns and reasons for disagreeing

Similar to much of the Part 2 feedback, many of the open ended comments outlined caveats to support, concerns about aspects of the guidance, and suggestions to further improve the draft document.

The most common issues included:

• A need/desire for more prescriptive information;
• A need/desire for greater clarity over the timing of reports/reporting dates;
• Concerns over listed authorities capacity to accommodate additional reporting requirements;
• More information and suggestions related to combined reports;
• Support and concern over the need for consultation and engagement with children and young people and their families;
• That a wider range of vulnerable children and young people needed to be included within the data collection and consultation and engagement processes;
• A need/desire for clearer terminology; and
• Accessibility issues.

Each of these issues will be outlined in more detail below.

More prescriptive information

While some respondents appreciated the non-prescriptive nature of the guidance, a few raised concerns about the broad scope for variation and potential inconsistency across listed authority reports. It was noted that this could impact on the success of other aims set out in the guidance, such as the development of a national level report and the ability to share learning and good practice:

“…the draft statutory guidance gives scope for a lot of variation in what bodies actually report, which might limit the reports’ ability to provide a basis for assessing the extent to which public bodies are complying with the duties in the Act. It may also impact on the reports’ ability to achieve some of the broader aims set out in the draft statutory guidance such as capturing learning and sharing good practice examples.” (Organisation)

Several respondents called for more specific guidelines on (a) existing data that could be used to inform reports (including examples available to PVI sector organisations); (b) engagement with children and young people, and (c) the format and content of reports. A few also requested an agreed template or format for reports. This was said to be necessary, both to provide consistency across Scotland, and to support listed authorities with preparation.

Some referenced the requirement to provide a child friendly report and called for more specific information about what was required - for example, what would be the definition of an easy read or inclusive version and what might these look like. A quality assurance process was also considered important to ensure child friendly reports would be realised in practice.

Two organisations also called for more detailed examples of how the reporting duties applied to different sectors/types of organisations and to commissioned services. It was felt that this was required to provide clarity and to ensure better understanding and compliance.

Timing of reports/reporting dates

It was felt that greater clarity may be needed around the timeline for reporting and that the details provided in this regard were currently vague and potentially confusing. Indeed, a few respondents raised questions regarding specific reporting periods and potential gaps in reporting timelines, suggesting a lack of understanding of the reporting expectations.

While one organisation supported the three year reporting cycle, (as this aligned with other reporting timescales), others suggested that careful consideration needed to be given to report timings to ensure alignment with other reporting cycles. This was requested to ensure it would be possible to combine reports and support delivery.

A few respondents argued that the timeframe for submitting reports needed to be more prescriptive to avoid different interpretations, delays and a breakdown in trust:

“…listed authorities are only required to submit reports 'as soon as reasonably practical'. A definitive timeline would be more prudent as the word reasonable is open to interpretation and its removal would prevent delays in the submission of reports.” (Organisation)

Limited capacity

Some respondents were concerned about the existing burden of data collection, consultation and reporting, which may be further exacerbated by other forthcoming legislation. Current staffing and budget constraints within the public sector were flagged, along with concerns around capacity and timescales to implement all the new requirements. It was felt that this needed to be taken into account, and that any timescales set needed to be realistic:

“We are aware of a number of other consultations and emerging statutory requirements e.g. Human Rights Bill, Learning Disabilities, Autism and Neurodivergence Bill and Good Food Nation Plans that may require implementation and reporting. As separate statutory duties they add significant pressures on public authorities in compliance and we would welcome consideration of the totality of expectations on Councils.” (Organisation)

One respondent raised a concern outwith the scope of the statutory guidance consultation, about how the additional requirements related to data gathering and reporting would be resourced. They suggested that additional funding for this increased workload would be appreciated.

Combining reports

The ability to align and combine reports was generally welcomed. In particular, it was felt that similar reports should be combined where possible in order to reduce duplication, relieve some of the pressure on listed authorities, and make best use of already stretched resources/limited capacity:

“Alignment of reporting can reduce reporting burden and make important links with equality and children's rights strategies, outcomes and action plans. This could help when public bodies are feeling particularly stretched in terms of capacity.” (Organisation)

There were calls, however, for further thought to be given to cross-cutting agendas and the potential for other current or potentially forthcoming reporting requirements. It was noted that the new requirements in the UNCRC Act would add to a wide range of different reports that were already required from public authorities, including (but not limited to) those required by The Promise, Children's Services Planning Partnerships (CSPP), Local Outcomes Improvement Plans (LOIP), Corporate Parenting Plans and Progress Reporting, Local Child Poverty Annual Reports, and other equalities reports. In addition, potential new reporting requirements created by the Human Rights Bill, the Learning Disability, Autism and Neurodivergence Bill, and the Good Food Nation Plans could result in overlapping content. Respondents therefore stressed the need for reporting to be streamlined to avoided duplication. It was suggested that further guidance on how to map content and combine reports to meet the requirements of all legislation would be helpful, and that the creation of a consistent approach may be required.

One organisation sought clarity over whether children’s rights reports need to form a standalone report, or if this could be included within existing reporting structures. This information had been included in the draft guidance.

Others welcomed the potential for joint reports to be prepared in partnership working situations. However, they noted that there would be practical challenges, particularly for large scale organisations such as the NHS. They stressed that any joint reports should ensure that relevant actions and goals should still be directly attributed to specific organisations to ensure full accountability. It was also suggested that reporting should include information on/contributions from any partner or commissioned services in relation to the functions covered by the section 6 duty in the Act.

Consultation and engagement

Respondents generally welcomed the need for consultation and to involve children and young people and their families in the development of the reports. It was considered important to include the experiences and views of children and parents/ carers. It was also suggested that a rigorous and consistent approach be taken to such engagement.

However, the risks of consultation fatigue and over-consulting with particular groups was also flagged as a concern. It was suggested that listed authorities needed to be mindful of their approaches and use existing data where possible:

“While we strongly support reference to public authorities engaging with children and young people to compile the report, we are conscious of young people telling us that they can feel over-consulted. Authorities should be encouraged to implement meaningful and inclusive participation structures to enable progressive participation practice that continually contributes to their work on being rights respecting, rather than leaning on one-off consultation processes.” (Organisation)

Similarly, it was suggested that the provision of resources to support the creation of accessible, child friendly reports would be helpful in order to avoid further duplication in consultation with young people by many different listed authorities. This could include signposting within the guidance to examples of existing child friendly reports to illustrate the range of styles and materials that could be used. It was also suggested that listed authorities should identify and use existing baseline data, allowing them to focus any primary data collection activities on gaps that need to be addressed.

The need to consider GDPR and informed consent was also flagged in relation to both data gathering and consultation activities, with a suggestion that this should be noted in the guidance.

Range of vulnerable children and young people

A range of children and young people whose rights were more likely to be at risk were noted by respondents, including: those involved with the justice system; children with a parent in prison; care experienced children; young carers; and children in armed forces families. It was highlighted that these children would not be captured under the protected characteristics of the Equality Act, and therefore more dedicated data collection may be required.

Similarly, it was noted that a wide range of children’s views need to be considered in any consultation and report preparation activities. In addition to those noted above, other seldom heard vulnerable groups were highlighted, including: children affected by domestic abuse; migrant children; children living in poverty; disabled children; LGBTI children; ethnic minority children; and girls.

Tighter terminology

Several respondents suggested that tighter language was required at various points throughout Section 4.

A few respondents wanted the language used in relation to the baseline information to either require or more strongly encourage public authorities to consider and measure the impact their actions have had on all children or a targeted group of children, rather than the current terminology of “may wish to consider” - this was felt to be too weak.

Other respondents argued that, under the sections on consultation and engagement and preparing reports, it could be perceived that the involvement of infants, children and young people was optional. Instead, respondents felt the guidance should be firmer and state that they ‘should’ be included and/or that they have a ‘right’ to be included in these aspects:

“In Section 4.3 we would welcome stronger language encouraging the participation of children and young people in the development of reports… fulfilling children’s right to participate when decisions are made about them extends, in our view, to decisions about how public authorities report when developing both their main and their child friendly report.” (Organisation)

A few, however, appreciated the limitations of wording that could be used within statutory guidance.

Accessibility issues

A few respondents also commented on the accessibility of this section:

“I agree that it is “sufficiently clear” as to requirements, but it is not easily accessible. The requirement to refer back to Part Two and to the other hyperlink, does not help the understanding of the reporting requirements, without “deeper digging” to get to the core points being made here. Like with many parts of this “guidance” it is unwieldly and cumbersome and is not as nearly helpful as it could be.” (Organisation)

Specific suggestions were made to improve the accessibility of this section, although it should be noted that each suggestion was typically made by only one respondent, i.e.:

• Chapter 4 is very detailed and would benefit from the inclusion of an executive summary;
• Include a checklist of what is required in each report to improve clarity;
• The information could be clearer around commissioned and independent contractors;
• More details and examples could be provided to make the guidance more applicable to independent and third sector organisations, for example in relation to the types of existing data/information that they could use to establish a baseline; and
• Include (or hyperlink) the listed authorities within the Part 3 guidance to avoid the need to cross-reference documents and allow Part 3 to be a standalone document.

Section 5: Publication requirements of reports

Q17. Section 5, ‘Publication requirements of reports’ is sufficiently clear on the publication requirements under Part 3 of the Act

	Number	Percent	Valid Percent
Strongly Agree	18	20%	23%
Agree	51	55%	64%
Neither agree nor disagree	6	7%	8%
Disagree	4	4%	5%
Strongly Disagree	0	0%	0%
Not Answered	13	14%	nil
Total	92	(n=92)	(n=79)

Most (87%, n=69) of the respondents who answered the closed element of this question agreed that Section 5, ‘Publication requirements of reports’ was sufficiently clear on the publication requirements under Part 3 of the Act. Only four respondents (5%) disagreed, with only one of these commenting that they found it difficult to understand.

Reasons for support

Some respondents stated that the requirements were clear, concise, and included an appropriate level of detail. The allowance for a certain level of flexibility in the report format to facilitate bespoke and creative solutions, as well as the provision of examples, were appreciated:

“This section also gives very helpful practical examples and clear guidance on the expected standard the published report will have to achieve, such as, accessible formats, a child friendly version as well as overarching strategic submission.” (Organisation)

In terms of specific elements that respondents welcomed or supported, some agreed with the stipulation that child friendly versions must be accessible, while others were supportive of the opportunity for joint reporting. A handful of respondents also supported the encouragement to include children, young people and their families/carers, both in the development of reports and upon publication to inform the next reporting cycle. It was felt that this recognised the value of participation as an ongoing process, rather than a ‘one off’ event, and was in keeping with Article 12 of the UNCRC and General Comment 12.

However, it was also stressed that support may be required to allow the views and experiences of children and young people to be heard, and that their feedback needed to be properly considered and given equal weighting to other stakeholders.

Caveats, concerns and recommendations

Concerns were again raised about potential inconsistencies in reporting and the possible impacts this could have on the ability to analyse good practice and identify emerging policy and practice trends:

“…there is a degree of openness to interpretation which may lead to significant differences in quality and practice of reporting across all of the local authority areas.” (Organisation)

One organisation called for overarching quality assurance to ensure that the messages being delivered were both accurate and accessible.

Some respondents suggested that there should be a central reserve for reports and examples of ‘best practice’ made available to all those required to compile similar documents. One organisation felt that a publicly accessible location for reports might also make it easier for children and young people to find the information they require.

A handful of respondents made recommendations on how the reports (rather than the guidance) should be made accessible including:

“…clearly written, concise and jargon free.” (Organisation)

“…infographics, comics, digital stories etc.” (Organisation)

“…fun and concise.” (Organisation)

“Colour contrast, Easy Read versions, large print version, using fonts like ariel or comic sans for people with dyslexia, providing information in multiple formats (not just pdf).” (Organisation)

It was also suggested that this section could benefit from signposting, particularly in relation to accessibility standards. It was noted that existing resources (such as those published by Disability Information Scotland) could support public authorities with the tools to develop accessible reports.

One organisation specifically welcomed the reference to providing reports in different languages, however, another suggested that BSL needed to be added to the list of possible formats, and yet another stated that all information should be provided in both English and Gaelic.

Consistent with concerns raised above, a few respondents took the opportunity to raise concerns outwith the scope of statutory guidance consultation, such as the resource implications of the requirements. One organisation felt the reporting and publication requirements would be resource intensive and that it would involve a significant level of work to develop child friendly and accessible reports which would need to evolve over time and through trialling a range of approaches. As such, they suggested that only one version of the report should be produced for use with all stakeholders. Another was concerned that the need to report on actions periodically meant this needed to occur outwith the statutory reporting requirements, and would therefore become a more burdensome task. Again, it was felt that specific guidance and examples were required in this regard.

A few respondents also felt that the language used in this section needed to be tightened up to ensure certain issues were framed as either expectations or tasks/requirements that must be delivered. They suggested that it was preferable to avoid terms such as ‘should’ or ‘may’. In particular, one respondent suggested that use of the term ‘may’ in ‘Section 5.4: Further engagement’ was inappropriate, as “providing timely and accessible feedback to children and young people who have shared their views is a necessary requirement of meaningful children’s participation” (Organisation). As such, they felt the language used should reflect this.

Other comments and suggestions

A range of other comments and suggestions were made, typically by just one or two respondents each, including the need to:

• Provide more detailed guidance on how to approach reporting for children;
• Explore the option of joint reporting, and provide clarity around the publication of joint and/or combined reports;
• Include details of the reporting cycle, or cross referencing to where these details can be found in the guidance; and
• Make this section clearer so that it is easier to understand (although no further details were provided on how this could be achieved).

Section 6: Policy intention of children’s rights reports under section 18 of the Act

Q18. Section 6, ‘Policy intention of children’s rights reports under section 18 of the Act’, clearly explains how the reporting process contributes to progressing children’s rights

	Number	Percent	Valid Percent
Strongly Agree	13	14%	16.5%
Agree	50	55%	63%
Neither agree nor disagree	13	14%	16.5%
Disagree	3	3%	4%
Strongly Disagree	0	0%	0%
Not Answered	13	14%	nil
Total	92	(n=92)	(n=79)

Over three quarters (79.5%, n=63) of the respondents who answered this closed question either agreed or strongly agreed that Section 6: ‘Policy intention of children’s rights reports under section 18 of the Act’, clearly explained how the reporting process contributes to progressing children’s rights. Very few respondents (4%, n=3) disagreed.

While the consultation questionnaire did not ask for any qualitative feedback at this question, a small number of comments relevant to Section 6 were provided elsewhere.

Two organisations indicated that Section 6 clearly set out the policy intentions. One particularly referenced scrutiny from key stakeholders and the sharing of good practice examples. The other noted the national and international relevance of the children’s rights reports. It was suggested that this section would benefit from the inclusion of a flowchart to illustrate the reporting process.

Another organisation noted that inconsistency in reporting may make it difficult for learning and good practice examples to be identified and shared. Yet another organisation suggested that a decision from Scottish Ministers would be helpful in relation to publishing a separate/additional report for stakeholders in order to capture learning and good practice examples. This respondent also welcomed the information on scrutiny, but suggested it could be linked to the relevant information provided on this in Annex C.

Annexes B.1 - B.4: Frameworks for children’s rights reporting

Q19. Annexes B.1 - B.4 Frameworks for children’s rights reporting are helpful

	Number	Percent	Valid Percent
Strongly Agree	19	21%	24%
Agree	47	51%	59%
Neither agree nor disagree	7	8%	9%
Disagree	6	6%	8%
Strongly Disagree	0	0%	0%
Not Answered	13	14%	nil
Total	92	(n=92)	(n=79)

Most (83%, n=66) of the respondents who answered the closed element of this question agreed or strongly agreed that Annexes B.1 - B.4: Frameworks for children’s rights reporting are helpful. Only a handful of respondents (8%, n=6) disagreed.

Reasons for support

Of those who stated that the frameworks were helpful, several commented that the guidance was strong, clear, concise, and easy to understand:

“This section is an exceptionally helpful aspect of the guidance, it lays out clearly what needs to be considered with a really helpful framework in terms of how to approach this. It covers all aspects, feels very holistic and is written in a way that will aid reporting.” (Organisation)

One of the key areas that respondents supported was the cluster approach (as set out in Annex B.1), with the examples of questions and reflective statements seen as particularly useful. The external resources (at Annex B.4) were also highlighted as being helpful:

“The guidance is very clear on use of clusters to give standardised structure to report submissions. This is a very helpful and practical directive that will aid all public authorities to provide the right information.” (Organisation)

A few respondents also appreciated that this section was non-prescriptive, whilst being practical and outlining options and examples on how reports could be structured. This was considered to be reassuring to listed authorities. One organisation also noted that the cluster approach (at Annex B.1) aligned with the approach and good practice recommended by UNICEF.

A few respondents liked that the frameworks mirrored the approach to UNCRC States Parties reports where relevance could be drawn from the UN Committee’s concluding observations.

Caveats, concerns and recommendations

Consistent with other sections, while most respondents agreed that Annexes B.1 - B.4 were helpful, many of the qualitative comments set out caveats to that support, or highlighted issues, concerns or suggestions for ways to further improve them.

The main issues outlined by respondents included a preference for a more standardised approach to be developed and set out in the guidance; that more information and greater clarity was needed in relation to involving children and young people; as well as comments specific to Annexes B1, B2 and B4. Each will be considered in more detail below.

Develop a standardised approach

Some respondents called for the provision of a more structured approach, additional templates, and example reports to assist their own reporting process and to provide greater consistency/more standardised reporting:

“It may be helpful to provide good examples of report structures. While avoiding being prescriptive, examples of similar good quality reports or basic structures may be helpful for those using the guidance.” (Organisation)

While a few respondents felt that the frameworks and local reporting would support the Scottish Government in producing a collated national level report, as well as its contribution to the UK report, there was concern (consistent with feedback at earlier questions) that, without specific standardisation, listed authority reports may not be directly comparable. It was felt that this may hamper national level reporting.

One respondent, however, expressed a preference for the guidance to allow for more bespoke or creative reporting practices.

Involving children

While one organisation commented that clear guidance had been provided on “the importance of involving children, young people, their families and carers and wider stakeholders in the reporting process”, another said that the guidance needed to be clearer in this respect. They argued that there should be a requirement for children to be included/involved in the assessments. They felt this should be explicitly stated within the frameworks, the guiding questions should include questions suitable for use with children, and an example of a child friendly assessment framework should be provided to illustrate how children can contribute. It was also noted that the guidance did not cover the need for accessible information for children on how listed authorities intend to monitor their reporting processes. Another organisation also stressed the need to “avoid tokenism” when involving children and young people and urged all engagement to be meaningful.

Consistent with feedback on Part 2 Guidance, several respondents again felt that reference to the ‘voice’ of a child should be re-defined to include those who use BSL, or those who are non-speaking or non-verbal. The term ‘children’s voices’ should also include more than just their opinion, it was felt. It should include taking views into account and appropriately weighting them in order to influence decision-making.

In addition to involving children, it was suggested that the views of other groups should also be included in the framework for reporting. This included playworkers and other professionals who work with and support children and young people.

Annex B.1: Cluster model

While most respondents were supportive of the cluster model, a few comments and suggestions were provided on this, although typically only by one respondent each. It was suggested that some of the example statements may stray too far from the meaning of each article. Further, there was a perception that the example statements were vague, not relevant, omitted certain rights, lacked understanding and could benefit from re-wording.

Linking the cluster approach to the children’s rights review process outlined in the Part 2 Guidance would also be helpful, it was suggested.

Annex B.2: Wellbeing approach

Several respondents felt that the wellbeing approach was clear and helpful, and provided confidence to organisations who were already familiar with Getting it for Every Child (GIRFEC) and the SHANARRI wellbeing indicators. Indeed, a few organisations suggested that this link between the UNCRC and GIRFEC was helpful from policy, legal, and reporting perspectives:

“The section which provides information on the interface with UNCRC rights and SHANARRI will also be helpful to making links across the policy arena, assisting reflection and reporting in practice.” (Organisation)

One organisation, however, felt that the wellbeing approach was not an appropriate framework for children’s rights reporting. They noted that the SHANARRI indicators image referred to children having responsibilities, but not rights, and felt that its use within the frameworks undermined the principle that rights are inalienable and available to all children.

Should the wellbeing approach be retained, it was suggested that the terminology should refer to ‘wellbeing indicators’ and not to the SHANARRI acronym in order to prioritise the use of plain language and reflect current practice. It was also suggested that mention of GIRFEC should be placed earlier in the frameworks, before the reflective statements, and that further reference should be made to the Scottish Government GIRFEC and rights training material.

Annex B.4: External resources

While several respondents found the inclusion of the external sources of information useful, one organisation felt that these did not provide definitive or clear guidance for listed authorities. They felt the guidance was general and broad which lessened its helpfulness to listed authorities.

Other comments and suggestions

Several other comments and suggestions were provided in relation to Annex B, each from only one respondent, as follows:

• The way the information was presented in Annex B could result in listed authorities developing tick-box exercises rather than frameworks which truly give effect to children’s rights;
• Provide reminders of the timescales associated with the reporting process;
• Improvements need to be measurable and reporting must be part of an improvement cycle for children’s rights;
• Feedback (from the Scottish Government or another relevant body) should be provided to listed authorities who publish a children’s rights report, in line with feedback currently offered for Children’s Services Plans and Local Child Poverty Action Plans;
• Include and bolster advocacy as a key function, particularly when considering children with learning disability; and
• The framework requirements would result in a significant additional task for listed authorities.

Finally, a few respondents noted that some information (and in particular, the coverage at Annex A) had already been provided in the Part 2 Guidance and felt this was unnecessary duplication. It was suggested that signposting to the Part 2 guidance would be sufficient. One organisation also suggested that greater clarity and linkage was required around how the frameworks outlined in Part 3, Annex B differed to the Compatibility Review Framework set out in Part 2, Annex C:

“We suggest that clear links are made between the two sets of guidance to ensure that organisations are aware of all resources and information that can support them to review and report their compatibility with the Act.” (Organisation)

Annex C: Scottish Government use of children’s right’s reports

Q20. Annex C, ‘Scottish Government use of children’s right’s reports’, is clear

	Number	Percent	Valid Percent
Strongly Agree	15	16%	19%
Agree	53	58%	68%
Neither agree nor disagree	10	11%	13%
Disagree	0	0%	0%
Strongly Disagree	0	0%	0%
Not Answered	14	15%	nil
Total	92	(n=92)	(n=78)

Most respondents (87%, n=68) who answered this closed question either agreed or strongly agreed that Annex C: ‘Scottish government use of children’s rights reports’ was clear. No respondents disagreed with this.

Although respondents were not prompted to provide qualitative feedback on Annex C, a few did provide comments, either via the non-Citizen Space responses, or by clearly labelling responses at other questions as being applicable here.

Two organisations commented on the provision of good practice examples and learning. One welcomed the Scottish Government’s intention to actively seek examples of good practice and learning from the reports. The other stressed that the Scottish Government should work closely with listed authorities in this regard, particularly to “understand the operating context and any barriers, challenges, and opportunities, and consider any next steps or solutions in partnership.” (Organisation)

Another organisation noted that the draft guidance did not outline how the Scottish Government would use the children’s rights reports to increase accountability around delivering the UNCRC Act. They felt such information should be included.

One other organisation felt that Annex C was “woolly and lacks clarity”, and suggested that the guidance should mention that lessons learned from instances of litigation will feed into the reporting process.

General feedback on Part 3 Guidance

Accessibility

Q21. The guidance is presented in an accessible manner, e.g. the style, length and content are useful in aiding implementation of duties in respect of the Act

	Number	Percent	Valid Percent
Strongly Agree	11	12%	14%
Agree	38	42%	48%
Neither agree nor disagree	15	16%	19%
Disagree	14	15%	18%
Strongly Disagree	1	1%	1%
Not Answered	13	14%	nil
Total	92	(n=92)	(n=79)

Less than two thirds (62%, n=49) of the respondents who answered this closed question agreed or strongly agreed that the guidance was presented in an accessible manner. A larger proportion (19%, n=15) disagreed at this question compared with most other questions on the Part 3 Guidance.

Again, while no qualitative feedback was requested at this question a small number of respondents did provide comments. These duplicated topics raised by others at Q22, therefore the data was collated and is presented below.

Q22. Are there any areas where you think the Part 3 Guidance could be improved?

Common with feedback on the Part 2 Guidance, several respondents commented that the Part 3 Guidance was lengthy, complicated in places, inaccessible, difficult to read or engage with, and was not user friendly. This was said to be due to the ambiguous language and terminology used, the use of legal terminology and references, and because the guidance was intended for all listed authorities and so lacked sector specific details and examples around implementation. Again, it was noted that the guidance was not accessible to those without a legal background, or to children and young people, families, or members of the public:

“…for non-legal professionals, which most of us are, the guidance really takes a great deal of time to read through (I did several times) and needs to be far more accessible to its audience.” (Organisation)

It was suggested that the guidance could be shorter, more concise and be restructured. Respondents also requested that jargon be removed and plain English used throughout. In particular, it was suggested that the purpose and rationale for reporting should be set out at the very beginning, before outlining how to do this. It was also suggested that the guidance should be clear about essential versus desirable tasks. Greater use of visual aids and hyperlinks within the text (rather than in footnotes) were also recommended. A few respondents called for an accessible version of the guidance, possibly in the form of an executive summary or an easy read version, or in video, visual and audio formats, as well as a child friendly version of the reporting duties of listed authorities.

It was suggested that more specific details could be added to support listed authorities to effectively implement their legislative requirements. This included case study examples to illustrate how to work through decision-making and possible common problems, and guidance on how to manage competing rights.

Another common issue was the perception of duplication in the content which respondents suggested could be removed to reduce the length of Part 3 and streamline the guidance. In particular, it was suggested that there was overlap and repetition between the Part 2 and Part 3 guidance, and that this could either be reduced using more effective signposting and/or hyperlinks, or that information needed by guidance for both parts could be extracted into a standalone document.

A few respondents questioned the feedback loop for the information reported and sought more information on how the report findings would be used. There were calls for more information and clarity on the policy intent and how the children’s rights reports would be used to drive forward an improvement agenda, as well as how the Scottish Government planned to use this information to make changes and improvements. Some felt that there was a lack of clarity regarding overall purpose and others specifically asked how the process would make things better:

“Regarding section 6, this sets out the process but doesn't make it clear how the process will make things better. It is also not clear how best practice will be shared e.g. who will be doing that.” (Organisation)

Some respondents felt that the guidance was too generic and possibly open to different interpretations and misinterpretation. Others suggested that the guidance would benefit from being sector specific, and again, there were calls for practical examples to aid reporting:

“…while it might be helpful and informative to have various reporting frameworks, our respondents question whether this may lead to a variation on reporting and therefore lack consistency. The consequence of a lack of consistency may dilute the effectiveness of the reports’ intention to evidence that children and young people’s rights are met, consistently approached in practice and evidenced sufficiently.” (Organisation)

A few respondents raised issues outwith the scope of statutory guidance consultation, such as the financial burden of reporting. One organisation asked where the funding would come from to provide the resources needed to deliver the reports, while another suggested that reporting should require budgetary scrutiny and be factored into spending decisions. Another organisation sought information on the availability of support for capacity building within their sector to ensure all would have the required management and administrative structures.

Other comments and suggestions

The following comments were typically identified by one respondent each:

• The guidance needs to provide more consistency in terminology:
  • It was noted that the guidance interchanged the use of public authorities and listed authorities, but consistency and accuracy was required to ensure clarity over which requirements apply to all public authorities and which are only relevant to listed authorities; and
  • Terminology used to refer to the UNCRC should be clear and unambiguous to ensure it is not confused with other treaties or conventions, e.g. use of “the Convention” could be mistaken for the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
• Further emphasise that bodies who might meet the definition of a public authority, but are not listed, do not have reporting responsibilities;
• A glossary of terms would be helpful;
• A checklist for reporting considerations would be useful;
• Provide holistic guidance spanning the various reporting requirements;
• Provide clarity around the process and requirements of reporting as part of a partnership;
• Disaggregated data should be used to ensure consideration of all;
• Information regarding best practice should be made available;
• Part 3 Guidance provides an opportunity to require and support all duty-bearers to prioritise and realise girls’ human rights;
• Consideration should be given to how this may affect the rights of Gaelic speaking children and young people;
• Include an indicative non-exhaustive list of children whose rights are at risk to ensure listed authorities consider groups beyond protected characteristics and socio-economic status; and
• Highlight that incorporation of Parts 2 and 3 of the UNCRC Act are strengthened by aligning to existing national GIRFEC policy and legislation as well as the ambition to implement the Promise by 2030.

Support for Part 3 Guidance

Again, a few respondents set out general support for the Part 3 Guidance:

“Overall, the statutory guidance on part 3 which relates to reporting and submission is clearly written, helpful and provides practicable examples of guidance.” (Organisation)