Learning Disabilities, Autism and Neurodivergence Bill: consultation analysis - executive summary

Part 4: Accountability

The final part of the consultation set out how the LDAN Bill provides an opportunity to ensure that there is improved accountability for the delivery of individual’s rights and presented five options for how this might be achieved. A closed question was used to ask respondents to indicate their preferences:

• 65% (n=291) supported Option 1: Create a new Commission(er);
• 35% (n=159) supported Option 2: Provide better resourcing and additional duties for an existing body;
• 45% (n=202) supported Option 3: Create Champions and Advocates within Scottish Public Bodies;
• 49% (n=220) supported Option 4: Provide better resourcing for existing Disabled Persons Organisations (DPOs); and
• 45% (n=203) supported Option 5: Support good practice through standards, guidance and practical tools and investing in co-production.

Most indicated that they would like to see a combination of different options, but there was no consensus over which combination of options this should be. When considered as standalone options, respondents preferred Option 1 over Option 2. Also, while Options 3, 4 and 5 were supported in principle, respondents typically felt these needed to be implemented in combination with either Option 1 or 2 as they were unclear how these would deliver accountability on their own. In addition to the closed question, 421 respondents provided qualitative comments at this section.

Many respondents supported the creation of a new Commission(er) and felt that this was the best way of ensuring that historical failings in supporting the needs of people with learning disabilities and neurodivergent people were addressed (especially if working alongside champions in different sectors). A new Commission(er) was supported on the basis that it would be in a position of authority but would be impartial and independent of the Government; it would be an easily identifiable port of call for any issues; and it could promote good practice and facilitate improvements. It was stressed, however, that it must be permitted to conduct formal investigations and have enforcement powers; have ‘duties’ in the legislation rather than just ‘powers’; be responsible for collating data on outcomes and have a role in promoting and securing rights. Respondents also wanted the Commission(er) to have the necessary expertise, knowledge and capacity, and to work closely with those with lived experience. The main concern was that the creation of another Commission(er) could add more bureaucracy and cost to an already substantial Commission(er) landscape, with risks of overlap/duplication of efforts. Others were concerned about the cost and time required to set up a new Commission(er). The consultation did not ask respondents to indicate a preference for either a Commission or Commissioner, and there was no clear consensus in this regard within the responses.

Respondents felt that, regardless of which accountability mechanism was used, it must be taken forward with, and be representative of, people with diverse lived experience (including their families and carers, as well as children and young people). Respondents also commented that it must be more robust and better enforced than existing measures. Indeed, there was a strong sense that none of the proposed options may make a difference unless there was first a better understanding of why current mechanisms were not working. Respondents also stressed that there was a need for a clear plan with regards to how the Government would monitor and evaluate the success of proposals presented in the Bill. Finally, it was stressed that any ‘new’ accountability measures or strengthening of existing measures must be adequately advertised.