A Human Rights Bill for Scotland: consultation analysis

8. Views on: Implementing the New Scottish Human Rights Act

Question 38: What are your views on our proposals for bringing the legislation into force?

Open question

This question was answered by 198 respondents to the consultation.

Support for a sequential approach to implementation and suggestions for specific timescales

The most prevalent theme raised by a large minority of respondents in this question was an overall agreement with the proposal for the sequenced implementation of the duties included in the Human Rights Bill. This theme was more common among respondents representing organisations, and specifically among civil society organisations. A significant minority of respondents noted that given the significant resource implications that the new duties would impose on duty-bearers, sequenced implementation was the appropriate approach to implement the Bill in order to allow a sufficient amount of time for organisations and public services to prepare.

A significant minority of respondents discussed specific timescales for the implementation of the Bill. Proposals put forward by respondents followed a sequenced adoption approach, specifically (i) as a first stage, the implementation of a procedural duty within 6 months after the Bill receives royal assent, and (ii) establishing the duty to comply within 2 years of the Bill’s royal assent. Respondents explained that this structure would ensure a smooth transition from current duties to the duties set out by the new Human Rights Bill.

“We would agree with a “sunrise clause approach”. The duties should be commenced in a sequential manner to allow public bodies time to prepare for the Bill and The Act coming fully into force. Public bodies require time to prepare to become familiar with the new standards and to ensure that there is an infrastructure in place to support implementation and compliance. […]” (Organisation – Public)

“[…] we welcome the staged approach to implementation. While we acknowledge that the Bill should be implemented as quickly as possible, it is also important that public bodies are given the time, resources, and ability to build the capacity needed to get it right. In addition, it is time to meet the basic requirements and then to build on that foundation in recognition that public bodies are at different stages and will need more or less time to develop practice and procedures.” (Organisation - Public)

Need for a clear implementation plan

The second most frequently raised theme among respondents to this question was the view that the proposal should be clearer regarding what the proposed plan entails, especially in relation to implementation timescales. More information about this theme can be found in Chapter 9, ‘General themes of the consultation responses’.

Call for government support, guidance and capacity building

The third most common theme in the responses to this question was the view that Scottish Government support through guidance, capacity building and resources would be paramount to the successful implementation of the Bill. This theme was more commonly raised by organisations and, specifically, public sector organisations. A large minority of respondents suggested that the Scottish Government should develop and offer comprehensive guidance and support in order to assist duty-bearers in understanding their new duties, as well as how this legislation fits with other human rights and equality laws, and competing duties. For instance, staff training was the suggested method of support mentioned by respondents. A significant minority of respondents argued that the successful implementation of the Human Rights Bill depended on capacity building across public services, which would require significant government investment and support. It was often mentioned that this support should include additional resources and financial investment to ensure that the additional duties do not negatively impact the quality and breadth of services provided by public organisations.

“[…] Public sector capacity requires careful consideration so that duty-bearers understand and are able to evidence with confidence that Minimum Core Obligations are being met through progressive realisation. We do not currently have a distinct training offer around human rights. We recommend and would welcome the development of a national resource and a distinct programme of engagement to build the capacity of the sector. Any training resources will need to work effectively for different organisation types – for example, for territorial as well as special NHS boards. […] We anticipate a need for specialist staff support for colleagues as they start to evidence human rights considerations in their work. […] In our experience delivering existing duties, ongoing support and leadership is needed to establish and maintain good practice.” (Organisation – Public)

“Implementation must be backed up with training, support, capacity building and adequate and sustainable resources so that duty bearers can understand their obligations and how to comply with them.” (RNIB Scotland (Royal National Institute of Blind People Scotland))

Summary of other emerging themes

A significant minority of respondents stressed the need for swift implementation of the Bill. Among them, some respondents noted that many of the rights to be incorporated are already internationally established; hence, implementation for some rights could commence without delay. In addition, a significant minority of respondents raised concerns that the rights of various disadvantaged and marginalised population groups are not currently met.

A significant minority of respondents expressed general agreement with what was proposed in the consultation, while a small minority discussed the importance of implementing this Bill in order to safeguard people’s rights. Additionally, another theme raised by a few respondents was the view that this Bill should help improve accountability related to Human Rights and support improved access to justice for rights-holders. Another theme mentioned by a small minority of respondents was the need for public participation and stakeholder engagement in delivering the provisions in this Bill, including both engagement with stakeholder organisations and rights-holders. A small number of respondents emphasised the need for improving monitoring through data collection. Finally, a few respondents discussed the effects of the ongoing cost of living crisis.

Question 39: What are your views on our proposals to establish minimum core obligations (MCOs) through a participatory process?

Open question

This question was answered by 207 respondents to the consultation.

Agreement with the proposed approach of a participatory process in establishing MCOs

The most prevalent theme among the responses to this question was general agreement with the Scottish Government’s proposal. This theme was more common among organisational respondents than individual respondents.

Specifically, the majority of respondents raising this theme agreed with implementing a participatory process in establishing MCOs. A few respondents commented that a participatory process would help incorporate the views of those affected by the Bill, including rights-holders. Finally, a small number of respondents noted that a participatory process would help the public and stakeholders understand the new Bill and embed the law’s principles and duties in their practices.

“We support proposals to establish MCOs through a participatory process, and would suggest that the Scottish Government can prioritise engaging all those individuals who experience the poorest outcomes. For example, when developing and establishing an MCO on employment, the Scottish Government could engage autistic and people with a learning disability, since they experience the poorest employment outcomes of any groups in Scotland. […]” (National Autistic Society Scotland)

“Defining MCOs will be challenging and having a participatory process will help ensure broader views, inputs and understanding, hopefully leading to clearer definitions. Given the importance of MCOs in relation to the duty to comply, it will be vital to ensure duty-bearers are included in the participatory process.” (Scottish Environment Protection Agency)

Suggestions on the approach to a participatory process

The second most commonly raised theme among responses to this question included specific suggestions regarding who the participatory process should include, and how it should be delivered to achieve the most positive effect. This theme was most commonly raised by respondents representing organisations and, particularly civil society organisations. A large minority of respondents suggested that the participatory process should include consulting those most vulnerable or at greatest risk of their rights being violated, as well as individuals with protected characteristics (e.g. women and disabled people). A few respondents mentioned that the process should include representatives and experts from stakeholder organisations who represent and interact with vulnerable groups.

A significant minority of respondents stated that MCOs should be reviewed and updated through a participatory process at regular intervals. A small minority of respondents discussed administrative aspects of the participatory process, and particularly whether it should be led by the Scottish Government or independent organisations. Among them, many highlighted that the Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) might be best placed to lead the participatory process that would support the development of MCOs. Finally, a small number of respondents noted that the process should be communication-inclusive and easily accessible to all interested individuals and stakeholders. This could include intensive, proactive stakeholder engagement with communities that had been underreached by the Scottish Government in the past.

“Fife Council agrees that it is essential that MCOs are developed through a participatory process, and this should be particularly with groups whose rights are most at risk. Consideration should be given to whether this process is led by the Scottish Government or by the Scottish Human Rights Commission.” (Fife Council)

“[…] we believe that including a wide range of people in the establishing of MCOs is highly beneficial, through lived experience panels. This is of particular value to groups who are seldom listened to, such as ethnic minority women, who have expressed continued frustration that their needs are not being met by public bodies. It is also important that the feedback given across the participatory process is adhered to, with measures put in place to ensure that participation does not become tokenistic, a common pitfall of participatory practice. To avoid this outcome review is essential, and as such should be carried out at regular intervals.” (The Scottish Women's Convention)

Wider comments and suggestions regarding MCOs implementation

The third most frequent theme among responses to this question was wider comments regarding the planning surrounding the adoption of MCOs as presented in the consultation document. This theme was more common among organisational respondents and particularly civil society organisations. A few respondents suggested that MCOs should be established as soon as possible. Additionally, a few respondents felt that MCOs should be established sooner than proposed by the consultation, and particularly before the Human Rights Bill is finalised.

“[…] Because the MCO’s are so important, we think that people and organisations participating in setting them must be resourced properly. We need to have the time to do our research, explain our point of view, and not compete with other interest groups such as professionals working to maintain the status quo. As we said previously, clear timescales for this process should also be included to ensure this process is completed in a timely matter.” (People First (Scotland))

“[…] waiting until the legislation has concluded the Parliamentary process risks undermining confidence in the practicality of the legislation and the benefits that should be immediately realisable. The participatory process does not require legislative effect and we would encourage the Government to start the participatory process in parallel with the Bill to give greater meaning to what MCO/ Human Rights Bill means in practice and to give Parliament greater clarity about the cost of implementation. […]” (Chartered Institute of Housing Scotland)

Summary of other emerging themes

A few respondents had various disagreements with specific aspects of the proposal for MCOs. Most common among them were (i) the view that MCOs are conceptually incompatible with human rights, as there should be no minimum standard of human rights, and (ii) that MCOs should be in primary legislation rather than in secondary legislation. A few respondents emphasised the importance of ensuring accountability through this framework. Furthermore, a few respondents offered specific suggestions for which topics to be included in the MCOs; these included MCOs to guarantee sufficient access to rehabilitation services for those who require them. Finally, a small number of respondents expressed concern about the risk of ineffective engagement with people with lived experience, and particularly the risk of tokenism.

Question 40: What are your views on our proposals for a Human Rights Scheme?

Open question

This question was answered by 196 respondents to the consultation.

Agreement with the proposal for a Human Rights Scheme

The most prevalent theme among responses to this question was agreement with the proposal for a Human Rights Scheme. A large minority of respondents expressed general agreement without elaborating on specific reasons for agreeing with the Scottish Government’s proposal. Another large minority noted that Human Rights Schemes would improve the accountability of the Scottish Government on actions taken to implement the Human Rights Bill. A few respondents felt that a Human Rights Scheme would support the implementation of the Bill. This theme was more common among respondents representing organisations, both civil society and public sector organisations.

“[Organisation name] would welcome the creation of a Human Rights Scheme. We especially welcome the intent that it will provide an overarching framework for the delivery of Human Rights and inform about the direction and work that the Scottish Government is planning, and the provision of a mechanism for Ministers to be held accountable. It will also be useful to understand the current position on Human Rights and how ministers intend to address any gaps or to focus on areas for development. […]” (Organisation – Public)

“[…] We agree with the proposal to have a Human Rights Scheme to ensure ministerial accountability for the implementation and commencement of the future Act. It is good that there will be a duty to report to Parliament and for Parliament to undertake due scrutiny on progress. […]” (Organisation – Other)

Comments for improvement of the Human Rights Scheme

The second most frequently raised theme in the consultation responses to this question was comments on various aspects that could be improved regarding both the overall proposal and elements that could be included in the Human Rights Schemes. This theme was more common among respondents representing organisations, both from civil society and public sector organisations.

A significant minority of respondents stated that the proposal requires more clarity regarding specific elements that the Human Rights Scheme would involve and how they would be carried out. Another small minority of respondents suggested there is a need to improve data collected about human rights to support accountability as part of the Human Rights Scheme. Specifically, these respondents often noted that more disaggregated data should be collected (e.g. data on outcomes by protected characteristics such as ethnic group, and/or disability). Similarly, a small number of respondents felt that the Human Rights Scheme should provide transparent and accessible information to foster effective monitoring and government accountability. A few respondents argued that an important feature of the Human Rights Scheme should be supporting planning on realising the rights in the Bill, including identifying gaps in existing provisions and setting out plans for improvement.

A few respondents suggested that as part of the Human Rights Scheme, the Scottish Government should have a duty to produce and distribute guidance and clear information on actions taken. Related to this point, a small number of respondents highlighted that the Scottish Government should ensure capacity building, including through providing resources, training and support.

Respondents also discussed what the Human Rights Scheme should report on. A few respondents felt that the Human Rights Scheme should include detailed reporting on numerous areas related to delivering on the rights, while a few respondents felt that reporting should also focus on right holders’ outcomes, highlight people’s experiences of their rights being realised, as well as include assessments of the impact of policies on vulnerable groups. Finally, a few respondents suggested that the Human Rights Scheme should be annual to enhance government scrutiny.

“There needs to be a clear understanding of the scope and coverage of the Scheme (for example, it is all Ministers that are being held accountable for its implementation). A clear distinction needs to be made in relation to the duties being placed on duty-bearers, including reporting requirements.” (Scottish Environment Protection Agency)

“[…] It should also be accessible and meaningful to the people of Scotland - a positive (hopefully) report card, if you will, on the progressive realisation of rights in Scotland that becomes part of the national conversation, something we can be proud and work towards improving on.” – (C-Change Scotland)

“[…] Ministerial accountability should include evidenced updates to parliament – which requires improved data collection and publication, including reporting of outcomes at population levels. There is currently no robust, national measurement of experiences of palliative and end of life care which needs to be addressed. The evidence/data gathered to measure delivery of minimum core obligations and ultimately maximum realisation of rights need to drive improvements in inclusivity. This will require improvements in data collection and sharing. […]” (Hospice UK)

Government should consult with stakeholders and rights-holders

The third most common theme among responses to this question was the view that the government should consult with stakeholders and rights-holders as part of the Human Rights Scheme. This theme was raised by a significant minority of respondents who highlighted that specific focus should be placed on consulting those most at risk of their rights being violated. A small number of respondents discussed the importance of the participatory process, while a small number of respondents stressed the importance of adopting rights-based approaches to participation. Respondents also noted specific rights-holder groups that should be consulted. Suggestions included people with learning and other disabilities.

“[…] There should be a duty to consult with rights holders, including people whose rights are most at risk, when developing the scheme […]” (RNIB Scotland (Royal National Institute of Blind People Scotland))

“[…] The Human Rights Scheme should include a requirement to meaningfully consult with the information, advice and advocacy sector as well as rights holders, especially those whose rights are at risk, both when developing the Scheme and when reporting against it every year.” (Citizens Advice Scotland)

Summary of other emerging themes

A significant minority of respondents raised the topic of human rights budgeting. These respondents felt that the Scottish Government should consider the human rights protected in the Bill as part of their budget-setting decisions. Finally, a few respondents discussed the importance of accountability and scrutiny of government decisions and actions.

Question 41: What are your views on enhancing the assessment and scrutiny of legislation introduced to the Scottish Parliament in relation to the rights in the Human Rights Bill?

Open question

This question was answered by 161 respondents in the consultation.

Agreement with the Scottish Government’s proposal

The most prevalent theme among responses to this question was general agreement with the approach proposed in the Bill to enhance the assessment and scrutiny of legislation introduced in Parliament in relation to the rights in the Bill. This theme was more common among respondents representing organisations, and particularly public sector organisations.

The majority of respondents who mentioned this theme did not elaborate on what aspects of the proposal they agreed with or their reasoning. A significant minority of respondents highlighted the importance of ensuring legislative compatibility and felt that enhanced parliamentary assessment and scrutiny would support this. A small number of respondents noted that this could include past and current Bills, and some gave specific examples (e.g. the Agricultural Bill and the Circular Economy Bill). A significant minority of respondents to this question welcomed the enhancement of assessment and scrutiny as they felt that this proposal would improve the overall accountability of the Scottish Government.

“Nourish Scotland agrees with the requirement for all public Bills to be accompanied by a statement of compatibility with rights in this Bill. It will be especially important to ensure that current legislation going through parliament is forward-compatible. For example, the Agricultural Bill, Circular Economy Bill and all Good Food Nation plans will need to be assessed in relation to the rights, especially the right to a healthy environment and the right to food. That is, these Bills and plans will need to show that they have had regard to the rights contained within this Human Rights Bill, given their impending implementation. […]” (Nourish Scotland)

“[…] We believe that a robust approach to parliamentary scrutiny is necessary to ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose and has been considered, tested and challenged appropriately. We agree with proposals to engage the Scottish Parliament to conduct enhanced scrutiny.” (Alzheimer Scotland)

Assessment should promote stakeholder engagement

The second most commonly raised theme was support for ensuring wide engagement with stakeholders and rights-holders as part of the proposed enhancements to human rights assessment processes for legislation introduced to the Scottish Parliament. This view was more common among respondents representing organisations, specifically civil society organisations. Respondents who mentioned this theme stressed that all assessments should ensure that the voices of people whose rights are most at risk, as well as relevant stakeholder organisations, are engaged during processes to develop legislation.

“[…] We recommend that the statement of compatibility should also include evidence to demonstrate that meaningful consultation had taken place with groups whose rights are engaged by the proposed legislation, to ensure that their rights have been properly taken into account. […] (The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants)

“[…] Parliament must also act to maximise opportunities for organisations with expertise on the inequalities experienced by different specified groups, and those with lived experience, to participate in the legislative process. This should encompass all stages of the legislative process, e.g. at the committee stage, and in public debates. Parliament should take a co-production approach where possible. […]” (Close the Gap)

Human rights Impact Assessments

The third most frequent theme was support for conducting human rights impact assessments. This theme was more common among organisational respondents, and particularly civil society organisations. Respondents who mentioned this theme suggested that there should be thorough impact assessments evaluating the possible effects of the new legislation on people’s rights. Respondents felt that similar Human Rights Impact Assessments should be conducted for any future legislation proposed.

“[…] In addition, the [Organisation name] suggests that Scottish Ministers should conduct Human Rights Impact Assessments for any Bill introduced to Parliament. Both of these would be a step in the right direction in terms of centring human rights within policymakers' decision-making. […]” (Organisation – other)

“I agree that there should be a human rights assessment of new legislation. In relation to the rights incorporated under this Bill, there could also be a statement of the extent to which the legislation is contributing to the realisation of certain rights.” (Individual)

Summary of other emerging themes

A small minority of respondents argued that the current scrutiny process requires improvement. The main point raised by those respondents was a need for increased transparency, public awareness and participation in the scrutiny process. Specifically, respondents noted that there should be better access to the public of the parliamentary scrutiny process.

Question 42: How can the Scottish Government and partners effectively build capacity across the public sector to ensure the rights in the Bill are delivered?

Open question

This question was answered by 190 respondents to the consultation.

Capacity building resource requirements

The most prevalent theme among responses to this question was discussions surrounding the resources and support required to foster capacity building, especially in the light of existing resource and public services capacity constraints. More information about this theme can be found in Chapter 9, ‘General themes of the consultation responses’.

Collaborative approach and stakeholder engagement

The second most frequently raised theme in the responses to this question was proposals to adopt a collaborative approach to delivering capacity building, ensuring the involvement of a wide range of relevant stakeholders. This theme was more commonly mentioned by respondents representing organisations, and primarily civil society organisations. A significant minority of respondents highlighted the importance of engaging with rights-holders, communities, and service users. Another significant minority of respondents supported including organisations representing or interacting with rights-holders in the development of guidance.

“We support the plan to develop guidance for public authorities and those subject to the duties. This guidance should be co-designed by individuals and communities whose rights are most at risk. […]” (Feniks. Counselling, Personal Development and Support Services)

“Capacity can be built across the public sector to ensure the rights in the Bill are delivered by working with stakeholders inclusive of trade unions and those in the third sector. This collaborative work could help the Scottish Government identify opportunities to build capacity across the public sector to help ensure that the Bill is delivered. This is particularly true for trade unions who can often help to identify areas where the public sector could be improved due to the nature of representing the workers on the front line of the sector.” (Organisation – Other)

Support for developing guidance

The third most common theme among responses was the view that developing guidance should be an important component of the capacity-building approach. Respondents noted that guidance developed should be directed and accessible both by duty-bearers and rights-holders. A significant minority of respondents noted that both statutory and non-statutory guidance should be included. More information about this theme can be found in Chapter 9, ‘General themes of the consultation responses’.

Summary of other emerging themes

Respondents often discussed the importance of awareness-raising and education being part of the capacity-building efforts. Specifically, a significant minority of respondents suggested that service staff who interact with rights-holders should be provided with Human Rights and Equalities training. Furthermore, a significant minority of respondents discussed the importance of embedding Human Rights principles in education, improving access to information related to human rights, and enhancing awareness-raising efforts.

A significant minority of respondents criticised the existing proposal and stated they required more clarity and detail regarding what implementation would entail. A significant minority of respondents recommended that the Scottish Government should aim to align the implementation of new duties with existing practices, as well as review what worked well and did not work well in the past to improve provision using existing infrastructure. Finally, a significant minority of respondents called for the Scottish Government to begin building capacity before the Bill passes, they felt that early work on capacity building could be completed before the Bill is finalised.

A significant minority of respondents expressed general agreement with the proposals set out in the draft Bill, without elaborating on specific reasons for their support, and others agreed with the importance of capacity building for the effective delivery of the Bill.

Question 43: How can the Scottish Government and partners provide effective information and raise awareness of the rights for rights-holders?

Open question

This question was answered by 196 respondents to the consultation.

Awareness campaigns, community engagement, and provision of training

The most prevalent theme in the responses to this question was various suggestions on ways that the Scottish Government could ensure the relevant information could reach rights-holders. This theme was more common among respondents representing organisations, and specifically public sector organisations. A significant minority of respondents highlighted the importance of direct engagement with communities, including in local settings. There were various recommendations, including organising local discussions and focus groups with rights-holders, rights-holders' training, and active engagement to reach hard-to-reach groups.

A significant minority of respondents felt that launching a wide-ranging awareness campaign would substantially support the goal of increasing awareness about the Bill. Finally, a significant minority of respondents emphasised the importance of capacity building, including funding and provision of training to public sector and third sector organisations engaging with rights-holder communities.

“For people to be able to claim their rights, they have to know about them. It is essential that the Scottish Government commission large-scale campaigns to let the general public know about the changes and what they mean to them. It should be clear where they can find help, and what areas are covered. There should be additional funding available for organisations that support minority groups so they can communicate specific rights that may be of use / interest for their own communities.” (LGBT Youth Scotland)

“Training and clear guidance in accessible formats is essential to raising awareness for rights holders in Scotland, especially marginalised groups. Training should include outreach to rural and isolated areas and training in schools and community groups, etc. Funding should be provided to existing human rights CSOs to support and expand 'making rights real' programmes and capacity building within communities.” (Individual)

Accessible and clear guidance

The second most common theme in responses to this question was discussions of accessible and inclusive ways to disseminate guidance and information. A significant minority of respondents noted that there should be a varied approach to awareness campaigns or information dissemination efforts to reach a variety of different audiences, including social media posts, physical leaflets and in-person engagement. More information about this theme can be found in Chapter 9, ‘General themes of the consultation responses’.

Stakeholder involvement and co-production

The third most frequently raised theme was support for stakeholder involvement and co-production. This theme was more commonly raised by organisational respondents and predominantly civil society organisations. A large minority of respondents highlighted the importance of co-production with rights-holder communities whose rights are most at risk in developing all guidance and awareness-raising material and planning any awareness-raising and information-sharing campaigns. Some respondents noted that this engagement could be achieved through lived experience boards. A significant minority of respondents suggested that subject matter experts and stakeholders from third sector organisations could provide useful insights for designing an effective approach to raising awareness about the contents of the Bill.

“[…] This should be designed and co-produced in conjunction with rights holders and civil society and should draw on good practice and principles such as those contained within the National Standards for Community Engagement.” (Scottish Community Development Centre)

“[…] We recommend that the Scottish Government engages with the work of the lived experience boards in this area and considers following a similar model to ensure that public human rights information and education programmes are led by lived experience experts and are fit for purpose. […]” (Amnesty International UK)

Summary of other emerging themes

A significant minority of respondents discussed the overall importance of effective information and public awareness for delivering the provisions of the Human Rights Bill. A significant minority of respondents supported the establishment of free information hubs where members of the public could access information regarding their rights. Relevant to this point, a few respondents specifically called for a National Network for Human Rights Information, Education, Legal Services, and Advice.

A small minority of respondents expressed concerns about what they perceived as insufficient detail in the draft Bill on this topic. Respondents who raised this theme felt the proposal set out by the Scottish Government was not comprehensive enough. Furthermore, a small minority of respondents discussed their current concern over instances where information sharing from services to rights-holders is ineffective. Respondents who mentioned this theme emphasised that rights-holders very often do not know their rights and, hence, often miss out on services and benefits to which they are entitled. A few respondents highlighted that this is particularly the case with individuals whose first language is not English.

A few respondents noted the importance of public education for cultivating an understanding of individuals' rights. Finally, a few respondents expressed general agreement with the approach set out in the draft Bill without elaborating further on specific suggestions.

Question 44: What are your views on monitoring and reporting?

Open question

This question was answered by 175 respondents in the consultation.

Specific suggestions for implementing a monitoring and reporting framework

The most prevalent theme in responses to this question was specific suggestions for building a monitoring and reporting framework. Responses that raised this theme were mainly from respondents representing organisations, and particularly respondents from civil society organisations. A significant minority of respondents advocated involving rights-holders in developing and delivering the monitoring and reporting process. Furthermore, a significant minority of respondents suggested that monitoring and reporting should be independent through the involvement of the third sector or non-governmental bodies such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission or the Care Inspectorate. Respondents raising this point often elaborated that duty-bearing public services should not be evaluating their own compliance with the Bill. Finally, a few respondents argued that reporting should be linked to a robust accountability framework, with clear consequences and remedies where duty-bearers fail to meet the requirements of the Bill.

A significant minority of respondents suggested that the monitoring and reporting framework should capture both actions taken towards delivering on the rights in the Bill and outcomes related to delivering the human rights safeguarded by the Bill. A small minority of respondents suggested that the reporting framework should be designed in a manner that helps drive improvement in the delivery of the Bill. On this point, a few respondents suggested that the Scottish Government should adopt a holistic systems approach to considering the feedback from the reporting phase, focusing on the interdependencies between services. Additionally, a few respondents expressed the view that reporting on the delivery of the Bill should be carried out regularly. Lastly, a few respondents felt the monitoring and reporting framework should include reporting on whether Human Rights are considered in budgeting decisions.

“[…] There must be a public bodies’ reporting requirements. This should function in the following way: (i) Public bodies should have to consult with people whose rights are most at risk when developing these reports, including ensuring that the content is accessible. (ii) The Scottish Government should be required to consult with people whose rights are most at risk when developing guidance on reporting requirements. (iii) Public bodies should also be required to submit their reports to the Scottish Human Rights Commission for monitoring, and the SHRC must ensure representation of people whose rights are most at risk, including people living on low incomes.” (Poverty Alliance)

“Monitoring and reporting are critical to understanding whether the Bill has made a difference. Reporting needs to focus on activity but more importantly impact. Co-designing reporting to capture what is important to people, particularly those whose rights are most at risk and those furthest from justice.” (C-Change Scotland)

Support for monitoring and reporting of the Human Rights Bill implementation

The second most common theme among responses to this consultation question was discussion regarding the importance of enhancing monitoring and reporting of the delivery of the Bill. This theme was mainly raised by organisation representatives, and particularly respondents from civil society organisations. A significant minority of respondents discussed the importance of thorough accountability in the enforcement of the Bill and explained that monitoring and reporting will improve efforts in that area. Another significant minority of respondents discussed the overall importance of monitoring and reporting specifically for tracking progress towards implementing the Bill, tracking actions taken, and identifying gaps in provision. On a similar note, a minority of respondents argued that consistent reporting on progress would support the implementation of the Bill and rights protection.

“Monitoring of and reporting on the steps planned or taken by public authorities to progressively realise rights is essential for accountability and to ensure effective implementation of the Bill. […]” (Organisation – Other)

“[…] monitoring of and reporting on the steps that public authorities have taken or plan to take to progressively realise rights, is essential for both accountability and improving the effectiveness of action. […] The new human rights framework must guarantee that regulators, inspectorates, ombudspersons and Scotland’s national human rights institution are provided with the appropriate powers and resources to ensure effective human rights monitoring.” (Human Rights Budget Working Group)

Calls for a resource-efficient approach

The third most frequently mentioned theme in the responses to this question was the need for a resource-efficient approach to a Human Rights Bill monitoring and reporting framework. This theme was predominantly raised by respondents representing public sector organisations.

The respondents who mentioned this theme argued that the approach to monitoring and reporting should be proportionate and align with reporting arrangements and mechanisms for existing duties such as the PSED. A few respondents elaborated that such an approach would help minimise the administrative burden imposed on public services from additional reporting requests. Finally, a few respondents called for additional investment in public services and third sector organisations where additional duties are introduced to support the development of and build capacity for a monitoring and reporting framework, citing current resource and capacity constraints.

“We agree that monitoring and reporting are important. We would like to see this done in a way that integrates it into existing monitoring, scrutiny and reporting in the public sector. For example, as part of existing performance management arrangements.” (NHS Education for Scotland)

“Monitoring and reporting requirements under the Human Rights Bill should, to the fullest possible extent, be integrated into existing requirements on local authorities to avoid unnecessary duplication of work and mitigate the impact on council officers’ workload in this area. It is imperative that any approach seeks to be strategic and rationalise reporting. It is worth considering, rather than adding additional human rights reporting duties, if this could be combined with existing reporting on children’s rights. […]” (Organisation – Public)

Summary of other emerging themes

A significant minority of respondents mentioned the Scottish Human Rights Commission, suggesting that the Scottish Government should involve the SHRC in the monitoring and reporting process. Furthermore, a significant minority of respondents argued that there is a need for improvements in human rights data collection to effectively monitor progress. Additionally, another significant minority of respondents argued that public awareness and transparency regarding the findings of the reporting process should be improved by ensuring all information is easily accessible and presented in inclusive forms of communication.

A few respondents called for more information on the Scottish Government’s proposals than what was presented in the draft Bill. A few respondents suggested that the Scottish Government should develop the monitoring and reporting framework for the HR Bill, following an approach similar to that taken in the implementation of the UNCRC Bill. To add to that, a few respondents argued that there should be a reporting duty on the Scottish Parliament. Finally, a few respondents expressed the view that the current monitoring and reporting arrangements are lacking and would require improvement to support effective monitoring and reporting of the implementation and progress of the Bill. Finally, a small number of respondents were against additional reporting duties to those currently in effect, as they felt this would cause significant administrative and resource burdens.