Human Rights Bill: Wider Implementation Working Group Minutes - April 2024

Attendees and apologies

Aer Nicholson Clasby, Third Sector Human Rights and Equalities

Brenda Tonner, Scotland’s Housing Network

Catherine Rothwell, Creative Scotland

Clare Gallagher, CEMVO

David Morrison, NHS 24

Donna Brodie, Scottish Environmental Protection Agency

Doro Richter, Human Rights Consortium Scotland

Erin Lux, Equality Network

Fiona Robertson, Association of Directors of Education Scotland

Hyo Eun Shin, Citizens Advice Scotland

Jane Rice, Prison Service

Jennifer Nesbitt-Thomson, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal

Laura Diffey-Higgins, Historic Environment Scotland

Lucy Mulvagh, The Alliance

Maria Doyle, Together

Matt McDonald,  Scottish Youth Parliament

Maxine Jolly, Education Scotland

Megan Moffat, WhoCares Scotland

Michael Cameron, Scottish Housing Regulator

Peter Ritchie, Nourish Scotland

Peter Rawcliffe, Nature Scot

Polly Lord, VoiceAbility

Rory Morrison, Poverty and Inequality Commission for Scotland

Rosemary Agney, Scottish Pubic Services Ombudsmen

Rosie Tyler-Greig, Health Improvement Scotland

Rhona Willder, Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance

Professor Sharon Cameron, Scottish Abortion Care Providers Network

Simon Webster, Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland

Dr Shivali Fifield, Environment Rights Centre for Scotland

Stewart MacLachlan, Amnesty

Suki Wan. Third Sector Equality Human Rights and Equality

Suzanne McGuiness, Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland

Apologies 

Richard Baker, Enable

Danny Boyle, BEMIS

Heather Fisken, Inclusion Scotland

Gary Mournian, Food Standards Scotland

Tracey Ashworth-Davies,  NHS Education for Scotland

Stephanie MacGregor-Cross, Social Work Scotland

Sharon Cameron, Scottish Abortion Care Providers Network

Mark Hazelwood, Scottish Partnership for Palliative Care

Mary Morgan, NHS National Services Scotland 

Items and actions

Welcome and Introductions

Trevor Owen welcomed members to the meeting, outlined details of the agenda and provided an opportunity for attendees to raise comments on the minutes from the previous meeting. Members were asked to provide any feedback by COP Friday 3 May.

Lived Experience Board (Reflections on Advocacy, Advice and Signposting)

The Bill Team presented the views of the Lived Experience Board’s (LEB) on signposting, advice and advocacy.  It was flagged that information and advice needs to be made more accessible to children and young people. In particular, it was felt that duty bearers should ensure that there are appropriate routes for children to access information and awareness, and that the language used to communicate these routes is  easily accessible and understood.

The LEB group also emphasised the importance of trusted adults being a source of support, information and advocacy. Access to information was another key theme arising from the group, who highlighted the need for information being readily available in places they visit regularly and for adults to be aware of their role in actively taking steps to help signpost to relevant information..

Scottish Government Proposals - Advocacy, Advice and Signposting

The Bill Team gave a presentation which provided information on the different types of advocacy and advice, as well as setting out definitions for each topic. They discussed the  proposals and questions set out in the consultation on advocacy, advice and signposting, before sharing  some key points and themes which have been identified by the consultation analysis. An outline was provided for the Scottish Government’s proposals for advocacy, advice and signposting in relation to the Human Rights Bill.

Breakout Room Discussion / Feedback

The group was split into breakout rooms to enable members to share thoughts, reflections and any questions they had on the Scottish Government’s proposals for advocacy, advice and signposting.

Key questions which the groups focused their discussions on:

• Where could focus be directed to have maximum impact on improving existing advocacy and advice services?
• What more can be done to better signpost rights-holders to advice and advocacy services? Especially considering people in rural, remote and island communities?
• Where do you see the opportunities for organisations to work in partnership to improve signposting, advice and advocacy?

Key issues raised:

• A need to ensure advocacy services have the resources and funds they need for interpreters so there is no language barrier when people need advocacy and advice.
• The importance of being able to access training for providers to ensure quality of service is high and that service users  do not find it difficult to engage with advocacy bodies.
• There is a need for a central system to be run by Government which contains up to date, accurate information for signposting to relevant support services.
• The importance of utilising and building on existing research, evidence and best practice in relation to advocacy, advice and signposting.
• Partnership working is crucial to provide both specialist and whole person support to ensure that services are delivered in a joined up way.
• The importance of raising awareness of services via a mixed methods approach, including through information on websites, and in-person through flyers in public places where people might require advice, e.g. a GP Practice.

Lived Experience Board (Reflections on Development of Guidance)

The Bill team provided an overview of the Lived Experience Board (LEB) and its work supporting the development of the Bill. The team outlined the LEB views in relation to development of guidance.

There was consensus from the LEB groups that there was a need to ensure guidance was flexible, accessible and that it should create easier routes to raising issues.

The LEB groups also highlighted the need for training for employers, staff and frontline service providers on human rights including training on communication with people with learning disabilities. Another key issue raised was that people should be mindful of guidance versus legal requirements as this may cause diluted impact of guidance at the front line of service delivery.

SG Guidance Proposals

The Bill Team provided context on the National Taskforce Recommendations, which make reference to the provision of guidance. There was a recommendation from the National Taskforce that a mixture of statutory and non-statutory guidance should be in place to support the Bill and that guidance should be developed in consultation with stakeholders, including rights-holders The recommendations highlight the importance of ensuring that public authorities are prepared and feel supported to fulfil their duties under the Bill through provision of adequate resources and guidance.

Feedback from consultation responses was shared with the group. Key themes arising from responses included strong agreement that there is a need for guidance, which will be crucial in assisting  duty bearers in understanding their duties, as well as considering how the Human Rights Bill fits in with other human rights and equality laws and duties. Respondents also shared the view that further clarifications through guidance would facilitate the interpretation of the Bill by all stakeholders.

Throughout consultation responses, there was broad support for stakeholder involvement and co-production in the development of guidance. It was highlighted that guidance for rights-holders should be designed and co-produced in conjunction with rights holders and civil society and should draw from lived experience.

There were also suggestions that guidance should be accessible, comprehensive and clear and should include further clarification on key terms.

Breakout Room Discussion / Feedback

The group was split into breakout rooms to enable members to share thoughts, reflections and any questions they have on proposals for guidance.

Key questions which the groups focused their discussions on:

• Do you agree with our approach to guidance involving statutory and non-statutory guidance?
• Who should be involved in the development of guidance?
• Are you aware of any best practice examples of how guidance has been developed?
• Do you have any views on the approach to developing guidance that the UNCRC Act took? Or any recommendations for how we could build on that?

Key issues raised:

• General agreement with approach to guidance involving statutory and non-statutory guidance
• Relevant stakeholders who are implementing the framework, including public authorities and third sector organisations, should be involved in the development of guidance. The group agreed it was also important to involve policy professionals such as youth workers, social workers, carers etc  
• Guidance needs to be inclusive and easy to follow.  The group felt that too much information could become unhelpful
• Group raised the fact that we should not rely on guidance to answer technical aspects of the Bill. Government should stand prepared to provide clarity where needed
• Monitoring guidance once published would ensure that guidance remains relevant and helpful
• Members said it is important to include case studies in guidance to give examples of how guidance will work in practice
• Easy read versions of guidance would improve accessibility for right holders

Any Other Business

Members and guests were thanked for their input during the meeting. It was noted that officials will send around a meeting invitation for the next meeting, with a Microsoft Teams link, in due course.  ​​​​​​​