« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
The Scottish Human Rights Commission: Analysis of Consultation Responses
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
1.1 This report presents a summary analysis of submissions made in response to a second phase of consultation, in 2003, on proposals for a Scottish Human Rights Comm ission. Fifty-eight responses were received, from a wide range of consultees: these have been collated in relation to the specific questions posed in the consultation exercise and recurrent themes that were raised in submissions are discussed. Overall, the various proposals on the remit, functions and structure of the planned Commission received general support. However, the respondents clearly identified a number of topics where they would welcome further discussion and the analysis reveals areas of contention.
BACKGROUND
1.2 In 1999, the Scottish Human Rights Forum brought together a wide range of public and voluntary sector organisations with the purpose of campaigning for a human rights commission in Scotland. The Forum presented a paper to the Scottish Ministers in March 2000 in which it called for the creation of such a body. This was followed by a debate in Parliament that same month where it emerged that there was support from across the political spectrum for the formation of a commission. A cross-party group of MSPs was formed in the Scottish Parliament to contribute to the discussion. In June 2000, the Deputy First Minister and then Minister for Justice, Jim Wallace, announced a public commitment to consult on whether to establish a Human Rights Commission.
1.3 In implementing that commitment, the Scottish Executive published a consultation document in 2001 entitled "Protecting our Rights: A Human Rights Commission for Scotland?"1 That document sought views on whether there should be a commission and commented on what the remit and structure of such a body might be.
1.4 "Protecting our Rights" was circulated widely and made available on the Scottish Executive website. Seventy written responses were received from a diverse spectrum of organisations, and endorsed the recommendation by the Scottish Human Rights Forum that a commission should be established. An analysis of those responses and copies of the responses themselves were made available on the Scottish Executive website. 2
1.5 As well as indicating strong support for the principle of creating a commission, the consultation exercise confirmed that the basic proposals on its formation and nature were agreed upon by a high proportion of those who responded. There was, for instance, consensus that the body should be statutory; that there was a need for closer scrutiny of legislation, guidance to public authorities and specific awareness-raising on human rights issues; and that the body should be specifically Scottish and answerable to the Scottish Parliament.
1.6 Key roles that respondents suggested for any commission were: legislative scrutiny; guidance to public authorities; human rights awareness-promotion; general monitoring and investigation; contributing to human rights policy development; intervention in legal cases; conducting alternative dispute resolution; and bringing cases that raised a human rights issue.
1.7 Following on from the consultation on "Protecting our Rights", the Scottish Executive confirmed, in December 2001, that it would establish an independent and statutory Scottish Human Rights Commission (the Commission).
THE CONSULTATION
1.8 Opinions voiced in the first consultation phase allowed the Executive to identify key functions for the Commission:
- Promotion, education and awareness-raising
- Guidance to public authorities
- Advising the Scottish Parliament on legislation after introduction
- General monitoring and reporting in relation to law and practice
- Investigating and reporting on generic or sectoral human rights issues in relation to public policy
1.9 The outcomes of that exercise, therefore, contributed towards more developed proposals and themes for a second phase of consultation. Other factors that were taken into account in considering and refining options in relation to the planned body were:
- the views that had been provided by the Scottish Human Rights Forum
- international guidance on human rights bodies, including the "Paris Principles" of the United Nations and guidance from the Commonwealth Secretariat
- existing human rights commissions in other jurisdictions
- relevant Scottish bodies
- Scottish circumstances with a bearing on the appropriate way forward
1.10 The second consultation document, "The Scottish Human Rights Commission", 3 was launched in February 2003, with a one-day conference, "Establishing our Rights", in Edinburgh, to allow further discussion of how the Commission could operate in Scotland.
1.11 The second paper was structured upon three dimensions of the Commission:
- The Remit of the Commission
- The Functions of the Commission
- The Structure of the Commission
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES
1.12 Fifty-eight responses were received. 4 Some of these were received after the formal deadline of 6 June 2003 but have been included in this analysis. Almost all were from organisations rather than individuals, 5 and 22 of these had responded to the first consultation also. Consultees are listed in the Appendix and broadly came from:
- legal sector - 2
- police - 4
- academic/education sector - 3
- local government - 12
- non-profit sector (charities, advice/service agencies, campaign organisations) - 25
- religious groups - 4
- professional organisations - 4
- individuals - 4
1.13 Many respondents did not use, or only partly used, the pro-forma that was provided. They generally offered instead more extended comment. This could be with reference to specific questions; a number of questions or themes; or the consultation document as a whole. Some comments related to the wider context of the establishment of the Commission. Often consultees did not give a clear indication of whether they agreed with the question or not. They, instead, discussed the matter, sometimes at considerable length, weighing up arguments or differing perspectives. Some respondents raised concerns and issues that did not fit easily within the parameters of the consultation exercise. Nevertheless, it was generally possible to connect responses to the separate questions in the consultation document, although this was not always straightforward and data were drawn out from across responses to address some of the key questions in the consultation.
1.14 By the very nature of consultation exercises such as this one, the numbers who chose to comment on individual questions varied. Where definite responses to specific questions are identifiable, figures are provided for positive, negative, "don't know", or indeterminate comments. On average, 37 consultees provided an opinion on individual questions; the lowest number of views on any one question was 27, and the highest was 46.
1.15 The nature of submissions varied widely: a small number of consultees might provide just one word responses to a question, whereas others submitted detailed discussion and comments comprising several pages of text.
1.16 Consultation exercises like this are not numerically representative, but aim to elicit the views and experiences of a wide range of stakeholders. Any interpretation of the proportion of responses in agreement or disagreement must be undertaken with caution. Given the small quantity of submissions, it would not be generally appropriate to present the results in percentage form.
1.17 Only two respondents asked for their responses to be handled in confidence, although we have, in the main, opted not to identify individual consultees in this document, and instead refer only to the respondent type. Quotes from organisations that have a public function, such as the Law Society of Scotland, COSLA and existing statutory commissions are identified, however.
1.18 Clearly, the data are overwhelmingly qualitative. Direct quotes and reference to the data are provided in this analysis, at times to illustrate a broad view or consensus in relation to an issue; in other instances, specific opinions or isolated points are included in the report because they raise issues of importance. Care must be taken about the weight given to unique responses. Where an issue has been raised by a number of respondents, even if in relation to a different question, this reinforces its relevance.
1.19 In this report, the main points raised in the consultation document in relation to each of the questions then posed are first summarised before the responses to each question are discussed.
« Previous | Contents | Next »