We use cookies to collect anonymous data to help us improve your site browsing experience.

Click 'Accept all cookies' to agree to all cookies that collect anonymous data. To only allow the cookies that make the site work, click 'Use essential cookies only.' Visit 'Set cookie preferences' to control specific cookies.

Set cookie preferences

Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Publication - Consultation analysis

A Human Rights Bill for Scotland: consultation analysis

Published
24 January 2024
Directorate
Equality, Inclusion and Human Rights Directorate
Part of
Equality and rights
ISBN
9781835218501

The independent analysis by Alma Economics of responses to the consultation on A Human Rights Bill for Scotland, commissioned by Scottish Government.

View supporting documents Supporting documents

Appendix B: Tables with a breakdown of responses by respondent type (individuals and organisations)

Question 1: What are your views on our proposal to allow for dignity to be considered by courts in interpreting the rights in the Bill?
Respondent type Allow Don’t allow
Organisation 139 (99%) 1 (1%)
Individual 54 (54%) 46 (46%)
All respondents 193 (80%) 47 (20%)
Question 2: What are your views on our proposal to allow for dignity to be a key threshold for defining the content of minimum core obligation (MCOs)?
Respondent type Allow Don’t allow
Organisation 135 (99%) 2 (1%)
Individual 53 (54%) 46 (46%)
All respondents 188 (80%) 48 (20%)
Question 5: Are there any rights in the equality treaties which you think should be treated differently?
Respondent type Yes No
Organisation 58 (69%) 26 (31%)
Individual 23 (31%) 51 (69%)
All respondents 81 (51%) 77 (49%)
Question 6: Do you agree or disagree with our proposed basis for defining the environment?
Respondent type Agree Disagree
Organisation 89 (85%) 16 (15%)
Individual 52 (52%) 48 (48%)
All respondents 141 (69%) 64 (31%)
Question 9: Do you agree or disagree with our proposed approach to the protection of healthy and sustainable food as part of the incorporation of the right to adequate food in International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), rather than inclusion as a substantive aspect of the right to a healthy environment?
Respondent type Agree Disagree
Organisation 38 (39%) 59 (61%)
Individual 47 (48%) 51 (52%)
All respondents 85 (44%) 110 (56%)
Question 10: Do you agree or disagree with our proposed approach to including safe and sufficient water as a substantive aspect of the right to a healthy environment?
Respondent type Agree Disagree
Organisation 91 (98%) 2 (2%)
Individual 66 (67%) 32 (33%)
All respondents 157 (82%) 34 (18%)
Question 11: Are there any other substantive or procedural elements you think should be understood as aspects of the right?
Respondent type Yes No
Organisation 50 (70%) 21 (30%)
Individual 36 (42%) 50 (58%)
All respondents 86 (55%) 71 (45%)
Question 16: Do you agree or disagree that the use of ‘other status’ in the equality provision would sufficiently protect the rights of LGBTI and older people?
Respondent type Agree Disagree
Organisation 21 (22%) 76 (78%)
Individual 23 (28%) 58 (72%)
All respondents 44 (25%) 134 (75%)
Question 18: Do you think the Bill Framework needs to do anything additionally for LGBTI or older people?
Respondent type Yes No
Organisation 49 (78%) 14 (22%)
Individual 20 (24%) 62 (76%)
All respondents 69 (48%) 76 (52%)
Question 35: Do you agree or disagree that existing judicial remedies are sufficient in delivering effective remedy for rights-holders?
Respondent type Agree Disagree
Organisation 21 (32%) 44 (68%)
Individual 45 (65%) 24 (35%)
All respondents 66 (49%) 68 (51%)

Contact

Email: humanrightsoffice@gov.scot

Back to top