Equality and Human Rights Mainstreaming strategy: consultation analysis

4. Developing Accountability and Transparency

Chapter 4 presents views on the second of the six proposed drivers: accountability and transparency. The consultation paper states that "accountability and transparency are critical for ensuring good governance in Government and the wider public sector." The paper also emphasises the importance of allowing the public and diverse stakeholders to scrutinise the impacts of policies and practices.

Q7. Do you agree accountability and transparency are a key driver for mainstreaming equality and human rights?

Among those answering Q7, 93% agreed that accountability and transparency are a key driver for mainstreaming equality and human rights; 4% disagreed, and 3% were unsure. Almost all organisations (97%) agreed, compared to 81% of individuals.

Reasons for agreement

Just over three quarters of respondents left an open comment at Q7. Many agreed with including accountability and transparency as a key driver. Several respondents reiterated their agreement but did not provide any further information as to why they agreed. Others provided reasons for their support, presented here from most to least prevalent.

Some respondents agreed that accountability and transparency are key drivers. They felt they were important aspects of assessing the Strategy’s impact, enabling stakeholders to understand how mainstreaming is progressing. Some felt that awareness of increased oversight would ensure that mainstreaming goes beyond a tick-box exercise, resulting in more positive outcomes.

Support for accountability and transparency as a way to build public trust was mentioned by some. The importance of accessibility and clear communication with stakeholders to ensure that actions and progress are truly transparent was also noted.

Some others agreed with this key driver, thinking it would lead to equitable treatment for all. While a few described the driver as proactively helping to maintain consistency, others felt that transparency would also allow action to be taken after the fact for those who feel they have not been treated fairly.

Positive comments about accountability and transparency were made at other points in the consultation. For example, some respondents at Q18 and Q19 (considering enhanced capability and culture) emphasised the need for enforcement action or accountability mechanisms. Views included that the Strategy would only be effective if staff and agencies are accountable for progress, that leaders should promote change and impose consequences for those failing to embrace it, that a clear framework for action and measuring progress should be in place, and that legislation should be used to underpin duties to comply. Some respondents at Q18 commented on the need for oversight, such as establishing independent oversight bodies to monitor and evaluate impact, holding bodies to account, enabling complaints to be made, and requiring reports on actions planned and taken to meet human rights duties.

Suggestions and concerns

Many of those who agreed at the closed question or commented expressing their support also had some questions or highlighted additional considerations. These were often reiterated at Q8 and are included in the analysis of responses to that question below. Some expressed concern about the financial resources and capacity needed to implement this driver, which is covered in Chapter 8.

Reasons for disagreement

While some respondents disagreed with the driver, a few did not provide reasons why and others raised points captured in the analysis of responses to Q8 and Q9 below.

Q8. Have we captured the core elements of accountability and transparency within the context of mainstreaming?

Just under half (48%) of those answering Q8 felt that the core elements of accountability and transparency had been captured in the consultation. Over one third (35%) felt they had not, and 17% were unsure. Individuals were less likely than organisations to feel this was the case (28% and 56% agreed respectively). Opinions varied among organisations. Agreement that the core elements had been captured was highest among health organisations (88%), public bodies (73%) and local authorities (70%), but lower among equality advocacy organisations (39%) and other professional/membership bodies (40%).

More clarity needed

Just under three quarters of respondents answered Q8. Several respondents requested more clarity on aspects of accountability and transparency and how it would look in practice. This included questions about the implementation, reporting, monitoring and enforcement. A few asked for greater clarity about which regulatory bodies would have the powers to perform these functions. Respondents also highlighted concerns about barriers some may face, both those under scrutiny and those scrutinising.

Accessible data

Several respondents mentioned the need to ensure that data is accessible for scrutiny to enable true transparency. Some highlighted specific groups that could struggle to access information, whereas others requested further information about how data would be made accessible. Others suggested establishing roles with responsibility for accountability to assist in monitoring and publishing data or that ways needed to be found to ensure that data recorded was accurate and to a high standard.

Formalised pathways for redress

Alongside accessible data, some highlighted the need for clear pathways or mechanisms for people to provide complaints or seek redress for mistreatment. Respondents provided examples of past experiences where access to public services was difficult or denied.

Co-production with people with lived experience

Some respondents reiterated the importance of consulting on the implementation and effectiveness of proposals with people with lived experience. Engaging those with lived experience is addressed in more detail in Chapter 6.

Changes to the current system

Looking at the current model of government accountability in Scotland, some respondents agreed with the proposal but were concerned it would be ineffective, and a few others acknowledged the need for tangible change.

Q9. What actions would you recommend to ensure greater accountability and transparency contributes to mainstreaming?

Accessible information

Over four fifths of respondents answered Q9. Many called for action to improve access to data. Several focussed on the Freedom of Information Act, recommending that the process of requesting information and data be greatly simplified. Others felt that institutional oversight could be improved, for example, by using an Information Commissioner or increasing the resources for the Public Services Ombudsman. The formation of a new position to ensure public sector accountability for human rights and equality mainstreaming was also suggested.

Monitoring and reporting requirements

Consistent and comprehensive data reporting was highlighted by several respondents as necessary for greater transparency and accountability. Recommendations included publishing impact assessments, business cases, and any collected metrics and indicators, such as annual performance reports and evaluations of accountability frameworks. Others highlighted current gaps in the collection of certain types of data that would need to be improved to ensure transparency going forward.

Several respondents highlighted the importance of monitoring, but thought further detail could be provided on who would be responsible and how it would be carried out. A few suggested strengthening the role of regulators to provide stronger enforcement for public agencies or bodies that are not complying with the Strategy.

Some respondents reiterated their support for the Human Rights Bill and Learning Disabilities and Nuerodivergence Bill, believing they would place a duty on Scottish Ministers to clearly report on actions related to human rights requirements.