Human Rights: Incorporation and Implementation Oversight Board minutes - June 2025

Attendees and apologies

Members

• Alan Miller, Strathclyde University
• Andrew Crawford, SPSO
• Angela O’Hagan, Scottish Human Rights Commission
• Benji Brown, ERCS
• Brianna Fletcher, COSLA
• Christopher Clannachan, Equality Network
• Emma Hutton, Just Right Scotland
• Francesca Malila, CEMVO
• Hussein Patwa, SNAP2
• Lorna Watson, Public Health Scotland
• Michael Clancy, Law Society
• Neil Cowan, Amnesty
• Nicole Busby, Glasgow University
• Pauline Nolan, Inclusion Scotland
• Rebecca Spillane, Improvement Service
• Sarah McDermott, Together Scotland
• Simon Cameron, COSLA
• Stuart McLachlan, Amnesty

Scottish Government

• Deputy Director, Human Rights Division
• Officials from the Human Rights Division

Items and actions

Welcome and introduction

Scottish Government officials opened the meeting by outlining the agenda and discussed progress since the inaugural oversight board meeting in March 2025. This included work to progress actions in the incorporation and implementation delivery plan, such as the establishment and initial meetings of the Capability Building Working Group and the Tracker Design Group. Subject to final Ministerial agreement, a discussion paper on the Human Rights Bill is expected to be published in the coming weeks.

It was acknowledged the subject matter of the discussion paper will be complex and highly technical. There was a discussion on how to make engagement on bill policy detail more accessible to a broader range of audiences. Officials welcomed advice from members here, and will consider how to support meaningful participation.

There was a short discussion on the work of the (now concluded) Lived Experience Board (LEB). Officials advising they are considering proposals in the discussion paper through the lens of reports by the LEB. A written response to the reports of the LEB is in development. 

Overview of the discussion paper

An overview of the discussion paper was provided, focusing on key areas such as treaty requirements and interpretation, duties, judicial accountability, non-judicial accountability, and implementation measures. High-level information was shared on the proposed approach to these areas, as well as an indication of areas for further consideration. 

The complexities within each area were also briefly addressed. It was noted that slides would be circulated to members, and full details would be set out in the discussion paper upon its publication later this month. There were pauses for questions, during which members requested further information on specific proposals. These queries have been captured in the ‘initial reflections and questions’ section later in this note.

Next steps

Officials noted that the discussion paper will serve as a tool to enable proactive engagement, allowing officials to explore with stakeholders specific aspects of the proposals in greater depth. Further details on the engagement approach will be provided in the coming weeks, including an update at the next oversight board meeting. Engagement will be considered through the structure of and actions within an updated delivery plan – with board members invited to provide oversight of and advice on. 

Officials emphasised the importance of ensuring that engagement is flexible and responsive to stakeholder capacity. Whilst publication of the discussion paper is not a formal consultation exercise, officials will be pursuing targeted engagement across the coming year to help further develop bill proposals and inform decisions on next steps. Emerging insights will be shared with the oversight board, and broader updates will be communicated through the human rights division’s regular newsletter. 

Officials also noted the discussion paper will be accompanied by an easy read version to support accessibility.

Initial reflections and questions

ERCS discussed links to the aarhus convention and were pleased to see a procedural duty for the right to a healthy environment in the update but requested further detail on what this looks like. Officials explained they would proactively seek discussions on proposals within the discussion paper to provide more information and to further test and refine proposals.

The Law Society discussed the importance of engagement with the correct people in the UK Government, so devolution issues can be resolved in advance of a future bill. Officials discussed the regular engagement they have been having with the UK Government and are confident they are engaging with the right people.

Inclusion Scotland discussed duties, particularly in relation to the Group Protection Treaties (GPTs), and real world implications a future bill could have. Officials explained the complexity of this work and explained the need to create a clear, workable accessible bill within the limits of devolution. Officials noted they would proactively seek discussions on proposals within the discussion paper to provide more information and to further test and refine these proposals.

Inclusion Scotland asked for further detail on how the UNCRPD would be reflected in the proposals. Officials offered follow up engagement with Inclusion and other DPOs in whatever manner would be helpful.

Prof Nicole Busby asked for further information on the procedural duty for GPTs in relation to their application for private actors within the proposals. The rationale for the approach set out in the discussion paper was briefly noted, with a recognition engagement would continue in this space as the complexities are navigated.

The Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) indicated that they would be seeking substantial further engagement on what was proposed here (particularly in relation to their mandate and powers), noted their disappointment at the strength of the proposed GPT duty, and discussed the importance of raising human rights knowledge among those who will be implementing a future bill. They asked for further detail on UK Government engagement and noted the forthcoming engagement they will have with SG officials on the powers of the SHRC. 

Just Right Scotland asked officials to consider the resources that would be required for oversight bodies and the SHRC to ensure any additional powers granted through the bill are meaningful and effective. The discussion also touched on the potential links between these additional powers and the role of law centres, particularly in relation to advice powers proposed for the SHRC. Officials provided a brief explanation of why advice powers are being explored and outlined the financial implications work undertaken to date across the board. They acknowledged that this work is ongoing and will be further supported through upcoming engagements, facilitated by the discussion paper.

Prof Alan Miller reflected on the broader significance of the proposed human rights bill, describing it as a major step forward for human rights in Scotland. He acknowledged the considerable complexities that officials are working through, as well as the frustrations expressed by some stakeholders regarding the proposals. He urged members to frame the narrative around the discussion paper as one of constructive problem-solving, to help navigate the challenges and complexity. He emphasised the importance of maintaining momentum and fostering a positive atmosphere to ensure the bill is in a strong position for introduction early in the next parliamentary session, subject to the outcome of the 2026 Scottish Parliament election.

Any other business

Members were reminded that the in-person oversight board meeting is currently scheduled for the morning of Tuesday 24 June. However, it was noted that, as of Friday 30 May, the minister has been called to appear before committee that same morning. 

Secretariat is working with the minister’s office to identify an alternative time, likely the afternoon of 24 June. They will confirm revised arrangements as soon as possible. Apologies were extended for any inconvenience this may cause. 

The meeting was concluded with thanks to all members for their time and contributions.