Human Rights Tracker Design Group minutes: March 2025

Attendees and apologies

• Eilidh Dickson, Scottish Human Rights Commission
• Charlie McMillan, Human Rights Consortium Scotland
• Brianna Fletcher, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
• Farah Farzana, Scottish Council Equality Network
• Maria Doyle, Together
• Professor Alan Miller, University of Strathclyde
• Rhona Willder, Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance
• Stewart MacLachlan, Amnesty International
• Emma Hunter, Observer, Children and Young People Commissioner

Apologies

• Euan Donald, Scottish Parliament

• Nicki Georghiou, Scottish Parliament
• Rob Gowans, Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland

Items and actions

Welcome and introductions

Kavita Chetty, Deputy Director for Human Rights and Chair of this group, welcomed members to the meeting and noted apologies.

She outlined that the purpose of this group is to draw on members’ expertise in human rights monitoring and implementation to advance the development of a tracker tool by March 2026.

Context and Terms of Reference

Scottish Government officials provided context of Scotland’s historical context of developing a tracker tool, including the Scottish Parliament’s former Equalities and Human Rights Committee’s ‘Getting Rights Right report’ in 2018 and it was also identified in Scotland’s second National Human Rights Action Plan and is in the Leadership Panel’s prioritised action list. Ministers are committed to support the development of a tool at pace in the current parliamentary session, subject to the views of stakeholders.

Objectives of the tracker tool

Officials presented the Scottish Government perspective on how the tracker tool would be used, emphasising improving transparency, accountability and implementation. Officials expressed that the ambition of the Scottish Government is to meet international reporting obligations and ensure enhanced domestic level scrutiny. It was suggested that a tracker tool could be used as a database that centralises recommendations from international treaty bodies with implementation information in Scotland.

Members noted that there is an opportunity for Scotland to lead and drive improvement of international practise in terms of effective tracker tools by incorporating a whole-society approach. The role of a tracker is to bring international reporting into a more proactive space. A tracker should be used between cycles to drive improvement and give information on how quickly Scotland is progressing. Members indicated that there is a gap in implementation measures once reporting concluding observations were published and thought should be given on how to engage and include the public sector in tool development and usage. Additionally, members recognised that as well as focusing on the Scottish Government’s role and responsibilities, the tracker could also link to work such as the Mainstreaming strategy and Sustainable Development Goals.

On discussion of the Terms of reference, officials outlined the Design Group members’ role as being to contribute views on project design priorities for the development of a human rights tracker tool, with decision maker powers remaining with Ministers.

The Chair clarified that the Secretariat would draft a Project Initiation Report and Design Group members will have the opportunity to review and comment. This Report will be presented to Scottish Ministers. If there is no consensus, a record of members’ points of dissent will be noted in the report and published minutes for transparency.

Officials will consider the below points to reflect changes to the Terms of Reference. Members were encouraged to raise any further points on via correspondence. The Secretariat will circulate the latest version of the Terms of Reference to Design Group members for approval via correspondence.

Presentation of options on ownership and form

Officials delivered a presentation which provided information on ownership and potential platforms for the tool, referencing the options appraisal paper that had been shared with the group prior to the meeting.

Three potential ownership routes were highlighted which were (i) government owned; (ii) external to government owned and (iii) a hybrid model of ownership entailing shared or transfer of ownership. Officials outlined factors to consider when choosing an option which included timescales, objectivity, deliverability and resource. Three options for tracker platforms were also highlighted (i) creation of a spreadsheet; (ii) adopting an existing platform and (iii) commissioning a bespoke tool. Factors for consideration highlighted to members included cost, risk and timescales.

Officials noted Scottish Government working preference (subject to group discussions and Ministerial approval) as hybrid ownership model that would allow the Scottish Government to own and develop the tool in a first phase and adopt a pre-existing platform model to launch the tool by March 2026. This provides the Group with additional time to discuss the ownership model once the tool has been launched.

In the discussion that followed, members provided the following reflections:

The PowerPoint presentation was useful in understanding the different platform options, however, members expressed that they would like to see a walkthrough of the different tools to better visualise the options available.

• on the question of ownership, members broadly agreed that the initial development of the tool should be the responsibility of government given the timescales, with the option of hybrid or transferred ownership in future
• members felt that choosing option of ownership before the group has decided on what functionality the tracker should have may pose challenges
• some key concerns about the use of a spreadsheet as a platform for the tool were raised drawing on previous experience
• this included difficulties of interconnecting different concluding observations and treaties, the lack of a user-friendly interface and the high resource maintenance, with a general consensus that a spreadsheet would not be suitable as a tool
• members recognised that a bespoke tool would carry a high cost and longer timescales that may not add significant value to the final product; they indicated a preference for adopting an existing platform
• it was acknowledged that a sustainable tool requires public participation and support in engaging with treaty recommendations
•  members also suggested the need to consider the use of Artificial Intelligence with a human rights lens

The Secretariat noted all the challenges raised and will incorporate those to the risk register to mitigate potential issues. The Chair summarised views and confirmed that the next meeting would further explore scope and functionality.

Actions

The following actions were agreed by the Group:

• officials will create the first draft of the project initiation report once key questions on ownership, form, functionality and scope have been discussed
• officials to provide options for tool scope and functionality, and provide demonstrations of some existing tools that could be adopted
• members will contribute any further views on issues discussed via correspondence

Close

Chair thanked members and noted that the next Design Group meeting will take place in late April / early May, with officials to issue an invitation in due course.