Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is important to understand that the regulations do not exist in a vacuum. They exist in the context of long-established legal frameworks, which range from human rights frameworks and the ECHR to public health measures. There is also a context of a culture of established working relationships between a range of relevant bodies and of the expertise that is contained in those bodies. Providers have clear obligations around the health, safety and wellbeing of residents, visitors and those who work in a care home setting. When considering the regulations, it is important to appreciate the wider context in which they are situated.

Requests could be made via email, a letter in the post, or, for example, an online form that is made available by the provider. Clearly, we want to ensure that the process is as accessible as possible. Again, that is reflected in the code.

Again, that will be picked up in the code of practice. My officials might want to say something specific on the timescales.

Yes. There is a requirement for ministers to review the operation of Anne’s law after, I think, two years, and to review the code after five years. That work will be on-going. Of course, the Care Inspectorate will also have a role to play, so there will be on-going engagement and scrutiny. Further, it will be for Parliament to decide what it does, but I imagine that it will continue to maintain a strong interest in the matter.

I encourage the committee to support the draft regulations.

I move,

That the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee recommends that the Care Home Services (Visits to and by Care Home Residents) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved.

Motion agreed to.

All of the points that you have touched on are examples of the positive impact that the proposal could have. Of course, the order is about the enfranchisement of people with lived experience who are members of IJBs and, ultimately, there is a degree to which we cannot pre-empt the outcome of decisions that might be taken—in any democratic structure, we cannot pre-empt the outcomes that will arise from people having the opportunity to exercise their vote. What I hope will happen is that the proposal will help to address the feeling on the part of those with lived experience that they were not fully included in the decision-making process of IJBs and that their role was almost tokenistic. That situation will come to an end, because, if the order comes into effect, they will have voting rights, and that will change the dynamic entirely. It is not just about having the opportunity to exercise a vote; it is about what having that voting right does to the status of the individuals on the IJB, and the absolute need for their full inclusion and engagement in that process.

I do not want a situation where anyone with lived experience who is a member of an IJB does not feel fully included in the decision-making process or feels that they are there in a tokenistic capacity. If the order goes through, those days will be over, because they will have full rights. It will effect a cultural change as well. I recognise that examples of good practice have been highlighted by the committee, but I have heard far too many examples of that not being the case, and the order is about bringing that situation to an end.

Those are important questions, and I fully appreciate that the committee wants to explore them. My first point, as I touched on in my previous answer, is that those are all things with which we are quite familiar and have established processes for. If we think about how we conduct ourselves as MSPs in this Parliament, we have a register of interests and we need to declare any interests. Similarly, on public boards, there are long-established processes for dealing with conflicts of interest.

12:45

We have established a working group, which has already met. Subject to Parliament not standing in the way of the order, that working group will continue. There is a Standards Commission representative on the group, which will work through the specific areas pertaining to the points that Mr Whittle raised about processes and conflicts of interest, to ensure that clear guidance is provided and we can have full confidence in the process that will be undertaken when voting rights come into effect at the beginning of September.

I do not know whether there is anything that officials want to add to that.

The order responds to calls for the inclusion of those with lived experience: service users, third sector workers and unpaid carers—that is the particular focus. I am happy to give wider consideration to the issue. The role that you are talking about is distinct from the role of the lived-experience representatives, and other matters would have to be taken into account, so that is not something that the Government is close to giving further consideration to. The order before us responds to the specific calls for voting rights for those with lived experience.

There are already established processes in place. What I have touched on with regard to the work of the working group is a recognition of any additional guidance, advice and support that will be required, given that change of status of people with lived experience from being non-voting to voting members.

On the point about consultation, I refer back to my opening remarks. An extended piece of work has been undertaken on this over the past five years, and some intense work has been done over the past year as well. The fundamental question before us today is on the principle of whether we think that people with lived experience should be voting members of IJBs. The Government’s position is that they should be.

The questions of process are important, and we are committed to engaging fully with partners ahead of implementation. That is why we established the working group and extended an open invitation to COSLA to participate fully in that.

I appreciate the importance of these particular issues and technicalities, and I do not want anything that I have said to be construed as being dismissive of them. However, the point that I would make is that these are well-established and well-understood practicalities in terms of the process of having suitable governance arrangements within any public body. They are not things that are beyond our ability to address; they are process issues that can be worked through methodically. That is what the working group is there to achieve, and we will be able to identify effective solutions to ensure implementation that everyone can have confidence in.