Seòmar agus comataidhean

There are two points to make. One is about the specific measures that we are considering to extend voting rights, and the other is more broadly about ensuring that the voice of lived experience is able to engage and participate fully in the democratic process. On that latter point, we would all agree that we need to continue to ensure that full support is provided to all people who wish to participate and engage in our democratic process by seeking elected office, whether to a local authority, the Scottish Parliament or the UK Parliament.

What we are looking at specifically around voting rights strengthens the democratic process. In general terms, democracy is not just a one-off event at the ballot box every five years. We have seen good working between the Scottish Government and local authorities through COSLA to strengthen participatory democracy in other areas, such as participatory budgeting and the democracy matters work. The order is an example of how we can strengthen decision making at the local level by ensuring that the voice of lived experience, which is already present on IJBs, has additional power through voting rights. That will change the dynamic in discussions and decision making.

We absolutely need to ensure that all who wish to participate in our democratic process and seek elected office are supported to do so. Indeed, as I said in my opening remarks, in terms of enhancing voting rights, we will be paying particular attention to and focusing on ensuring that those lived-experience members are fully supported so that they can fully engage and discharge their responsibilities on the board.

I appreciate the point that you are raising, Mr Sweeney. If I identify some practitioners and omit others, there is a risk that people might infer from that a criticism directed at any individual body that I do not mention, so I will resist doing that. However, I would always encourage good practice to be widely shared through the existing collaborative approach.

The order will certainly change the overall dynamic that exists within IJBs as a result of the additional rights that lived-experienced members will have. Where there are areas that already have strong existing practice, I know that they will appreciate and understand the value that that will confer. In areas where there have perhaps been more challenges and there has been negative feedback from lived-experienced members, I think that the change can be particularly impactful.

The first point, of course, is that a class of lived-experience members—third sector, unpaid carers and service users within the local area—are already on the IJB. The order is about changing their status on the IJB to one in which they will have voting rights. The second point is that there will be variation in the composition of membership of different IJBs, based on the size of the area in which they are working.

More broadly, on wider questions and looking at the overall governance structure, we had an extended debate earlier in this parliamentary session on the national care service proposals. Parliament arrived at a particular position, and there was a commitment between the Scottish Government and local authorities, through COSLA, to work constructively and collaboratively across a number of areas in order to strengthen not just performance but the voice of experience. I come back to the point that this change can play an important role not just in enhancing and strengthening local accountability with regard to governance, but in ensuring that the voice of lived experience—and the expertise that is contained within it—is fully brought to bear on decision making.

I warmly welcome the sentiment that you express, Ms Mochan, and I appreciate that you are seeking assurance around the process. I sought to touch on that in my opening statement. Through the working group that we have established, we will of course want to provide assurance around the process. A number of things will need to be taken account of in terms of governance, standing orders and procedures, but these are not novel issues. We are all familiar with operating within a parliamentary environment. Those processes are well established on public bodies, and the engagement of the Standards Commission, through the working group, will assist us in ensuring that we can provide that full information and consistency of approach so that people are able to participate fully and so that rights and obligations are fully understood.

You asked about the range of lived experience. There is a huge amount of lived experience, and being able to tap into that is one of the strengths of our current model, which I think will only be strengthened by the conferring of voting rights.

With regard to mapping the range of lived experience that exists across IJBs at the moment, I do not have that information to hand. I would be happy to come back to the committee on that—unless any officials want to say something.

Thank you, convener. I thank the committee for the invitation to discuss the order, which covers an important issue.

I am pleased to have been able to respond to the call from people with lived experience of social care on the matter of voting rights on IJBs. The message has been loud and clear: lived-experience members have not felt included as equal and valued members of IJBs. The order is a step in the right direction to change that.

From the hundreds of people who attended our co-design sessions, participated in the lived-experience experts panel and responded to our survey during the development of the national care service, from the multiple organisations representing those with lived experience that responded to our consultation and participated in the expert legislative advisory group, and from the lived-experience representatives who took the time to speak with my officials during the development of the order, I have heard clearly and consistently that they want a more effective voice at the table.

To that end, I must address the criticism from COSLA and others that the order was laid without sufficient consultation. That overlooks our sustained engagement on the specific issue of voting rights over the past five years, including intensely throughout the past year. Quite frankly, I believe that a whiff of paternalism runs through many of the hesitations that have been raised. As one of our existing lived-experience representatives put it, we are yet to encounter a problem or concern that could not be understood and resolved with appropriate training and guidance.

Since the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014 was introduced, lived-experience representatives have been involved in discussions on planning and budgeting in IJBs. IJBs already have a responsibility to ensure that lived-experience representatives can understand and contribute to those discussions. That is not new.

I reassure the committee that the concerns that have been raised are being taken seriously. My officials are wasting no time and have already established a short-life working group to support the implementation of the order. The group, which had its first meeting last month, is made up of representatives from across Scotland, including those with lived experience and public sector leaders. The group will look at what else can be done to address barriers to full participation on the boards.

As I have set out in correspondence, I am committed to reviewing recruitment processes for IJB members with lived experience to mirror processes for other public body board members. My officials are working with the Standards Commission for Scotland to ensure that codes of conduct reflect the responsibilities of voting members. The Standards Commission is represented on our short-life working group and we are working closely with it as part of implementation.

We also intend to introduce investment and greater support to help representatives with lived experience to discharge their added responsibilities. That will involve greater input from our third sector partners—most significantly, the ALLIANCE and the Coalition of Carers in Scotland, which provide excellent support for the current cohort of lived-experience representatives and have been crucial and critical friends in our development of the voting rights proposal.

People with lived experience provide valuable insight into the challenges and opportunities that should be considered during IJB planning. Through this proposed change, we expect to see more inclusive, collaborative and improved decision making. It is not credible to suggest that strengthening the role of people with lived experience in decision making will somehow make the IJBs less democratic. I hope that the committee agrees that the order that is being considered can play an important role in strengthening the voice of lived experience.

These individuals are already around the table. Rather than just being in a position where they can be consulted and contribute, they will have a vote, and that is an act of empowerment. We are not proposing adding members to the discussion forum, but increasing the proportion of members who have votes as part of the decision-making forum. The order will give those members a vote, which will empower them. The overall size, composition and structure of IJBs is obviously a much larger question that goes beyond the scope of what we are considering today. The order is ultimately about enhancing the rights of a category of members who already sit on IJBs.

There are already established practices. The legislation that governs this is now 12 years old. I think that 2016 was the point at which all areas had to conform with that legislation and establish local integration authorities.

We now have a decade’s experience and established processes for people with lived experience being members of IJBs. What the order fundamentally changes is their status from that of non-voting members to voting members.

That is an important question. A right is only a right if it can be realised. We recognise that those with lived experience, whether users of social care or unpaid carers, will potentially face additional challenges and require additional support. The points that you make about things such as accessible documentation are important, and there is a range of other issues that we have to look at to ensure that people are fully supported to be able to participate. Participation involves not only their attending a meeting, but having the time to consider the papers, form an opinion and consult on the issues, if they wish to do so, just as we do in our roles as MSPs.

As I touched on in my opening remarks, an important part of the work that we do ahead of implementation in September will involve consideration of the support that we provide and engagement with partners such as the ALLIANCE and the Coalition of Carers in Scotland, and that includes identifying what additional resources will be required. Obviously, we want to work with our partners to identify what the specific needs will be. We can have an idea of what they might be, but we want to work that out in more detail, so that we are in a position to ensure that the appropriate support is provided.

I agree with you entirely that it is not enough simply to have the right, and that support has to be in place to allow people to participate fully and to be able to exercise that right to the fullest extent.

We will come back to you on that, rather than giving you information off the cuff. If there is a desire for it, we can certainly look at what we have available and provide an update to the committee.

As I touched on in my opening statement, there has been a consistent call from the voice of lived experience; indeed, the issue was referenced in the Feeley review. The Scottish Government and COSLA recognise the vital and important role of lived experience across a wide range of policy areas in having a more participative approach to democracy. The order will help to change the dynamic in the way in which IJBs conduct their business.

We have reflected on the fact that we have heard directly from individuals who have lived experience and have been on IJBs that they feel that they have not been fully included in the process and that their participation can be somewhat tokenistic. The order changes that. Enabling those with lived experience—that class of representatives—on IJBs to have voting rights changes the dynamic and the conversation and, crucially, it empowers. That can lead to more effective governance and decision making at the local level.