Chamber and committees

On the first point, the code of practice will provide more detail around expectations in relation to reviews. On the second point, there are currently processes for making complaints directly to a provider or to the Care Inspectorate. Again, we must appreciate the wider context in which the regulations exist, and the importance of the code in terms of providing that operational detail.

I do not know whether my officials have anything to add—I see that they do not.

Yes, absolutely. We recognise that some of the decisions that the code of practice covers will have to be taken rapidly. The time sensitivities are very much recognised in the code.

The issue involves a number of areas. The balance between the right to private and family life and the right to life is a key issue. That involves a scenario in which there is a clear danger of risk to life, health and wellbeing. These are not easy decisions to take, and that is why the code of practice goes into those matters in some detail and seeks to provide support in that regard.

I would regard a situation in which no visits at all were possible as extremely rare and remote. There would have to be an absolutely extreme set of circumstances, and we have sought to ensure that the rights of essential care supporters are clearly stated in the regulations and in the code.

We could start entertaining hypothetical situations and speculating about what might happen, but, ultimately, it will come down to a judgment that will have to be made. However, there is no ambiguity around the expectations that are set out in the regulations, which will be the law of the land, as passed by Parliament. The code of practice will help, as it will illustrate and flesh out some of the detail around how those regulations will be operationalised. However, I appreciate the sensitivity of the issue, and I want to provide assurance about the intention behind the regulations and why we have taken the approach that we have. That will be further buttressed by what is in the code.

Laura Kennedy, do you want to add anything on the balance of rights?

Of course. I cannot compel future Governments and Parliaments, but I imagine that the Parliament would want to take a keen interest in how it is operationalised and in the learning that comes from that, notwithstanding the statutory commitments for review. Learning will inevitably emerge from any new provision that comes into operation. The care standards have been in place for some time now and there has already been a significant amount of learning, which is reflected in the consultation and engagement that we had before lodging the SSI. The learning and information will be at the disposal of ministers and the Parliament in considering any future amendments that would be required, either to the regulations or, indeed, to the code.

To summarise, there will be opportunities for the code and regulations to be revisited based on learning, which demonstrates the importance of close engagement and monitoring. For example, if it were to come to the attention of ministers or a future Government that changes were required to improve operational efficiency or to avoid any unintended consequences, there would be opportunities to make those changes, as there would be with any regulations. Given that this is being done through secondary legislation, it is not something that requires a new act of Parliament and can be done in a relatively quick, efficient and effective manner.

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.

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.