Chamber and committees

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.

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.