This guest blog by Dr Clementine (Clemmie) Hill O’Connor arises from one of a series of SPICe academic fellowships supporting the organisation in its aspiration to increase and improve public participation. It is the last instalment in our blog series on participation and engagement. Our deliberative democracy timeline blog lists all of the publications and reports related to our deliberative journey.
Clemmie’s full briefing is due to be published in September, and this gives details of her interim findings and reflections.
As with all guest blogs, what follows are the views of the author and not those of SPICe, or of the Scottish Parliament.
Why this research is important
In May 2022 the Scottish Parliament’s Citizen Participation and Petitions Committee launched a Public Participation Inquiry. The aim was to understand “how people’s voices are heard in the work of the Parliament”. The culmination of this work is the Participation Blueprint which sets out an approach to embedding deliberative approaches to democracy in scrutiny during Session 7 of the Scottish Parliament (2026 to 2031). The Parliament agreed unanimously to the Blueprint in a vote on 3 June 2025. The Participation Blueprint is one of a number of current activities where the Parliament is reflecting on approaches to scrutiny and engagement, including the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s (SPPA) inquiry into committee effectiveness, and a strategic review of the Public Engagement Strategy.
As part of this, there has been a growth in activity around the methods and approaches that are used to bring a wider variety of people into the work of the Parliament. This includes recent Panels on drug harm and drugs deaths and climate change, and the programme of regional days culminating in a conference exploring how to better connect to communities. A feature of some of the discussions about these approaches is the idea of ‘lived experience’ – that is the experience of those directly affected by the legislation under scrutiny – and the role that this plays in scrutiny processes. Giving evidence to the SPPA Committee on 24 April 2025, Professor Diana Stirbu said:
… off-site visits can be very powerful. Politicians love those, because they put them in touch with people with lived experience. The question is how you acknowledge the value of those exercises. It is important to translate that into a committee report and acknowledge what people have heard and learned from such visits—otherwise, they remain a public relations exercise in the view of the people whom you have engaged with.
The increased interest in lived experience in the Scottish Parliament is mirrored across all levels of government, both national and local, and is an increasingly important component of policymaking processes. It has the potential to address democratic deficits, bringing a more diverse range of perspectives into policymaking, ultimately resulting in decisions that have stronger public support. It is also understood to bring those directly affected by policy into the process, giving voice to often marginalised groups.
My previous work shows there is significant interest in how to bring such evidence and insights from public engagement activities into policymaking, including through lived experience experts and panels. What it is less clear is how this form of evidence is used and integrated into policymaking spaces that are often driven by numbers or more traditional forms of spoken and written evidence. Understanding the perspectives of those who commission and use evidence from people with lived experience, i.e. the committees, is key to ensuring that it is incorporated in ways that are both effective and ethical.
Overview of Research
The Academic Fellowship scheme run by the Scottish Parliament through Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) was an opportunity to expand the focus of my work into the role of parliaments in policymaking and offered a route into interviews with MSPs.
Since January 2025 I have taken an immersive approach to understanding how lived experience is used in the Scottish Parliament. Similarly to recent SPICe Fellow Dr Cara Broadley, who looked at how creative methods might support participation in scrutiny, I spent time working among Parliament staff from the office, using shadowing and interviews to build a full picture of working practices, challenges and opportunities.
My aim is to answer the following questions:
- To what extent is ‘lived experience’ understood as a form of evidence in parliamentary process?
- What are the methods and processes through which lived experience features in the work of the Scottish Parliament?
- What guidance and/or frameworks can be put into place to support the integration of lived experience into parliamentary business in ways that align with principles of ethical participation and rigorous research practice?
Through this work, I have developed three case studies to explore the processes through which committees engage with people who have lived experience of the issues under scrutiny. This in-depth work is the first of its kind, focusing specifically on:
- Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee – Tenants Panel and Landlord Panel as part of Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill
- Social Justice and Social Security Committee – work with survivors of domestic abuse on the inquiry into the Financial considerations of leaving an abusive relationship
- Health, Social Care and Sports Committee – engagement with people with experience of addiction as part of Stage 1 of the Right to (Addiction) Recovery Bill
Early analysis: Value of bringing people with Lived Experience into Parliamentary Processes
Whilst this work is ongoing until September 2025, early analysis indicates some interesting findings that link to discussions in the recent parliamentary debates on the Participation Blueprint and the SPPA inquiry into Committee Effectiveness.
Effective scrutiny … is about ensuring that legislation is well crafted, that policies are evidence based and that citizens’ voices—especially those of people who live in rural areas—are heard and respected.
Finlay Carson MSP, Committee Effectiveness debate, Official Report, 22 May 2025
There is broad agreement across those that I have interviewed (committee members, clerks, staff from Participation and Communities Team and SPICe) that lived experience refers to the direct experience of the issue(s) covered either in the Bill that is under scrutiny or that is/are the focus of the inquiry.
This type of input into inquiries and processes of scrutiny is seen as an important part of the mix of evidence that a committee hears. It is described as being ‘emotive’, ‘grounded in reality’ and valued for its power and impact. Indeed, there were a number of instances of members recounting examples of where their perspectives have shifted as result of hearing from people with direct experience related to a Bill. Importantly, the process of bringing these perspectives into Parliament is viewed as a way to create better legislation as it can fill gaps in understanding and offer new forms of knowledge. One member described input from people with lived experience of a Bill under scrutiny as offering an important ‘check and balance’ to the process.
Imagine committee inquiries that begin not just with scoping sessions among MSPs but with co-designed workshops involving people with lived experience. Imagine evidence sessions that include structured public dialogue facilitated by trained staff. Imagine brief micro-panels, if you like, of five or six people who are randomly selected but supported to offer reflections before or after committee scrutiny. Those would be small but meaningful steps.
Maggie Chapman MSP, Participation Blueprint debate, Official Report, 3 June 2025
There was also an understanding that inviting people with lived experience of the issue under scrutiny was part of a broader commitment to including a more diverse range of voices within parliamentary processes. This is based on the idea that there is inherent value in widening and deepening citizen engagement in the day-to-day work of the parliament. This is exemplified in the rationale and motivation as set out in the Citizen Participation and Petitions Committee’s Blueprint, and is key to the Scottish Parliaments’ focus on embedding deliberative processes.
Panels also need to be part of a wide-ranging and strategic public engagement approach which makes it easier for even those with limited time or confidence to contribute. The overall approach to increasing participation needs several strands: educating and informing the Scottish public; listening to people to understand how the Parliament can be of value and have impact; and giving people many different ways to have an impact on scrutiny by sharing their opinions and experience.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, Blueprint for embedding deliberative democracy in the work of the Scottish Parliament, 22 May 2025
Where next?
This research shows that lived experience is valued by MSPs and parliamentary staff. Nevertheless, the task of bringing people with lived experience into the work of the Parliament is not a simple one. There are examples of good practice, and a clear commitment from teams across the Parliament to continued learning and reflection. There are important consequences if this type of work is not done carefully. ‘The Limitations of Lived Experience’ blog series published by the National Survivor User Network outlines a range of issues including the co-option of lived experience and the risk that, despite the traumatic experiences that are shared, there is no meaningful change.
As I move into the final stages of data generation and subsequent analysis, I am focused on identifying recommendations to support further development of these ways of working. Key recommendations that have been suggested by participants include facilitation training for both MSPs and Parliament staff, increased resource for developing networks that support people with lived experience to engage with Parliament, more time to commit to planning approaches to inquiries and scrutiny. These points harmonise with evidence taken by the SPPA Committee during its committee effectiveness inquiry.
Perhaps there should be more thinking about bringing in the public earlier in the process. Rather than going out to the public and looking for the audiences and groups that are affected by a bill, an inquiry or whatever it might be, that would involve taking a step back and thinking, “What does the public want to hear about? What are the issues that affect the public?
That would be part of a wider piece of work that would show the relevance of the Parliament and its committees to the people. Committees have an excellent opportunity to do that, because they deal with the detail of the specific issues that affect us every day, but do the public know that and realise how relevant committees are to their lives? There are innovations to consider, such as asking the public, “What inquiry should we do?” or “Where is legislation needed?” instead of calling for the public’s views as part of an inquiry.
Professor Cristina Leston-Bandeira, Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee Official Report, 3 April 2025
One of the ambitions for this research is to contribute to the development of content and materials that can support some of these recommendations. Crucially I plan to develop a framework to guide decisions about the role of lived experience in parliamentary processes based on context, resources, and desired outcomes. This will compliment the principles and framework-based approach recommended by Dr Ruth Lightbody in her 2024 SPICe Fellowship which went on to inform the Blueprint for embedding deliberative democracy.
Author
Dr Clementine Hill O’Connor is a Research Fellow in the Division for Social and Urban Policy at University of Glasgow. Her expertise is on the role of citizens and citizen voices in policy-making processes, public engagement as evidence and gendered responses to welfare conditionality.