Create opportunities for people to share lived experience...

Create opportunities for people to share lived experience...

Create opportunities for people to use and share their lived experience to engage on issues that they care about. When identifying witnesses, ensure an even balance between academic and professional experts, and people with lived experience.


Get more input from local communities built into NPF4, at the moment planning is a joke.

The current model of drafting bills, then consulting with a select few is abysmal and results in chaos as was caused by the GRR bill, the ‘named person’ etc. On topics which are sensitive, the Parliament should start from citizens assemblies and lived experience of the issue, BEFORE drafting legislation. And it really needs to be the lived experience persons themselves, not those who represent them, eg, the divergence in opinion between rape victims and the Rape Crisis Scotland. Where agencies are consulted, there should be an onus on them to consult among their staff and clients, rather than assembling only management views.

I've tried searching who the too few folk are, that you consult. I can't find ANY from very rural, especially Northern nor western Isles based. You speak of inclusion... Deciding what is to go forward, then engaging with the 'too few' is too late. Engagements must be ALL the way through, and not just a cross-section of our society. A proportionate cross section. This form alone, is 💩, as we can not add any master topics, just vote on one. wayyyyyy too late!

listen to the individuals and communities who have suffered loss of residential amenity and property value due to wind farm development. No-one and that includes academics or professional experts have as clue what it is like to live beside a wind farm, yet they are the ones who always influence decision making. Give Councils and Communities the power to decide if a wind farm application should be consented, as they do in England. Scottish Ministers should never be involved.

Ensuring a wide diversity of information that includes lived experience is vital to the success of deliberative events. Those giving evidence should not just be "the usual suspects" and including non-academic views will surely help increase understanding.

I don't think this is about even balance in terms of numbers, instead its about making sure there is always space given for people with lived experience to share that. Where people with relevant lived experience might face trauma from sharing their experience, or be very time poor (e.g. young carers), working with charities and representative groups is important to make sure they are supported, and/or can pass their views through trusted representatives

Lived experience is really important, and the Scottish Parliament should build on existing work to increase opportunities for people with lived experience to engage. But the Parliament also needs to hear from professional experts, intermediary and campaign groups, and commercial interests. There is no magic formula for good scrutiny - it depends on the issue.

Listening to people with Lived Experience is essential but not sufficient in itself. People with lived experience are experts in their own lives and know what works, and does not work, for them. However, collective views are also important as these take into account individuals' experiences but arrive at collective solutions that assist most, if not always all, of those affected by current inequalitiess.

Everyone should be able to have a say on issues that matter in Scotland - not just if you have direct lived experience. Everyone needs a voice.

We welcome this recommendation but want to ensure that this is done in a way that is not exploitative. Fair compensation is still not a common practice and it places a burden on people who are willing to participate. It should be established at the beginning of any new projects that include lived experience that individuals must be paid for their time and skills. We also want to highlight that lived experience matters whether individuals belong to a panel or not. Opportunities should not just be extended to people only if they are part of organised panels; these opportunities need to be accessible to a wide range of people. Participation should be conducted in line with trauma-informed practice, accessibility standards, and respect for people’s time.

Utilise community development expertise to ensure those with lived experience are ably and fully supported to engage with various stakeholders in a safe, supportive and confidential dialogue.

Few working class voices and experiences are currently heard; this needs to change. Significant thought and support needs to go into addressing inequalities in hearing lived experiences, as well as respecting heterogeneity of lived experiences. Some stigmatised people and groups are lesser heard, compared to others who are vocal and valued by Parliament. For example, some victims of crime and their families use lived experiences to call for change that affects not only them but others (which is valid and understandable), whereas other victims may diagree and find their views punitive and counterproductive (also valid). People with convictions/offenders and their representatives are often excluded, stigmatised and not heard, even though it affects them and it is important they are supported to change and reintegrate in Scottish society. All of these groups are citizens worth hearing. MSPs and Committees could get better at hearing (politically) unpopular views from more diverse people.

recognise that while it is important that lived experience is considered throughout the process - and it's important to note that our elected MSPs already regularly consult with constituents on a daily basis - it should not be made to be equivalent to academic and expert witness as we wish decisions to be made on empirical evidence not just anecdote.

This is important, but not just people with negative experiences. But people with positive experiences.

Lived experience is important. Sometimes those speaking on behalf of people who have lived experience are persuing their own agenda?

Lived experience from a broad number of people allows a consensus to be achieved, and a collective consensus to be arrived at for the benefit of the majority. Citizen’s panels on each specific topic?

Back to group

This content is created by the open source Your Priorities citizen engagement platform designed by the non profit Citizens Foundation

Your Priorities on GitHub

Check out the Citizens Foundation website for more information