SIAA expresses deep concern over unclear recommissioning process that threatens collective advocacy
On Tuesday 26 August, Edinburgh Integrated Joint Board (EIJB) made its final decision on proposed funding cuts, marking a troubling development for independent advocacy services across the city. Integrated Joint Boards have responsibility for strategic planning, resourcing and the operational oversight of a wide range of health and social care related services including independent advocacy. While the EIJB partially stepped back from its original proposals to completely defund collective advocacy, the decision still represents a significant rollback of human rights protections for some of Scotland’s most marginalised communities.
The Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance (SIAA) is deeply concerned about both the immediate impact of these cuts and the unclear recommissioning process that lies ahead. As Scotland’s national intermediary organisation promoting, supporting and advocating for independent advocacy, we view this decision as indicative of a worrying trend that undermines the human rights-based model of independent advocacy that has been carefully developed over decades.
Devastating Loss of Specialist Collective Advocacy
The EIJB’s decision impacts several independent advocacy organisations. This includes several groundbreaking collective advocacy projects at CAPS Independent Advocacy will lose funding after November 2025. These include the Peer Forum, LGBTQIA+ Collective Advocacy, Minority Ethnic Collective Advocacy, and the Arts as Advocacy project – which organises the annual Out of Sight, Out of Mind exhibition.
Collective advocacy helps build a bridge between people who have lived through trauma and health professionals.
from CAPS Experiences of Trauma group statement
This represents a devastating loss for the sector and the communities these services support. Some of these groups are the only specialist collective advocacy initiatives of their kind in Scotland, providing vital platforms for marginalised voices that would otherwise go unheard. The evidence gathered by CAPS this summer clearly demonstrates the profound impact these projects have had on participants’ lives, wellbeing, and ability to exercise their human rights.
Every chance we give for someone to express themselves stitches up another hole in the net that so many people fall through.
Testimonial by someone involved with CAPS Collective Advocacy
Independent advocacy is referenced in Core Mental Health Standards and numerous policy areas relevant to EIJB functions. The Scottish Mental Health Law Review (SMHLR) further recommends expanding, not reducing, independent advocacy—including collective forms—stating that “work on our recommendations to develop and support collective advocacy should begin now.”
Scots law, international obligations and non-regression
These cuts also raise serious concerns under the Scots law and international law:
- Scotland is bound by the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, which establishes a statutory right to independent advocacy for people subject to the Act. Although, this legal right may not yet explicitly guarantee access to collective advocacy, the Scottish Government and Mental Welfare Commission’s guidance for the 2003 Act make it clear that this legal right should be interpreted to include both individual and collective advocacy. Crucially, individuals must have choice in the type of advocacy they access.
- ICESCR: The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) recently recommended the UK and devolved governments, including Scotland, to “strengthen mental health services and support systems by allocating sufficient resources, strengthening community-based support, undertaking initiatives to destigmatise mental health issues and implementing targeted measures for groups disproportionately affected by mental health problems.” This is Recommendation 51b of the committee’s 2025 concluding observations as part of the seventh period review of the UK.
- Non-retrogression principle: Under international human rights law, there is a principle of non-retrogression of economic, social and cultural rights, meaning that at minimum, rights must not go backwards. Any austerity measures must meet tests of necessity, proportionality, non-discrimination, and “effective and meaningful participation” of those likely to be directly affected. SIAA is concerned that EIJB has fallen far short on meaningfully involving people that will be impacted by cuts to collective advocacy and urge the EIJB to change its approach for upcoming recommissioning. At a minimum, meaningful participation must involve direct meetings with collective advocacy groups.
- UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD): Under Article 4.3 CRPD, there is an obligation to closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities. General Comment No. 7 emphasises that governments need to strengthen the capacity of advocacy groups to allow them to participate in all phases of policy making, and that resources should be prioritised for those groups that focus on advocacy for disability rights. Article 19(b) requires provision of community support services, including peer support, which collective advocacy clearly delivers.
These cuts appear completely at odds with the Edinburgh Integration Joint Board’s (EIJB) draft Strategic Plan, Scots Law and international human rights obligations.
Unclear Recommissioning Process Raises Red Flags
While some independent collective advocacy will continue in the short term, organisations have been made aware that an Edinburgh Health and Social Care Partnership (EHSCP)-led recommissioning process will look at all independent advocacy contracts and services against EHSCP “outcomes” rather than maintaining the established independent advocacy linked to legal rights under a human rights-based approach. SIAA is deeply concerned about the lack of clarity around what this recommissioning process will entail.
Providers have been informed that decision-makers are recommissioning in order to deliver the outcomes within the Strategic Plan, with the primary outcome measure being money saved rather than the individual services or projects provided by existing contracts. This raises serious questions about whether the recommissioned services will maintain the essential characteristics of independent advocacy as defined in legislation and best practice guidance.
Independent advocacy is not simply about achieving predetermined outcomes set by commissioners. It is fundamentally about empowering people to have their voices heard, make their own choices, and exercise their human rights – even when those choices may not align with service providers’ preferred outcomes.
A Pattern of Concern
Edinburgh’s decision comes at a time when independent advocacy services across Scotland are facing unprecedented pressure. SIAA continues to receive reports of independent advocacy providers struggling with inadequate funding, unclear commissioning processes, and pressure to compromise on the independence that is fundamental to their role.
This pattern is deeply concerning. Independent advocacy is not an unnecessary service. It is a legal requirement under mental health legislation and a fundamental component of human rights protection. When commissioned and provided with quality at the centre, it ensures that people’s voices are heard in decisions that affect their lives and prevents more costly interventions later, making savings of £12 (for NHS and Local Authorities) for every £1 spent on it.
I feel better and more open about my illness thanks to collective advocacy. We are not a support group but learning from other’s experiences has made me accept mine more. I have learnt a lot through this group and found what I am here to do. To take something in my life which was so negative for me and use it in a positive way. It’s made me a happier person and a person with purpose.
Testimonial by someone involved with CAPS Collective Advocacy
Looking Forward
SIAA stand alongside our member organisations working in Edinburgh including CAPS Independent Advocacy, Royal Edinburgh Hospital Patients Council and People First (Scotland) and the communities affected by these cuts. We recognise the need for systemic change and call on the Scottish Government to provide clearer guidance to Integrated Joint Boards about their responsibilities to commission truly independent advocacy, both individual and collective, that meet legislative requirements and human rights standards.
We also urge other funders to consider supporting the valuable work that will be lost through these cuts. The Out of Sight, Out of Mind exhibition (OOSOOM) launching this October provides a powerful example of how arts-based collective advocacy can amplify voices and create meaningful change.
When I feel like giving up, I think about OOSOOM, and it helps me keep going.
Testimonial by someone involved with CAPS Collective Advocacy
Independent advocacy is not negotiable. It is a cornerstone of human rights protection and dignity – a mechanism to actualise human rights, affirmed in Scots Law through the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) Committee’s recommendations. As we continue to monitor developments in Edinburgh and work alongside affected organisations, SIAA remains committed to defending the principles and practices that make independent advocacy effective.
The recommissioning process in Edinburgh must result in services that truly embody independence, empowerment, and human rights. Anything less would represent a failure to meet both legal obligations and moral responsibilities to Scotland’s citizens.
Transparency note: this article was written by SIAA staff and then edited both by using Claude AI and by the SIAA staff team.
