³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

That is helpful. Thank you.

However, this is an unusual message. The vast majority of voting information is being delivered by local authorities, normally on behalf of returning officers, on the basis of a wider need for people to understand, to schools and the communities in which people live. As Sarah Mackie pointed out, care-experienced young people are a very remote and disparate community, and, if I am honest, the reality is that the process of passing information to that group has never been particularly successful. Now that we have the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, there is perhaps a stronger legal obligation, particularly on the Scottish Government and the emanations of state, and it is about whether we can satisfy the human rights of a group of people who are really hard to identify and who are outside the area in which they would like to express their intention to vote.

It might be helpful if you can feed back on that. My follow-on question, which I am sure will be discussed at the round table, is about the reality that, having registered, there will probably have to be a postal vote, which potentially could prove very difficult. The returning officer will have to deal with addresses that are outside the constituency and potentially outside the region, which will throw up questions.

To go back to the most well-known Gould principle—that of the six-month period—it would be nice for the committee to have an understanding of how that issue will be dealt with. The returning officer is absolutely the individual who will have to take responsibility for that, but I have a concern that it will be impossible for the returning officer to deliver that aspect successfully. I will leave it at that. I deeply hope that the process will work, and I am confident that it will, but reassurance about the steps that are being taken would be useful.

My final question was touched on earlier in Emma Roddick’s questioning. A significant number of things are being consulted on. The committee received reassurances from the Government that a lot of the issues could and should be dealt with in secondary legislation. We have an element of secondary legislation that does not go as far as we expected, or at least as far as I expected.

Is there anything that has been missed that concerns you for the purposes of the election next year? Is there anything that should take priority for the next piece of secondary legislation that comes through, from the perspective of delivery but also of the oversight that you have?

I am very grateful for that statement, minister. I have a couple of questions, and then I will invite the committee to ask their own.

My first question is not specifically about this order but about the evidence that the committee has heard. The minister and the Scottish Government may or may not be in agreement with the view that the committee indicated in its questions, which was that the learning experience of the most recent review should be captured in the lessons learned for the next review process. We came to that view because we heard concerns—or, rather, that there were challenges—relating to the naming of the different steps in that process. There were challenges in the inquiries and, possibly, a lack of understanding among those who were invited to contribute—in other words, our constituents—as to how to contribute to best effect.

I invite the Scottish Government to echo that there are clearly lessons that need to be learned, not as a criticism of the process that has already happened, but as a step forward so that the next time that those issues occur—which will happen—we can perhaps build on the lessons learned.

Excellent. I thank the minister and those who assist the minister for his contribution today. He is more than welcome to hear the rest of our public debate, which is on cross-party groups. Similarly, I am more than happy if he leaves, as he will have other things in his diary. Thank you for your contribution today, minister.

Good morning, and welcome to the 12th meeting in 2025 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I have received apologies from Ruth Maguire, so I welcome Rona Mackay, who is attending as a substitute.

Our first agenda item is consideration of the draft Scottish Parliament (Disqualification) Order 2025. I welcome Jamie Hepburn, the Minister for Parliamentary Business; and, from the Scottish Government, Kenneth Pentland, elections team; Ailsa Kemp, head of the parliamentary liaison unit; and Jordan McGrory, solicitor.

Minister, would you like to make a short opening statement?

As there are no other questions from the committee, we will move on to the debate on the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee recommends that the Scottish Parliament (Disqualification) Order 2025 [draft] be approved.—[Jamie Hepburn]

Motion agreed to.

To pick up on what Sue Webber and Rona Mackay have said, shall we seek some more information? It is not that we are in any way saying no to the change, but perhaps we should ask what exploration has been made of whether an overlap would occur and ask whether a merger has been considered or why the separate CPGs should still stand. We are absolutely not saying no; we are just concerned about infringement—is that too strong a word?—on another CPG’s purpose.

Would the committee be content for me to write to seek further information on the exploration of the crossover between the two CPGs? Once we had a response to that, we could see what the situation was and make a decision at a later committee meeting.

That is very helpful. You mentioned the work that is going on around automaticity. Is the timeline for that being discussed, and are you still confident that that is going to be adhered to? It would be helpful to get that in the Official Report.