³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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.

I concur with that. Asking for more information in no way means a predetermined decision that we do not want the change to happen. However, there is a requirement that this committee oversee the purposes of CPGs, which should reflect the work that they do. I am incredibly grateful to the cross-party group on deafness for having come to us in a positive way about the matter. I am merely suggesting an exploration to see whether an element of cross-party work has not been noted. I am sure that that is not the case, but we can seek an explanation of that and then return to the matter. Are we content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Finally, members might recall that, in January and February, we considered an update in relation to CPGs’ compliance with the rules. We indicated that we intended to withdraw recognition from the CPG on shared parenting on the basis of a failure to comply with the rules on submission of the required documentation. Following discussions with the convener of the group, Fulton MacGregor MSP—I thank Fulton for his engagement on the matter—it was agreed that the CPG could be given an opportunity to catch up with the missing documentation but that it would be for the committee to indicate whether to continue to afford recognition to the group.

The group has now provided all the required documentation, and I thank Fulton MacGregor and those who support him for doing that. I invite the committee to decide whether it is content for the group to continue for the rest of the parliamentary session, because it is in compliance. Are we content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Might there be an advantage to having a table or a snapshot in the order to explain the changes from the previous one, or are you content that each order sits on its own to take us forward? You have given us the figures—the total number of those that are in and those that are out—but do you see an advantage to capturing them in a table in the order itself, so that people could see the changes?