Chamber and committees

Are you still confident that the specificity in this order is the right approach, rather than the more general one, which potentially leaves it open for an individual to question whether they are covered?

That is fine. I am more than happy that the publication of the order puts those entries sufficiently on the public record—it saves your having to go through the whole list.

I have a final question. What test is applied in relation to why disqualification will take place? You hinted at the matter when you mentioned the new body, in which a position would clearly be seen as a conflict. This is not a test, but can you articulate the test that is applied to decide whether a position should fit into the disqualification order?

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.

Elections obviously have tight rules on campaign expenditure: who does it, how it is done and how it is reported. When the minister gave evidence about the recall petition, he made the point that an individual could face an unknown campaign to remove them. Would that need to be addressed in secondary legislation? Would you expect the financing in relation to the petition to be dealt with in secondary legislation, and should it be dealt with by secondary legislation for the purposes of the recall petition?

Let me delve into that. You talked about serious offences; there might be other offences that a group of the community would perhaps despair at. For example, the provision would be triggered if someone were in prison for more than six months for contempt of court, but people might dispute the reason for the sentencing. I am not inviting you to comment on that unless you wish to. Are you content that the trigger should be the six-month imprisonment sentence rather than the reason for which the six-month imprisonment—or, indeed, more but less than 12 months and one day—has come about?