Seòmar agus comataidhean

Indeed, and perhaps we could look at whether we need to rely on more than just decisions on whether there is overlap.

Good. My other question, which is about the equality impact assessment, is twofold. First, why did it take so long to produce, given the content of the order? Secondly, why was it published so late?

Absolutely. It is a question of allowing adequate and proper scrutiny to take place. The equality impact assessment was published on 16 September. I absolutely accept the difficulties and aim no criticism at all at any of those who support the minister on the matter, but there are timetables for when such things should be provided. Those timetables were established because they give enough time for adequate and proper consideration.

The one element that concerns me about the impact assessment’s contents relates to an issue that you have acknowledged—the subjective challenge of conducting impact assessments with young people and the way in which that is achieved. The process of the order is one thing, but, on a slightly wider scale, with regard to the work that was done on the bill that is now the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025, and on the other legislation, are you any the wiser about how to reach out to young people and to measure the impact on them, rather than engaging only with those who feel that they speak for them—in fact, some do speak for them—and others who say that the subjective evidence is, “There’s no problem here. It must be good because we say it’s good”?

What concerns me is that, despite the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child here and the very strong foundational requirement for human rights, the impact assessment for the order states:

“Officials are largely reliant on anecdotal evidence from electoral administrators.”

If we look at those coming out of care, we are talking about, first of all, a relatively small group, but also a group that contains some of the most vulnerable individuals.

I suppose that my question is: are you genuinely content that you have come to an understanding of their needs and expectations? I absolutely accept that a single person’s input was invaluable in occasioning this particular change, and I echo your thanks to them and your hopes that that provides good evidence that individuals can change policy, but are you content that you have captured the expectations and needs of this group in particular, given the evidence that we have heard about the geographical challenge that it brings?

That is helpful.

That is very helpful, minister. As committee members do not have any other questions, I will now close the evidence session.

The next item is a debate on motion S6M-18103, on the Parliament’s approval of the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2025. I remind those watching that, as members will be aware, only the minister and members can partake in the debate. I invite the minister to move the motion.

Motion moved,

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

Motion agreed to.

Agenda item 4 relates to a cross-party group’s application to approve a change of purpose. The cross-party group on deafness applied for a change to its purpose to include a reference to deafblindness. Members will recall that we considered the request at our meeting on 26 June and agreed to seek further information from the convener of the group, particularly in relation to any potential overlap with the work or the purpose of the cross-party group on visual impairment.

A response from the convener has been included in the papers and will be published. We have also received correspondence from the convener of the CPG on visual impairment that indicates that the group has no objection to the proposed change of purpose for the CPG on deafness and affirms that

“the two groups collaborate on issues of mutual interest.”

The question is whether we are going to agree to approve the change of purpose. Do committee members have any comments?

I thank the members for their contributions, and I think that you are right. If we allow it to flow, it can be an example in our inquiry. We can look in more detail at the details of where overlap is and who takes responsibility for pointing that out. It is interesting that the correspondence talks about the groups having so much in common.

Are we content to allow the change of purpose, which has been indicated to us, as required by the rules on cross-party groups, and that we will write to the CPGs and invite them to contribute to our inquiry in the new year?

Good morning. I welcome everyone to the 15th meeting of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in 2025. I have received no apologies from committee members.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Are members content to agree to take in private item 5, which is consideration of our work programme?

Members indicated agreement.

Our second item is evidence on the draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2025. Members will recall that, at our meeting on 4 September, we took evidence on the order from the Electoral Management Board for Scotland and the Electoral Commission. Today, we have the opportunity to take evidence from the Minister for Parliamentary Business before we consider whether to recommend to the Parliament that the order be approved.

I welcome Jamie Hepburn, the Minister for Parliamentary Business, who is joined by Iain Hockenhull, the head of the elections bill team at the Scottish Government, and Jordan McGrory and Lorraine Walkinshaw from the Scottish Government legal directorate. Good morning to you all. I think that the minister would like a few minutes to open before we ask questions.