Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

That is very helpful. Do any of my colleagues have any questions?

As there are no comments, we move to agenda item 4, which is a debate on the motion.

Motion moved,

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

Motion agreed to.

The next item is consideration of a request from the cross-party group on deafness to change its purpose. Members will see from the clerk’s note that the convener of the CPG has explained that the group has worked to support people who are deaf and deafblind and that the group now wishes to amend its purpose

“to reflect our work more accurately and respect the preferred language of all our members.”

Do members have any comments or questions on this?

Our next agenda item is the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies and Regions) Order 2025. Minister, would you like to make a short opening statement on the instrument?

Thank you very much. I have a couple of questions and reflections, which you have already hinted at. Our sister committee—the DPLRC—identified some errors in the original draft order. As you said, they affected less than 1 per cent of the list and were rectified.

In your opening statement, you talked about the outreach to ensure that the updated list is as accurate as possible. Could any steps be taken to improve that? It seems to require others to come and feed in to that list, albeit that they are invited to do so. Do you have confidence in the oversight that your part of Government holds with regard to the creation of that list?

The committee will have to report on the outcomes of both of our decisions today in due course. Are members content that we will produce one report on both instruments, and are they content to delegate to me authority to approve the draft report?

Members indicated agreement.

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?

Welcome back. Agenda item 3 is consideration of a legislative consent memorandum on the Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill, which is a private member’s bill that has been introduced in the House of Commons by Tracy Gilbert MP. The bill relates to absent voting at local government elections in Scotland and Wales and at elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd. It will give the Scottish and Welsh Governments powers to introduce regulations that enable applications for postal and proxy votes for devolved elections to be made online using the online absent vote application—OAVA—service, which has been developed by the UK Government.

Members have a note from the clerk, which includes a copy of the memorandum that has been lodged by Shona Robison, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government. It was lodged on 12 June 2025 following consideration of the bill at committee stage on 11 June 2025. Consideration at report stage is scheduled for 4 July 2025.

The Minister for Parliamentary Business wrote to the relevant UK Government minister on 30 May 2025, before the date was set for the committee stage. In that letter, the minister noted that a date for consideration of the bill at committee stage had not been set, and he expressed his

“concern over the limited time now available for the Scottish Parliament to give its consent and also that”

he

“will now be obliged to ask it to do so to an expedited timetable”

in order for the Parliament’s consent decision to be given before our summer recess.

The Scottish Government recommends that consent be given. It is anticipated that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee will consider the LCM at its meeting on Tuesday 24 June 2025.

If no members wish to make any comments or ask any questions regarding the memorandum, I propose that the committee writes to note the concern that we will have to expedite the provision of the LCM because of when our summer recess starts. When it comes to Westminster, the lodging of LCMs sits outside the control of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament.

Are members content to support the LCM but to defer publication of the committee’s report until after the DPLR Committee has had the opportunity to consider it next Tuesday?

Members indicated agreement.

You will have heard from the evidence that one of the areas that we have been looking at and inquiring about is the cost of the recall of a regional MSP. We will get into the money aspect of the bill later, but, on a fundamental level, you have talked about seeking parity between the first-past-the-post constituency election and the regional d’Hondt system that we use here to balance the whole of the Parliament. We have heard different evidence about where that should land.

A reasonably substantial amount of evidence suggests that, once you come through the door and have taken your oath and are an MSP, there is parity between regional and constituency MSPs in the Parliament. There is a different route in, so could there be a different route out? In our consideration of the proposals in the bill and in the consultation that you carried out on it, one of the things that came up, which I would like you to address at this stage, is that removal at a regional level costs a huge amount of money. We have heard some statements that democracy costs money and you just have to pay it, but do you think that that expenditure is justified?

A different approach would be that, although there is parity when you are in this place as an MSP, there can be a difference in how you come in—which there is—and a potential difference in how you go out. However, that would override what you have sought to do with the bill, which is to provide for parity between the different types of MSP. It is a unique situation in Scotland because, after the change in Wales, down the line, we will be the only Parliament that has different ways of coming in. What are your thoughts on that?