Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is excellent. Thank you. Sue Webber, would you like to start the questions?

There is no deduction in relation to members of the House of Lords because, as you say in the policy document, they do not receive a salary; they receive an attendance allowance. What consideration was given to that, perhaps drawing on the consultation, and why was it not considered appropriate to treat the attendance allowance in the same way as the salaries for councillors and MPs?

Yes. I go back to the fundamental reasons for seeking to end dual mandates, namely that it is rightly considered that roles such as councillor, MP and MSP are full-time jobs and that we expect the individuals who fulfil those roles to give them their full-time commitment. The discussions that we have had about the financial side relate to the practical implementation of one of the consequences, whereby individuals benefit—I use the word “benefit”, although I doubt that any of them feel that it is a benefit in this sense—from receiving, in effect, two salaries for a period of time. That is the policy decision in relation to what we are trying to achieve today, is it not?

Who will take responsibility for the monitoring?

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?