The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-11616, in the name of Martin Whitfield, on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, on standing order rule changes on proxy voting. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button.
17:12
It has been an afternoon of the minutiae of law and standing orders, and of how places operate. This item is no less important than the stage 3 procedure that we have just gone through. The motion before the Parliament invites us to agree that a permanent proxy voting system be introduced.
The pilot is due to end on 31 December. As members will be aware, it provides for a member to arrange for their vote to be cast by another member acting as proxy in any vote of a meeting of the Parliament or a committee of the whole Parliament.
We recognise that there might be certain circumstances in which members need to step away from the obligations and responsibilities that being an MSP places on us. That might be for a period of time due to illness, parental or caring responsibilities or, sadly, in some cases, bereavement.
The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee has conducted an evaluation of the pilot, including an internal consultation with all relevant stakeholders. The responses have indicated that there is support for the provisions of the temporary system to be made permanent.
The committee has reflected in its report on future parliamentary procedures and practices that we consider that proxy voting accords with the very founding principles of this Parliament in ensuring that it can be more inclusive and accessible. Furthermore, the recent gender-sensitive audit of Parliament recommended that the committee propose a permanent standing order to introduce a proxy voting system.
We wish the permanent system to broadly mirror the current temporary arrangements—namely, that the standing order sets out in principle that a member may arrange for their vote to be cast as a proxy but that the details of how such a vote may be exercised sit in a separate scheme that is administered by the Presiding Officer.
The member has listed reasons why people might not be here. Does he think that there is also a risk of the system being abused, as with the present online system, whereby it appears that some members just do not bother turning up?
I am grateful for the intervention, but I do not feel that I can be in agreement even with the sub-statement about abuses of the online system. When members of the Scottish Parliament are sent to this place, they are sent by constituents who entrust in them a promise to represent their constituents to the very best of their abilities. I would struggle with, and indeed find it very difficult to understand, a situation in which a member who sits in this chamber or who—rightly under standing orders—contributes in a hybrid way would abuse that position. To be an MSP carries with it a responsibility, and it would be very disappointing if an individual chose to abuse that responsibility for whatever reason.
I think that Mr Mason was making a distinction between proxy voting and remote voting, which are two distinct and different things.
I support the committee’s proposals and I praise the committee for its good work on this matter. However, I want to check that the reforms that the committee will suggest to Parliament remain iterative and evolving, that the committee will come back at a later date with further reforms, and that the entire chamber will be kept updated and involved in that process.
All the changes that are proposed sit on an iterative basis, because we will never achieve the perfect chamber. It is always going to be a journey—it will be a voyage—and it is for all members across the chamber to contribute to that by adding their ideas and opinions. I know that the committee and others across the chamber are always happy to debate proposals. I merely took the stance that I did with the previous intervention because I think that it lays an accusation for which there is no real evidence.
I take this moment to thank you, Presiding Officer—I hope not in any embarrassing way—for your substantial support, contribution and assistance with regard to this matter, which has been gratefully received by me and the committee.
The practical operation of the proposed proxy voting system will remain as set out in the Presiding Officer’s scheme. As detailed in the committee’s report, we gave consideration to some of the practical aspects of the scheme. I understand that the scheme has been finalised and, if it is endorsed by the chamber today, it will be able to be published on 22 December.
The only real difference between the temporary system that has been in operation and the permanent system that is being proposed is that we will set out in standing orders the grounds on which a proxy vote can be requested.
I thank the member for taking a third intervention. I am curious as to whether there is evidence on how we can protect members from sometimes being under pressure to adopt a proxy vote when they are incapacitated and not able to engage with the substance at hand but might be under pressure to vote nevertheless.
The member raises a fascinating and interesting problem, which has, to some extent, been handled in both the evidence that we have had and discussions within the committee. There are a number of ways in which votes can be reflected even if they are not cast in the chamber. The committee has, in various situations, visited whether we wanted to address the concept that is known as pairing, for example.
However, what the committee wished to do with proxy voting was reflected in the very first debates that the committee brought to the chamber and in the discussions that we have had. That is to protect the members who, under certain circumstances, need to step away from the obligations of being an MSP but still be in a position to reassure their constituents that the constituents’ vote, through their elected representative, appears in this chamber for the purposes of legislation.
If there were a situation, as was suggested in an earlier intervention, in which a member was being pressured by someone else to extend a proxy vote, I deeply hope that they would be able to find it in themselves to reach out and say no, because the majority of constituency MSPs are sent here because of who they are. Obviously, the list MSPs are sent under a party-political list, but we are all individuals and we have an individual responsibility to our constituents, and we should answer to that.
I realise that time is late, so I will simply move the motion that is in my name but is on behalf of the committee and, I hope, following the vote, the whole chamber.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 12th Report, 2023 (Session 6), Standing Order Rule changes - Proxy Voting (SP Paper 489), and agrees that the rule changes to Standing Orders set out in the annexe of the report be made with effect from 22 December 2023.
Air adhart
Business Motions