Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is very helpful. Thank you.

Let us deal with the pairing question first. A pairing is an agreement between political parties rather than individual MSPs. For MSPs, the role of a proxy is much more personal; it is about choosing someone you trust to exercise your vote.

It is interesting that the bureau acknowledges the fact that proxy voting would be far more transparent than pairing, which appears on no record anywhere. To echo what Edward Mountain said, pairing arrangements are all made in private, behind the scenes. The important element from a constituent’s point of view is whether the MSP who represents them has cast a vote on their behalf. In proxy voting, you can see that and it remains on the record for ever.

I whole-heartedly agree with Alexander Stewart about the support that exists across the chamber for the principle of proxy voting but, as always, it is about the detail; people chop and change, and they may wear different hats at different times.

I agree with Bob Doris that one of the significant areas where there are challenges in getting universal acceptance is in relation to illness. I do not think that it is for a proxy scheme to define “illness”. The people who ask to use the facility of a proxy will be MSPs, who are bound by the code of conduct and by the responsibility that they have to themselves, their constituents and this Parliament. I have a great deal of confidence that MSPs in this parliamentary session will exercise that responsibility properly, but there would be nothing wrong with the scheme highlighting and reminding members of the importance of voting, because, of all the actions that take place in the Parliament, casting your vote is the one that makes the most difference.

I agree with the point about the length of time. The drafting of the scheme will happen behind the scenes, with the clerks, and I agree that that part will no doubt be a challenge. However, the scheme needs to be flexible and it needs to sit within a structure of understanding, so that both the person who wishes to exercise a proxy vote—to approach another member to ask them to be their proxy—and the person who accepts the proxy vote know what the expectations are around that.

We have had a bit of a discussion about length of time in relation to illnesses. I wonder whether it would be easier to understand if we did not define the level of illness that would allow someone to cast a proxy vote but said that if a member feels that they have a serious illness and cannot cast their vote, they should be able to exercise a proxy vote with the consent of the Presiding Officer. Would that be satisfactory?

Yes.

That is why I mentioned it both in the debate and previously. The issue is with events that mean that an MSP needs to step away from being an MSP for whatever reasons. Those reasons should never be made public. The MSP would approach the Presiding Officer, who is an MSP and whom we elected. The final decision should rest with the Presiding Officer—not in the role of a doctor or counsellor but simply in the role of Presiding Officer—if an MSP goes to her and explains that they would like to exercise a proxy vote for whatever reason.

MSPs are expected to keep high standards and they set themselves high standards. There should be no need for medical notes or additional doctors. That would be to treat the situation entirely wrongly. We have a duty of care to members, as we have to everyone, which extends to trusting what they say about their health.

Absolutely. Perhaps reminders of the Presiding Officer’s role and responsibilities, which are always helpful, would form part of the guidance for the scheme.

Another matter that has come up is that there seems to be strong agreement that periods of maternity and paternity leave should be covered by proxy voting. That is common sense. It is where proxy voting in relation to public affairs started.

There is some disagreement about the period of time that should be covered but, following on from what Edward Mountain said, that is a discussion for the member to have with the Presiding Officer. It is wrong to set an arbitrary period that cannot be extended. There is nothing wrong with having guidance about the period of time, but we need to respect the fact that people are individuals and circumstances affect individuals differently. If we cannot be flexible enough to do that, I would be disappointed.

The other area that has been discussed—rightly so—is adoption. In essence, a member is taking a new person into their family. That would be expected to be covered. Obviously, sadly, bereavement also needs to be covered, albeit that it is a sensitive issue and flexibility is needed in dealing with it.

Are we content for those areas to be covered for the trial period, at least?

I agree, and I am conscious that, if a male MSP wanted to take maternity leave—in the way that it can be shared, now—that block of two weeks for parental leave may cause problems. That is why I am relatively comfortable about allowing flexibility, with guidance, because I genuinely do not believe that any of this session’s MSPs would try to abuse that in any way, shape or form.

On what you said about those first two weeks, Bob, it is crucially important that, when a new child comes into the world, both parents, where they are available, play absolutely every part in making sure that that is as easy as possible for each other.

Yes. Thankfully, at this stage, because of the hybrid nature of the Parliament and remote voting, there are a number of ways in which a member can exercise their vote. Proxy voting is about a very small number of members, as Alexander Stewart said; however, having that discussion, and having their vote cast and recorded as they want, is a very important facility.

Does anyone want to raise anything else from the letters?

That is helpful. The committee has strongly backed iterative change with regard to the development of hybrid meetings, and it would be helpful if the trial were to incorporate something that could be looked at in that regard as matters progress.

If the relationship between the person who grants the proxy and the person who casts it was abused in that way—albeit never to prejudge a situation—the requirement in the code of conduct not to be discourteous or disrespectful would seem to apply fully fairly and squarely. The relationship between the person who holds the proxy and the one who has granted it has to be based on trust. That is one of the fundamental principles of the Parliament. I imagine that there would be comeback, probably in many forms.

Similarly, in situations both in this session and in previous sessions where a vote has been cast in the wrong way, it has always been available to a member to put their intent on the record, through a point of order. Obviously, that does not change the count of the vote at the time, because of the need for certainty.

It is interesting that you make those two points at the same time. We know that, with stage 3 amendments, there will not be time to pop out and have lengthy phone calls about how to exercise a proxy vote. The responsibility is based on a relationship of trust.

In relation to how many proxies members can hold and whether they are doing the right thing by holding more than one, we heard very strong evidence that proxy voting must not be used to create a block vote, which has happened in other Parliaments. I do not think that we heard any evidence in support of block voting. Indeed, some people who were able to vote in that way were adamant that they did not want to have the ability to exercise a block vote. I agree on that.

Mention has been made of people not being able to have a proxy vote for more than two members. Given the current set-up of the parties and the fact that there are no independent members in Parliament in this session, that would work for all the parties. Certainly for the trial period, two seems to be a sensible number. It might be the case that someone who holds two proxies says that it is just too hard and that it should be possible to hold only one. We can look at that at the end of the session.

As you said, we should ensure that that engagement continues. Are we content with that?

Members indicated agreement.