Seòmar agus comataidhean

You are absolutely right to raise that. I think that that should be part of the evaluation because, come the summer recess, the voting apparatus in the chamber will change—the committee will be cognisant of that. Because the proxy voting pilot already exists, I hope that there will be a way of using the new facilities to capture that, which might alleviate some of the time that is spent at stage 3 in particular.

I certainly think that framing the question that we want to ask in relation to the new equipment for voting is helpful.

We talked beforehand about unknown unknowns. Until we had the proxy pilot, I do not think that anyone really considered the situation at stage 3. People have a view of something when we talk about it. An iterative pilot approach allows us to say, “Oh, how will it work in this circumstance?” We can capture that and put something in place so that we will, I hope, have an answer on what a more formalised approach would look like towards the end of the pilot.

That is helpful. Do members agree to confirm to the Presiding Officer that we agree to the amendment that she seeks and to seek the additional information that we have requested?

Members indicated agreement.

That concludes the public part of the meeting. We now move into private.

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the second meeting in 2023 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Does the committee agree to take item 4, which is consideration of an update to the guidance on committees, and item 5, which is consideration of a paper on parliamentary privilege, in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 2 is the proposed cross-party group on space. I welcome to the meeting Colin Beattie MSP, who is the proposed convener of the proposed cross-party group. I invite Colin to make an opening statement on the group’s intentions and the interest that there has been in it.

Thank you. That is helpful. Do any other committee members have any questions? I will start at the far end, with Alexander Stewart.

All of those contributions were helpful. Graeme Dey’s letter, for which I thank him, is specifically about motions that simply seek MSPs’ support, rather than motions that are intended to go forward to a members’ business debate. However, I am cognisant of what members said. There seems to be an unspoken—or, rather, quietly spoken—concern among MSPs, and I think that committee members agree that they want to give the matter further consideration. Are members content for a short paper to be drafted that seeks costings and information, so that we can put parameters on our inquiry? I noted the comment about seeking the wisdom of more experienced members who have been here over a number of sessions; we could ask them to give us, at the very least, their subjective opinions of changes when it comes to motions and debates. That would be helpful.

Are members content for such a paper to be prepared and then considered at a subsequent meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

I am grateful.

Agenda item 5 is consideration of the annual update on cross-party group compliance with the code of conduct. Members have received the annual monitoring report, which provides, for each cross-party group that this committee has recognised, a green, yellow, red or blue code in relation to a variety of requirements with which the group should comply. Who wants to kick off with a comment or opinion on what they have seen in the report?

As there are no further comments, does the committee agree to accord recognition to the proposed cross-party group?

Members indicated agreement.