Seòmar agus comataidhean

There may well be a role for the committee or for Parliament, if and when the trial period starts, to give members the opportunity to ask questions about that and investigate it so that they both understand the obligation and see an opportunity that may make some situations easier for them to deal with.

I think that that is very helpful. The procedure would be a temporary rule change, which would sit next to a short report from this committee that would go to the chamber to be voted on before the trial period would begin. I am slightly concerned that any member who wants to exercise a proxy might fear that the committee would be there the minute they choose to exercise it, watching them and asking how it is going.

Agenda item 2 is about proxy voting, which the committee has been looking at for a long time. We have now received correspondence from the Parliamentary Bureau and the Scottish parliamentary Labour Party in relation to proxy voting.

Today, I would like us to have our final discussions on where we stand on proxy voting, in the hope that, in the near future, we can propose a temporary scheme, which we can invite members to take on for a period of time. As I said, we have received two letters from interested parties—one from the parliamentary Labour Party, which seems very much in support of proxy voting, and a longer letter from the Parliamentary Bureau. Are there any comments before we start? After any comments, I think that we should work through the letters so that we can delve into some of the questions that we will need to resolve before coming up with a scheme.

Excellent. I think that we are content that the person who grants the proxy should, as appropriate, be able to take back the vote for specific instances and that the scheme should be flexible in order to show that. With regard to the transparency, again, I am content with the fact that the Parliament will be aware that a proxy vote has been cast through the process of the member casting it, rather than anything more public than that happening beforehand. Obviously, the member might choose to explain what is happening, but I do not think that we need more than that. In relation to the application, I certainly do not think that we need anything other than the conversation between the member and the Presiding Officer. Are we content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

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.

As we have discussed, the last issue comes back to what happens when it goes wrong. There is a very high onus of trust and honesty on people when they become an MSP. I am quite taken by the suggestions from Edward and Bob to include something in the guidance to remind members of the high level of expectation on them and the fact that, when one member holds a proxy, the relationship of trust between two people goes above and beyond the role of the individual MSP.

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.