 Y Clifohau Mbluned Abertafol yn ysgolwch ar y cy Breadrif a Pwyllwchol yn 2023. Pryfod y gwnaeth gyda'n hollwch yn y cyfrifolhaeth yn y Gwyneth Gŷn. Wrth gwnaeth amser i'r ymwneud a'r llwyfiau esbyg, 4 o 5 yn gwyrdd. Y gwnaeth yn L3 o gyranaeth a'r llwyfiau esbyg o'r gyfwybod i'r gwnaeth yn llwyddiadau, ac y gwnaeth y gwnaeth yn L5 o gyfrifolhaeth o'r cyfrifolhaeth frwyddoeg. Are the members of the committee in agreement to take that in private? Yes. Excellent. Agender item 2. Our second item is in respect of correspondence that we have received from the conveners group on strengthening net zero scrutiny arrangements. Do members have any comments on the correspondence? Bob, can I come to you? Thank you, convener. I found the correspondence really informative in relation to the ambitions of the conveners group in the wider Parliament to embedding scrutiny of net zero, not just into the work of the net zero committee, and I acknowledge the convener who sits on this committee, Mr Mountain. Of all parliamentary committees, as we scrutinise legislation, so whilst the letter from the community group was informative, it also said that the group noted that it was important that the Scottish Government was able to provide essential data to facilitate this scrutiny work. With that in mind, you will have seen the correspondence that I have had with the cabinet secretary for net zero requesting better information on this. The group will return to this at our meeting later this month. I have not seen that correspondence, convener. I am unaware if the Scottish Government has replied otherwise to that correspondence. I think that those are two essential pieces of evidence that I would like to see before making a specific commitment to do further work in relation or deciding what our further work may look like in our approach to any changing of standing orders and rules in this place with regard to net zero. That is very helpful. Do you have any other comments? I think that it would seem sensible, given that this committee is talking about the procedures to arrive at something, to know what wants to be arrived at would be helpful for the committee. I think that the committee has agreed that we should formally correspond with the convener's group to get access to all of the correspondence, if necessary, to the Scottish Government. At the same time, would the committee be in agreement to writing to the requisite committee to ask what their views and asks are? Are we happy with that? I am grateful. The agenda item 3 is correspondence that we have received from the Presiding Officer on a request for a to vary the proxy voting scheme, which, as we know, has only just come in this year, but, as we have all seen, has been successfully used within the chamber on a number of occasions. Do members of the committee have any comments on the correspondence from the Presiding Officer or are we in agreement with her proposal to vary it? Thanks, convener. This is a really difficult subject in my mind, and I know that probably every member has had to experience this at some stage. What I am keen to do is ensure that we seem to be fair and reasonable and in line as well with what is expected for people outside this Parliament in regard to bereavement. I know rules have changed, and I know that there are some stipulations about what you can expect and what you can't expect, so I'm quite keen to understand what other people across Scotland are given in relation to this to make sure that the Parliament is in line with that, or at least understand when we make this decision that we're making it in light of what other people are having to face. That's the first point, if I may, convener. The second point is, and I know you're going to give me a wrap across the knuckles for this, but it gives me the opportunity to mention the fact in the scheme that I've mentioned to you outside this committee, is I think the way it's written about the designation of a proxy on the bottom of page 4 of our papers, it says that the designation of a proxy must be made by the Member of the Parliament, by Eamon Ocamp, by 10 a.m. on the Tuesday. Now, my understanding of what we decided and agreed within this committee was that it could be for a period of time. The way this is written seems to infer that a Member must notify every week, the presiding officer, that they wish a proxy. Now, I just know that there are circumstances when that might not be possible, and therefore I wonder if, when we're doing this, we could write to the presiding officer and say that a Member may apply for a proxy for a period of time and then would have to reassess it. For example, you may be going into hospital on a Friday, you may have a serious operation which takes you past the Tuesday deadline, which means that you won't be able to apply for that proxy. I'm not sure that's what we meant, I'm not sure that's necessarily the way it will be interpreted, but it's the way it's written, convener, and I just wondered if we could flag that up at the same time. No, that's very helpful. If I deal with that second point before your first point, my understanding is that the proxy scheme is operating as we thought it was going to operate, but I know that you're concerned with regard to the actual wording in the voting scheme and I'm all unhappy to write to seek clarification because you will recall that we tried to frame it to give the widest possible opportunity for the presiding officer to reach the right decision on individual cases without having to seek medical advice, additional information, and to rely on it, I'm all unhappy to do that. Just before dealing with your first point, which I think was hinting at seeking more information before reaching a decision, I don't know whether any other member would like to come in and then I'll come back to that, if that's all right. This is specifically on the variation of the proxy voting scheme that the presiding officer is suggesting. Can I just check for clarification on the answer? Yes, the letter from the presiding officer and XA is a publicly available document, that letter. The reason I say that, convener, is that it refers to two colleagues who had a loved one nearing end of life or at end of life in seeking the use of the proxy voting scheme in those circumstances. I think that it's unanswerable that that would be the right thing to do. What I hadn't realised was that the pilot scheme that our committee had agreed to didn't build in that flexibility and discretion already for the presiding officer, but that's okay, because we always said that this was an iterative process as we went along and we would shape it to reflect circumstances as they develop. I would be keen to clarify changes to the proxy voting scheme that would be allowed, my personal circumstances if I'm allowed to share, convener, is that when my mother was approaching the end of life, the SNP whips team were wonderful and I got to spend the last week with my mother. There was no pairing, there was no proxy, but as I sat by my mother's bedside, I was still on my phone doing my work, clearing emails to be quite honest with you. I would have liked to have a proxy to not feel excluded or remote from the Parliament, but to have that link, but not dependent on logging on to vote virtually, but to allow a trusted colleague to vote on my behalf and permit me to do that. I think that this proxy scheme should cover such circumstances and if the presiding officer doesn't think that there is suitable flexibility at present, then I think that we should agree to changes to provide that flexibility. That's very helpful, thank you. I understand where we are with all of this, convener, I think that it is important. We said at the outset that we needed to be sensitive to the members and we needed to understand how it would work in practice and we are now in that situation of it working in practice, so it is giving us an insight into the complexities or the necessities that require to be managed when someone has a situation or circumstance that require them to have that. I like Bob's thinking that we should be realistic about what we're trying to achieve here. We're not trying to put barriers, we're not trying to put any areas where we think it's not the case. We should be trying to encompass, but at the same time, we need to be sensitive to what is required for the Parliament but also what is required for the member to ensure. As Bob has said, having that opportunity of not having to rush back and do things and continually think about, well, is this going to happen, but if you have someone there who you know and you trust to give you that and is supporting that, then that takes some of the pressure off. That's what we're trying to do here. We're trying to alleviate the pressure on the member so that their work can be done but in the voting system and in the practical side of things that they are supported and they have the confidence that that's taking place on their behalf. That's what I wanted out of that whole process and that has been achieved. I think that that's a very helpful collect. Do you want to contribute and then I'll come back to you more? Yeah, I completely agree with what we're Alexander and what you were saying. I think it is a very sensitive subject and I think the fact as well that it is still a pilot scheme and this is cropped up is an ideal situation to absolutely look at it as well. The other thing that Edward mentioned about the actual notification, you could be dealing with somebody who has to go abroad to deal with a relative. There's time differences, notwithstanding having to go into hospital and things like that as well. I think that we wholeheartedly encompass that and make sure that we deal respectfully and dignified with people who are dealing with relatives who are going through life as well. That's helpful. Bob, did you have a comment and I'll come back to you, Edward? I think that Edward Mountain was saying within his initial comments, I'm sorry that Edward captured it inaccurately, that we should look to see what happens elsewhere. One thing that I don't know as we sit talking about getting effectively working conditions right for MSPs to be supportive of having learned here, what rights the wider parliamentary staff have when they have the exact same life circumstances. I don't know with a role in relation to drawing to the corporate body's attention that we are seeking to consolidate what we think should be key rights within the workplace for MSPs and we're just wondering how that's mirrored within the wider rights extended to staff within this place. They won't all be employed by the corporate body, there are a variety of contractual arrangements there, but I'm just conscious that we're not the only people working in this Parliament. Thank you. Edward, did you want to come back in just before? Yeah, look it's really really difficult this because you know no one wants to stop you being next to a close relative when they're nearing the end of their life and I accept that having lost both my mother and my father you know I understand how important it is to be there and the extended amount of time that I needed to be with my father. I think I'm just wanting to understand what we mean by close relative and how then the presiding officer is able to make that judgment because I really want to see people spending the time that they need. I just would like to understand slightly because we're putting the presiding officer in a slightly difficult position by saying are you going to decide who's a close relative? If I can sort of bring some of the threads of that together I think what we need to remember of course is that we empowered the presiding officer to come up with the scheme so that it would work for the chamber and we empowered and I think rightly so the presiding officer to have that flexibility and certainly the scheme that has been created rests with the presiding officer and the obligation is that on the presiding officers to come back and consult with us which I think talks volumes about the evaluation of how this pilot project is going on and it was always considered I think by this committee to be an iterative process as we developed it and I certainly feel that the confidence that the chamber has shown in the presiding officer in creating this should probably be echoed in this committee with regard to requests that she makes to us. That doesn't mean that notwithstanding the request that has been made we look at the consequences of this and I think that goes to some of what you were talking about Bob about starting now perhaps to reach out to find out what the situation is wider afield I think what the experiences of those people who have both been proxies and exercise offered proxies and exercise proxies would be valuable to catch at the time. As to the extent and the clarification that the presiding officer would use to decide next of kin I think if you recall the quite substantial evidence that we heard about in relation to the caring situation that people have which is not necessarily defined by a family link or something like it it's a circumstance of fact and that we entrusted the presiding officer with regard to that and since she's seeking this clarification clearly because of events that have been presented to us I would hope that we could support the change that she proposes but then use that as the start of this evaluation process because you know I mean I suppose because we are in the second month now with the proxy and I think to some surprise the use of it has exceeded certainly my expectation I have to say and I think it would be meritorious to seek the the the clerks to start capturing the evidence of how this is playing out so that we can review this in due course bulb did you want to come back in? I think it is a relevant point when we're looking at whether we should put structures or definitions or criteria around who qualifies as a close relative I think we've set a precedent already when we looked at adoptive and foster parenting we've also included kinship and kinship doesn't always mean blood relative or it's a wider looser term that acknowledges that relationship of loving care that you can have with someone else without defining that specific relationship in particular so I think we've already taken a more permissive and flexible view and I don't think it would serve as well to define that I think whether give discretion or we don't and I think we'll go in discretion to the Presiding Officer and I have every faith that I'll bet his size appropriately. Literally was just going to say what Bob just said about discretion I know that you know of my own personal experience when my brother died as well and it was down south and just due to the complexity of it it was three weeks before we could actually you know bury him as well so you know my employees at the time our employers sorry at the time were fantastic and gave me three weeks off so while there was policies in there and I know there was policies within the local government in terms of what time you're you know allowed to have off for you know particular relations there is an element of discretion there and I would definitely go a beer towards that in terms allowing the Presiding Officer to use that discretion and you know and it's very subjective as well so on that point then are we agreed that we support the request for the PO for the amendment but we clarify the understanding with regard to the designation of a proxy which I think is a valid question but also we instruct the clerks to start the capturing of evidence for it the evaluation that we need to take as a committee. Are we content on that? Yeah, I agree. A little bit of mission drift but I had just I was reflecting on the point that we're I know it's proxivotic we're looking at but what we're looking at is one group of workers in this Parliament getting more flexible working to suit our personal circumstances at the point of bereavement end of life and when bereavement occurs and there are whole groups of workers employed within this Parliament that we're not directly responsible for as a committee convener but it might be worth while drawing what I think is the progressive nature of how we have seeking to support MSPs in such circumstances within this Parliament to the attention of the corporate body and asking them to reflect on that in relation to the wider workforce within this place. I certainly see now challenged because obviously corporate body as an entity would be one of the people that we would be seeking input with regard to the evaluation of the proxy voting and I am of course aware of a number of strands of correspondence that we have with yes with the corporate body at the moment about a number of matters but I would see no harm in and if you're content Bob I'm happy to write to the corporate body just to express where this comes from what it's about and what their thoughts are on it not because it falls directly within the remit of this committee the employment and contractual relationships between the corporate body and other members of staff here but to reinforce the approach that as a Parliament we are looking for a developmental iterative approach to employment that's supportive or as widely supportive as possible in order for us to get our jobs done. Thank you for taking the floor on that basis and sometimes politicians as a class are not particularly seen to have self-awareness so given the fact that we're looking at effectively our working conditions I think we should show a degree of self-awareness as we take it forward. That's helpful. Edward? Just before we leave this just on a general way the proxy voting systems work first of all I'm delighted it's being used so much it actually shows the need of why we needed it and I think the committee's done a good job by introducing it so that's the first point. The second point though it's very interesting when I was watching it being used in the chamber in relation to one member on short votes at decision time the member who was using it said on behalf of X I vote yes which I think is entirely right and I would encourage that because then it allows people who are watching to understand who the proxy vote is for so I personally would encourage that and when it comes to stage three debates in the chamber it becomes very difficult to do that so I just wondered as a Presiding Officer allows the situation to evolve whether it would be worth at the outset making the point that during this vote there will be a proxy vote which I will call in each time on behalf of so-and-so and the person will be exercising that so then cuts the time of Presiding Officer does but what I do want to stress is I think it's really important that on short votes in a decision time on a normal evening that the member is named so that his constituents or her constituents can see that that person has made a positive decision in relation to the vote and is seen to be participating in events I think that's very helpful and I think you know the discussion that was had about how we capture the proxy vote which ended up in what we saw in certainly in the early stages of the first proxy vote where an explanation was given the name of the member and the way the vote was cast could be captured on the official record again as an iterative approach I think what you say about stage three will no doubt be being looked at and I think again that's helpful if we start the capture of the evidence to be able to start to consider this for how proxy voting goes forward because there was a challenge in stage three about it and I don't know what the correct answer is but having had the very strong discussions that we had about ensuring that the vote is captured the explanation of why the different member was casting it I think you know goes to the heart of the reason that goes to the heart of why proxy voting was so important to bring in here so that was helpful collect did you want to just a suggestion really on the back of what Edward said because it was very repetitive at stage three I'm just wondering like you know say that initially you know what MSP you're acting as a proxy for in the area in which you know the constituency or region that they cover but could we possibly go forward maybe use a placard or something rather than having to constantly say you know because it did seem very very repetitive and it was quite I thought it kind of prolonged the process when we were voting each time I think I think you're right absolutely right to raise that I think this is part of the evaluation because the committee will also be cognizant that come the summer recess the actual procedure or sorry that the apparatus of voting will change in the chamber and because proxy voting as a pilot exists beforehand I would hope that there was a way of being able to perhaps use the new facilities to capture that which may alleviate some of the time spent particularly at stage three they're very convenient they're very very sensible suggestions at stage three we have groupings of amendments so it might be advantageous to announce something at the beginning of the groupings or the end of the groupings that this will take place and that may then cover the number that are in the grouping if that would alleviate the timescale that might be a suggestion that could be thought about again incredibly helpful well if we're in a no sorry Bob didn't get a crusty apology I'm not testing your patience this morning could be right I think I was kind of holding back from from seeing this my colleagues have kind of said it so I can can't help but want to be part of the discussion so I apologize for that I wonder if in missle mountains right I think where it's not a stage three process and there's a limited number of votes a clear declaration from the proxy as to how that vote's been cast openly and transparently in parliament is absolute the way to do it but there must surely be after a clear statement at the start of a period of voting an IT solution to this I would tell you what my IT solution would be I think would be that to IT individuals to come forward to suggest to us what that would be but there must surely be an IT solution because we all don't have to do a roll call vote at stage three so why should the individual with the proxy vote be any different why should that be a roll call vote and everyone else's deliberative votes are not done in that way so actually on an equitable basis after that initial declaration I think an IT solution would be the most effective way forward I certainly think being able to frame the question that we want to seek of the new equipment as we vote is helpful and again as we were talking beforehand about unknown unknowns until we had this proxy pilot I don't think anyone had really considered the situation at stage three as compared I think people have a view of something when you're talking about it an actually an iterative piloted approach allows you to go oh and how's it going to work in this circumstance and I think that's something that we can both capture but can also put in place so that hopefully we have an answer towards the end of this pilot about what something more formalised going forward would look like so that's helpful so are we in agreement to confirm to the presiding officer that we're in agreement with the amendment that she seeks but also seek the additional information that we've also reiterated today good I'm grateful for that that concludes the elements of the public part of this meeting and I will now move us into private