 I would like to welcome everyone on this to the 18th meeting of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in 2022. I have received apologies from Collette Stevens and a member who is unwell today. The gender item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Do the committee agree to take item 3 in private? Yes. Greatful. Item 2 is about proxy voting, which the committee will be aware that we have been looking at for a long period of time. We have received correspondence now from the Parliamentary Bureau and the Scottish Parliamentary Labour Party in relation to proxy voting. What I would like to do today is really take our final discussions on where we stand on proxy voting so that hopefully in the near future we can propose a temporary scheme, which we can invite the chamber to take on for a period of time. As I said, we've received two letters from interested parties, one that seems very much in support of proxy voting from the Parliamentary Labour Party and a longer letter that's come to us from the Bureau. Are there any comments before we start? My view would be just to work through the letter after the comments so that we can delve into some of the questions that we'll need to resolve about coming up with a scheme. Who would like to go first? Edward, I'll start with you. Thanks, convener. I looked at the letter from the Bureau and there's a suggestion in there which I find unhelpful if I can put it that way. I think there's a suggestion that pairing may be used as an alternative to short-term proxy voting. Having been in the situation last year where I was paired for a good proportion of time, I felt that my vote didn't count. I don't think that pairing is an acceptable option if the member wants to exercise their vote because they're there to represent their constituency and if they can't vote and they're only paired, I think it's unhelpful, which is why we came to proxy voting in the first place. I think that that suggestion from the Bureau, convener, is unhelpful and one that I hope the committee will consider as not relevant to the proposal that we're putting forward. Thank you. Any other comments? Alexander, if I come to you. Thank you, convener. I acknowledge and understand the importance of this issue because it has been raised in the past and there is no doubt that there are feelings and views across the chamber and across the Bureau. I think that where we are looking at the possibility of creating a pilot is encouraging because it will give us the opportunity to then look at what the criteria would be, what the duration would be and the flexibility and all of that into this whole process. I am really quite glad that we've got this far and I acknowledge that there is still some way to go to try and meet in the middle with some people's views and opinions, but as a starter for 10, I think we're going in the right direction and it will enhance and support MSPs as we go forward. There will be, as I'm sure we'll find, different views and opinions and all of that, but I think that the consensus at the end of the day will find that we do end up having a proxy voting system of some kind that will support individuals that need that and I'm content to see that progress. I think that Edward Mountain raises an interesting point because there's also a discussion around how we define illness in the first place as well as short-term illness. I think that the Bureau has got a reasonable point in relation to proxy voting not being brought in for a day here and a day there, but as a planned approach to supporting members to still exercise their democratic vote using a colleague's proxy in this place. I think that where there's a pre-planned or predicted absence, if it's reasonable to assume that a person may be absent but not necessarily for, say, four weeks or so, it would seem perfectly reasonable for there to be a proxy put in place either of months upon months, I think, is to unwield it also. I think that we need to think about fluctuating health conditions where someone is unlikely to be able to effectively perform all their parliamentary duties due to illness, but people have good days and bad days, convener, so the idea of when you agree a proxy that you shouldn't be able to, from time to time, take that back to the ownership of your vote when you feel you're able to, perhaps it's a particular debate you've got a specific interest in and you want to do the best you can, make every effort to be there, whether remotely or otherwise, and also cast your vote, so I think that proxies have to be a two-way process where you're not just giving up your vote for a set period of time, but there's a mix in how we codify that, of course, the challenge, convener, but the ability for a member who has given a proxy for a period of months to seek to, as best they can, have something particularly important to them, be able to cast their vote after a specific debate if it's particularly important to them and they feel able to. I think that that's very helpful, thank you. I think that if we deal probably with the pairing question first, I mean, pairings are an agreement between political parties rather than individual MSPs and we are individual MSPs within this Parliament and the role of a proxy is a much more personal exercise of who you trust to exercise your vote. It's interesting that the bureau do acknowledge the fact that a proxy voting would be far more transparent than pairing, which actually, I think, appears on no record anywhere, is the reality of it, so to echo, I think, what you said, Edward, about the fact that it's all in the private behind-the-scenes and actually the important element from our constituents' point of view is has their vote represented by their MSP being cast in proxy voting, you can see that and it remains on the record forever. Alexander, I think, wholeheartedly, I agree with you about the support that exists across the chamber to the principle of proxy voting, but, as always, it's in the detail where people chop and change and then perhaps wear different hats at different times. Coming to your point, Bob, I agree. I think one of the significant areas where there are challenges in getting universal acceptance is illness. I don't think it is for a proxy scheme to define what illness is. The people who will be asking to use the facility of a proxy or an MSP who are bound by the code of conduct, the responsibility they have to themselves, to their constituents and to this Parliament. I have great deal of confidence that the MSPs in this session will exercise that properly, but I think there's nothing wrong in the scheme highlighting, reminding members of the importance of voting because of all of all of the actions that take place within this Parliament, casting your vote is the one that makes the difference more than other. As to the time, I agree, I think that part where it happens behind the scenes of the clerks, but the actual drafting of the scheme will no doubt be a challenge, but I think it needs to be flexible. It needs to sit within a structure of understanding so that people who wish to exercise a proxy and to approach another member to say, will you be my proxy, knows what their expectations are, but also the person who accepts the proxy vote knows what their expectations are. I know we've had a bit of a discussion from the evidence about the length of time for illnesses and I wonder whether or not it would be easier to understand if we defined the level of illness that would allow someone to cast a proxy but to phrase it in the sense where the member feels that it's a serious illness and they can't cast their vote, then they should be able to exercise, with the consent of the Presiding Officer, the role of proxy. Do you think that that would satisfy Alexander? I do, convener. I think that that would satisfy some of the elements to ensure that we have some kind of clarity around the definition. As we all anticipate, there will not be a large number of individuals who will fall into this category. It will be a minority of MSPs that will require to have this facility and on a time basis, whether that's a short time or a longer time, depending on the circumstances and situation they find themselves in. I do believe that that is important and the Presiding Officer has a role to play in ensuring that that is managed effectively. I'm fine with whether the member feels that it's a serious illness. I'm conscious of members' rights to privacy in relation to their health. Those could be mental health issues, underlying health conditions that no-one else is aware about, for privacy and dignity reasons. It could be life-threatening and life-shortening. I'm a little bit nervous about how we protect members from others who might think that, for example, as a mental health condition convener, that does mean that the member has to stay at home and do nothing. They are still allowed to try, as best they can, to go home with their lives. I think that there is a challenge here with the public perception of how we support members who have serious illness to, as best they can, get home with their lives, even if it's understandable that they are not going to be able to be at their work, so to speak, for a period of time. I think that that's why I mentioned in the debate that I know I've mentioned in the past. I think it's those events where the MSP needs to step away from being an MSP for the reasons. I don't think it's something that should in fact ever really be made public. I mean it's an approach that the MSP would make to the presiding officer who is an MSP who was elected by us. In my own mind, I feel that that final decision should rest with the PO, but not as the role of a doctor, not in the role of a council or anything like that, simply in the role of presiding officer where an MSP comes to her in this case and explains that they would like to exercise a proxy for a reason. MSPs in this place have very high standards. They're expected to keep and indeed I think the MSPs in this place set themselves high standards and I don't feel there needs to be medical notes and additional doctors or something like that. I think that's treating it entirely wrong because I think we do have a duty of care to members in here as we have a duty of care to everyone that extends to actually trusting what they're saying about their own health in it. Edward, do you want to? I'm just going to emphasise and agree with Bob on that. I mean, I took my oath remotely because I couldn't come into the Parliament and that was a discussion I had with the presiding officer beforehand and the presiding officer knew as aware of the situation but no one else knew of the situation and I would say that we need to somehow get across to members that the presiding officer has a pastoral duty to the MSPs as well and that they should have the confidence to speak to the presiding officer. Absolutely and maybe that indeed would form part of the scheme and sort of the guidance, the reminders that you know are always helpful of the role and responsibility. I think the other thing that has come up is in relation to sort of the other aspects. There seems to be very strong agreement that maternity and paternity periods should be covered by proxy because you know I think just common sense that's where proxy voting in relation to public fairs like this sort of started. I know there's some disagreement over the period of time but again you know almost following on from what Edward has just said I think that's a discussion between the member and the presiding officer and I think it is wrong to set an arbitrary period that can't be extended. There's nothing wrong with guidance for the period of time but I think we need to respect that people are individuals and their the effect of circumstances are different on different individuals and if we can't be flexible enough to do that then I think we're in a disappointing place. The other area that has been discussed is and I think rightly so where there's an adoptive situation and someone is in essence taking a new member into the family that would be an expectation and obviously sadly bereavement I think needs to be there albeit that again a very sensitive issue that needs to have the flexibility to be dealt with by it. Are we sort of content for those areas for the trial period at least Bob? I agree before I go on to make a point about bereavement I'm just noting the correspondence that we have talked about the Euro broadly agree that mirroring statutory paternal leave arrangements would be appropriate. I think it has to go beyond that I think is statutory parental leave for fathers two weeks I think and I could be wrong. I think there's been an expectation I hope in this place that fathers should as much as possible follow a gender bias through inequality in society but fathers as possible should be striving to be equal partners in parenting their children and two weeks might just not cut it. I have to say that's another example where you might want to use your proxy sparingly but because of family circumstances you need to use that same with mums as well of course. You're not ill you're a new parent and you're trying to balance everything out so there needs for that flexibility but I think just when we put a time period on parental leave if we're going to do that or not certainly it shouldn't be statutory parental leave I don't think for fathers anyway. I agree with you Bob and I'm conscious that if a male MSP wanted to take maternity leave in the way that it can be shared now then that parental leave block of two weeks may cause problems which is why I am relatively comfortable with allowing the flexibility with guidance because I genuinely do not believe that any of the MSP members in this session would in any way shape or form try to abuse that and I think you know I think what you say Bob about those first two weeks you know crucially important when a new child comes into this world that you know where available both parents pay absolutely every part in making sure that's as easy as possible for each other yeah it's also worth noting that's a conversation MSPs will have with their parliamentary parties as well in relation to that so the discussion has to take place within parliamentary groups about any agreement reached there but proxies is something different that's an individual arrangement from the MSP and the the presiding officer and perhaps I used the wrong expression when I spoke about parental leave because a lot of new parents myself included some will want that leave to devote completely to their children others will want to try and just get that balance so there'll be days where they will be able to or will wish to or make alternative arrangements to allow them to be involved in the life of this parliament more actively and sometimes that wouldn't be possible so it's just equal your your comments about flexibility and every case is individual everyone's at their own home circumstances and I think thankfully at this stage because of the the hybrid nature of the parliament and the remote voting there are a number of different levels and ways in which a member can exercise their vote I think proxy voting is talking to a very small number as alexander said but actually a very important facility to have that discussion and to have the vote cast and recorded as they want so if I go to our sort of sorry is there anything else in the letters that anyone would like to raise sorry I mean it yeah just I noticed in the bureau letter and I know this isn't going to happen but I'm a great one for having things prepared in case it does happen is that they talk about whether the proxy vote has been incorrectly used and whether we ought to have some sanction in that now I don't know I personally believe that it will never happen but if it does happen it is a serious breach of of conduct by that member and I would just like if possible the clerks just to think about whether that's covered by the code of conduct for members and I personally think we ought to write something in there to say a breach of the use of the proxy will make you full foul of section whatever it is in standing orders and I haven't looked it up I apologize I mean I think if the relationship between the person granting the proxy and that person who cast it was abused in that way I certainly think looking at the code of conduct and responsibility not to be disgustious or disrespectful would seem never prejudging a situation would seem to apply fully fairly squarely on that and I think that you know the relationship between the two people one who holds the proxy and one who's granted it has to be based on one of trust and actually you know that is one of the fundamental principles of this parliament so would there become back I imagine there would probably in many forms and similarly I mean I think you know where we look at situations at both in this session and previous sessions where votes have been the wrong way there's always been the availability for that member to put their intent on the record through a standing order but obviously would not change the actual count of the vote at the time because of the way for the need for certainty I just think when we're doing it we could say that the committee believes that this this part of the code of conduct would be breached if if the person knowing yes did that thanks convener I think this also draws attention to the the responsibility on the person casting the proxy not just to cast it as as directed but there'll be situations where business in this place changes quite quickly and speedily as events change and there'll be times where that relationship between the person who's asked someone else to be their proxy and the proxy puts some time constraints and burdens on them to make sure they keep that relationship going and make sure it's not out of sight of mind I know but my colleague how would they would have voted so cast it that way anyway so I'm just wondering whether there's the need just to whenever we drop guidance in relation to this or rules and regulations we just we just say something about the responsibility of the person casting the proxy vote because it could be a burden on them time wise to make sure they check on a time appropriate occasion with the person that's casting the proxy for to make sure they've gathered their views accurately for how they might might wish to cast their vote so I think I would just say that but also about whether or not someone should hold one or more than one proxy I think is worth just hearing a little bit as well whilst there's been nothing to prevent it ideally it wouldn't happen because we wouldn't want the perception of of block voting I don't think that would be the perception but it's just to make sure there would be nothing to preclude one person holding more than one proxy but I can just see how it might not be ideal convener I think it's interesting that you put those those two points at the same time because of the responsibility if you're holding someone's proxy and we know stage three amendments there isn't going to be time to pop out and have long lengthy phone calls about it so it is based on a relationship of trust and then part of that is that you know relationship in how many proxies are you holding and are you doing the right thing by holding more and certainly I don't think proxy voting and we heard very very strong evidence is not to be used to create a block vote which has happened in other parliaments which I think I don't think we heard any evidence supporting at all and indeed some people who were holding those block votes were adam that they didn't want them so I agree with that and I think you know I know we've talked about the figure of not more than two because in relation to the current setup of the parties and there being no independent members here in in this session that would that would work for for all of the parties and certainly for the period of the trial I think two seems to be a sensible number because we don't know it may be that someone who holds two proxy says it's just too hard and it should only be one and we can look at that at the end of the session. Alexander. Also in the letter convener the the bureau discusses the practical operations about the digital voting system and as we know we've had difficulties with it in the past I think it was called robust and that wasn't always the situation we found ourselves in but there will be the opportunity for the digital system to incorporate something in the future and I know that's being looked at and I think that is something to be welcomed because that does give once again a little bit more trust in the system but it plays a part in how how this whole process will progress. I think that's very helpful because the iterative nature of change that this committee is strongly backed with regard to hybrid and the development if the trial was in undertaking it's something that can be looked at as the as matters progress really which is helpful. Edward did you want to. Yeah just the the final thing is the operation of the proxy which I don't know if you want to head off with. I have a just the mechanics of it I'd be quite interested to know your views on it. Yes that's sorry that's no no because then I can answer my point. I mean it's interesting I mean I know discussions have taken place and certainly the discussion that the simplest procedure that I've heard is that it's done by way of during the votes the person casts their own vote during the time and then at the end of it before the votes are counted you pop up to point out to the presiding officer you hold a proxy by way of point of order and you want to exercise it in this way. Having previously ruminated a millinum on ways how this would actually work when someone suggested that just seems so simple because that's what we do now on the off chance that any of the technology should fail during a voting period so the chamber are both used to it but it also confirms on the record separately how the proxy was exercised so I think that's certainly for the purposes of the trial a relatively straightforward simple way. I don't know comments. On a normal decision time that that absolutely works in my mind when you've got a complicated procedure of a stage three debate where you could have amendment after amendment after amendment I think it might be useful in those situations that members have a duty to forewarn the presiding officer or the person in the chair that they will have a proxy vote and and maybe I don't know I don't know the solution to this is work out a way that they don't have to pop up every 30 seconds on every vote to do the point of order because it will take it out. I don't know convener the answer but I do think there is a I think it's a matter of courtesy before each vote whatever stage for the member holding the proxy to remind the presiding officer that they held the proxy for that individual. That's anything that's helpful and the presiding officer will of course be aware having in essence granted the proxy in the first place. I hear what you say about the stage three but I wonder if given the very small numbers that we're talking about and actually given sometimes the chaos that ensues should we have problems with the voting apps even in the chamber if you happen to be one of those downspots the number of points of order that are made even during stage three. I'm not sure it's a massive inconvenience convener I take your point and I accept it and I would dispute there's ever chaos in the parliament. Maybe being slightly flippant convener for what is a serious important subject of course but there is some new technology being involved called parent paper which having for friend that an MSP couldn't have relevant voting slips to pass to the presiding officer as and when if there has to be a trail which might if there's a hundred amendments a hundred points of order can add quite a lot of time on to business in an afternoon but it's not for us to decide that this morning convener but sometimes all technology can work as well. It sounds interesting because I have and this is in no way disrespectful but I have never envisaged the proxy voting's just happening in the chamber. I was actually thinking of course in my own mind I'm actually thinking of people who are joining at present through blue jeans and on and then doing their points of order after that. How strange that is there we are there's a a change of experience in this place maybe I don't experience but yes I mean I agree and I think it's something that perhaps we need to look at and certainly to possibly discuss further and yes I mean people talk of dread over various planning bills in the past and indeed various traffic regulations in the past about it. Is there anything else about the let-all can I just see if we've got a are we happy for the trial to be not less than 12 months just because I think we need to have data to decide how we go forward. The eligibility for a proxy vote we are talking about maternity paternity bereavement are we happy with the phrase serious illness do we just want illness? I personally think illness is sufficient because it puts the expectation on to the members to explain to themselves it's a serious illness rather than having to explain to anyone else. Okay. You know also in terms of parental leave should that include sorry for prolonging the conversation we don't know members' circumstances members could become foster carers for the first time or adoptive parents the first time so would parental be a catch-all in relation to that I'm just thinking in relation to that I certainly know and I agree with you about the use of any sort of statutory definition of time to define the proxy for parental holding and I wonder whether it actually comes to how long the proxy should exist for rather than so do we have an idea that we're looking at a period of time for so once you have a proxy all proxies are the same for a same period of time but with flexibility that we've talked about on an individual basis and indeed the opportunity subject to the consent of the PO who grants the right to it anyway within the chamber it being extended would that give you more comfort of sort of trying to define it into a statutory my apology you know perhaps I didn't make my point particularly enough it wasn't about it's been you said paternal paternal it was to make sure that that covers all forms of family yes your relationship it's not just the birth of a good child but where a member in this place may become a foster parent or foster carer for time or adoptive parent no my mistake absolutely I think it should it should cover that and I also think that we should make mention that it should cover bereavement because again all of these things are not requirements on members to take up a proxy vote it is an opportunity should they wish to to do that period of time that the proxy should last I mean four weeks but to be extended or do we have the flexibility that that's actually discussion between the member and the presiding officer which Edward sorry I mean I I think there's I'd like to feel there was a relationship between each member and the presiding officer where they had the confidence to speak to the presiding officer and by putting a four week period on it initially and then for them to speak to the presiding officer again allows the presiding officer to exercise their pastoral care of the individual and I think that's important I really believe that's important and I also think it's important for the member to continue to feel engaged and wanted by the Parliament say I'm keen on a four week thing but not limited in in the sense that I see maternity levers 26 weeks and you can extend it by another 26 to 52 but only if you've been employed for a certain amount of time before and I don't believe in that I think it we should trust the presiding officer and the members to behave in a way that's appropriate and I'm sure they will and ensure that engagement continues on as you say are we content with that then the verification process or in other words how does it happen I think this really needs to be a discussion probably with the presiding officer's office as well but we are content that it should be the presiding officer that grants the proxy albeit that there will be a there will be a person administrative process that sits underneath that that would be dealt with excellent and we are I think content that the person who grants the proxy should as appropriate be able to take back their vote for specific instances and the scheme should be flexible to show that the transparency again I'm actually content by the fact that from from the purposes of the Parliament we will be aware that a proxy vote is being cast through the scheme of actually casting it rather than anything more public than that beforehand obviously the member may choose to explain what's happening about it but I don't think we need more than that and I certainly don't think other than the member and the presiding officer anything in relation to the actual application itself I'm content with that and I suppose the last bit comes back to the and we've discussed this about what happens when it goes wrong I mean it is a very high onus to become an MSP of trust and honesty and I am quite taken by Edward's suggestion of something in the guidance to remind and did your bob as well to remind members of the the high level of expectation on them and the fact that this is a relationship of trust between because above and beyond the MSP between two people that one holds the proxy did you want to yes absolutely can you know when I made my comment it wasn't about about trust I'm hoping that that's implied but yes of course let's let's let's put something a bit more formally down there it was more about just reminding MSPs that hold the proxy vote about their responsibilities in terms of staying in contact and having that ongoing relationship with the person who's proxy they hold something that Edward said about with the presiding officer to make sure people are away from this place for a period of time don't feel forgotten about and it's and there's that ongoing support offered in the person that holds the proxies also a very important role to play I think in relation to that and there may well be a role I fear to say for this committee but certainly for the parliament when and if the trial period starts to give an opportunity for MSPs to come and ask questions about it and to investigate it so they understand both the obligation but also sometimes the opportunity that they may feel makes some situations easier for them to deal with Alexander the dialogue needs to be there community that as we've already said the trust is vitally important but the communication is also vitally important between the member between the proxy between the presiding officer to ensure that everybody is is aware of what the roles responsibilities are and that everyone is being looked after and I think that's important as well excellent thank you well sorry Bob I do recall during the debate we had in the chamber I spoke in relation to proxy voting of further consultation with members I think for clarity that was I'm not sure I made it clear in the chamber it's further consultation following a review of how the temporary rule change has has worked rather than another period of consultation before we'd move I think that is the situation I just wanted to say yeah I think my own head in relation to that if that is the case my my secondary comment would be that I'm just wondering if we offer MSPs the opportunity to give not quite feedback in your time and how it's going but a year is quite a long time before we start kind of engaging with the MSP has it hasn't worked with whether after a period of time we then start to do some of that consultation work a kind of moment almost like an interim review because I'm just conscious during the debate in the chamber I was talking about further consultation with members and it's making sure I'm sure members are very keen to see this happen but just to make sure we're taking all members or as many members with us as clearly and openly as possible I think that's very helpful Bob I mean the procedure would be a temporary rule change which would sit next to a very short report from this committee to go to the chamber to be voted on and then the trial period would start I'm slightly concerned that any member who wants to exercise a proxy fears that the minute they exercise it the committee will be there watching them and asking them how it's going but certainly I think you are right that during the period of the trial what evidence does come out what opinions and views members have there would be more than welcome to share those with the committee so that when this committee came to review it for the purposes of either continuing the temporary rule change or whatever that can be taken into account I think there needs to be some flexibility because we have no evidence how this works it has never been done and I certainly don't want to frighten any members away who may wish to exercise a proxy vote with fear of this committee hugging their shoulders to see how it goes yes yes it'll be helpful as well for the first year that if the clouds could keep a record of the amount of times that proxies are used to inform decisions on how to do it yes because I know it's difficult to do it retrospectively it's easy to do it at the time yes a watching brief may be sensible maybe some enthusiasm as I say over the first time it happens so we will we will see in a wait can I thank the committee for that I'll now close the public part of this meeting and thank those who are watching