Chamber and committees

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.

The verification process—or, in other words, how the proxy vote happens—really needs to be discussed with the Presiding Officer’s office as well, but we are content that the Presiding Officer should grant the proxy, albeit that an administrative process will sit underneath that.

I know that discussions have taken place about that. The simplest procedure that I have heard discussed is that, during a vote, the person who holds a proxy vote will cast their own vote. Once the voting period is over but before the votes are counted, they will pop up to make a point of order, in which they will point out to the Presiding Officer that they hold a proxy vote and will say how they want to exercise it. Having previously ruminated on a million and one ways in which it could work, when somebody suggested that procedure, it seemed so simple, because that is what we do now if any of the technology should fail during the voting period. Therefore, not only are people in the chamber used to it, but it confirms separately, on the record, how the proxy was exercised. For the purposes of the trial, that is a relatively straightforward, simple way to do it.

Okay.

That was my mistake. Absolutely, I think that eligibility should cover that situation. I also think that we should mention that it should cover bereavement. Again, those situations do not require members to take up a proxy vote, but there would be an opportunity to do so if they wish.

Should the proxy last for four weeks, with the option for that to be extended? Should the flexibility of that be a matter for discussion between the member and the Presiding Officer?

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?