Chamber and committees

This is a really difficult issue, because no one wants to stop someone being next to a close relative when they are nearing the end of their life. I accept that, having lost both my mother and my father. I understand how important it is to be there, especially given the extended amount of time that I needed to spend with my father.

However, I want to understand what we mean by “close relative” and, therefore, how the Presiding Officer would be able to make that judgment. I really want people to be able to spend the amount of time that they need to spend, but I would like to understand that, because we are putting the Presiding Officer in a slightly difficult position by saying that they will decide who is a close relative.

This is a really difficult subject. Every member has probably had to experience such circumstances at some stage. I am keen to ensure that we are seen as fair and reasonable, and also as being in line with what is expected of people outside the Parliament when it comes to bereavement.

The rules have changed, and there are some stipulations about what can and cannot be expected. I am keen to understand what other people across Scotland are given in this regard, so that we make sure that the Parliament is in line with that—or, at least, so that, when we make our decision, we do so in the light of what other people have to face. That is my first point.

Secondly—I know that the convener is going to give me a rap across the knuckles for this—it gives me the opportunity to mention something about the scheme that I have mentioned to him outside of the committee. At the bottom of page 4 of our papers, it is stated:

“Designation of a proxy must be made by the Member from their Parliamentary email account by 10.00am on the Tuesday”.

My understanding is that the committee decided and agreed that the designation could be made for a period of time. The way that that is written seems to imply that a member must notify the Presiding Officer every week that they wish to have a proxy. I just know that there are circumstances in which that might not be possible. Could we write to the Presiding Officer and ask that a member be able to apply for a proxy for a period of time, and then it could be reassessed?

For example, a member might have to go into hospital on a Friday and have a serious operation that takes them past the Tuesday deadline. That means that they would not be able to apply for a proxy. I am not sure that that is what we meant. I am not sure that that is necessarily the way that it will be interpreted, but it is the way that it is written. I would like to flag that up at the same time.

Just before we leave this topic, I want to comment on the general way in which the proxy voting system has worked. First, I am delighted that it is being used so much, which shows why we needed it. The committee has done a good job in introducing it.

Secondly, it was interesting to watch the use of the system in the chamber in relation to one member. On short votes, at decision time, the member who was casting the vote said, “On behalf of X, I vote yes.” That is entirely right, and I encourage it, because it allows people who are watching to understand who the proxy vote is for.

However, in stage 3 debates in the chamber, that becomes very difficult. I just wonder whether, as the Presiding Officer allows the situation to evolve, it would be worth making the point at the outset that, during votes, there will be a proxy vote each time, on behalf of so and so, and that such and such a person will be exercising it. That would cut the time that the Presiding Officer spends in doing that.

Nevertheless, I stress that, for short votes at decision time on a normal evening, it is important that the member is named, so that his or her constituents can see that that person has made a positive decision about the vote and so that they are seen to be participating in events.

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the third meeting in 2023 of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.?I am sorry for the slight delay—there were problems with transport this morning.

Agenda item 1 is to decide whether to take items 3 and 4 in private. Under item 3, the committee will consider the evidence that we will hear today on the legislative consent memorandum on the Energy Bill. Under item 4, the committee will consider its work programme. Do members agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of a legislative consent memorandum on the Energy Bill. I refer members to the papers for the item.

The Energy Bill, which was introduced in the House of Lords on 6 July 2022, aims to strengthen the resilience of the United Kingdom’s energy systems. A legislative consent memorandum was lodged by the Scottish Government on 28 September. It recommends that Parliament consents only to some clauses that make provisions in the devolved areas and that it withholds consent for others.

Today, we will hear from the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport, Michael Matheson, and discuss in more detail the Scottish Government’s position on the bill. I welcome you to the committee, cabinet secretary—you have been here two weeks running. I also welcome from the Scottish Government Ragne Low, deputy director, onshore electricity policy and strategic co-ordination, and Dawn Sungu, strategic co-ordination team leader.

We have about an hour for the item, but there is some flexibility. Cabinet secretary, I think that you want to make a brief opening statement. I am happy for you to go ahead with that.

Will you clarify that, cabinet secretary? Could it not also work the other way round? Something could be developed up here that might have an environmental impact that was then translated to another part of the United Kingdom. Surely it could work both ways.

We have quite a few more questions, cabinet secretary. Mark Ruskell has a supplementary question on that point, which might also prompt you to answer the next question.

Okay. We will return to Fiona Hyslop.

Liam Kerr has a quick question.

Thank you, cabinet secretary.

I have a quick question about the on-going discussions. I think that you said that the Scottish Government is expecting some response by the end of the month. Do you expect that there will be a satisfactory outcome and that there might be a subsequent LCM? What are your views on that? Will you give a general indication of how that is going, cabinet secretary?