Agenda item 5 is consideration of a statutory instrument that has been laid under the negative procedure, which means that its provisions will come into force unless the Parliament agrees to a motion to annul them. No motion to annul has been lodged.

As members have no comments, does the committee agree that it does not wish to make any further recommendations in relation to the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

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.

Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether the Scottish Government has reviewed the conclusions of the risk assessments for each maternity patient in labour who has been transferred from Caithness general hospital to Raigmore hospital? If it has not done so, will it?

Does the minister agree that, in having this debate, we have proved how important it is not to have set-piece skirmishes in this Parliament, and that debating things properly, as we have done this afternoon, with more generous time limits allows arguments to be developed, which would be a good starting point for reform in the chamber?

I have enjoyed the richness of the debate this afternoon. We have had longer speeches and better debating. It has been more friendly, less combative and constructive. It is a lesson in what we should do in the Parliament and we should learn from it. The only weakness of the debate is that some members of the Parliament, who I am sure could have added to the debate, are missing.

Elections are the foundation of a thriving democracy, so I welcome the debate and the opportunity to consider where our electoral system can be fine tuned. Every member in the chamber can speak with experience not only as a voter but as a candidate and MSP. That has led to a wide-ranging debate.

Before I pick up on the salient points that have been raised, I will talk about my concerns about lowering the voting age to 16. Despite what many people in here might think, I can remember back to 1977: Baccara, Supertramp, Fleetwood Mac, Carly Simon, 10cc, the Sex Pistols and The Clash were all great bands. Presiding Officer, I will let you decide which track from those bands summed me up, if not all of them. Suffice it to say that, at that stage, I was no more ready to do what I am doing now than I was to fly to the moon.

Planning law, equalities and local government finance were not matters that I knew much about or, frankly, cared much about. Finding sufficient finance to go to the pub for a few pints and to play darts, which I often won, was critical as, indeed, was trying to make myself look 18, which I was clearly not. It might well be that, at the age of 16, I was not representative of my country, but I guess that I was representative of my age and my friends.

What is more, my lived experience was truly limited. It was not until I had lived that I gained experience. Living as a soldier, I learned of conflict and leadership, and later as a surveyor, I came to fully understand industry and finance, which was critical in allowing me to do what I am doing now. It was only then that I can honestly say that I had an informed and balanced opinion.

I absolutely accept that, but I am sure that the member will also accept that many people come to MSPs as their final port of call when they have a really serious problem, and they look to those MSPs to give them some guidance and a way through the problems that they face. Not everyone has faced those problems previously. It is only later in life, when we have seen such problems and how people have dealt with them, that we can know the best way to deal with them. There is a balance to be struck there.

I now turn to the subject of the debate. I always like to try to agree with the minister when we meet—he does not seem to think that that is the case. However, let us start with the things on which we agree: I agree that there should be more participation of voters and more accessibility, and I also agreed with some other things in the minister’s speech.

The reform of the electoral system should be evolutionary not revolutionary, and it should encourage engagement, as Donald Cameron made quite clear in his speech. He expressed concern about abuse—as many members did—and I will pick up on that. Abuse is a concern for everyone, but such abuse should not be allowed to discourage participation.

I was also interested in Willie Rennie’s speech—there is not much that anyone cannot learn from Willie Rennie when it comes to elections and photographs. I agree with a lot of what he said: we should encourage participation, but we should question at what age a young person can do something because we are completely all over the place when it comes to drinking, marriage and elections. Perhaps the Parliament should look at all that more closely.

I have listened to Bob Doris speak eloquently in committee, and I take my hat off to him because he speaks clearly about the need for accessibility and to reduce the number of rejected ballots. It is a thread of thought that I have heard from him before and I am behind him in trying to achieve a positive outcome on that. I was also pleased that he said that he supports a ban on people who abuse people who are standing for election.

I absolutely take Stephen Kerr’s points about protecting democracy. I gave 15 years of my life to doing that, and I think that we all have a duty to do that in everything that we do. I agree with him about encouraging voter participation, and I agree with his point that the Parliament should be about the battle of ideas not a battle between people. We forget that so often.

Emma Roddick came up with some salient points about diversity and engagement. I note that she is less concerned about people aged 16 standing than I am, and I agree that we may disagree on that. However, the other point that she made about the danger of showing candidates’ addresses is something that we should be concerned about, and I like the idea of stating that a candidate’s address is within a particular ward rather than showing their actual home address.

Paul McLennan spoke eloquently about concerns over working hours in this chamber for young people if they were allowed to be elected. I think that that is a problem. He also spoke about abuse of candidates and said that 44 per cent of candidates had faced abuse, which is not something that we should be proud of. In addition, he spoke about the importance of getting voters to register, and I agree totally with him.

Alexander Stewart spoke about the need to ensure that elections are fairer and more inclusive, and I agree. He also spoke about abuse. I will give an example because I think that it is a shame on us and we should all stand against it. In 2014, my son came back from Afghanistan, having served seven-and-a-half months with the Afghan police in Helmand—not a great posting. He came back to help me in an election campaign and ended up being head-butted by a person in Inverness, as he stood between my wife and that person. It was completely unacceptable, and we all have stories like that. I make no excuse for people who do such things—I do not care which side they come from. We should all stand up against that behaviour, and that is why I believe that Alexander Stewart is entirely right to say that anyone who does such things should be disqualified from public office for a period. I would be stronger and say that they should be disqualified for a long period, because I think that such behaviour is unacceptable and brings Scotland into disrepute.

Evelyn Tweed spoke about looking forward to the consultation. I agree with her, and we need to encourage people to engage with it. She also spoke about the importance of reducing barriers, especially for women, and I agree totally with that as well.

Anyone who stands up in this Parliament to say that they disagreed with this would have to be a strong person, but I think that we undervalue our local politicians. We not only undervalue but underpay them—we expect them to do a huge amount for very little. I very much take the point that, in most cases, it is a full-time job for those who do that work and do what their constituents ask; we should do more to respect and reward them.

Graeme Dey and I often have good arguments. He is a strong parliamentarian and I agree with what he said about the fact that politics should be about the conflict between ideas and not between individuals—that was reflected in many of the speeches this afternoon. I also agree with him that we should encourage people by maintaining our standards here at the highest possible level, to show that that is what we expect everyone else to do. We used to call it leading by example.

In conclusion, electoral reform should not be rash or rushed through—indeed, electoral reform should be done thoughtfully and cautiously. We need to be mindful that the effect of the proposed measures might be the opposite—and sometimes adverse—of the one that we had intended. What is more, I believe that changes must result in good legislation, based on informed and knowledgeable debate. None of that can be sacrificed as we seek to become more inclusive.

I do not think that anyone has ever accused me of being wise beyond my years, but I am wiser for my years, and that is something that we should consider. The Scottish Conservatives will await the outcomes of the consultation and we encourage everyone across Scotland to engage with it.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on when it will start publishing information collected via Scotland’s census 2022. (S6O-01842)

As a veteran, I welcome the fact that last year’s census included for the first time a question on former service in the armed forces. What action will National Records of Scotland take to assess and publish that specific information and how will the Government use it to fulfil its obligations under the armed forces covenant?