���˿���

That is very helpful. I will obviously speak to Stuart McMillan, and, as a committee, we will write to him and suggest that we are anxious to hear his contribution when we look at the next stage of proxy voting.

For clarification, there are not 16 elements sitting at red on your risk register, are there?

There are 16 elements in total.

That is helpful. I can see the formal route that has been charted, but the reality is that all of this is based on relationships and confidence. Somebody who, to use a slightly archaic term, perceives that they have less power than the person whom they are concerned about and, indeed, less power than the person whom they are speaking to, needs to have strong relationships that allow them to raise issues. On a practical level, do you have confidence that such relationships exist, in the sense that someone could approach an individual and say, “Can I just have a word?”

You have spoken about the considerable change and increase in staffing. Such processes always present challenges in keeping the confidence or the identity, but they are also an opportunity to build the identity that you want.

Are you confident that the relationships are strong enough and exist for the process to work? Do you see the opportunity, with the changing personnel, to build an identity that you are happy with and that your staff are happy to be part of?

—and, in due course, the communications strategy, which would also be useful.

I want to end with something that I did last time. In the final paragraph of your statement in the report, you rightly extend your gratitude

“to each and every one of the staff in the office for their unwavering dedication, their remarkable resilience”—

we have spoken about that today—

“and their support during this challenging period”

and say that you

“remain immensely proud to belong to this team.”

On behalf of the committee, I echo those words to you and your team. When we last discussed these matters, it was in an “exceptionally” challenging period, whereas we are now in just a challenging period. That does not mean that it is easy or that it is solved, but I thank you for your frank and honest evidence, and I thank Angela Glen for her assistance.

Our third agenda item is consideration of correspondence from Stuart McMillan about the proxy voting scheme. I know that members have had an opportunity to look at his letter, and perhaps you will be patient while I kick off the discussion. We are in a period this year with the proxy voting scheme being trialled very deliberately. I am pleasantly surprised at the uptake of the proxy vote, which has facilitated members exercising their constituents’ rights for them to vote here while still having a work-life balance that works for them.

Stuart McMillan has written to us about the particular matter of seeking an extension in relation to parliamentary duties that are outwith this Parliament, if I can put it that way. It is a valid question to ask. However, I am slightly concerned about its timing because, with discussion with members from across the chamber, we took a long time to deliberate about the pilot scheme itself. We did that very deliberately because we wanted to build support for proxy voting and we wanted members to feel that they could use it.

Part of the process is that we will review it—probably in the autumn, after the summer recess—so that we can make proposals to the chamber to make permanent what are, in effect, temporary changes to the standing orders. In my view, part of that will be an opportunity for members across the chamber to again say whether they would choose to use proxy voting; it will come back to the committee to see whether there is agreement, and then it will go to the chamber for agreement. To some extent, Stuart McMillan’s letter is slightly premature, but it definitely indicates an area that we would be more than happy to look at when we consider the permanent proxy voting scheme rather than the one that we operate at the moment.

To that end, I suggest that we invite Stuart McMillan, in due course, to give evidence, as we will collect evidence from a number of members, including those who have been granted and have used the proxy vote, because that is important. We will also offer an open invitation for members to suggest other situations in which they think proxy voting might be useful, given that we still have remote voting in this Parliament—that is now a fixture of our iterative development—and given that there are other methods that exist between parties to match members who cannot vote, when there is a number of them. Do members have any comments, or is the committee happy to proceed in that manner?

Members indicated agreement.

That is very helpful. Thank you. As promised, that was my last question.

Good morning, and welcome to the fourth meeting in 2023 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Our first agenda item is a decision on whether to take in private items 4 and 5, as well as future consideration of the recommendations in “A Parliament for All: Report of the Parliament’s Gender Sensitive Audit”. Item 4 is consideration of the recommendations in that report, and item 5 is consideration of evidence that we will hear today from the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland. Do members agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

I have a follow-up question that is about the manual, but is also about the whole process. It is interesting that, on the website, there is a single point of entry to a complaint regardless of whether it is about an MSP, a councillor or another person. On my reading of it, that would tend to indicate to people who use the website that the process is the same in all those cases. That is my own entirely subjective view, but the person will know whether they are going to complain about an MSP, a lobbyist or a councillor, and I wonder about the thinking behind having a single point of entry.

Why not allow people to see the differentiation that exists? We have seen evidence that the approach can cause confusion further down the line. Why was that approach chosen? Would you reconsider it—or, indeed, are you reconsidering it?

There are a couple of things to say in conclusion. I would like to turn to the public appointments side because, although it does not get as much airplay as other matters, it is a crucial role that sits with you. Some serious questions have been raised about how diversification in public appointments has gone or not gone. Will you comment on the changes? There is a full account in the annual report, but perhaps you would talk about how it has changed since the tail end of last year—since the report that we are looking at—and what your hopes are for it in the future.