³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

That is helpful. Do members have any other comments? It seems not.

Given that we are talking about the procedures, it seems sensible, if we are to arrive at something, for us to know what wants to be arrived at. That would be helpful for the committee. Therefore, does the committee agree to the suggestion that we correspond formally with the Conveners Group—and, if necessary, the Scottish Government—to get access to all the correspondence? Does the committee also agree to write to the requisite committee to ask what its views and asks are?

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 3 is consideration of correspondence that we have received from the Presiding Officer on a request to vary the proxy voting scheme—which, as we know, came in only this year but, as we have all seen, has been successfully used in the chamber on a number of occasions. Do members have any comments on that correspondence? Are we in agreement with the Presiding Officer’s proposal to vary the scheme?

That is helpful. Bob, do you want to comment?

I will bring together some of the threads. We need to remember that we empowered the Presiding Officer to come up with the scheme so that it would work for her—well, not for the Presiding Officer but for the chamber. We empowered the Presiding Officer to have that flexibility, and rightly so. The scheme that has been created rests with the Presiding Officer, and the obligation on the Presiding Officer is to come back and consult with us, which speaks volumes about the evaluation of this pilot project.

I think that the committee always considered that it would be an iterative process. I certainly feel that the confidence that the chamber has shown in the Presiding Officer in creating the scheme should probably be echoed in the committee with regard to requests that she makes to us.

However, notwithstanding the request that has been made, that does not mean that we do not look at the consequences of the scheme. That relates to Bob Doris’s point with regard to starting to reach out to find out what the situation is more widely. It would be valuable to capture the experiences of those who have been offered and exercised proxies.

As to how the Presiding Officer would make a determination on next of kin, you will recall the substantial evidence that we heard around people’s caring situations. Those are not necessarily defined by a family link; it might be a circumstance of fact. We entrusted the Presiding Officer with that.

As the PO is seeking clarification in the light of events, I would hope that we can support her proposed change. We can also use this exchange as the start of the evaluation process. We are in the second month of the proxy voting pilot and its use has certainly exceeded my expectations. I think that it would be useful to ask the clerks to start capturing the evidence of how the pilot is working, so that we can review it in due course.

That is helpful.

Again, that is incredibly helpful. If we are in—[Interruption.]

I am sorry, Bob—I cut across you.

That is helpful. The discussion that was had about how we capture the proxy vote ended up in what we saw, certainly in the early stages of the first proxy vote: the giving of an explanation, the name of the member and the way that the vote was cast, so that that could be captured in the Official Report.

Again, it is an iterative approach. What you said about stage 3 is, no doubt, being looked at. It is helpful to start the capture of the evidence in order to consider how proxy voting goes forward, because there was that challenge at stage 3.

I do not know the correct answer, but the strong discussions that we had—about ensuring the capture of the vote and an explanation of why a different member is casting it—go to the heart of why it was so important to bring in proxy voting.

Do we agree to support the PO’s request for an amendment to the scheme, and to clarify the understanding with regard to the designation of a proxy, which is a valid question? Do we also agree to instruct the clerks to capture evidence for the evaluation that we, as a committee, must undertake?

Members indicated agreement.

I see no issue with doing that. We would be seeking input from the corporate body, as an entity, in our evaluation of proxy voting.

I am aware of a number of strands of correspondence that we have with the corporate body about a number of matters. However, I see no harm in writing to it and, if you are content, Bob, I am happy to do so, just to express where this comes from and what it is about and to ask for its thoughts. The employment and contractual relationships between the corporate body and members of staff do not fall directly within the committee’s remit, but I will reinforce the point that, as a Parliament, we are looking for a developmental and iterative approach to employment that is as widely supportive as possible, in order for us to get our jobs done.

Agenda item 2 is in respect of correspondence that we have received from the Conveners Group, which relates to strengthening net zero scrutiny arrangements. Do members have any comments?