���˿���

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 ���˿���. For ���˿���, 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 ���˿���, 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 ���˿��� 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?

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.

A watching brief might be sensible. There might be some enthusiasm the first time it happens. We will wait and see.

I thank the committee for that discussion and thank those who have been watching. I now close the public part of the meeting.

I certainly think that that is helpful and, of course, having, in essence, granted the proxy in the first place, the Presiding Officer will be aware of that.

I hear what you say about stage 3 proceedings but, despite the chaos that sometimes ensues when we have problems with the voting apps—even in the chamber, if members happen to be in one of those down spots—a very small number of points of order are made, even during stage 3 proceedings, so I am not sure that it is a massive inconvenience.

I agree with you about the use of any statutory definition of time in relation to holding a proxy vote for parental leave. I wonder whether it comes to how long the proxy should exist for. Are we looking at a period of time? It could be that, once a member has a proxy, all proxies last for the same period, albeit with flexibility on an individual basis, which we have talked about, as well as the opportunity for it to be extended—subject to the consent of the PO, who grants the right for the proxy in the chamber. Bob, would that give you more comfort than trying to define it into a statutory—

I think that you are right that, during the trial period, the committee would welcome the evidence and opinions that come out and the views that members have. In that way, when the committee comes to review whether to continue the temporary rule change, that can be taken into account. We will need some flexibility, because we have no evidence about how it will work. It has never been done and I do not want to frighten away any members who may wish to exercise a proxy vote out of fear of the committee hugging their shoulders to see how it is going.

Good morning. I welcome everyone to the 18th meeting in 2022 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I have received apologies from Collette Stevenson, who is unwell today.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on whether to take agenda item 3 in private. Do members agree to take that item in private?

Members indicated agreement.

That is very helpful.

I note from the completed registration form that a number of existing CPGs that cover some but not all of the intended purposes of the proposed CPG have been identified. I appreciate the evidence that you have given on outreach with regard to stakeholders and other ���˿���. Has there been any formal contact yet with existing CPGs about the potential for joint work?

I thank you for your comment on the responsibility that you and your office would have with regard to the CPG. We might address that aspect at the end of the meeting, although not specifically in relation to your proposed CPG.

Do members have any questions?