Seòmar agus comataidhean

I note that the correspondence that we have says:

“the Bureau was broadly agreed that mirroring statutory parental leave arrangements would be appropriate.”

We have to go beyond that. I could be wrong, but I think that statutory parental leave for fathers is two weeks. There is still a gender bias through inequality in society, but I hope that, in the Parliament, there would be an expectation that fathers should strive as much as possible to be equal partners in parenting their children. Two weeks might just not cut it. That is another example in which someone might want to use their proxy sparingly but, because of family circumstances, they might need to use it.

It is the same for mums. They are not ill; they are a new parent, and new parents are trying to balance everything out. There is a need for flexibility. However, if we are going to put a time period on parental leave, it should not be the statutory parental leave period—not for fathers, anyway.

That is a point well made.

I am maybe being slightly flippant about a serious and important subject, but there is some new technology involved, which is called pen and paper. If there has to be a trail, heaven forfend that an MSP could not have relevant voting slips to pass to the Presiding Officer as and when they are required. If there are 100 amendments, 100 points of order can add quite a lot of time on to business in an afternoon. It is not for us to decide on that this morning but, sometimes, old technology can work just as well.

I am sorry for prolonging the conversation but, with regard to parental leave, we do not know members’ personal circumstances. Members could become foster carers or adoptive parents for the first time, so would “parental” be a catch-all term for that?

I apologise, convener. Perhaps I did not take my point articulately enough. You said “maternity” and “paternity”, so I wanted to make sure that eligibility covers all forms of family relationships—not just the birth of a child but a situation in which a member becomes a foster carer or adoptive parent for the first time.

In relation to the definition of “illness”, I am fine if the member feels that they have a serious illness; I am just conscious of members’ right to privacy in relation to their health. It could be that a member has a mental health issue or an underlying health condition that, for privacy and dignity reasons, no one else is aware of. It could be a life-threatening or life-shortening condition.

I am a little bit nervous about how we protect members. For example, a mental health condition would not mean that the member would have to stay at home and do nothing. They would still be allowed to try as best they could to get on with their life. There is a challenge with the public perception of how we support members who have a serious illness to get on with their lives as best they can, even if it is understandable that they will not be able to be at their work for a period.

Yes, absolutely.

During the chamber debate that we had last week, I spoke about further consultation with members on proxy voting. I am not sure that I made it clear in the chamber, but I mean that there should be further consultation following a review of how the temporary rule change has worked, rather than that there should be another period of consultation before we make that move. I think that that is the situation. I want to be clear about that in my own head.

If that is the case, I wonder whether we should offer members the opportunity to give feedback on how it is going. That need not quite be in real time, but a year is quite a long time before we start engaging with MSPs about how that has or has not worked. I think that we should start to do some consultation work after a period of time, almost as an interim review.

I am conscious that, during the debate in the chamber, I spoke about further consultation with members. I am sure that members are keen to see the change happen, but we must ensure that we are taking all members with us and doing that as clearly and openly as possible.

Edward Mountain raised an interesting point, because there is also a discussion around how we define “illness” in the first place, as well as “short-term illness”. The Parliamentary Bureau makes a reasonable point in relation to proxy voting not being brought in for a day here or there, but as a planned approach to supporting members to exercise their democratic vote by using a colleague as a proxy in the Parliament. With a pre-planned or predicted absence, it is reasonable to assume that a person might not necessarily be absent for four weeks or so, and it seems perfectly reasonable for a proxy to be put in place. The idea of having a proxy for months is too unwieldy.

We also need to think about fluctuating health conditions that mean that, due to illness, someone is unlikely to be able to effectively perform all their parliamentary duties. However, people have good days and bad days, so I think that, when someone agrees a proxy, they should be able to take back ownership of their vote from time to time, when they feel that they can. There might be a particular debate that they have a specific interest in and for which want to make every effort to be there, whether remotely or otherwise, and cast their vote.

I think that proxies have to be a two-way process, where a member is not just giving up their vote for a set period of time. There should be a mix. Of course, how we codify that is the challenge, convener, but I think that a member who has been given a proxy for a period of months should be able to cast their vote in a specific debate if it is particularly important to them and they feel able to do so.

It is worth noting that MSPs will also have that conversation with their parliamentary parties. Discussion has to take place within parliamentary groups, and agreement reached there. However, a proxy vote is different; it is an individual arrangement between an MSP and the Presiding Officer.

Perhaps I used the wrong expression when I spoke about “parental leave”. A lot of new parents—myself included—want that leave in order to devote themselves completely to their children. Others want a balance. There will be days on which they wish to make alternative arrangements to allow them to be more actively involved in the life of the Parliament. Sometimes, that will not be possible. I echo your comments about flexibility, convener. Every case is individual; everyone has their own home circumstances.