– in the Senedd at 4:01 pm on 24 March 2021.
Item 14 is next, the motion to amend temporary Standing Orders, and I call on a member of the Business Committee to formally move—Rebecca Evans.
Motion NDM7675 Elin Jones
To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 33.2:
1. Considers the report of the Business Committee, ‘Amending Standing Orders: Temporary Standing Orders’, laid in the Table Office on 17 March 2021.
2. Approves the proposals to amend Standing Orders 12 and 34, as set out in Annex A of the Business Committee’s report.
3. Notes the Business Committee’s recommendation regarding the use of remote electronic voting under Standing Order 34.14A, following the Senedd election, including for the purposes of electing the Presiding Officer and Deputy.
Formally moved.
So, we have a range of temporary Standing Orders that this applies to. I think it probably is appropriate on this occasion that they are taken together, and firstly, the extension on proxy voting for parental leave; I think that was brought in as a temporary provision. My view has been that proxy voting—and I speak really in circumstances without considering COVID where there is an assumption of physical meeting and presence in Cardiff—is I have thought that we should allow that proxy voting for maternity or paternity leave or other appropriate parental leave under statute, potentially, and our own contractual arrangements. But if we do have that, it has quite an impact between Government and opposition, and I think we do need this narrow exception because of maternity and paternity rights. It doesn't seem right to me to exclude those individuals from voting in connection with their job. It's good to see the UK Government having made a change recently in respect of the UK Ministers in that scenario, and I think it's right that we do have this. Personally, I think this particular narrow aspect of proxy voting only should be made permanent, but short of that, I think the extension from April to August is a good one.
But I think the remote participation that we have, I think it does change the balance between Government and opposition, because Government needs to have its votes to get its business through; it can't risk losing a vote by not having people able to participate in voting, so to the extent that we vote remotely from our homes, rather than being required in Cardiff or potentially voting remotely wherever we happen to be, I think that is a benefit to the Government, because it makes it easier for them to get their business. It doesn't have that hurdle of having to have all its Members in Cardiff at a particular time for when a vote may occur. So, there is that change, and I don't support a wider extension of proxy voting because of that.
We're extending the temporary Standing Orders in respect of, from my understanding, both the hybrid and the entirely remote working; I'm not sure why we're still doing entirely remote working rather than hybrid working, as they are in Westminster, and to the extent that may continue for the UK Parliament into May or June, I think it's appropriate we should have the potential at least for the hybrid option to continue. I've had discussions with some party colleagues around the remote voting; my feeling is perhaps that you should in a Parliament meet physically, and some have actually thought that remote participation is good, and we should make it the standard, because that would allow our building to be repurposed for more productive and useful purposes, and could save significant sums of money for the taxpayer. On balance, though, I think the hybrid and remote options—certainly the hybrid is the one I prefer, so continuing those temporary Standing Orders for at least a shortish period beyond the election is probably the right thing to do, at least in terms of having that option to provide for the hybrids. So, on these temporary Standing Orders, we do propose to support their extension. Thank you.
There are no further speakers. The proposal is to amend Standing Orders in relation to temporary Standing Orders. Does any Member object? No, I don't see any objection, and therefore the motion is agreed.