Procedure Committee

We begin with a Select Committee statement. Graeme Downie will speak on the publication of the second report of the Procedure Committee, “Proxy voting: Review of arrangements introduced in Session 2024-25”, HC 489, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions can be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and I will call Graeme Downie to respond to these in turn. Questions should be brief, and Members may ask only one question each.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful for the opportunity to make this statement on behalf of the Procedure Committee, following the publication of our second report of this Session, entitled “Proxy voting: Review of arrangements introduced in Session 2024-25”.

Before turning to our inquiry and report, I would first like to express my thanks to my colleagues on the Committee from across the House for their dedicated work on this timely report, as well as to Gavin and his team of Clerks, who guided us through this process, and to all who gave and submitted evidence. I put on record my thanks to everyone who took part in the inquiry.

It is our view that this report comes at an important moment. With more than 300 new Members of Parliament elected in July 2024, many colleagues may be unfamiliar with the origins and evolution of proxy voting in the House. Our aim in conducting this review and publishing our report was, first and foremost, to assess the arrangements introduced in this Session, but in doing so we have sought to clarify the principles and underpinning of the scheme, assess its current operation and make recommendations for its future development.

As many Members are aware, proxy voting was first introduced in 2019 in response to greater calls for support for Members during parental absence. That landmark change was made in recognition of the reality that Members, like those we represent, face personal circumstances that may temporarily prevent them from attending their place of work. Since then, the scheme has expanded to cover long-term illness, serious injury and, more recently, additional provisions that have been brought forward relating to complications during pregnancy and fertility treatment.

These developments reflect a growing recognition that Members should not be forced to choose between their personal health and family responsibilities, and the performance of their solemn constitutional duties in this place. The Committee, like our predecessors before it, firmly believes that the arrangements in this space must continue to evolve to reflect the lived experience of Members of Parliament.

I turn to our inquiry. Late last year, the Leader of the House asked us to review the temporary arrangements for serious long-term illness and injury that were introduced at the start of this Parliament and are due to expire at the end of this Session. As part of our inquiry, we also considered the permanent provisions introduced in November 2024 for complications related to pregnancy and childbirth, and for fertility treatment. Because of the early point in the Parliament at which we conducted the inquiry, we received only limited evidence. Uptake of proxy votes remains relatively low, and that has limited the evidence base available to the Committee in our inquiry. However, the feedback that we received was constructive and thoughtful, and it has informed our recommendations.

I thank the Chair and the Committee for their hard work in releasing this. I have a simple question. Some of us sitting here today could, in three months’ time, find ourselves seriously ill suddenly and unexpectedly. I presume that would need to be backed up by a letter from a consultant, a doctor or some medical person to ensure that the illness is serious enough that they cannot go and vote.

I remind the hon. Member that these are brief questions.

The brief question is: has the Committee considered that?

I thank the hon. Member for his question. I have now been intervened on by the hon. Member for Strangford and asked a question; I wonder exactly what the third part of the trio to complete the hat-trick might be. We considered matters such as that, and we received some evidence. However, as I stated, we did not find enough concrete recommendations to come up with a full report as to how the scheme might be further improved. The example he expresses is the kind of thing that proxy voting is designed for already. We did have some evidence as to how the system is currently, as I said in the statement, not exactly open to everyone, and sometimes not entirely clear. However, the circumstances that he describes represent some of the times that proxy voting could be used.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent speech and the members of the Procedure Committee, which I am part of, for their hard work. In particular, I congratulate the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), on her excellent stewardship.

I have a question for my hon. Friend. One thing the report looked at was proxy voting when Members are present on the Estate. Could he expand on that? Also, will the scheme be reviewed, and are there any plans for it to be expanded?

I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent work he does with us on the Committee. His contributions are always valuable and should be listened to carefully. Yes, we considered both those matters. As I outlined in my speech, we appreciate that maintaining the principle that we should use proxy voting only when away from the estate does not cover everyone’s circumstances. Certainly, in the limited evidence we had from the inquiry, we pointed to the need to keep this under review throughout this Parliament before making any arrangements permanent. I would hope the Committee would look through that during the Parliament.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his statement, and I am grateful to all Committee members. He will not be surprised to see me here in a statement on this issue. Colleagues will know that my father-in-law died on 20 June, which is the day we had the vote on assisted dying. I was unable to seek a proxy, a pair or, frankly, any real meaningful support from those who ought to have helped. With that in mind, and with the interest of making sure that others are not forced to choose between their responsibilities in this place and to their families, I urge my hon. Friend and the Committee to go further and give real consideration to making sure that proxies are available to Members with families who are in receipt of end-of-life care—who are on their death bed —so we are not forced to choose between being with our families or being here to do our jobs.

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I know that was a very difficult day for him. We spoke briefly on that day, and I know how hard it was. I think everyone on all sides of that debate had a great deal of sympathy for what had happened. My belief is that that kind of thing should never have to happen again. As I said, there is more work to be done on proxy voting and making sure it is fully fit and covers more circumstances; it is just that within the scope of the inquiry we led, we were not able to consider and make concrete recommendations on those points. When the Committee returns to the topic later in the Parliament, I am sure my hon. Friend will be a key voice in bringing such evidence to the Committee to make sure it is considered fully.

Order. The sitting is suspended until 1.50 pm.

Backbench Business