Chamber and committees

I will finish this point first.

More important than that cost is the issue of treating the electorate with contempt. We do not want to continue to alienate and disengage from the electorate. We do not want to have a by-election within the space of a few weeks after a general set of elections, when the electorate has already gone through all the arguments at that general set of elections.

Joanna Cherry was not denied the opportunity. Another MP stood down, stood for election to this Parliament and won that election and is now a member of the Scottish Cabinet. I believe that that is the way to do things.

The member asked about the current position of the SNP. We passed that measure for a set of elections in 2021 and we will look at it again for 2026. I am simply pointing out that every party in the chamber can do the same thing.

I plead that we should not take the electorate for granted. We know what the turnouts are like in local by-elections right now. For example, the turnout on the day for one by-election in Glasgow was around 6 per cent, not including postal votes. We have to start paying attention to the fact that the electorate is turning away from elections, and having needless elections when interest has waned because we have just had a set of general elections is not the way to do that. Let us wait to see what the consultation says, but let us also be aware that parties can take their own actions in this area.

I will be very brief as well. First, I welcome Graham Simpson’s voice in this campaign against dual mandates and will support all three of his amendments. I am not sure why his voice has not been heard before now. I have only fairly recently heard Graham Simpson talk about dual mandates and the evils therein. I am not sure what could have prevented him from speaking up before. [Interruption.] I will not mention any names, because I think that it is wrong to concentrate on individuals in this discussion. We should be making law because it is best for everybody—particularly the electorate and the people of Scotland—and we have to bear that in mind.

I will explain why I believe that it is better to have the requirement at the point of nomination. Edward Mountain just said that he supports the idea that the requirement should be on election to Parliament, but he then railed against the cost of needless council by-elections, which cost, on average, around £70,000. People sometimes stand for election and then stand down immediately afterwards because they are disqualified from being council candidates. In this Parliament, depending on what the regulations were, we would face a rapid by-election after a general set of elections in which somebody was elected who was a member of the House of Commons or the House of Lords, and that would cost substantially more than £70,000.

I will finish this point before I give way to Mr Kerr.

As we all know, people can stand for a political party only if they have the mark of that party at the point of nomination. That is the way that parties can exert their influence.

I pose to Ross Greer the question that I asked Graham Simpson, who was unable to answer it and did not seem to know the extent of his own amendments. Is it Ross Greer’s interpretation that the ban, if you like, on dual mandates should apply at the stage of nomination? He will be aware that, when returning officers receive a nomination, they can declare at that point that the person is disqualified and the nomination is not valid. I know that the amendment says that it will be decided by the minister in due course, but is it Ross Greer’s view that the election should proceed and that a by-election should then take place, with all the attendant costs, after the election? I am interested in hearing his view.

I am looking for the member’s view on this issue, although, obviously, if his amendments were to be agreed to, the decision would rest with ministers. Does he support the idea that the disqualification to be a member of the Parliament should apply at the point of nomination, or should it apply only if somebody is elected to this place? That would necessitate a by-election, with all the attendant costs. Which is his preference? Is it for people to be disqualified at the point of nomination or subsequent to election to the Parliament?

I am not saying that what you said about the relative size of the respective GVAs of the fishing and energy sectors is not true, but it is usually what we hear from UK Governments before the fishing industry is sold down the river—excuse the pun—which we do not want to see. Secondly, whether it is around energy bills or inhibitions on investment or the million immigrants that we were told that we would not have but that, lo and behold, we do have—which I do not have a problem with, nor do I have one with attracting more people to fill skills shortages—Brexit has been a bit of a disaster.

My final question—and it will be my final question as, unlike Mr Kerr, I will not ask five further questions after it—is a simple one but might be complicated to answer. You have talked about making the transmission of electricity instantaneous and so on—I forget the adjectives that you used—but, presumably, you would still be able to measure how much you are exporting.

When I did a trade mission to Berlin, I found out that Germany is desperate for more energy—particularly renewable energy—from Scotland, as Mr Kerr mentioned, although it has taken a different route with nuclear to some extent. If you had the perfect scenario where the carbon swapping scheme was implemented and it was pretty instantaneous, can you say, given your expertise in the energy field, whether it is now possible to measure how much is being exported and imported from the UK to the EU? Do you have any indication of the exports from Scotland? I am talking about oil and gas exports as well, because I think that a lot of it is sold on the spot market in Amsterdam. There seems to be no reliable record of how much energy is leaving Scotland, either to serve the rest of the UK or, in turn, being exported from the rest of the UK. Are you aware of any data that would help us in that regard?

Good morning to the witnesses. I wonder whether I could make a few comments and ask for, in particular, Mr Berman’s views on what I have to say. First, the linking of fisheries and energy by the EU seems entirely predictable. It is well aware that UK Governments of various descriptions have, over the past 40 years, shafted the fishing industry because it has been seen as dispensable. If the EU wants more from us, as I am sure it does in relation to fishing, it will tie it into something that we have an ask for, which is energy. That is entirely predictable and sensible from its point of view, but it spells danger for our fishing industry.

At the start of the meeting, Mr Berman, you mentioned the increased prices that we pay for energy in this country as a direct result of Brexit, the very substantial limitations on investment in the North Sea and the opportunities that are being lost day in, day out. I think that you were talking mainly about renewable energy, but it also affects oil and gas. That is a huge issue, especially as we pay some of the highest energy prices not just in Europe but around the world. The cost of energy for consumers in this country compared with those in France is massive. That must be impacted by the two direct effects of Brexit of increased prices and limited investment.

Given that, it surprises me that we have heard a lot about recognition of professional qualifications, which Mr Bain quite rightly talked about, but this is the first I am hearing about the impact on the energy side of the issue. Perhaps that is my omission, but I am not seeing a lot of news on it. I know that we have three major parties that are all happy with Brexit and mainstream media that were basically cheerleaders for Brexit, but despite that, I would have thought that the issue would have hit the news before now. That suggests that people such as you, and possibly the committee, may want to give the issue of electricity trading arrangements a bit more volume, especially because of its impact in Scotland. It might be useful for the committee to write to the UK Government about it. I am surprised that it has not really been at the forefront of anyone’s mind—perhaps I am missing something.

I am also a bit sceptical about the UK’s ability to get a beneficial deal on the energy changes that you would like there to be, given that, as we have read this week in The Guardian, the UK Government is not interested in a mobility scheme or in changing Brexit at all. Polly Toynbee wrote that article, and she is pretty well informed as to what the Labour Government is thinking.

Given that, and your comment about the UK Government not really paying any attention to the issue, it seems that the outlook is pessimistic, unless we can all put our good offices together to bring some pressure to bear—not on the EU, as it will follow its own interests, which it is perfectly entitled to do, but on the UK Government—to make it more of an issue. It would be useful to get your views on that.

As I have said, I do not have a further question, but does Mr Bain want to come back on any of the points that have been raised?

Will the member take an intervention?