Chamber and committees

Will the member give way?

The economy is a very good area to focus on. Perhaps one of the issues over the years has been the eagerness to set targets, outcomes or elements of the national performance framework that the Scottish Government will never have it in its gift to deliver alone but will be a joint effort with others. If there was a mutual understanding of the responsibilities for and inputs to the economy and, between Westminster and Scotland, our targets for the economy, we would be more likely to get a meaningful outcome and the accountability that should go with that.

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 agree with Mr Mountain, and I will be interested to see the results of the consultation.

The last point that I will make is that, whatever we agree in this Parliament, individual parties in this Parliament can take action themselves.

In 2020, my party decided that we would have no dual mandates, so that nobody who was an MP would stand for election to this Parliament. We did that ahead of this legislation. Therefore, unlike Graham Simpson, we have been against dual mandates for some time. However, whatever legislation is passed in this Parliament, it will remain the case that individual parties will be able to make rules for themselves.

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 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?