Chamber and committees

I can only conclude that those who have an opinion largely took the position that a leave of absence does not fulfil the requirement of ending a dual mandate. We have drafted the regulations to enable provisions on such a threshold, but they do not require that to be the threshold. I am grappling with that now and would be more than happy to hear the committee’s perspective.

I think so, but that could be in the eye of the beholder.

I am happy to speak to where my thinking on that broadly is. This is not necessarily finalised, and I am happy to hear what people think. There absolutely does not have to be a grace period. I am also happy to speak to where we might end up on regulations for councillors.

I do not think that the grace period should be the same for each cohort. When he made the proposals, Mr Simpson proffered a period of eight days for MPs and peers. Having spoken with IPSA, I think that we could work with such a system, but I am beginning to think that it would be preferable to have a slightly longer period for MPs, which might be tied to the period between the election and the summer recess, largely for the practical matter of an MP winding up their office in an orderly fashion, although IPSA informed me that that is built into the system already.

We have absolutely no ability to legislate for what IPSA might put in place or what the rules might be for the House of Commons, so the system could change. To go back to a point that I made earlier about future proofing systems, it would be sensible for us to have a short grace period that is probably a little longer than eight days.

My exception would relate to the situation where, for example someone is elected as a councillor—

That is no problem.

By and large, I think that the answer is no, for practical reasons. There might be exceptions in relation to certain allowances, such as for setting up an office. I have not drawn a specific conclusion on that; it could be more hassle than it is worth, although that must be balanced against the question of why, if a person decides not to quit as an MP, we would let them set up an office for a few weeks. That is something that we need to grapple with.

The more fundamental questions are around a person’s ability to participate in parliamentary proceedings. I do not think that we should limit that for the very practical reason that that would impact the selection of the Parliament’s nominee for First Minister and parliamentarians’ ability to determine who the Presiding Officer and the Deputy Presiding Officers were and who should hold ministerial office. That takes us into real questions around the public having elected the Parliament on a specific, proportionate basis, which should be reflected. It would add a level of complication that would not be helpful.

We have not considered that. Again, that would add another layer of complication. Those are issues on which we would be guided by practical considerations. Realistically, although we would have a prescribed period in which a person must state their intentions, I would be surprised if a person was appointed to ministerial office if they did not give an early indication that they intended to leave the institution.

I will be perfectly candid. I am grappling with my personal perspective and what I think the Parliament might expect. That is where I am now.

There is a complicating factor. It is not for me to say who the committee should take evidence from, but I found it useful to take evidence from the people who I have mentioned, and I am sure that the committee would, too. The clerk from the House of Lords said that their processes have changed. A leave of absence used to be from parliamentary session to parliamentary session; the process now has to do be done each and every year. That would be another complicating factor for us. Who is checking that here? That is something else that we need to consider.

As I grapple with my perspective, the other factor is that far more people who responded to the consultation said that the person should resign from the Lords than said that they should take a leave of absence.

Yes, that is right. The arbiter in the current system is the Parliament. By and large, that process has served us for a long time and, more often than not, it has served us well. Given that we are accountable to the public, in the sense of being elected here in the first place, if we are going to introduce a system of further deliberation on the standards of members of the Parliament, the same principle should apply that, ultimately, that should be in the hands of the public.

The Government does not have a specific perspective on that, but I certainly think that it is an intriguing proposition. If the committee is inclined—it is not for me to tell the committee what to do—to explore it further, I certainly think that it would be interesting to have a wider discussion on that issue. The Government does not have a perspective on it beyond my observation that it is certainly worthy of consideration.