Chamber and committees

Yes, a very brief question, convener.

Caroline, in your letter, you list a number of stakeholders that you are liaising with, such as the Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems, Alcohol Focus Scotland and the Scottish Alcohol Counselling Consortium. It struck me that nobody on that list is actually involved in the drinks sector—the Scottish Beer and Pubs Association would be just one example. Do you also take advice from people who are involved in serving the public?

To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to address wait times in temporary accommodation. (S6O-04147)

I am sure that the minister will agree that some of the waiting times in temporary accommodation have been absolutely appalling. There was one case in South Lanarkshire in which a child spent 420 days in temporary accommodation, and an adult who endured a 760-day stay. That is unacceptable. Given that the First Minister said earlier, “We are not building enough houses”, does the minister agree that we need a better approach and that it should be targeted at those areas that are most in need?

I will press my amendment, and I wind up simply by thanking everyone who has taken part in what has been a very good debate. That includes my good friend Keith Brown, who made a very interesting point. I respectfully disagree with it, but it is right that he made it. That kind of issue can be looked at when we do the consultation.

I urge the minister to be as collegiate as he has been so far when he looks at the regulations. I am sure that that will be the case, and with that, I will sit down.

Amendment 34 agreed to.

Amendments 35 and 36 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

After section 2B

Amendments 3 and 37 not moved.

Section 3—Scottish disqualification orders

Amendment 5 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

After section 11

Amendment 6 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

After section 13

I encourage Mr Brown to read the amendments. They leave the details to regulations, and the minister will consult on those. It is not my intention to prevent anyone from standing for this place—I would never do that. If somebody wants to stand, let them stand and let them be elected. The details would be left to the regulations, which is clear in the amendments, as Mr Brown would see if he read them—I am sure that he has them in front of him while I am speaking.

It is a pleasure to start off our deliberations on stage 3 amendments with this group, which contains three amendments of mine and some from Annie Wells and my new friend, Ross Greer. I am happy to support Mr Greer’s amendments and I look forward to hearing from Ms Wells about her amendments.

It is fair to say that my three amendments have attracted a good deal of attention. They aim to tackle the issue of dual mandates, which, as members know, is the practice of holding positions in the Commons, Lords or a council at the same time as holding positions in the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament is alone among the devolved legislatures in allowing that practice. It is high time that it ended.

I read the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s excellent stage 1 report, which mentioned dual mandates because the issue had come up during the committee’s evidence taking. The majority of submissions to the committee on the matter said that dual mandates should end.

During the stage 1 debate, I was clear that I would be looking at dual mandates at stage 2, and I also said that there are different views on the issue. However, I am certain that the vast majority of the public, along with most members of the Parliament, agree that we should ban so-called double jobbing.

The fact that we have not done so is an oversight that is hard to fathom. It is one of a number of legislative gaps, some of which I am attempting to fix with my member’s bill. Members will be pleased to know that my bill is due to be published tomorrow, along with screeds of accompanying documents that will keep them busy over Christmas.

I kept my word and, at stage 2, I submitted a series of amendments on dual mandates as they relate to MPs, members of the House of Lords and councillors. The minister then wrote to the committee saying that he wanted to consult on the issue but that there would likely be no legislation on it before 2026. I spoke during the stage 2 debate but tactically withdrew because, first, I was not going to win that day and, secondly, I knew that I might get another chance with a bit more thinking, discussion and persuasion, which is exactly what has happened.

We also have a certain MP to thank, who came out of the woodwork to say that he wanted to stand for this place and continue to be an MP. There may be others, too, and that spurred me into action again and told me that I was right to pursue the issue, so I lodged new amendments. That, and the furore over the said MP’s ambitions, have forced him to back down.

I stress to Mr Lumsden that I am not trying to prevent anyone from standing anywhere; the amendments would tackle the practice of continuing to serve in two places at the same time.

In this Parliament, there is a petition on the issue. The Electoral Reform Society Scotland wrote a submission on it, in which it said:

“we would like to see the legislation here brought into line with The Senedd ...

Having a full-time paid job in the Lords, Commons or Holyrood should be mutually exclusive, and we would advise against MSPs being allowed to hold a dual mandate. There are no clear advantages to voters or to the operation of democratic institutions and one big disadvantage—the capacity of an individual to fulfil the responsibilities of both roles.”

We have also seen support from none other than my other good friend Ivan McKee, who said:

“I think that double-jobbing—working as an MP and MSP—isn’t sustainable” .

The Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Murray, told the Scottish Affairs Committee on 20 November this year that

“everyone sitting around this table will know how difficult it is to be a constituency MP, let alone have other responsibilities as well ... I would have thought that the Scottish Parliament may want to look at that.”

As I said, at stage 2, the Minister for Parliamentary Business said that he wanted time to consult on potential changes. That could have meant no legislation being in place until the 2031 elections—if at all. That may suit some people, but it is not acceptable to me, and we have the chance, with this bill, to act now.

I agree with that. I have to say, and I will probably repeat this later, that it has been a pleasure to work with the minister on this. I think that we have arrived at a sensible conclusion. If Parliament backs our joint position, that will be a good thing.

I originally lodged two stage 3 amendments dealing with MSPs who are also MPs and MSPs who are also peers. That was a belt-and-braces approach and, although those amendments would have attracted widespread support, I wanted to get the minister on board. Therefore, rather than go for the purist option, I came up with something more pragmatic.

I am asking Parliament to vote on the principle of dual mandates in relation to MPs and peers, with the details being left to regulations that the minister has agreed will be in place before the 2026 elections. I am sure that he will repeat that today. That is what amendments 34 and 35 do.

Amendment 36 says that the issue of whether councillors should be able to do both jobs can be dealt with in regulations if consultation shows that there is a case for that.

I am closing, Presiding Officer.

At the heart of the matter is the principle of whether someone should be able to serve here as well as in another legislative chamber. For me, the answer to that is no. This is not a cosy club; this is a Parliament, and we are here to serve the people. This is not a second-rate chamber to be used as a part-time hobby. This is a serious Parliament, and members should be fully focused on their work here. Being an MSP demands our full attention. It is a full-time job. We make laws for the people, and not to protect the vested interests of individuals or parties.

The amendments that I have lodged stand up for this Parliament and the standing that it should enjoy. Double jobbing should be consigned to history. David Cameron was clear that double jobbers

“haven’t got a leg to stand on.”

He legislated for Northern Ireland. Wales has legislation. We can legislate here, and we should do the right thing.

I move amendment 34.

The minister has been very clear on that. He gave a statement last week and set out his timetable, and I am sure that he will repeat that when he makes his contribution in this debate. I am not speaking for the minister—he can do that himself—but his intention is that the provisions will be in place for MPs and peers by the time of the 2026 election. I hope that that reassures my friend Mr Kerr.

The furore over said MP’s ambitions forced him to back down, and if all that has helped Audrey Nicoll, who is a lovely lady, I am delighted about that. I will not name the MP—he would probably like me to—but we all know who it is. My amendments are not about him or anyone else, but he has helped to shine a light on double jobbing, so he has done us a favour in a way, although it might not have felt that way to some.

I want to give some context to the debate on this group of amendments, so let me turn to what has gone before. I have said that Scotland is an outlier in not banning dual mandates. Let us first have a look at Northern Ireland. Dual mandates in the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly are prohibited by the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014—a United Kingdom Parliament act—which provides that an MP who is elected as an MLA has eight days to resign from the House of Commons and that an MLA who is elected as an MP must resign immediately from the Northern Ireland Assembly. The act also explicitly prevents members of the legislative Assembly from becoming members of Parliament in Dublin.

The Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 prohibits councillors from being members of the Assembly, the House of Commons or the House of Lords or from being elected to any other legislature.

The banning of dual mandates in Northern Ireland followed increasing criticism of the practice in the aftermath of the 2009 MPs’ expenses scandal. That year, Sir Christopher Kelly published a report on MPs’ expenses and allowances, which recommended that the practice of holding dual mandates in the House of Commons and the devolved Parliaments should be brought to an end as soon as possible.

The Kelly report found that so-called double jobbing was most prevalent in Northern Ireland, where, in 2009, 16 out of the 18 Westminster MPs also sat in Stormont, and five of them were ministers. The report found that double jobbing was “unusually ingrained” there.

Mr Johnson makes a reasonable point. Perhaps that was an oversight on my part, but, for me, the main issue is people who want to sit in this Parliament while being an MP or in the House of Lords. The question of councillors is another matter, which I will come on to.

The Kelly report said:

“the Committee questions whether it is possible to sit in two ... legislatures simultaneously and do justice to both roles”.

David Cameron pledged to end dual mandates for Northern Ireland in the 2010 Conservative Party manifesto. That was framed as part of a broader objective to make devolution work and

“bring Northern Ireland back into the mainstream of UK politics.”

In Wales, dual mandates were banned under the Wales Act 2014, which ruled that any MP who is elected to the Senedd has eight days to resign from the House of Commons and that an AM who is elected as an MP must resign immediately from the Assembly. The Secretary of State for Wales justified the changes as a response to the increased workload of AMs following the devolution of powers in 2011. In a debate about Welsh Assembly elections in the House of Lords in June 2012, Baroness Morgan of Ely argued:

“it is difficult to serve two political institutions at the same time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 June 2012; Vol 737, c 131.]

I agree.

The Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020 disqualified members of the House of Lords, Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly or local authorities in Wales from being members of the Senedd, which is possibly the point that Mr Johnson was making.

Wales and Northern Ireland have legislation to prohibit double jobbing, but we do not have it here. Somehow, Scotland has escaped. It does not make sense.