Chamber and committees

I just found it fascinating.

In session 1, a number of MSPs were also members of the House of Lords: James Douglas-Hamilton, David Steel and Mike Watson. As you would expect, quite a lot of MSPs were also MPs in session 1. The list is as follows: Malcolm Chisholm, Roseanna Cunningham, Donald Dewar, Margaret Ewing, Sam Galbraith, Donald Gorrie, John Home Robertson, John McAllion, Henry McLeish, Alasdair Morgan, Alex Salmond, John Swinney, Jim Wallace and Andrew Welsh.

In session 2, a couple of MSPs were members of the House of Lords—James Douglas-Hamilton and Mike Watson. I do not see any who were also MPs during that session, but we start to see councillors coming through. Those who were MSPs and councillors were Andrew Arbuckle, Charlie Gordon and Mike Pringle.

In session 3, a number of MSPs were members of the House of Lords: George Foulkes, Jack McConnell and Nicol Stephen. Some MSPs were MPs: Margaret Curran, Cathy Jamieson and Alex Salmond. The ones who were councillors in session 3 were Willie Coffey, Jim Hume, Bill Kidd, John Wilson, Nigel Don and—apologies, as I cannot pronounce the name—Stefan Tymkewycz.

The list for session 4 is quite long. The list of MSPs who were also in the Lords consisted of Annabel Goldie. The list of MSPs who were councillors was as follows: George Adam, Clare Adamson, Jayne Baxter, Colin Beattie, Lesley Brennan, Neil Bibby, Willie Coffey, Mary Fee, Neil Findlay, John Finnie, Mark Griffin, Cara Hilton, Jim Hume, Alison Johnstone, Colin Keir, Richard Lyle, Angus MacDonald, Derek Mackay, Hanzala Malik, Mark McDonald, Margaret McDougall, Anne McTaggart, John Pentland, Alex Rowley, Kevin Stewart, David Torrance Jean Urquhart and Bill Walker.

In session 5, the MSPs who were also MPs at some point were Douglas Ross and Ross Thomson. The list of MSPs who were also councillors is actually a very long list, so I will not go through it, but I think—

Over the parliamentary sessions, the number of MSPs who are MPs has tailed off, so we have a small number, and the number of MSPs who are also councillors has increased. I was a councillor, so that included me. In every election, quite a large number of the people who are elected to the Scottish Parliament are councillors at the time of election. Therefore, the minister’s point, namely that to do anything about councillors now would be wrong, is well made, so I do not intend to move amendment 3.

I heard what the minister said, I have seen his letter and I have reflected on what he said. I have also reflected on what he has said today, which is that he wants to launch a consultation in this parliamentary session. That is very useful. I am of the clear view that that is the right thing to do. To ban dual mandates for MSPs sitting as MPs—and in the House of Lords, although I will come on to talk about that—is the right thing to do. I think that it is what the public would expect us to do. I think that they expect people to behave in the right way, which means that, if you are elected to two places, you should make the choice between Westminster and here. Bringing that into law would bring us in line with Wales and Northern Ireland. Why should Scotland be an outrider?

I do not think that it is that complicated—it is quite an easy issue—but I accept that there ought to be some consultation. I think that I have the public pulse on the issue, but this bill might not be the place to do that. On that basis, I do not intend to move these amendments. I had intended to move them but, having heard from the minister earlier, I feel that, if he is going to move at pace with that consultation, I am happy not to do so. Unfortunately, that will take us into the next parliamentary session, which means that, if people who are MPs are elected to the Scottish Parliament in 2026, they will not have to resign. I am sure that we can all think of potential candidates. I will not name anyone, but I am sure that we have got people in mind. That would be unfortunate, but I accept what the minister is saying.

On the amendments that relate to the House of Lords, my amendment 2 would make provision that a member of the House of Lords could stand for election to the Scottish Parliament and that, if they were elected, they could either resign or take a leave of absence. That is what Katy Clark has done, and I think that she has done the right thing. My proposal would put that option in law. Because Ross Greer’s amendment goes further than that, I have to say that I disagree with him on this one. I think that we should allow the Katy Clark position to become a matter of law.

I leave it there, convener.

Have you seen that deep-dive exercise in any detail?

Other than WICS, which we know about—our work on it is continuing—have any other bodies been flagged up as being of concern?

WICS is one of 43 non-departmental public bodies. Have you done any work to assess whether we are getting value for money from all those bodies and whether there is any overlap between what some of the bodies do? Is there any merit, in terms of value for money, to amalgamating any of them?

Auditor General, I apologise for being away for most of the meeting. As has probably been explained, I was moving some amendments to a bill at stage 2. Anyway, I am here now.

I want to ask about sponsorship arrangements. In your report, you note that the Government has

“implemented the recommendations set out in the independent review of its relationships with public bodies.”

We on the committee are all aware of the work that you have done on the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. Have you seen any evidence of the implementation of the recommendations following the independent review of the Government’s relationship with public bodies? Are those recommendations leading to any changes?

Can you name any of those bodies?

I am not going to make my comments party political. I do not think that children’s safety is an issue that should be party political. I will present an idea to the minister at the end, because I am one for solutions. He knows that.

North Lanarkshire Council has got itself into a bit of a mess. Part of the reason for that is the way in which it consults, or does not consult, with parents. It is not the only council that does that in a cack-handed manner. Often, decisions are imposed on people—in this case, parents. Councillors are reassured by officers that processes have been followed when perhaps they have not been. I am not going to stand here and blame councillors for taking a decision that takes a council to the legal limit, because I have been in that position myself as a councillor in South Lanarkshire. These are tough decisions to take, and all councils are up against it budget-wise. That is why they end up in the position that they are in.

I said that I was not going to make it party political. I am not going to make it party political. I am describing the challenges that councillors face. However, we end up in a situation where school buses are being withdrawn, which puts some children—not all children—at risk.

I, too, have walked one of the routes. That was from Stepps to Chryston and it was along a busy dual carriageway. Would I walk that route to work? No, I would not. Would a teacher walk that route to work? No, they would not, so why would we expect a child, possibly at the start of their high school journey, to do the same? I do not think that we should.

I suggest that we look at the issue in the round and accept that there is a problem throughout Scotland with the school run. Too many cars are being used to take kids to school, so we need to rethink things. We have council officers, perhaps even Government ministers, in an entrenched position, saying, “Well, that’s the legal limit—that’s all we have to do”. In fact, we should be looking at the whole issue of there being too many cars on the road taking kids to school.

There is perhaps a role for Government here in rethinking the issue and considering whether we can do come up with a different system whereby councils—it could be councils—organise buses. Maybe some parents could be asked to contribute towards that. I know that a lot of parents will not like that, but the issue is that there is a lack of provision in a lot of council areas to get kids to school, so they are put in cars. That adds to congestion, which is also a safety issue.

We need a rethink. If the minister, whom I do not think will not come up with any solutions today, can accept that we need to rethink the matter and end the school run throughout Scotland, we might get something positive out of this.

The cabinet secretary has been actively looking at the issue for long enough. I have provided her with a solution, which we discussed in private. I will keep it that way, but is it not time that she makes a decision and removes the ban?