Chamber and committees

I welcome the investment at Coalburn in South Lanarkshire, but in the light of the announcement yesterday by the National Energy System Operator of a pause in the applications process for new entrants to the connections queue—because there are far more of them than there is demand—does the First Minister agree that there should be a national strategy for energy storage in Scotland that matches approval by the Scottish Government’s energy consents unit for battery storage sites with actual demand and with where there is community buy-in?

I congratulate Ash Regan on securing enough support to hold this debate. I might be wrong about this, but I may have been the first member to support her motion. It is certainly one of the most comprehensive motions that I have seen in some time—Ms Regan covers a lot of bases in it. I will not cover them all but will concentrate my remarks on aviation and the Clyde metro, which will impact on the region in which I live and that I represent.

The cross-party group on aviation’s February 2023 report argued for a policy regime that is “supportive of aviation”, with

“Stronger engagement around route development and airline support”.

The inbound and outbound aviation and tourism sectors are crucial enablers for the Scottish economy. Outbound travel is worth more than £3.6 billion a year to the Scottish economy and supports the employment of more than 30,000 people across Scotland. Research conducted by Edinburgh Napier University found that air links are the most influential transport factor in the location decisions of most overseas-based businesses that invest in the United Kingdom. Aviation matters to the local and national economies, and Scotland being connected to the world matters to us all.

The motion mentions the ambition of Edinburgh airport to have a US preclearance facility such as Dublin airport has. That means that we will have to work closely with the US Government and President Trump to persuade them that they should fund such a base here, in Scotland. The boost to the economy would be fantastic and, clearly, Edinburgh airport would benefit hugely. Having flown to America through Dublin, I can tell members that it is massively more convenient to clear customs on this side of the Atlantic than it is on the other.

I wish Edinburgh airport well, but I also want Glasgow airport to thrive. There is no doubt that Glasgow airport would do even better if the transport links to and from the airport were improved. Talk of a light rail link to the airport has gone on for too long. I can think of no other major airport anywhere that does not have better connections, and fixing that for Glasgow must be a priority.

It appears that that issue might be addressed through the ambitious but, as yet, quite woolly Clyde metro project. The programme-level business case for that network is expected by 2026, and it is estimated that timescales for the project could be as long as 25 years, which is way too long.

Having an integrated transport system in the Strathclyde region is too important to be kicked this far down the road. We need Governments to commit to it. It is too big for local government to fund, and we need to get moving. We know that a region with strong connectivity will enjoy increased levels of trade. The development of Glasgow airport represents a unique opportunity to drive economic growth and prosperity in that region.

Lastly, aviation needs to decarbonise. Scotland should be at the forefront of making the new fuels of the future, but we are not at the races yet. There was an event in Parliament last night looking at sustainable aviation fuel, and we really ought to be making sustainable aviation fuel here, in Scotland. I have spoken about that many times, and the cabinet secretary knows that. We need to do better. Transport can be the engine of growth, but too often it is the opposite.

I thank Ash Regan once again for allowing the chamber to discuss these matters.

Where would Ash Regan like the tram line to be extended to?

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 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.

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

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.