Dual mandates in the Scottish Parliament: consultation analysis

Summary

Background

Dual mandates is the term used to describe the scenario of Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) also holding a seat in the House of Commons (MPs), House of Lords (Peers^[1]) or representing a ward in their local council (Councillors), in addition to their seat in the Scottish Parliament.

The Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025 was passed unanimously on 17 December by the Scottish Parliament. It places a duty on Scottish Ministers to bring forward regulations which:

• must have the effect of prohibiting Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) from holding dual mandates in the House of Commons or the House of Lords
• may make provision prohibiting MSPs from holding dual mandates as Councillors

The Scottish Government conducted a public consultation between 20 January 2025 and 23 March 2025, seeking views on the principles and practical issues of ending dual mandates. The consultation received 77 responses, including 68 from individuals and nine from organisations.

Key findings

Summary views on disqualification of MPs and Peers from holding dual mandates as MSPs, and whether the law should be changed to prohibit an MSP from being a Councillor at the same time:

• There was strong support both for disqualifying MPs and Peers from being MSPs, and for changing the law to prohibit an MSP from being a councillor at the same time. The most common reason cited in favour of ending dual mandates across all three scenarios was that each role should be considered a full-time commitment, followed by logistical concerns such as travel and scheduling conflicts, and ethical issues like conflicts of interest, e.g. between local and national priorities.
• A small minority (around 1 in 10) disagreed with disqualification, supporting dual mandates for a limited period, primarily for transitional, logistical, electoral timing and associated financial reasons including the costs of running by-elections.
• Most responses from organisations (including political parties) supported prohibiting dual mandates for MPs and Peers. Some local authority and political party respondents noted in relation to MSP/Councillor dual mandates, the potential administrative burdens and associated costs of a large number of by-elections and concerns over by-election costs.
• There was more of a split in opinion on the question of whether a member of the House of Lords who is on a leave of absence should be permitted to be an MSP. While a majority of respondents (48 of the 74 who provided a response to this question) thought that they should not be allowed to be MSPs; almost three in ten (21 of 74) thought that they should be.

Summary views on the length of any grace period which should be afforded to each category of person (MP, Peer and Councillor) once elected as an MSP:

• Views on grace periods varied depending on the category of dual mandate. For MP and Councillor dual mandates, the majority of respondents to those questions thought that there should be some length of grace period (7 in 10 thought that there should be for MPs, and 6 in 10 thought there should be for Councillors), whereas for Peer dual mandates a slight majority of respondents to the question did not think there should be any grace period.
• All political parties that responded supported some form of grace period for Councillors. There was broad alignment between the views of the Conservative, Green and SNP responses in that the local elections in the year subsequent to the Scottish Parliament election should be the cut off for any grace period to avoid by-election costs. Local authority respondents took a similar view in support of grace periods for councillors, citing cost, logistics and practicality.

Summary views on whether and what sort of salary limitations should be put in place, if any, for the duration of any grace period for each category (MP, Peer, Councillor dual mandates).

• There were varied views on limiting salaries for MSPs holding dual mandates during any grace period. Across all three categories, however, the most common theme was a strong preference for salary limitations, reflecting widespread concerns about "double jobbing", fairness, appropriate use of public funds, and that holding dual roles should not result in financial advantage.
• Among the responses from organisations, the SNP opposed dual salaries and proposed no MSP pay until MP pay ends, while the Greens viewed limits as potentially unnecessary for short grace periods. For Councillors, the SNP supported proportional adjustments, and South Lanarkshire Council stated that they did not believe that there should be any salary limitations as the period was temporary, but acknowledged a range of views on its Executive Committee.

Summary views on whether there should be any limitations to any individual’s ability to participate in parliamentary proceedings for the duration of any grace period and the possibility of rights and privileges of an MSP being withdrawn by Parliament for the duration of any grace period:

• Fewer respondents expressed a view on participation in parliamentary proceedings and withdrawal of rights and privileges during any grace period and, among those who did, around a quarter reiterated their view that there should not be dual mandates (so there would be no grace period during which the issues of limits on participation in parliamentary proceedings or withdrawal of rights and privileges would arise).
• For MSP/MP dual mandates and MSP/Councillor dual mandates, the views expressed were similar, with higher levels of support for no restrictions on participation in parliamentary proceedings than for MSP/Peer dual mandates. Just over 4 in 10 respondents favoured no restrictions on participation for MSP/MP dual mandates and just over a third did for MSP/Councillor dual mandates. In contrast fewer than 1 in 5 said there should be no restrictions on participation for MSP/Peer dual mandates.
• All three political parties that responded favoured full participation in parliamentary proceedings on election to the Scottish Parliament, both to facilitate the smooth running of Parliament and to ensure equal rights of all MSPs during any grace period, avoiding creating “two tiers” of MSPs. The Law Society of Scotland stated “For as long as a person is an MSP the person should be able to participate in parliamentary proceedings”, although did not provide a view in relation to participation in parliamentary proceedings for MSP/Peer dual mandates.