Dual mandates in the Scottish Parliament: consultation analysis

Participation in parliamentary proceedings during grace periods

The consultation paper sought 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 including whether such limitations would have a detrimental impact on the business of parliament.

Between a third (for MP dual mandates) and a half (for Councillor dual mandates) of respondents did not answer the questions on participation in parliamentary proceedings.

Among those who responded around a quarter reiterated their view that there should not be MSP/MP dual mandates (so there would be no grace period during which the issue of limits on participation in parliamentary proceedings would arise) and/or that participation in two settings should not be allowed, rising to 4 in 10 when asked about MSP/Councillor dual mandates and a half for MSP/Peer dual mandates.

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. Those in favour of full participation argued that MSPs should be able to represent constituents fully until they officially leave one of the roles.

Around 1 in 5 supported limiting participation in some way across each category, with suggestions including allowing attendance at debates without voting, losing voting rights in one or other chamber, prohibiting committee or ministerial roles, and enabling digital participation to maintain some engagement without fully undertaking duties.

Among current or former elected representatives, one advocated immediate cessation of participation in the UK Parliament (for MSP/MP dual mandates), while three suggested there should be no restrictions during the grace period.

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 (avoiding any impact on determining the office of Presiding Officer and their two deputies, as well as that of First Minister) 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 MSP/MP dual mandates: “For as long as a person holds a dual mandate during a grace period the person should be able to participate in parliamentary proceedings”; and for MSP/Councillor dual mandates: “For as long as a person is an MSP the person should be able to participate in parliamentary proceedings”. They noted they had no view on participation in parliamentary proceedings for MSP/Peer dual mandates.

In relation to MSPs who are also Peers, responses were more consistently opposed to dual mandates, with about two-thirds arguing that participation should cease immediately citing the unelected status of Peers. The two responses from political parties provided different views, with the SNP stating that there should be no grace period and no ongoing participation in the House of Lords once someone is elected as an MSP. The Scottish Greens stated: “where a grace period is kept to a short period of time, there should be no limitation on participation in parliamentary proceedings”.