Dual mandates in the Scottish Parliament: consultation analysis

Withdrawal of rights and privileges for the duration of any grace periods

The consultation paper sought views on the possibility of rights and privileges of an MSP being withdrawn by Parliament for the duration of their grace period and whether this would be considered necessary or appropriate in any circumstances.

Between 4 in 10 (for MP dual mandates) and 6 in 10 (for Councillor dual mandates) of respondents did not answer the questions on withdrawal of rights and privileges for the duration of any grace periods. A further quarter of those who did respond, did so only to confirm for each category of dual mandate that they had no view / no comment on this question (slightly fewer for Councillor dual mandates, where respondents were slightly more likely to just leave the question blank).

Among those who did express a view, around a quarter reiterated their view that there should not be dual mandates (so there would be no grace period during which the issue of withdrawal of right and privileges would arise).

One in five respondents to the question on MSP/MP dual mandates (11 respondents) thought that all rights and privileges should be kept for the duration of the grace period, with 1 in 10 saying that all should be withdrawn, and around 1 in 7 respondents favouring some level of restrictions. Respondents were less supportive of keeping rights and privileges for MSP / Peer dual mandates, and more supportive of keeping them for MSP / Councillor dual mandates.

Among those advocating no withdrawal of rights and privileges, one stated: "I am happy that an individual should continue to have the relevant rights and privileges during the grace period, provided the period does not stretch into years and provided the arrangement is not abused by the individual”. Among those advocating some restrictions, suggestions included: maintaining rights only in one institution, limiting expense claims, or restricting privileges such as voting. For example, one respondent suggested that during any grace period, MSPs "should only have the right of access, dining, research, library etc. from one Parliament only”.

The range of views expressed by current/former elected representatives included only being allowed to claim one set of expenses, that the earlier role’s entitlements should lapse, removal of voting rights, and that there was no reason to change rights and privileges as long as the grace period was limited to 12 months.

Of the political parties that responded, the Scottish Greens supported full rights and privileges during short grace periods to avoid creating different tiers of parliamentarians for all categories of dual mandates.

The SNP took a slightly different position depending on the category of dual mandate, suggesting for MSP/MP dual mandates that allowances only begin once an MP formally relinquishes their previous role but noting “it will be essential that as soon as they take 'the Chiltern Hundreds' then the ability to draw upon the Parliament's Allowances scheme should be triggered”. However, for MSP/Councillor dual mandates the SNP response stated: “Given Councillors do not have access to office costs and staff costs in the same way as MPs do and given we suggest a longer timeframe for any grace period, were Parliament to prohibit Councillors from holding a Dual Mandate as an MSP, we would suggest no limitation on rights, privileges or technical aspects to holding office as an MSP during that period”. On Peers holding dual mandates, the SNP reiterated their view that there should be no grace period, and immediate withdrawal from the House of Lords upon election as an MSP.

For MSP/Councillor dual mandates, South Lanarkshire Council stated: “The Council considers that during any grace period there should be no such withdrawal of rights and privileges or any other technical aspects, this period being a temporary concession pending the MSP vacating their role as a Councillor”.