When an MP holds another elected role, such as MSP, they are said to hold a dual mandate. As with second jobs more generally, this is problematic as constituents deserve full-time representatives. Not part-timers.
The issue has been in the spotlight again with SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn planning to hold a dual mandate if selected to run for the Scottish Parliament in 2026 and ultimately become an MSP – until rescinding his bid on Thursday evening.
Momentum is building against dual mandates in Scotland but other parts of the UK already have dual mandate bans in place.
What are the rules on dual mandate bans in Northern Ireland?
The Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 legislated to explicitly prevent members of the Northern Ireland Assembly (MLAs) from also being MPs. It also bans MLAs from being members of the Dáil Éireann (TDs) in the Republic of Ireland.
The Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 takes this ban further, outlining that councillors cannot be MPs, MLAs, peers of members of any other legislative body.
Westminster has an opportunity to ban dual mandates to prevent MPs and peers from also serving MSPs at the same time.
More immediately, the House of Commons’ Modernisation Committee is looking at improving working practices, standards and conditions, with a remit that includes second jobs. This gives a clear opportunity to improve our representative democracy and abolish dual mandates once and for all.
Below is a copy of the text I used to write to my MP on the matter. I am also submitting evidence to the Modernisation Committee.
Feel free to use my letter as the basis for your own contact.
Whether it’s Stephen Flynn in the SNP, Douglas Ross in the Conservatives, or any future Labour or Lib Dem MPs hoping for dual mandates, double jobbing is bad for effective representation of constituents.
Email to MP: abolish dual mandates once and for all
Dear[NAME] MP
I am writing to express my concern about dual mandates held by Members of Parliament and peers in the House of Lords.
Voters deserve full-time MPs to speak up for their constituencies in parliament. Not part-timers. That is why I believe MPs shouldn’t be able to hold additional full-time roles in the Scottish Parliament or the London Assembly, and be restricted from holding elected roles in local councils.
MPs cannot be members of the Senedd in Wales or Stormont in Northern Ireland in addition to their Westminster roles. Why not the same for the Scottish Parliament and the London Assembly?
Please write to the Modernisation Committee to represent my views and call on them to recommend that the law is changed so MPs are unable to hold additional elected roles, as part of their remit looking at second jobs for MPs.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I look forward to you raising this matter.
The issue of dual mandates, which is when a politicians holds two political positions at once such as MP and MSP, has risen its head again.
Currently, there is only one dual mandate holder in the Scottish Parliament: Katy Clark of Scottish Labour. Although in fairness to Clark, she is on leave from her duties as a member of the House of Lords so in practice she essentially holds a single mandate. The problems with the unelected House of Lords are a whole discussion on their own.
But SNP MPs Stephen Flynn and Stephen Gethins have both put forward their names to stand for Holyrood in 2026 and remain MPs.
It is worth highlighting here that the SNP criticised the Conservatives’ Douglas Ross for holding both positions until the 2024 UK General Election when he lost his Westminster seat.
No matter the party, dual mandates are wrong.
Simply put, voters deserve full-time MPs. Not part-timers.
In short, being an MP and MSP is not mutually exclusive as shown by Ross holding a dual mandate until earlier this year. Dual mandates are not banned in Scotland.
That said, momentum is building against them, particularly following Flynn’s 2026 election announcement.
Either the Scottish Parliament or Westminster could legislate on this by setting out the qualifying rules for MPs and MSPs.
There’s already precedent for this in the United Kingdom with both Westminster and the Senedd setting out rules on dual mandates.
A ban on MSPs also being able to serve as MPs has moved one step closer thanks to Conservative MSP Graham Simpson’s retabled amendment to the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill.
The amendment follows SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn announcing his intentions to stand for Holyrood in 2026 and hold a dual mandate until 2029.
Simpson initially tabled the amendment at stage 2, but didn’t push it after being offered a potential consultation on the matter in the future. He will now retable at stage 3 following the momentum building against “double jobbing” in recent weeks.
The roles of MP and MSP are full-time positions. Voters deserve full-time dedicated representatives. Not part-timers.
The case for a dual mandates ban is one of principles and practicalities. For effective representation to happen, not to mention travelling between three locations and handling casework directly relating to two layers of government, MPs and MSPs should focus on the day job of representating constituents in one clear capacity.
Dual mandates should be banned.
What next?
The BBC reports that a vote on the amendment could come before Christmas 2024. If all opposition MSPs unite on the matter, then a dual mandates ban could become a reality.
Parliamentary Business Minster Jamie Hepburn has said he supports a consultation on the issue but there’s a chance the legislation wouldn’t come into force until after 2026 if parliament went down that route.
This shouldn’t be a party political issue. Whether it’s the SNP’s Stephen Flynn, the Conservatives’ Douglas Ross or Labour and Lib Dem MPs and MSPs past, dual mandates fail to meet the standards required to deliver effective representation.
And yet there’s a clear party political slant to the way this is coming about – opposition parties coming together amid an SNP divided on this issue due to one of their own paving to double job despite past party opposition.
It’s also worth highlighting that this probably wouldn’t be happening had Douglas Ross retained his seat in Westminster, as well as his leadership of the party.
Perhaps this change in this way is inevitable with dual mandates not currently being widespread across different parties and Scottish politics being so divided.
That said, a dual mandates ban will be welcome. MSPs should vote for this when the time comes.
The Modernisation wants to hear from people about what additional ideas they have for work it could take forward, covering the strategic aims of: driving up standards; improving culture and working practices; and reforming Parliamentary procedures to make the House of Commons more effective.
Policy Motion 1: Working with the Modernisation Committee
Proposer: Richard Wood
Seconder: Rebecca Warren
The AGM notes:
The Government has revived the House of Commons Modernisation Committee. This is a cross-party committee of MPs that will consider ‘reforms to House of Commons procedures, standards, and working practices’.
The Committee’s remit overlaps with aspects of Unlock Democracy’s ‘Cleaning Up Politics’ campaign, such as setting limits on MPs’ second jobs and establishing a job description for MPs. Cleaning up politics was ranked as Unlock Democracy’s second most important campaign by supporters in the 2023 Annual Survey.
Unlock Democracy has started establishing a relationship with the Committee. Director Tom Brake questioned the Committee’s chair, Lucy Powell MP, at the Labour Party Conference about the Committee’s work on MPs’ second jobs.
The Committee has agreed to circulate our paper on MPs second jobs, and has invited us to respond to their call for views from stakeholders later in the year.
The AGM welcomes that:
Unlock Democracy has identified this Committee as important for achieving many of our campaign goals
Unlock Democracy has begun building a relationship with the Committee
Unlock Democracy has compiled a list of campaign asks for the Modernisation Committee to consider
The AGM calls on Unlock Democracy:
To respond to the Committee’s consultation with stakeholders
To get in touch with MPs on the Committee with suggestions for improving the House of Commons’ procedures and standards
To involve Unlock Democracy’s members and supporters in efforts to influence the Committee
To work with other organisations in the democracy sector, where beneficial, to influence the Committee.
Dual mandates are back in the spotlight again with two sitting SNP MPs, Stephen Flynn and Stephen Gethins, preparing possible bids for joining the Scottish Parliament as MSPs.
Both Douglas Ross (Conservative) and Katy Clark (Labour) have held dual mandates in this parliamentary session at Holyrood.
Double jobbing is bad for representative democracy as the roles of MSP and MP are full-time jobs in and of themselves. Constituents ultimately deserve full-time representatives not part-timers.
Momentum is shifting on the issue with the Scottish Parliament’s Standards, Procedures and Appointments Committee discussing the matter only last week in relation to the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill: Stage 2. The Modernisation Committee in Westminster also has scope for discussing the issue in its remit on outside employment.
Being a councillor and an MP or MSP seems reasonable over a temporary transition period. However, we are concerned that given the limitations in the capacity of MSPs, ‘double jobbing’ adds an extra strain. Therefore we would like to see the legislation here brought into line with The Senedd where the rules are that when a member is elected and holds a dual mandate they either have eight days to resign as a sitting MP, or they have to take a leave of absence from a seat they hold in the Lords, or if a Regional Councillor they can remain in post provided the expected day of the next Regional Election is within 372 days.
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. Such an allowance seems to be in the interests of politicians rather than those they represent.
The Electoral Reform Society is right to support abolishing dual mandates. It also recognises the need for a short grace period for MPs or MSPs to pick where they wish to represent their constituents before being removed from the parliament they reject.
Westminster leader Stephen Flynn plans to stand to become an MSP at the 2026 Holyrood elections. Flynn intends to remain an MP, if he wins the Scottish Parliament seat of Aberdeenshire South and North Kincardine, implying he would hold a dual mandate by representing seats in both Holyrood and Westminster until 2029.
Dual mandates – no matter which party holds them, and Scotland’s four main party’s have held them at one time or another – are bad for representative democracy.
Being an MSP or and MP is a full-time job. Constituents deserve representatives working full-time for them, not juggling multiple mandates and travelling across the country all the time. No matter which party they come from, whether it is the Conservatives’ Douglas Ross, the SNP’s Stephen Flynn or any of the former Labour and Lib Dem dual mandates holders at Holyrood.
Westminster has rightly banned MPs from holding elected office in the Northern Irish Assembly. And there is an effective ban of MP-MSs for Wales with exceptions in the case of an impending Senedd election.
More widely, dual mandates are banned in many democracies across the world. Even France, long known for its representatives holding dual mandates – and even triple mandates – has clamped down on the practice in recent years.
Members of the European Parliament are also forbidden from holding roles in their national parliament alongside their MEP roles.
Stephen Flynn MP has every right to stand for the Scottish Parliament. But it’s surprising he’s made the decision to do so while explicitly saying he’s remain an MP if he were to be elected.
Westminster’s Modernisation Committee has an opportunity here to recommend preventing MPs from holding seats in the Scottish Parliament concurrently.
In the meantime, Stephen Flynn MP should reconsider his intentions to hold his Westminster seat if elected to Holyrood.
Every now and again someone suggests introducing term limits for list MSPs. The argument being that lost MSPs are supposedly not elected by voters unlike their constituency counterparts.
However, list systems are normal in the democratic world and it is valid for someone to be elected as part of a list. When someone votes on the party list, they aren’t just blindly voting for said party, they are backing a slate of candidates.
That said, while term limits aren’t the answer, AMS lists aren’t perfect.
The real problem with the list element at Holyrood is two-fold.
First of all lists are closed, meaning voters have no say over what order candidates are ranked in. Tinkering with AMS is one option to improve Holyrood by introducing an open list element as part of the voting process. This is is used in Bavaria’s similar MMP system to empower voters at the ballot box.
But that only takes you so far. The second problem is the two-tier nature of MSPs. Having constituency and list MSPs creates a two-tier system. While in theory the two types of MSPs have the same jobs, this isn’t always the case in practice. Furthermore, it ends up creating attitudes that list MSPs aren’t real MSPs.
Instead of tinkering with AMS, although opening up lists would be a welcome step, Holyrood’s electoral system needs a major overhaul.
AMS provides broadly proportional parliaments but there is significant room for improvement. Switching to the Single Transferable Vote would end the two-tired element, strengthen proportionality (if designed fairly), and empower voters to rank candidates. An open list system where parties are ranked preferentially, and voters can vote for individual candidates within parties is also an alternative.
The Scottish Parliament is now over a quarter of a century old. AMS has done well to ensure that what happens in the ballot box leads to representative outcomes but there are fairer alternatives. The next Scottish Government and Parliament should address the democratic deficits at Holyrood to upgrade Scottish democracy for the next 25 Years and beyond.
The previous Welsh government, an effective coalition between Labour, the Liberal Democrats and an independent, introduced legislation that gives Welsh local councils the opportunity to switch from First Past the Post to the Single Transferable Vote ahead of the 2027 elections. The deadline for councils to change to Proportional Representation is fast approaching: 15 November 2024.
The Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021, which enables councils to make changes, was a great step forward as it allows the opportunity for significant upgrades to Welsh local democracy. However, unlike when Scottish councils were upgraded to use STV from 2007, there is no automatic switchover in Wales. While this is an imperfect process to reform and reformers are fighting an uphill battle, there is a route to change.
Of the three councils to hold consultations for making the switch, all three consultations show majority support for reform. But what’s next? And are any of the councils actually saying goodbye to First Past the Post?
What happened in Gwynned?
Over 70% of residents who completed the consultation supported switching to the Single Transferable Vote in this Plaid Cymru majority council. A vote followed, and while a majority of councillors backed change, STV will not be adopted in Gwynned as a two-thirds majority was required.
Campaigners have done fantastic work engaging communities and growing support for STV but on this occasion the Gwynned council will not be switching to STV.
The Lib Dem-Labour-Green run council of Powys has parallels with Gwynned. Over 60% of residents said they favoured STV in the council’s consultation. This should come as no surprise due to the considerable failings of FPTP in the area. However, as in Gwynned, councillors voted to retain the status-quo. A total of 21 voted for STV while 33 backed FPTP.
Ceredigion: the last hope for STV in Wales?
In Ceredigon, 67% of respondents to the consultation backed the Single Transferable Vote. What’s clear is that when people are asked if they want a fair voting system, majorities in Wales are supportive of reform but the bar for reform) change is set very high – a two-thirds majority of councillors elected by a system that favours them.
UPDATE (14 November 2024): while a majority of councillors backed the motion (18 to 17), the two-thirds majority was not met, meaning that all Welsh councils will use FPTP in 2027).
The Plaid Cymru Council has a chance of becoming the only one of 22 Welsh councils to use STV in the 2027 local elections.
Let’s hope the efforts of electoral reform campaigners in Wales pay off and Ceredigon leads the way for further change across Wales.
Political make up of Ceredigion council:
🟢 PLAID CYMRU 21
⚪ INDEPENDENTS 9
🟠 LIB DEMS 7
⚫ GWLAD 1
Total councillors: 38
Threshold required to switch to STV: 26
Nationally, both the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru support STV as a matter of policy but local factors will also play a role. If all Plaid and Lib Dem councillors back change then STV would be used for the 2027 elections in Ceredigon.
Ireland is going to the polls later this year, highlighting its Single Transferable Vote system which could be used to elect Members of the Scottish Parliament.
STV is a preferential system where voters rank candidates in order or preference in multi-member constituencies. The system is already used to elect Scottish councillors, as well as various electoral chambers in Northern Ireland, Malta and Australia, and can have better outcomes than Holyrood’s Additional System when it comes to voter choice and proportionality (depending on the exact parameters of the STV system used).
The system has been used in the Republic of Ireland since the country’s independence from the United Kingdom. Two attempts have been made to revert to First Past the Post, however, the people of Ireland voted against these in referendums in 1958 and 1968, ensuring the continued use of STV to this day. The upcoming election shows an alternative future to Westminster’s First Past the Post and Holyrood’s broadly proportional, albeit flawed, Additional Member System.
Will 2031 be the first Scottish election to use STV?
Wales is changing its voting system. Why not Scotland? 2026 will be the first Welsh election not held under AMS. instead MSs will be elected via the more proportional, but less voter empowering, Closed List PR system.
The current Scottish Government has no plans to ditch AMS, meaning a change ahead of 2026 elections is unlikely. But change might be possible next parliament as political winds shift. Two-thirds of MSPs would have to support reform for a change in voting system to be enacted.
Ireland offers an alternative the Scotland’s Additional Member System, however, the Irish system isn’t perfect as constituency sizes range from three to five members, limiting overall proportionality. A Scottish system should account for this and introduce larger multi-member constituencies, similar to Northern Ireland instead.
STV offers an opportunity to strengthen Holyrood’s representation. The next election offers Scotland an opportunity learn from our neighbours and to seize reform.
upgradeholyrood.com 