Rules preventing MSPs from also holding seats in Westminster are now almost certain to come into force.
The Scottish Government has backed a ban proposed by a Conservative MSP and supported by a Green MSP.
After Graham Simpson MSP retabled his amendments to the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill, the Scottish Government has worked with him to table new amendments which state that “Scottish Ministers must lay before the Scottish Parliament a draft of a Scottish statutory instrument containing regulations which (a) make provision to the effect that a person is disqualified from membership of the Scottish Parliament if that person is a member of the House of Commons.
Simply put, it’s a victory for the campaign to ban dual mandates though there’s still some time before the ban is implemented.
Dual mandates are bad for effective representation. Constituents deserve representatives working full-time for them in parliament. Not part-time MSPs.
What next?
If the amendments pass, the Scottish Government will be introducing a consultation in 2025, with a ban set to come into force ahead of the 2026 elections if all goes to plan.
This potentially gives an opportunity for MSPs to ban dual mandates, disqualifing MSPs from holding seats in Westminster at while representating constituents at Holyrood.
Graham Simpson MSP retabled his amendment to do this after the furore over Stephen Flynn MP planning on holding a dual mandate until 2029 if elected to Holyrood in 2026. So far, his amendments (one relating to the Commons and one the Lords) are the only ones that have been tabled, with the deadline on Tuesday 10 December for further amendments.
MSPs deserve to debate these proposals and should ultimately vote to ban dual mandates once and for all.
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.
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.
The newly formed Modernisation Committee in the House of Commons should consider recommending banning MSP-MP dual mandates as part of its remit concerning MPs’ outside employment.
Labour formed the government on the back of a manifesto pledge to clamp down on paid advisory and consultancy roles. However, the new committee has an opportunity to take those proposals further and tighten restrictions on second jobs more broadly.
Dual mandates, where an individual holds two full-time parliamentary positions at the same time, are bad for representative democracies. This includes MSP-MPs and MSPs-Lords. The phenomenon results in representatives not fully dedicated to their constituents in one clear capacity.
A ban on the practice is long overdue, with the most prominent example in recent years being Douglas Ross being an MP, and MSP and taking on further employment at the same time. That said, this is an issue something all main parties have been of guilty of, especially in the early days of the Scottish Parliament.
The Modernisation Committee should consider the issue as part of their remit.
“Labour will establish a new Modernisation Committee tasked with reforming House of Commons procedures, driving up standards, and improving working practices. The absence of rules on second jobs also means some constituents end up with MPs who spend more time on their second job, or lobbying for outside interests, than on representing them. Therefore, as an initial step,Labour will support an immediate ban on MPs from taking up paid advisory or consultancy roles. We will task the Modernisation Committee to take forward urgent work on the restrictions that need to be put in place to prevent MPs from taking up roles that stop them serving their constituents and the country.”
The Leader of the Scottish Conservative party Douglas Ross is seeking election to the constituency of Aberdeenshire North and Moray East after originally not planning to stand for Westminster. His decision came just hours before the close of nominations.
His original decision not to stand would have put an end to his dual mandate of being an MP and MSP. However, while his return to Westminster is far from certain, if he wins he will simultaneously sit in both parliament yet again.
When a politician holds two elected roles, they have a dual mandate.
These dual mandates are unfair on constituents who deserve full-time parliamentarians. Not part-timers. They are also highly impractical.
It may emerge that Ross plans on stepping down from his Holyrood role after the election but that remains to be seen. For now, it seems he is intent on maintaining his dual mandate.
Let’s not forget that we’ve been here before. A 2021 Panelbase poll even asked voters for their views on Ross’ intentions if he won seat at Holyrood (which he went on to do). It found that 67% of Scots think the MP for Moray should give up at least one of his numerous positions if elected to the Scottish Parliament in 2021. This suggested most Scots oppose dual mandates, as well as second jobs.
Douglas Ross’ decision ultimately exposes the absurdity of dual mandates in Scotland. It’s time to ban them once and for all.
upgradeholyrood.com 