Seòmar agus comataidhean

You also say that there has been a real-terms decrease in funding for the partnerships in the past two years. Does that suggest that there has been a loss of confidence in them?

Thanks, convener. On the previous point, I guess that you would expect the Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy to be all over this and to be able to answer why there is such wide variation across Scotland. Has having a Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy made a difference?

All right—we can look at that if we get the Scottish Government in. It is not fair to ask you about it.

I want to ask about an issue that has come up previously about the alcohol and drug partnerships. Do we know what they actually do?

I raise the point because, as you say in the report,

“the role of ADPs is not always widely known across other services.”

If the people who are meant to be providing those services do not know what ADPs are meant to be doing, what are they there for?

Earlier, you said that the Scottish Government does not know what is making the biggest difference. Does that include minimum unit pricing? I think that Cornilius Chikwama mentioned that.

Will you take an intervention?

I thank the minister for taking an intervention. As he said, we have discussed this matter, and he copied me into the letter that he sent to the committee. When might the minister launch a consultation on dual mandates, if he plans to do that?

Is there a danger that, with all these welcome consultations, it could look like the Government is trying to park issues and kick them into the long grass? I think that Ben Macpherson is right that, if the matters are not dealt with in the bill, we might need another bill in the next session of Parliament, and it could be many years before there is any action on the issues.

Over the parliamentary sessions, the number of MSPs who are MPs has tailed off, so we have a small number, and the number of MSPs who are also councillors has increased. I was a councillor, so that included me. In every election, quite a large number of the people who are elected to the Scottish Parliament are councillors at the time of election. Therefore, the minister’s point, namely that to do anything about councillors now would be wrong, is well made, so I do not intend to move amendment 3.

I heard what the minister said, I have seen his letter and I have reflected on what he said. I have also reflected on what he has said today, which is that he wants to launch a consultation in this parliamentary session. That is very useful. I am of the clear view that that is the right thing to do. To ban dual mandates for MSPs sitting as MPs—and in the House of Lords, although I will come on to talk about that—is the right thing to do. I think that it is what the public would expect us to do. I think that they expect people to behave in the right way, which means that, if you are elected to two places, you should make the choice between Westminster and here. Bringing that into law would bring us in line with Wales and Northern Ireland. Why should Scotland be an outrider?

I do not think that it is that complicated—it is quite an easy issue—but I accept that there ought to be some consultation. I think that I have the public pulse on the issue, but this bill might not be the place to do that. On that basis, I do not intend to move these amendments. I had intended to move them but, having heard from the minister earlier, I feel that, if he is going to move at pace with that consultation, I am happy not to do so. Unfortunately, that will take us into the next parliamentary session, which means that, if people who are MPs are elected to the Scottish Parliament in 2026, they will not have to resign. I am sure that we can all think of potential candidates. I will not name anyone, but I am sure that we have got people in mind. That would be unfortunate, but I accept what the minister is saying.

On the amendments that relate to the House of Lords, my amendment 2 would make provision that a member of the House of Lords could stand for election to the Scottish Parliament and that, if they were elected, they could either resign or take a leave of absence. That is what Katy Clark has done, and I think that she has done the right thing. My proposal would put that option in law. Because Ross Greer’s amendment goes further than that, I have to say that I disagree with him on this one. I think that we should allow the Katy Clark position to become a matter of law.

I leave it there, convener.

I am listening very carefully to this, as I am a big fan of STV and have been a councillor who was elected under STV. If you are elected under STV—you can correct me if I have got you wrong—it means that people have had to vote for you individually, unlike those who are elected under the list system, which includes you and me. Nobody voted to get me, personally, into the Scottish Parliament, but people have to vote for individual councillors. If you want to get re-elected, you have to work your socks off and prove to people that you deserve their vote.

The STV system establishes a link between the electors and the individual, not the party, and that is similarly true in a by-election. By not having a by-election, you get rid of that and almost go back to the party list system, which puts the power into the hands of parties. That seems to me to be entirely wrong.