Why Scotland needs its own elected 'House of Lairds'

As a convener of one of the high-profile committees, I believe it’s time for change. I’m not advocating a House of Lords spin-off per se; some elements would be retained, and some discarded.

For a start, I believe that Holyrood’s second chamber should be elected every five years. This would serve as a barrier to the accusations of cronyism which dog the Lords, and would mean that people don’t simply get a lifelong members’ pass.

Democratically, a seat there would be earned through hard work and contributions; I do not believe that peerages should be used to give someone political power. Elections could chime with the Holyrood ballot and geographically replicate the regional system – two votes from each of Scotland’s eight Scottish Parliament areas.

Numbers would be small, meaning this second chamber – unlike the Lords – would be agile and able to act smartly and succinctly. I don’t propose it sits permanently, just as and when required, ideally on a Monday or Friday to make use of resources already available to the Scottish Parliament. Anyone who has visited Holyrood outside the Tuesday-to-Thursday business days knows just what a ghost town it can be.

The specifics would have to be debated, but I’d suggest that a second chamber would take control of legislation at the mid-point – otherwise known as Stage Two – before sending it back amended, if necessary, for MSPs to resume scrutiny and ultimate decision-making at the final stage within the chamber.

It would also be non-political – those involved in Holyrood’s revising chamber would not be there on behalf of any particular party.

Scotland has been through enough political stitch-ups, and this would be a good opportunity to bring those to a close. It would also provide some non-political realism to law-making. Politics has always cried out for some real-world input, and this would be an ideal way for Scotland to lead the way on that front.

And the body needn’t be a serious drain on the taxpayer. Expenses would be provided to members – it would be unfair and unrealistic to donate their time and expertise for nothing. But much of the administrative and secretarial costs could simply be transferred to this new body from the existing and increasingly ineffective committee system.

A further handful of people with expert backgrounds would be co-opted, bringing specialist knowledge on the key portfolio areas like health, education and justice.

Since my election in 2016 I’ve convened two committees in this parliament – first, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, and now Net Zero, Energy and Transport.

Although committees present valuable opportunities to grill and hold to account some of the country’s most important and influential people, ultimately they cannot stop the whims of party politics in the same way that a second chamber could.

Too much bad law has sailed through committees and out the other end of the Scottish Parliament chamber, from appointing a ‘named person’ for every child and the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act to, more recently, gender recognition reform.

The latter resulted in the UK Government stepping in with a legal challenge – not the vision any of us had for how devolution would play out. Therefore, the Scottish Parliament’s committee system has failed miserably.

The committees are too close to government, and SNP members have shown on several occasions that they can be “whipped” in the same way politicians are in the main chamber. Nationalist MSPs have even admitted to me they are only voting something through the committee system because party bosses have told them to.

They happen to be the party of government now, but the weakness is system-wide and – if we are honest – I think all parties would do the same in their shoes when it comes to getting policy through the Scottish Parliament.

Committees would still have their place alongside the second chamber, which would complement rather than kybosh them. They would be especially important in taking evidence and scrutinising stakeholders in the early stages of legislation.

Some who don’t like what they see in London will be opposed to the idea of a second chamber in Scotland, and this is understandable.

However, considering the recent remarks by Ian Blackford, the SNP’s former Westminster leader, it seems that the nationalists are softening towards the idea. It has been widely reported that Mr Blackford would be willing to turn SNP policy on its head and take a seat in the House of Lords.

I also believe that, if proposed respectfully and carefully, the concept would have the theoretical backing of all or most political parties. Scotland’s second chamber, as I see it, could be a democratic triumph while making our own political system more robust.

An independent institution detached from Holyrood, but which would still be controlled by the people of Scotland who, if they don’t like what they see, can take action at the ballot box every five years.

Holyrood is already one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world, so why not take the opportunity to consider changes to make it stronger still. The House of Lords has sustained considerable reputational damage in recent years, from expenses scandals to accusations of cronyism, prompting many to question whether it deserves to exist at all.

I’m not calling for a House of Lairds which would carry those same risks. But a modern, efficient and agile second chamber, delivered with the blessing of the Scottish people, would be of benefit to us all.

Edward Mountain is Scottish Conservative MSP for the Highlands and Islands and convener of the Scottish Parliament’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport committee