³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

To clarify, am I right that there is no concern that there would be different journeys for the two groups of ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ, depending on how they came here, in relation to how they would leave? The Government has no concern that there would be that difference.

°Õ´Ç³Ü³¦³óé.

My next question is on the petition process. In essence, the individual’s name would appear on the petition, which would then be agreed to or not depending on who signs it. In reality, the individual would be hoping that support for the petition among their electorate would not reach the 10 per cent threshold, and they may well campaign in relation to that. No party political campaign could take place, but the flipside is that there could be campaigning by a group of invisible, unknown people on social media, with letters being sent to constituents anonymously. The Government will have to take a decision on the financial instruments and so on. Does it have any concerns about unknown campaigns spending millions of pounds to oust an MSP?

I will leave it at this: will that consideration, even if it is just at the top level, be relatively soon—simply because of the six-month limit? There are questions about the various recommendations if we have an election next year. I am glad that the Government agrees that such a consideration rests with it. Although the petition might be an electoral event, it is not an election, and there are particular questions about how that is dealt with.

I appreciate that you are not the only body with which that issue sits.

My final question is about voter education. As we have already heard, our election process for the Scottish Parliament is different from that anywhere else in the UK and separate from any other electoral event that happens in Scotland. We are talking about adding another event to that, so the electorate will need to understand what they are being asked and how they are being asked it. Does the Scottish Government accept that, and how far is it responsible? I recognise that the Electoral Commission and others will have a teaching role in the process, but there will be a cost to that. What is the Scottish Government’s view on the matter?

In previous evidence sessions, we have discussed the matter of it falling to a local authority to fund a by-election. Is your view that it should be the same for this process? Arguably, funding for a constituency by-election could fall to a local authority, but a regional one is a much bigger problem. Has the Government thought about who would take on financial responsibility for any additional costs that may occur?

Absolutely.

The strong advice is that we should have an agreed battlefield at least six months before an election. That takes us back to delegated legislation. We have talked about the financial issues that need to be considered. One issue that has been picked up is the potential necessity for criminal consequences if things are mishandled in respect of petitions or subsequent events. At the minute, because the bill has not been passed, the legislation is silent on that.

Your memorandum suggests that that situation can be dealt with as these things normally are, in secondary legislation or other ways. Is the Government confident that you can cross those thresholds in time for May next year? I am talking about identifying criminal responsibility. We have heard about the finance, so I am happy to put that to one side, but is the Government confident that it can address the other, more practical—should criminal things ever be practical?—aspects that need to be covered in secondary legislation?

I am loth to push you further than that.

Graham Simpson, our time is ever so slightly tight, but it is there anything that you would like to pick up with the minister before I conclude this part of the evidence session?

On that positive comment, I thank the witnesses, and particularly the minister, for their evidence. I understand that the minister is staying with us for another exciting session. I suspend the meeting to allow a change in officials.

Welcome back. Agenda item 3 is to take evidence from the Minister for Parliamentary Business and officials on dual mandates, although the session may turn out to be more of a discussion than one that follows a traditional evidence-taking format—we will see.

Members have been provided with information about the consultation that the Scottish Government undertook, for which I thank the minister. I note the expectation that subordinate legislation on dual mandates will be referred to the committee in the future. Today’s discussions will not pre-empt our scrutiny—formal and otherwise—of future regulations.

I welcome again the minister and his supporting Scottish Government officials: Iain Hockenhull, elections bill team leader; Ailsa Kemp, Parliament and legislation unit team leader; and Jordan McGrory, solicitor. Minister, would you like to make opening remarks and take us through your consultation?

On the top-level question about whether it should be possible to hold a dual mandate, a substantial number of respondents said no to MPs and councillors holding such a mandate. The top-level responses about members of the House of Lords were interesting. The suggestion was that, instead of having a grace period, there could be the opportunity to take a leave of absence. What is your view on the fact that 21 respondents said that a dual mandate could be held with a leave of absence, while 48 said that it could not?