Seòmar agus comataidhean

Another nice big letter—thank you. [Laughter.]

Excellent. I now move the meeting into private session.

You are always welcome to come to our committee, even if it is just to observe it.

It is interesting that members who have taken the time to attend this morning seem to have had very profitable answers. That may be a good advert for early involvement in a bill.

Of course.

Let me push you on one point that flows slightly from the question that you have just been asked. What is the Scottish Government’s view on dual mandates?

I have a couple of follow-up questions. One relates to guidance, but it very much reflects on the bill. We have received evidence that there needs to be clear information and guidance on the proposal and the interaction with immigration law. Who will give that guidance authoritatively?

Good. My follow-up question is much more directed to the bill. On whom will the responsibility rest? The Electoral Commission has said that it is not the role of electoral administrators to advise candidates whether they qualify to stand. Who will take responsibility?

Whether someone can stand. Will the candidates themselves have to read the law and make the assertion that they qualify?

Is it right to say that, in those discussions, although there are clearly not no concerns, there have been only tiny concerns about monitoring and enforcement?

Okay, I will take that. Thank you.

Let us move on to the vexatious issue of free mail-outs—in particular, for candidates who are standing in local government elections. Obviously, the matter is not included in the bill, although it is right that it was discussed at the consultation and in the results of that consultation. Are there still plans to introduce amendments on that at stage 2, and has any assessment been made of whether such a measure would increase diversity among candidates in that, for those who feel unable to financially support such an opportunity to speak to voters, a free mail-out is incredibly beneficial?

Well, yes.