Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is a distinction. On some issues, you would expect to take soundings but, on others, the public would expect the Government to take a lead.

Thank you, convener, and good morning, minister. The committee has heard from a range of stakeholders on the extension of candidacy rights to individuals with limited leave to remain. Although there is support in large part for the principle, there are concerns about the practical implications, and it has been suggested to the committee that individuals could qualify for candidacy only when their limited leave to remain would allow them to serve a full term. Would you consider that suggestion?

I understand that, but, if you dig into it, you see that such a situation could be controversial. If someone elected by the public had to leave the country part of the way through their term, that would lead to difficulties. Do you accept that the potential for such awkwardness exists, however unlikely it is to happen in practice?

I have no relevant interests to declare, convener.

I will resist the temptation to ask about the desire to replicate systems south of the border, as that is probably not very helpful to the evidence.

We have received some written evidence on the requirements for those who are elected as MSPs to swear an oath of allegiance having a potential impact on citizens of countries that do not accept dual citizenship, and we have also heard about the potential for candidacy to open up devolved elections to foreign players who might wish to undermine Scotland’s electoral system. Do you have any concerns on those issues?

I hear what you say about not having a view on this, but it comes down to striking a balance. People are getting an opportunity to stand for election, but we need to balance that with the obligations that come along with it. If they want to represent people at large but they are not willing to take the same oath as everyone else, we could get into quite a tricky space.

So, you are asking us to accept that risk. You are saying that the risk is minimal and that we should be comfortable with that.

I understand that point. I am simply saying that when you get the likes of that evidence from COSLA, there are some issues on which the Government should take the lead. On any bill, you would expect to be proactive—

And they do not make the actual judgment.

Your organisation’s response to the committee’s call for views says that Missing People supports the broad conditions for the appointment of a judicial factor, as set out in section 3 of the bill, but that you have some practical concerns about the application of section 3 in a situation where a person is missing. For the benefit of the record, please say a little more about those concerns. Are you seeking to have those concerns resolved by having more information in the bill itself, or would it be sufficient for your purposes to have accompanying guidance for the legislation?