Seòmar agus comataidhean

To clarify a couple of matters, does the Scottish Government have take-down powers now, or are they reserved?

We have heard evidence that there is concern about the strategy and policy statement’s potential to affect the Electoral Commission’s independence, and we have received letters from the Scottish Parliament’s Presiding Officer and the UK Government’s Minister for Equalities and Minister for Levelling Up Communities. I do not know whether you have had an opportunity to look at those letters. Do you want to comment in particular on the Presiding Officer’s letter and the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission’s involvement in relation to the statement?

I am grateful for that. With that, I thank the minister and his officials for entering the committee den and wish you well for the rest of the day.

We now move into private session.

Minister, the committee understands the attitudinal difference in the way that the UK Government has presented that legislation to you, but it is the role of the committee to scrutinise the legislation, notwithstanding the attitudinal approach that has been taken.

I was going to ask about that, minister. As I have said, and as you have made plain in your evidence today, the bottom line is that there have been very serious communication difficulties. That said, one of the things that I am picking up is that, notwithstanding that substantial problem and challenge with regard to communications and engagement, there are still fundamental elements of the bill on which there would be disagreement on other grounds, which have been articulated in written evidence and in your evidence this morning.

Homing in on one such area—digital imprints—I note that such a regime applies in Scotland only at election time. On my reading of the bill, it seems that the substantial change to that regime relates to an ability to do something that is, by common agreement, reserved, but it is also proposed that the regime be extended to be applied at all times. Subject to consultation, does the Scottish Government see any value in broadening the digital imprint requirement in that way?

To be fair, I think that Edward Mountain’s question was about whether voter ID would be consulted on. I gather from your evidence that it will not form part of the consultation. Is that right?

We heard evidence from others that personation—in other words, someone pretending to be somebody else—is one of reasons why voter ID is helpful. Does the Scottish Government have any evidence on the extent of personation in Scotland?

We have discussed that aspect in the committee in relation to elections that are much closer to hand than other anticipated ones.

I am in no way questioning your experience, but some of the results of the tests that have taken place seem to show that those who felt most challenged and least supported in casting their vote made the greatest errors with the current equipment. The committee has heard of groups out there with the expertise and experience to be part of the consultation, and I think that it is very important that you go out and ensure that they are included.

Yes. I will politely put it this way: perhaps choose a more helpful tone.

I am grateful for that response. We will move on to questions from Paul McLennan.