Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is not as simple as giving a yes or no answer. I have said that we will look at the process and at ensuring that we can incorporate something in our bill once we have consulted everyone. Mr Mountain, there is a process. I may be a St Mirren supporter and our colours may be black and white, but unfortunately the world is not black and white—there is a grey bit in the middle, and we must ensure that we can get things done and go forward. In answer to the question, the matter will be considered as part of our election reform bill.

I am not opposed to the moves in the bill on that issue. We have already said that we intend to consult in 2022 and to introduce a bill in 2023, and that we would consider the matter. However, in discussions that we have had, we have found that the issue is not as serious as others have said it is. Nonetheless, we are not opposed to introducing legislation on it. We are happy to consider the matter and, possibly, to make it part of the bill that we will introduce.

As I said in response to the original question, there are many parts to this. We do not believe that we have a monopoly on genius or ideas, but we do believe that there are different ways forward. We all live in a digital world. Our legislation was for the electoral process itself. We all live in a digital world and we know what goes on within various internet providers and on social media. We would look at ways of modernising that. Although I am not prejudging it, I assume that that will probably be one of the things that will be highlighted when we go to consultation. I am happy to bring Iain Hockenhull in if there is anything else to add.

I gave the example of how I have interacted with the UK Government on the situation. I have some concern that, further down the line, the statement might create the scenario that you describe, convener, because the UK Government’s attitude seems to be that things must be done how it wants them to be done or not at all.

I will bring in one of my officials to tidy that up for you.

I do not think so—I think that we have covered just about everything. Perhaps Penny Curtis or Iain Hockenhull has something to add.

Apologies, convener, and apologies to Mr Mountain.

Good for you, Edward.

On accessibility, I am a member of Renfrewshire access panel and I have been since I was a councillor. I think that I have previously mentioned the panel in this forum, but it does some fantastic work with Renfrewshire Council to ensure that any new buildings such as polling stations are accessible. When an access panel works well, it will effectively audit a new building, but the problem is that, because it is not a statutory group like a community council, it does not get automatically included in the process. As a result, you have to ensure that a relationship exists between local government and the panel.

I think that that sort of thing can be done at a local level while we will do everything we can to ensure that we are reviewing these matters and that everything is open for those who have accessibility issues. Locally, the local authorities should be working with the volunteer groups—the access panels—across Scotland. As with any other volunteer organisation, there are areas where the panels have more volunteers and work better. In Renfrewshire, for example, the panel carried out audits on the access to the new St Mirren stadium in 2009 and on Paisley’s new town hall when it was being renovated. It is now being renovated again and the panel will have access to that, too.

If local authorities automatically deal with access panels and include them in work on polling stations, which is what should be happening, we should be okay. We would therefore suggest to local returning officers that it might be an idea to engage with their local access panels or disability groups on such matters.

We have had on-going dialogue with the Electoral Commission. It was one of the first meetings that I had when I became a minister—because I knew that the bill was coming and that it was one of the important ones—in order to ensure that we had that on-going relationship. That relationship is extremely important for all the Administrations—the UK, Wales and Scotland—but part of the legislation that the UK Government is suggesting makes that relationship extremely difficult for the Electoral Commission.

I ask my colleague Iain Hockenhull to comment on the technical aspects of the legal case that you mentioned.

We could probably look at many aspects of the UK’s idea. Although we were an innovator on that, other people can come up with ideas that might be helpful and guide us in another way, and we could consider digital imprints again for our electoral reform bill. The whole idea would be for us to take the digital imprints idea and move it to the next level, if there is one. However, it comes down to one of the disagreements between the Scottish and UK Governments, which is that the UK Government believes that it has the right to impose its process and system on us because the area of internet service provision is not devolved. Its argument is therefore that it can do that. Our argument—which is based on the arguments and advice that I have had from officials—is that that is not the case. We believe that we can still legislate for digital imprints ourselves. If the committee wants further detail, I will get Iain Hockenhull to add to that.