Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are proposing to bring forward our own legislation to ensure that we decide what happens in devolved elections. The process in general will cause confusion when there is a UK election. As I said in my statement, an unfortunate point about the UK Elections Bill process is that we were given what was published at the very last minute and were expected just to toe the line. My Welsh colleague and I believe that that is not showing respect to the devolved Administrations.

In the process that we have been going through, we have tried to work with the Electoral Commission to find a cohesive way forward. As I said earlier, one of my concerns is that the approach seems to be an attack on the Electoral Commission. It feels as though the UK Government does not want the positive engagement that we all want. The Electoral Commission is there to do a job that probably helps us rather than hinders us and makes everything open and above board, so I cannot see why any Government, regardless of its party colour, would not want to ensure that the commission has an independent view and is able to do its job. I do not see why anybody would have a problem with that.

I am happy to have given you my standpoint already, in response to your earlier questions. For more technical answers, it is probably better to go to Iain Hockenhull.

I hope so.

Mr Mountain asked for my personal opinion and tried to get information about how things will go with regard to the bill. We disagree on some fundamental issues and that is one of them. I do not think that it is right, Mr Mountain.

We are considering the process and ideas all the time. Nobody has suggested that to us yet. If the suggestion is made, I will consider it.

Iain Hockenhull can respond to that.

On the Scottish elections, that is exactly what we want to aim for. We want to ensure that they are open and free and that changes are not made by funding from elsewhere.

In my exchanges with Mr McLennan, I did not use the term “dark money” but I expressed severe concerns about money from abroad. The bill provides the opportunity for someone who has not been involved in the electoral process, who has not been a taxpayer of the UK and who has not been in the country for 14 years to influence a UK election if they have the financial ability to do so. That is a concern. It is not transparent, as Mr Doris says. It is not what we are all about here, because the Scottish Parliament has always been about ensuring that the elections are fair and above board.

I have concerns about allowing someone who has not been involved in the electoral process or even lived in the country for 14 years being able to engage and spend money in a UK election.

To generalise across the piece, we are working towards making sure that there is no confusion, regardless of what part of the UK bill we are talking about or what ends up in the Scottish bill. We are trying to work out a way in which we cannot cause that confusion. However, at the same time, if we find a better way of working, with regard to any parts or aspects of the bill, we will also go forward with that, as my Welsh colleagues have done. We recently—towards the end of the previous session—had a bill in that area, but my Welsh colleagues have not had that, so they are playing catch-up and looking at various things.

From our perspective, part of this bill is about digital imprints, which we have already legislated on. In effect, the UK Government has come in and said, “Ours is the right way forward,” but we were the first UK Administration to legislate in the area. To put your mind at ease, Mr Doris, we are trying to find ways to make sure that there is no confusion, which is why we are consulting before bringing forward a bill in 2023.

Voter ID is the main issue on which we cannot agree, and that has been the situation from day 1 of our discussions. We feel that voter ID makes it even more difficult for people to engage. We have just come off the back of a Scottish Parliament election that had the highest-ever turnout of people going to the polls to express their opinion.

My fear is that voter ID will cause confusion because we will not be using it. We never know when there will be a Westminster election, even though we have the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. As Mr Mountain mentioned, there will probably be an election well before there should be one. A Westminster election could happen at any point and we could have a scenario that would be difficult for us and the Welsh to deal with, in which a UK election was held on the same day as or within the period of a Scottish election.

Let us imagine that the two elections were held on the same day. That would be a nightmare scenario. UK officials have told us that they will try to avoid that, but that does not fill me with confidence. We could end up in a situation in which people were voting on the same day in elections in which there were two different voting systems with different processes and, added to that, voter ID was used for one of them but not for the other.

I am against voter ID because, for example, an elderly person who had voted at the same polling station for the past 20 to 25 years could turn up to vote in a Westminster election, regardless of when it might be, and say, “I’ve voted here for the past 25 years,” only to be asked for their voter ID and told, “You’ve not done it.” It just makes the process more difficult at a time when we are trying to get the public to engage more with the political process.

Let us look at the successes of the most recent Scottish parliamentary elections and encourage people to vote. The voter ID proposal is an example of how to discourage and dissuade people from voting.