Seòmar agus comataidhean

This has been a really interesting line of questioning. I wish to focus on the potential role of pupil equity funding. I will not discuss the level of funds, which might come up during the budget process anyway, but I would like to consider how the funds could be spent. We have heard evidence this morning that schools pretty much know their children and families better than they have ever known them. That was an unavoidable truth as they sought to help them during lockdown.

I would like to know about the future opportunities for how schools could use funds over a four-year period. In theory, they can now plan strategically over a four-year period—but not in a silo or in isolation. Are there opportunities to use pupil equity funding within the wider community to support the learning needs of children and the wider needs of families more generally, to make the children ready to learn when they get to school? Do you have any thoughts about how you have seen equity funding used well in the past, perhaps during Covid, to help young people and their families? What opportunities might there be? It would be helpful to get that on the record.

Good morning. Thank you for helping us with our scrutiny of the legislative consent memorandum on the Elections Bill.

The first thing that the committee wants to ascertain is whether there is a need for voter identification. Putting to one side the policy intent, on which I have strong views—I am opposed to the proposal—I see from our papers that only 0.7 per cent of people who work in polling stations believe that voter fraud or personation is an issue. What are your views on whether it is necessary to go down the road of voter ID for UK elections?

Tess White makes an important point and, as I develop my questioning, that issue will be teased out a little bit.

If we look at the Representation of the People Act 1983—not something that I do very often, I have to say—and the Electoral Commission guidance ahead of the elections last May, we can see that the issue of what is prescribed to support accessibility in polling stations is pretty clear. I make no judgment on whether that is sufficient, but there is a degree of reassurance even if it does not go far enough.

The list of what is prescribed to support accessibility includes tactile voting devices for blind or visually impaired people, large-print sample papers, help to cast votes and wheelchair-accessible booths, ramps and other adjustments for those living mobility barriers. The UK legislation would effectively take away certain prescribed supports and replace them with a test of reasonableness. I know that there is a lot of concern in relation to that and perhaps Dr Burness might want to take this opportunity to put some of those concerns on the record before I develop my line of questioning further.

Louise—

I apologise for cutting across witnesses—I am conscious of the time constraints, but I do not want to constrain your ability to put matters on the record.

Dr Clark, I am sorry that I did not cite more of the research, but I want to talk about another aspect of your findings. I believe that, when some of the pilots were conducted in England, up to 30 per cent of voters were turned away at polling stations. In relation to the pressures on polling staff, you mentioned the complexity of electoral law for some polling staff, and additional burdens and pressures would be put on staff at polling stations if voter ID were brought in.

If any of the other witnesses would like to comment on the additional burdens that would be placed on electoral registration officers and any additional challenges, that would be helpful.

I have a very brief question for Dr Clark.

You mentioned the 30 per cent turn-away rate for one of the pilots in England. Was there any evidence of conflict between people who were turned away and those who had to manage the integrity of the electoral system at polling stations during those pilots? I am a bit concerned about the potential for friction in the process, because at the moment there is a fantastic relationship between those who work in polling stations and those who vote.

Dr Burness, I apologise if my question seems a little process driven, but I think that it relates directly to the concerns. My initial question to you was whether there would be any degree of comfort in having something specified in the bill. That might need to be changed to something more appropriate than the reasonableness test, which could, in theory, be interpreted 32 times across Scotland and goodness knows how many times across the UK. I would hope that the Electoral Management Board for Scotland would do a good job on that—I am sure that it would—but that is not the point.

The issue is whether RNIB Scotland, Inclusion Scotland and others believe that a series of minimum standards that everyone should expect should be specified in the bill or in secondary legislation. Changes could be made speedily through secondary legislation after consultation with the various groups. Is it important to have something specified, as opposed to there being local interpretation of “reasonableness”? I apologise for the process-driven question, convener, but it is important to know whether something should be spelled out in statute or whether it should be open to local interpretation.

No, not at all. We can hear you.

That is helpful. Stephen McGhee, would you like to add anything?

I welcome the witnesses who are joining us online and Mr Adamson who is here with the committee.

A wide range of questions will be asked this morning. I will focus on the lockdowns, which unfortunately is a plural term, and particularly on the impact of school closures. Learning and wellbeing hubs were set up for the children of key workers and children with additional support needs. About 6 to 8 per cent of children in Scotland attended those hubs in some fashion. That is clearly not a satisfactory way of dealing with education, but it was a form of support.

To what extent do the witnesses think that the hubs provided meaningful support for young people, particularly those with additional support needs? What worked well? Did we use the right criteria to identify those with additional support needs? I am sure the resource was rationed, due to the pressures at the time.

Mr Adamson, by default because you are sitting here, do you want to go first?