Chamber and committees

Even though I do not agree with a lot of the policy intent in the bill, this is one area on which I think that we can all agree and say quite straightforwardly that it is a positive aspect. If the Scottish Government is reviewing accessibility at polling stations, that is a good thing, and we should just get on with it.

Last week, there was an exchange about the fact that, although the list was imperfect, a lot of the requirements for making polling stations accessible were on the face of the bill, and concern was expressed that a move to regional adjustments could give rise to vagueness and a patchwork approach in Scotland. I seek reassurance that, however the Scottish Government takes this forward, a consistent approach to accessibility will be taken in all polling stations in all places in Scotland.

In addition, I ask that the situation be kept under review with the establishment of, say, a voting accessibility panel that could directly influence statutory guidance to the Electoral Management Board or returning officers on what polling stations might look like. I think that this should happen not just once; instead, the situation should be kept under review, and I would welcome your thoughts in that respect.

Given the time constraints, I will ask just one more question about consultation. You should—absolutely—consult on things that you are minded to change or are considering for change, but I would suggest that, if there are other matters that you are pretty sure that you are not going to change, you should not consult on them, as you will simply create the expectation that change is coming when that is not the case. I do not think that that is the right thing to do in any consultation. I hope instead that you will provide some space in the consultation paper to afford individuals or groups the opportunity to raise additional matters that are not covered by the thrust of the policy and that those comments will be analysed.

Those final comments were just about a technical aspect of consultations, but my substantive question is about ensuring that accessibility is not just a one-off consideration but is kept under constant review.

I can certainly hear you, convener. Can you hear me?

That is perfect, convener. Before I ask my question, I will take the opportunity to comment on the exchange between Mr Mountain and the minister.

Good morning, minister. The Scottish Government’s position appears to be that there has been very little time in which to have meaningful engagement and dialogue with the UK Government. The Scottish Government’s position is that that dialogue has not been substantive or meaningful, and you do not feel that you have been co-producing the UK bill. The committee will reflect on that, and we will take a view on that.

My question is on the Scottish Government’s view. It is clear that there is a timescale in which the Scottish Government will itself legislate for the bits of the bill where you believe there is clearly merit, but you would wish to consult appropriately and meaningfully within Scotland to get the best bill for Scotland. When you do that, however the UK Government legislates at a UK level, will you learn from that experience? When you legislate in Scotland, will you continue a dialogue with the UK Government? I would hope that, if the Scottish Government or the Welsh Government found a better way to change electoral legislation, that would be shared across the UK.

Even though, to date, relationships have not been positive, it is important that the Scottish Government uses the consultation for its pending electoral reforms to feed back to the UK Government. Can you give some reassurance that that dialogue will continue, irrespective of the different positions of the Scottish and UK Governments?

I see from the meeting papers that how we assign and categorise notional expenditure will change under the UK bill. I also see that the Scottish Government has a degree of sympathy for that. Will you say some more about it?

As the minister would expect, I have a follow-up question. Have you made any assessment of whether there could be potential confusion with different rules on notional expenditure across the UK? You said that taking different approaches to how that is operated has not been a choice of the Scottish Government, but, as you look, perhaps, to legislate separately on notional expenditure, what reassurances can you give that you will make sure that there is no confusion with potentially different rules across the UK?

That is interesting, because it is about consistency of argument, and the UK Government did not have a concern about Scotland deviating from the rest of the UK in order to improve matters. I will leave it at that.

I have a final, specific question. Has the Scottish Government had any discussions with the Electoral Commission about the need for clarifying legislation in the area of notional expenditure? The particular example that is given in our committee papers—I wish that I could say that it was my clever thinking, but it is not—is discussions in the light of the 2018 Supreme Court case R v Mackinlay and others (Respondents).

That is helpful. Other members may wish to highlight that certain groups are more significantly impacted by the requirement for voter ID than others—I will let them do that, but we should acknowledge that those are the facts.

My line of questioning is on the possible dangers of having voter ID at UK elections but not at Scottish elections. That would not be a reason for introducing voter ID at Scottish elections, but do you see any such dangers? Are there any concerns about polling staff possibly needing to become gatekeepers and having to turn people away if they did not have voter ID or had ID that turned out not to be on the list of acceptable IDs?

Can you talk specifically about any concerns around having different voting regimes in Scotland for UK and Scottish elections? On that issue, I think that Mr Mountain makes a reasonable point, although I do not agree with his conclusion; it is for the UK Government to decide what voter ID looks like at UK elections. However, it is absolutely for the Scottish Government to take a view on whether that could have negative consequences on democracy in Scotland for devolved elections.

When the legislation on digital imprints was introduced in Scotland, did the UK Government raise concerns that it would lead to different election rules across the UK?

Satwat Rehman just got to the nub of my question without my having to lead the witnesses down that particular road. Schools do not exist in a silo; they are anchors in the community and are already working with lots of third sector organisations. There are also parent councils, pupil groups and, indeed, a whole plethora of organisations around a school, and, now that PEF money has been guaranteed for four years, we have a real opportunity to carry out some key planning work and consultation with the local community to find out how best to tackle poverty and enhance attainment.

I think that that was what Satwat Rehman was saying. Do the other witnesses feel that that is how PEF should be used in the years to come?

That is helpful. There is obviously a contradiction between local independence and flexibility and consistency across local authorities and across Scotland.

Mr Dickie, do you have any comments? Convener, I will not come back in after that. This is my final question.