Chamber and committees

I am. That is the whole point of the letter, which you have, no doubt, read and understood.

That is perfect. When you respond to that letter, will you say that it is a “duty” to remove a country and not just a policy decision whether to keep people on the list? If a country pulls out and the treaty is stopped, does that not end the agreement?

Treaties are always between multiple parties. The deputy convener may have been in error in saying that the UK Government might renege—it might be the other side that decides to pull out of the treaty, not the UK Government.

Minister, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee wrote to you on 1 March regarding the powers and duties that we are discussing. Will you respond to that letter soon, and will this committee see that response? We were copied in to the original letter from the DPLR Committee.

Thank you minister. You will be pleased to know that that is my only question.

At the risk of damaging your political career, I say that I think that it is a good idea to bring the issuing of poll cards forward. There is a level of agreement—let us hope that we can also reach agreement on election expenses for councillors.

Thank you, convener. I will not be on any of the glamorous cross-party groups on topics such as beer. However, I have agreed to be part of this group because I think that it is really important. Having agreed to be part of it, I do not think that it is appropriate that I ask questions in relation to it. I simply wanted that noted.

I welcome the fact that you are bringing the issues back to the committee as a result of listening to a previous evidence session. I gently remind you that I raised the issue of the level of expenses. I hope that you will deal with that at a future committee meeting.

I turn to the issue of poll cards. Is this another quirk that has slipped past? It seems to make sense to bring the position into line with what happens in Scottish Parliament elections

We heard in the previous evidence session that, when people apply for a postal vote, it lasts for five years. The problem with bringing the period down to three years is just a problem of checking the electoral register, which is relatively easy with digital electoral registers, although before digital it was complicated. Would bringing it down to three years increase people’s ability to vote?

On that basis, if the UK Government wants to bring in voter ID for UK parliamentary elections, it is not for you to decide.

I say at the outset that, as we all accept, there are significant differences between UK and Scottish elections. To my mind, that is a benefit of devolution, and I am proud that Scotland is leading the way on aspects such as 16-year-olds being given the vote.

However, what I want to talk about is voter ID, which the UK Government has identified as a problem in UK elections. Do you accept that view or do you take the view that, because it is not a problem in Scotland, it is not a problem in the UK?