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 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.