Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

That is important. The Governments of the UK are allowed to disagree with one another. No one in the Scottish, Welsh or UK Government has a monopoly on wisdom, so it is important that the dialogue continues.

I listened to Mr McLennan’s exchange with the minister about how, with third-party campaigners in elections, we ensure greater transparency about where money comes from and how it is spent. I apologise if I missed this during the exchange, but I did not hear the expression “dark money”. I do not know whether the UK bill—I must admit that I should perhaps read it more carefully—will deal with concerns about that.

For example, there were concerns about spend ahead of the Scottish elections. In particular, it was hard to shine a light on where the money came from for a £46,000 Facebook campaign that perhaps sought to influence the Scottish elections. The point that I am making is all in the public domain, but I want to ensure that it is not prejudiced by party-political views, perspectives and interests, so I have not given a context to that spend.

The public are well aware of the expression “dark money”. They have concerns about the lack of transparency about where money comes from, how it is spent and how it could interfere in, and unfairly try to influence, elections. Is there anything in the UK bill that deals directly with dark money? Will the proposed Scottish bill seek to address that as well, to ensure that our elections in Scotland—and throughout the UK—are open, transparent and appropriately funded in a way that voters believe is fair and free?

Thank you very much.

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.

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.

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.

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—