 Felly, mae'n rhai gwaith y fawr o'r rhan o'r gweithio'r gweithio'r FFMW yn 2021. Dyn ni'n meddwl i'r ffwrdd i'n meddwl, rwy'n meddwl yn ei wneud o'r rhan o'r chafnod o'r gweithio'r gweithio. Fel yna ni'n gweithio'r agenda. Mae yna yma yma'r agenda yma. Mae yma yma yma'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'r gweithio i ddweud o'r neud yma i ddim yn y prifyfiadau. ond iech�差不多 y cwmaeg y badaedd a'i gyfan� 연逕fawer pragoch. Dych chi eich cynhyrch eraill mewn gwnddiant i gweld raddiig, ac mae'rnu fod suffer o portalion a'r cywir o'i cwmaeg yn gogol arall. Felly ail perysg i gyffr elevenyn. Felly uwch-aum Felеб-igai сил wrth�рас o fe ychydig ei glaron wedi bod yn rhoi gollianfian ddod gyda'n usir iaith i Gŵr os yr agnod pryd ar y llwyllu gw��u pethau wirrwyng. Mae'r hyn ood hyn o astuddiu, roedd bod nad maוד golw. I ask me along to the committee here today. Elections are governed under a complex series of interconnecting laws. I would like to stress, given the outset, that I'm not opposed to developing a common approach across the UK in relation to elections where there are benefits for voters and administrators, but while the UK Government has briefed us on their proposals, this is not being a collaboration. Rather, UK Ministers have set out their plans with expectation that we will fall online to avoid creating differences between reserved and devolved elections. To do so would make a mockery of devolution. Scotland has already established a proud record of innovation in electoral law with the devolved franchise successfully extending to 16 and 17 year olds and to foreign nationals. We were the first in the UK to require digital imprints in relation to online campaign material. This bill's attempt to effectively replace that regime is not the result of considered discussion over the merits of different approaches. It is instead an example of the UK Government taking a very broad view of the internet service reservation, one that we can test. There are other areas where I am concerned about the UK Government's approach, such as voter ID, postal voting and the electoral commission, but I do not recognise that the bill contains other less contentious, but I do also recognise that the bill contains other less contentious proposals and has, in the past, tried to work with the UK Government on them. Our legislative consent memorandum is not a refusal to consider reform. I want to take time to assess the proposals in this bill, hold a public consultation next year on the best approach, and this will inform a Scottish electoral reform bill to be introduced in 2023. It is worse dressing here that the next major devolved election to be held after this bill becomes law will be in 2026, and I would be happy to answer any questions that your members have. Thank you for that opening. We have a number of areas of questions that various members of the committee will lead on from their interests. I was going to kick off by looking at the element that is the strategy and policy statement that is being proposed in respect of the electoral commission. You have already explained in the opening why the Scottish Government do not consider why the devolved election should be part of that, but what discussions have you had with the UK Government on this proposed strategy and policy statement? Can you share the outcome of any discussions that you had? We have had a number of bilaterals with the Westminster Government and my Welsh colleague in particular. Both of us are of the opinion of my Welsh colleague and myself with regard to the electoral commission that there is some work that we could do rather on our side that could be a lot better than what is proposed by them themselves. There seems to be a situation from Westminster where they almost see the electoral commission as the enemy effectively, and my Welsh colleagues are trying to find a way to work with the electoral commission to ensure that we can find a way forward. Some of the suggestions that we have made have been that there is not a place for this place and that it is intended to have a role in the electoral commission. That has been more or less left to one side and I have not really accepted it. I think that this gets to the heart of what we are trying to discuss here. Those have been discussions that we have been very open with and we have been very upfront. I mean myself and my Welsh colleague have been very open and upfront with what we are wanting and what we are wanting to do, but both of us have come to the same conclusion that we would rather go down in a process ourselves that our own Parliament and the Senate are the ones that make the decisions. It comes down to some of the arguments that we have all been having in the chamber recently with regard to the idea that there seems to be a pushback from Westminster with regard to the evolved nations. I do not make that as a political statement purely as a statement of fact that we are trying to ensure that we get the best for devolution and retain the powers that we currently have. We have been pushing with regard to the electoral commission and we have some serious concerns with the threat that it has almost been like a threat from Westminster with regard to the electoral commission. I am grateful for that and I suppose just to move on from that. So what do you see as the potential impact of this statement in respect of devolved elections? What we are proposing to do is to ensure that we will go forward and do our own legislation to ensure that we are the ones that decide what happens with the devolved elections. The whole process in general would cause confusion when you do have a UK election that is when things get a bit confusing. However, as I said during my statement, one of the unfortunate points in this whole UK elections bill process has been that it has been a case of that they have published something and then given us that at the very last minute may I add and expected us just to tow the line. I and my Welsh colleague do not believe that that is the way of showing any form of respect to both devolved administrations. You are reassured in your position because the first or the next expected devolved election is not until 2026 and you have a road map to ensure that there is an election bill that would be in place for that. As things have changed with us, it has been a moving feast this actual bill and as things have moved we have that conscious always been on our minds how we make sure that the people of Scotland do not actually, if there is anything of value that is valuable to us here as a way forward and a different way of doing business then we are quite happy to look at that within our own bill and we have always looked at the timelines, we have always been yes sometimes some of the things have been challenging but we are pretty confident that we will be able to do everything in time for the next election. We have heard evidence that there is concern that the potential for this statement to affect the independence of the electoral commission and we have had a letter from the presiding officer here at the Scottish Parliament and also a letter from the Minister of State for a Minister of State for equalities and levelling up communities from the UK government. I do not know whether you have had an opportunity to look at those but I wondered whether you wanted to comment in particular in respect of the presiding officer's letter here about the involvement of the presiding officer and her committee in relation to the statement. Part of the process that we have been going through has been that we have been trying to work with the electoral commission to try and see a cohesive way forward. As I said earlier on to you, convener, one of the concerns that I have is that it seems to be an attack on the electoral commission but it almost feels as if there does not want to be the positive engagement that we all want because at the end of the day the electoral commission is there to do a job, they are there to do a job that actually probably helps us rather than hinders us and it makes it all open and above board. I cannot see why any Government, regardless of party colour, would see ensuring that they have that independent view and have an opportunity to do their job. I do not see why anybody would have a problem with that. I am grateful. The presiding officer in her role also has an effect with regard to the funding under Scottish elections to the electoral commission. Are there concerns that if this place is not involved in any of the discussions about that policy statement there could be challenges with regard to funding and do you think funding, that the avenue of funding should be enough for this Parliament to take part in those discussions? I would probably say to myself, if I use the example of how I have interacted with the UK Government on this situation, would that give me concern that further down the line it may create the scenario that you have mentioned, convener? There would be some concern there because there seems to be an attitude to do it the way it wants to or not. I will bring in one of my officials at this stage just to maybe tidy that up for you, Ian. There was the existing arrangements in relation to the Electoral Commission and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body that were put in place by the Scottish Elections Reform Act 2020. There were serious discussions there about the nature of the relationship that we had with the corporate body. I think that the potential with this bill having some impact in relation to the Speaker's Committee might be an argument to revisit that arrangement but that would be an issue that we might want to raise in the consultation paper plan for next year. I am grateful for that. My penultimate point is in relation to the letter that we have received from the UK Government and again goes to the heart of the independence of the commission in that report. I understand why the Minister was unable to attend in person. I understand that there was a diary clash. Interestingly, in the letter, I will just read a small part of it, to improve the parliamentary accountability of the Electoral Commission, the bill makes provision for a strategy in policy statement, which is what we have just been discussing. This will set out guidance and principles which the commission will have to have in the discharge of its functions. There are significant assertions within the evidence from the UK Government of the importance of the independence of the commissioner but I have concern over the phrase will have, which means that it will bind the commission. Therefore, the question of independence is one that has put an end in respect of today's question. Do you have any comments, minister, or indeed? Well, I am quite happy. I have already said the reasons to your earlier questions from my own standpoint, so probably for the more technical answers, it is probably better going to Farine. The UK minister has indicated that, where they agree with the devolved analysis, there is agreement on what is involved within the devolved competence of the Parliament, that they will remove those aspects from the bill at the House of Lords stage. That would appear to include the impact of this statement in relation to devolved elections. We would expect this statement to ultimately be in only relation to reserved elections. At the moment that is introduced, the bill has an obligation to consult Scottish and Welsh ministers in relation to their devolved functions. Our ministers made representations to the UK minister that this statement, even if it is only in relation to reserved matters, could still have a knock-on effect on how the commission interacts with devolved administrations and that it would seem appropriate further to be an obligation to consult across the board even if it does not apply to devolved elections any more. The UK is considering that representation. Can we leave that with the caveat, convener, that things have not gone exactly smoothly with this whole process? Who knows what could come from that negotiation? Maybe it is a successful conclusion. I am now going to pass over to Tess White, who has a series of questions relating to the clarification of the offence of undue influence of a voter. May I ask, please, what the Scottish Government believes the benefit would be in introducing Scottish legislation on undue influence? I am not opposed to the moves that are part of the bill on the issue in itself. We have already said that we intend to consult in 2022 and bring forward the bill in 2023, and we would look at the scenario as well. Although, in discussions that we have looked at, it has not been as major an issue as what others have said it was, but it is still something that we are not opposed to and we are quite happy to look at and possibly make it part of the bill. Is the benefit of introducing it? As I said earlier on, we have not had any real bad examples of where this has been a major issue, and it is not something that organisations and third sector organisations and groups that are involved in the elections are screaming from the rooftops saying that they have to make a difference on it. It is something that we are taking cognisces of and we are listening to what they are saying, and we are interested in what is going forward. However, it is something that we would probably, when we have done our consultation in 2022, it is something that we will look at with a raft of other things in 2023 for the actual bill. Minister, would I be right in summarising the answer? I do not know the benefits yet, but I might know the benefits after you have gone through a process of consultation. Probably a more accurate way would be to say that I can understand where the UK Government is going in this issue, but it is one that I just want to consult with and get more information and more data so that I can actually see what the main benefits would be for us when our bill comes here in 2023. Okay, good. Keeping an open mind for now. As I said in my statement, in many of the things, there are many things that we could have common ground, but there are certain parts of this bill that are just toxic to this Parliament and toxic to us. Next question. This is quite a long question, Minister. Please, what consideration has the Scottish Government given to the potentially different level of protection from undue influence afforded to voters in Scotland and in other parts of the UK if the legislation is not taken forward on a UK-wide basis? Well, as I said earlier, on our next election that would affect us would be 2026 anyway, so we need to ensure that if we go through consultation and if it comes back that it is a major issue and if we decide as a Government that we are going to go down a similar route as well, then we would just quite clearly add it into the process as well. I do not believe that there is an option for being a major difference if we have done everything that we have set out to do, so the idea that you know you would have these, it goes back to the crux of the matter right enough, which is the UK Government that is changing the playing field here and we are the ones that have just been expected to toe the line and follow on trying. I do not think that that is right, I do not think that you as an MSP, Ms White, should be treated that way and I do not think that any members of this Parliament should be treated that way. I think that we need to have this open discussion and I think that what you are bringing up gets us to the very heart of what the issue is, is that it has more or less been published and we have been expected to follow as because they do not expect myself or our colleagues in Wales to accept it. However, if I just add to you all those issues, myself and my colleague in Wales, are of the exact same mind, we have agreed a way forward, so this is not just me, George Adam, SNP Minister for Parliamentary Business. This is a Labour member in a similar role to me in Wales coming to the same conclusions. When the Scottish Government plans to introduce legislation to update the offence of undue influence, would that be through primary legislation? At this stage, I do not even have a draft bill in front of me at this stage, so effectively it would be a process of how we went through the whole process itself and take it from there. That would be the best way to make it of value, but I am quite happy to bring you in at this stage, just to back me up, hopefully. Electoral law is such a complicated mix of secondary and primary legislation that it can quite often be difficult to say confidently that something has changed in primary or secondary legislation. The fact that the UK Government is doing it in primary legislation suggests that it would be, as normally, an end primary legislation with primary legislation and secondary legislation with secondary legislation. That particular offence is so old, and one of the reasons for updating it is that it is out of date. I would imagine that it almost certainly lies in archaic Westminster legislation that applies across the board. Answer to your question is as clear as mud. I appreciate the committee, so I understand the attitudinal difference in the way that the UK Government has presented the legislation to you, but it is the role of this committee to scrutinise it, notwithstanding the attitudinal approach that has been taken. No, I understand, convener, and it is purely because we have been living this myself and my colleagues for the past six months, so we just— I feel your frustration, but we have a role to play, which was in part what Tess was following through on. Ian, can I ask—well, I'll start with you, Ian, but obviously I'm happy to hear from the minister—is there an agreement with regard to undue influence that the law is out of date and that there will need to be a change? What that is subject to consultation with the public and others, but is there a bottom line agreement, which the UK Government are asserting that this is out of date and does need to modernise? I'm not aware of any suggestion to the country. It seems to be widespread agreement that's archaic. I'm grateful. Do you want to add anything? Thank you, Tess. I'm now going to move on to Paul, who's going to look at the regulation of expenditure for political purposes. Thank you, Paul. Just before I start, just to mention the fair members to my register of interests, I'm serving councillor in East Llywyddian at the moment. Minister, it's around about regulation of expenditure for political purposes and I think there are three main areas. I think it's been touched in on the paper. Obviously it's the restriction of all party, all third party campaigning to UK-based entities and eligible overseas voters. Restrictions on co-ordinate spending between parties and third parties and third party campaigner registration and obviously we've seen the Scottish Government position and UK Government position as well, so I know that that differs. So it's just really to try and explore a few issues around about that. The first question really is what assessment has the Scottish Government made of potential for confusion if there are different requirements on campaign expenditure for reserved and devolved electoral events? It's one of the concerns we had because in a busy world it's naturally if there's two different processes that people would get confused we all know various agents that we all have in our various political parties who believe they know the process but mistakes can be made and it could cause issues there. That is a concern for us but again it gets back to the process that we've had to go through when we've tried to make this explanation and tried to say that we think there's a way of doing this differently. We've been met with just more or less speak to the hand to use some modern parochialism. We've had to it's been very difficult for us but on the whole I'm aware that there could be issues but these are things we believe that we can ensure that we can sort out in our own bill when it comes to the Parliament as well. As I say, in everything that sounds like I'm going to repeat myself here but basically both myself and my Welsh colleague had a very long conversation in all of the aspects of the bill and it came to the conclusion that both of us were just going to go down the line of having our own legislation and looking at it all and whether there were good parts that we would take from the UK bill, we would take that and whether there were parts that we don't agree with which are fundamentally don't agree with then we wouldn't do that. I'm aware that the whole process has a situation where there could be a leading to confusion in general between the two processes and we're doing our best to try to make sure within the powers that we have that we can deliver that for Scotland as is my colleague in Wales, so just bring in Ian if he's wanted to add anything to that. All right, that's unusual. Bang on the money there, convener. Just on that point, I've got a few other questions, but just on that point obviously I think one of the key things obviously you mentioned about agents is about compliance issues and obviously expenditure. Transparency around about expenditure, is there any specific concerns obviously to yourself minister or maybe to Ian as well around about that specific issue? I'll bring Ian in at that point then. I think one of the advantages in having consultation next year on this is that there are quite a complicated set of proposals and the full implications, I certainly wouldn't claim to understand the full implications and I think the advantage of having consultation is that a lot of these should come out and it would also be on the basis of the final version of the UK bill rather than the as introduced version so that possibly also with the benefit of seeing some of their exercise in practice once, maybe not during consultation, but once the Scottish Parliament legislation goes through a matter of seeing some of this deployed in action in the UK elections and control observations. I think we'll all be aware that there'll be people that have been involved in the process like ourselves, knowing each other far too long and our own agents and people will be the ones that'll be able to get involved in the consultation and know how organically the process works and they'll be the ones that their information when we do get that information from people, it will make a difference as we move forward. A couple of other questions I think for me, one is in about, I think, talking maybe about plans to legislate, whether you think that's likely and in what direction, timing and I suppose nature of legislation that would be required. Another question as well, the minister mentioned obviously about the next literal event being 2026. If there was another unscheduled event before then, where would that come in before legislation was brought in? Would you mean unscheduled? Possibly if there was a Scottish election that was unscheduled for whatever reason at whatever time. That would be an extreme, I'm not a betting man but I wouldn't bet on that. So I think that's an extreme example of a problem so that's why we feel pretty comfortable in so much that we can get everything in place before our next major electoral event. So we, as I told Miss White and I said during my speech, we'll consult in 2022 and 2023 we'll have the bill there so that gives us ample time to ensure that we've got things in place for the next election. So you would envisage that being a bill by end of 2023 or during 2022? Well listen, being the minister of parliamentary business there's plans, there's plans and you know I think DDA landings were probably easier than trying to get the programme for government to get involved here because the organisation involved so I'm not going to make myself a hostage for fortune in that but I would say that we were comfortable to get something in place for 2023 and ensure that we can have it for the elections. Okay, thanks minister. One final question from me and minister to that is on and about what the government's position is on foreign spending. It devolved for elections. Sorry, I just missed. For foreign spending, money's been from overseas, it's been spent at Scottish, it devolved elections. What do I... I suppose what the government's position is on that? Well I have issues with that as well because there's a number of issues within this bill that make things a bit concerning for me, this is one of them in particular with regards to the idea that someone can live in a tax haven somewhere thousands of miles away and can actually invest in an election whether it be millions, thousands, hundreds or whatever kind of concerns me because they're not part of the democratic process and they're not contributing to the UK from that perspective and I'm not even talking about Scotland, I'm talking about UK wide so I do have severe concerns that people that are investing money in various campaigns from abroad would skew elections to a certain degree and it's unfair and it's just not right. I'm a great believer in doing things by the book and this to me just smells bad. Right, I think that's clear. Thank you minister. Thank you. Thank you Paul. Bob, I think you would like to just come in with a supplemental. Sorry Bob, we can't hear you. No, I'm afraid we can't hear you. Can you hear us, Bob? Do you want to put your thumb up if you can hear us? Right. If we can't hear you, that's... Bob, I will move on but hold the thought on my post-it note and return the minister's thoughts to your question and due course when we can connect again. Edward, would I be able to come to you with regard to the disqualification of offenders for holding elective office as a result? Of course, convener, if you can hear me. We can hear you. Oh, so it's just blue jeans for what Bob said. Perfect. Minister, you agree with me intimidating people and spewing elections by any means is completely unacceptable. Minister, I can't hear you. Sorry minister. Can you hear me, Edward? I can and I can now see the minister's microphone slit so there's a chance of it. Right, sorry minister. Over to you. Yes, I agree that anything that interferes with our process of election is wrong and we should ensure that we make it as safe for everyone to fill in their ballot paper as possible, but that's part of the reason why in these processes I'm looking at ensuring that we have the legislation ourselves to be able to take that forward. That's why we've looked at some of the bits and pieces, as I said to Ms White earlier on. That's why we're looking at this issue and we'll see what actually comes from it. As my official already said, the current systems are cake, so we just need to look at a way to modernise that and possibly that will be part of the bill. I'm not one for saying I can't tell you what will be in the bill in the next while because we've obviously got to consult with people. You have no idea what you would put in the bill as far as a sanction for those people who practised intimidation at the election. The yes or no answer would surprise the minister. Well, it's not as simple as that as a yes and a no answer. It's a case of, I've said that we will look at the actual process, we will look at making sure that we can incorporate something in our bill once we have consulted with everyone. Mr Mountain, there is a process. I may be a supporter, but our colours may be black and white, but unfortunately the world is not black and white. There is a grey bit in the middle that we need to ensure that we can make sure that we can get things done and we can work forward. In answer to his question, it will be considered as part of our own election reform bill. Okay, so my question to you is, do you think that five years is an unreasonable time based on that? If you and I agree, intimidation shouldn't happen. Do you think it's five years would be an unreasonable bang? Well, let's see what's in my bill in 2023, Mr Mountain. I know you're enthusiastic and you want to know what's happening here and now, but as I said before, there is a process that we have to go through and we have to make sure that we get things done. If we let the minister answer, I will come to you. I appreciate your frustration. At the end of the day, we're going through a process. I've already accused the UK Government of putting things down in front of this Parliament at the very last minute and telling us how we should take things forward. Assuming that we would do light-wise, for me to make a commitment on a solid commitment and any aspects of the bill at this stage, we would be doing light-wise not giving this Parliament and ourselves as fellow MSPs the opportunity to be able to engage with that process. I'll say now at this stage that we will consult, go through this process and ensure that it will be part of the process that we consider by ourselves as we go forward. To be fair, Edward Mountain wasn't asking for a commitment. He was asking for your view on the period of five years and whether you are absolutely up to you, whether you wish to express what your view is. I don't think that he was looking for a governmental commitment. He certainly wasn't looking for a parliamentary expectation. It was merely just whether five years felt unreasonable to you or not. To be fair, in front of me is a sign that says Minister for Parliamentary Business, George Adam doesn't really his opinion is irrelevant in this scenario. At the end of the day, I'm here as the Minister for Parliamentary Business talking about potential legislation that we're going to be putting through in the next while. Yes, I have my own opinions on various things, but I have to, obviously, within my role ensure that I have a situation when we take this through Parliament, I do it in a way that is open and transparent for everyone to be able to have the opportunity to engage in that. I absolutely understand that what I was asking for was an opinion. Mr Adam has given various opinions this morning, but he's not about to make an opinion on this. My question to you, Mr Adam, is that it is likely that the Scottish elections will be in 2026, as you have said, and you said that there would only be an extremist, which you couldn't predict that they would happen before then. The UK elections will happen before then. Your timescale of 2223, i.e. 22 going to consultation, 23 bringing out legislation, would probably mean that you would end up in a different position to the UK Government on intimidation. Do you think that that's a good position to be in? Mr Mountain seems to have stumbled on what is the actual issue that we're dealing with here and now, as the fact that this isn't a problem of my making, it isn't me that has changed dramatically electoral, UK electoral law and also I can't legislate for UK elections, but it's not me that's changed electoral law dramatically, it's actually been the UK Government. Now, while we've had discussions during that process, while we've tried to engage with the UK Government on this and at one point we tried to bring them round and change various things, so we could have a level playing field on all the elections, it just wasn't going to happen, it just didn't happen, it wasn't going to happen and the UK Government has taken an assumption whether you think that is right, I think it's wrong, but if you think it's right, then they will just carry on and do it their way, so it's not ourselves here in this place that's made this problem, created this problem and if there was a UK election before, during that period then, it will be under UK electoral law anyway, so there would be no difference there, but yes, I do agree with Mr Mountain that there's various things that they've included in this that just get to a stage where they created an issue of differences in the whole process, many of which we've discussed here today, so we really need to look at the fact that I'm not to blame for this, it's my colleagues that I've tried to influence, I've been unable to do so and it's in a situation now where the Welsh Government and myself are totally agreed on this, that this is a way forward. If you look at our colleagues in Wales, they're literally doing the same as what I am, in fact they're going further because they've got some other ideas that they're adding to their electoral bill that are not part of the UK election bills as well. Thank you minister, I don't think I stumbled into anything, I think I probably read the papers and understood them. Do I understand that there's no compromise? Good for you Edward. Minister, all of the committee who have read their papers I just said well done to Edward for it, that's all I was suggesting. I think if I can politely put it, choose a perhaps more helpful tone because Edward is a very important member of this committee and as I say, every member of this committee has read their papers and I know you've lived this bill for six months but in a much shorter period of time this committee has lived this bill, listened to evidence and probed on a lot of matters. Apologies, convener, and apologies to Mr Moog. I'm very grateful for that minister. Edward, is there anything else you would like to say? Well it's just a question really is that I understand there are strong feelings on both sides. What I'm looking to do is try and find areas where there still could be compromise. I'm trying to investigate that and I'm understanding that on intimidation with witnesses although we all agree that it shouldn't happen there doesn't appear to be a compromise so I'm happy to leave my questions there. Can I just add that? I appreciate Mr Moog trying to find common ground and it's something I've done myself over the past six months. It's difficult, there's key parts of the legislation that just make it extremely difficult for us all and it's got to the stage where it's very difficult to try and find that common ground. I'm grateful. I'm hoping that Bob is able to rejoin us both by being able to hear and speak so Bob. I can simply hear you convener, can you hear me? We can hear your lovely tones coming down the line so we can return to the regulation of expenditure for political purposes which I understood you had a follow-up question on and also I was going to hand over to you for the notional expenditure. That's perfect convener. Can I take the opportunity just before I ask that particular question just having watched exchange between Mr Mountain and the minister and good morning minister. It appears to be that the Scottish Government position is there's been very little time to have meaningful engagement and dialogue with the UK Government and the Scottish Government position is that that dialogue's not been substantive and it's not been meaningful and you do not feel you've been co-producing this UK legislation that's coming before us. The committee will reflect on that and we'll take a view in relation to that. The question I would have is on the Scottish Government's view so it's clear that there's a timescale by which the Scottish Government will legislate itself from the bits of the bill where you believe that there is clearly merit but you would wish to consult appropriately and meaningfully within Scotland to get it as best for Scotland. When you do that, will you use however the UK Government legislates at a UK level, will you learn from that experience and when you do legislate in Scotland, will you continue a dialogue with the UK Government because the Scottish Government or the Welsh Government finds a better way of changing electoral legislation and I hope that that will be shared across the UK so it's important even though relationships have not been positive to this day that the Scottish Government uses its consultation for its electoral reforms which are pending to feed in back to the UK so you give some kind of reassurance that dialogue will be on-going irrespective of the different positions of the Scottish and UK Governments? Yes, I can, Mr Doris. All the dialogue is still on-going. We still have conversations bilateral, trilateral with ourselves, Wales and ourselves and Westminster and all together so that is on-going. We do try. I will admit that the last meeting was pretty fraught because in this whole process it's not been helped by, there's been a reshuffle in the UK Government which means that the minister that we had built up a relationship with had actually moved on so it became a new minister, new relationship, you had to deal with that as well and I think that the portfolio for the UK minister has become quite larger as well so this is just one aspect of it so on the whole the answer would be yes to Mr Doris's question. We will continue to engage and to have the communication to try and find ways forward where we can because the whole process is we are trying to work through this in a way that there is no confusion. Am I going to say it's going to be easy? No, because of the way things are but we're doing our best to try and work through that situation. I think that that's important. The Governments of the UK are allowed to disagree with each other. The Scottish, Welsh and UK Governments, no one's got a monopoly of wisdom so it's important that that dialogue continues. Where I did want to come in given that I was in relation to Mr McClellan's exchange with the minister and I was listening to the idea of how we get greater transparency with third party campaigners in elections, greater transparency over where the money comes from and how the money is spent. What I didn't hear during the exchange and I apologise if I missed it, I didn't hear the expression dark money and I'm not sure whether the UK bill and I have to admit maybe I have to read it more carefully will deal with concerns of dark money for example there were concerns around spending ahead of the Scottish elections, a £46,000 spending particularly, but it was hard to shine a light on where that money came from to fund a Facebook campaign which perhaps got to influence those Scottish elections now. The minister I've not said the nature of how, I mean this is all the public demand, the point I'm making here minister, but I want to make sure the point I'm making here is not prejudice by party political views and perspectives and interests so I've not given a context to that spend but the public out there are well aware of the expression dark money, they'll get to the concerns over lack of transparency and where money comes from and spends and how that could interfere and unfairly try to influence elections so do you see anything in the UK legislation which deals directly with that money and will the Scottish legislation seek to look at that as well to make sure our elections in Scotland and across the UK are open, transparent and appropriately funded in a way that voters would believe is fair and free. With regards to the Scottish election side of things I would say that that was exactly what we'd be wanting to aim for is to make sure they're open and free and there's not kind of changes made from funding from elsewhere. I did in my exchanges with Mr McClellan didn't use the term dark money but I did express some severe concerns that there could be money from abroad effectively where people have been either a tax exile or being able, this bill gives you the opportunity that someone who has not been involved, been a taxpayer of the UK, been involved in this process, not been in the country for 14 years, they could still actually influence a UK election if they had the financial ability to do so and that's a concern, that's a concern and it's untransparent as Mr Doris has already said and it's really not what we're all about in this place because it's always been about making sure the elections are fair and above board and I have some severe concerns about that process with regards to 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. Thank you minister, I'll move on to look at notional expenditure now, now I see from the papers for today's meeting that how we assign and categorise notional expenditure is going to change within the UK bill, I see here the degree of sympathy for that, can you say any more about that before I go on to come up with my follow-up question minister? Basically just to keep a nice simple answer for you Mr Doris is yes where there's like many parts of the bills, there's part of this where we see common ground and will be something we'll look at when we move towards the bill in 2023. Okay and you'd expect to follow up in saying this, have you made any assessment of whether there could be potential confusion with different rules in notional expenditure across the UK and I get that you've said minister that taking these different approaches and how it's operated has not been a choice of the Scottish Government but as you look to perhaps legislate separately in notional expenditure what reassurances can you give that you'll make sure that there isn't a confusion with potential different rules across the UK? Just to generalise across the whole piece, I can give you the assurances that we're working towards making sure that there isn't that confusion regardless of what part of the bill that we're talking about or what part of the UK bill we're talking about here and how we end up with the bill ourselves, we're trying to work away that we can't cause that confusion but at the same time if we find a better way of working with regards to any parts on any aspects of this bill, we will go forward with that as well. As my Welsh colleagues have done, they've seen some things that we've recently had a bill towards the end of last term so they're playing catch-up at this stage and they've seen various things that they're looking at because if you look at it from our own perspective there's a part of this bill that's about the digital imprint, we've already legislated about it but effectively we've got a situation where if you look at it the UK Government's just coming out saying but ours is the right way forward when we're saying well we were the first UK administration to legislate for that so to put your mind at ease Mr Doris we're trying to find ways to make sure that there isn't that confusion that's the reason why we're consulting and then having the bill in 2023. A very specific question I want to ask on notional expansion, I'll ask that in a second, but on digital imprint when that was brought in in Scotland to the UK Government raised concerns that would lead to different election rules across the UK, did they raise concerns at that point? I wasn't the minister at that point, I was your chief whip at that point so I'll ask Ian if he knows anything regarding that. No I don't think so, I think that they were quite interested in what we were doing but have ultimately come up with a different set of proposals. No that's interesting convener because it's a bit consistency of argument of course if the UK Government didn't have a concern when Scotland diverted demated from the rest of the UK to improve matters, that's interesting to me, I'll leave it at that but the final question I want to ask is very specific in our papers, if the Scottish Government has any discussions with the Electoral Commission about the need for clarifying legislation in the area of notional expenditure and in particular the example given in our papers, and I wish to say it was my clever thinking but it's not, is any discussions in the light of the 2018 Supreme Court case are versus McKinlay and others? Well for Don going dialogue with the Electoral Commission it was one of the first meetings that I had when I first became minister because I knew this bill was coming in, it was one of the important ones to ensure that we had that kind of on-going relationship and I think that that relationship is extremely important for all the UK Welsh and ourselves and part of the problem with that at this current point is that there seems to be a part of this legislation that the UK Government is suggesting is making it extremely difficult for the Electoral Commission but on the actual technical aspect of the legal case that you say I'll pass on to my colleague Iain. I think it's essentially just a part of this whole consideration I think we've had quite close discussions with the Electoral Commission on this and the campaign finance proposals. Thank you very much, thank you, convener. Thank you Bob and as we mentioned digital imprints only a few moments ago I'm going to pass over to Paul who has some questions and I think there are follow-up questions on that as well. Paul, thank you, convener. It's really just again, minister I know you've touched on this, it's what you see the key differences between the digital imprint regime I suppose in place in Scotland and the one being created by the bill? There's many aspects of it that we could probably look at of the UK's idea, we were an innovator on this, that's not to say that when you're an innovator other people don't come up with ideas it might be helpful and guide you in another way and it's something we would consider again for the bill itself as we can, the whole idea for us would be to take the digital imprint idea and move to the next level if there is a next level but it comes to one of the disagreements that we've had between Government and Scottish Government and UK Government is that they believe that they've got the right to impose their process and system on us because they believe that the internet service providers are not devolved so therefore their argument is that they can actually do that. Now our argument and the arguments that I've had and the advice that I've had from officials is that we believe that that's not the case, we believe that we can still legislate for digital imprints ourselves, if you're wanting any kind of further detail I'll get Ian to add something on that. The UK's proposed regime is broader and applies outwith the electoral cycle or the election campaign whereas the Scottish regime is focused on particular elections. It goes further in one key respect in that it applies to unpaid material although there's an exemption for people expressing my personal opinion. The UK provision is applied to unpaid material in some instances but not across the board in the same way so that's probably the key difference. Another key aspect is that because the UK Government can legislate in relation to internet services, it has a takedown provision that allows it to enforce taking down measures which I think we've indicated in the legislative consent memorandum is an attractive aspect that we would consider if the Scottish regime continued trying to mesh into that but the UK Government's overall position is that because they've gone very broad on this it's all reserved and therefore it's all going to apply which would mean that we think that we would be effectively obliged to repeal our regime to avoid having two digital imprints regimes operating at the same time so that option of trying to tie into it appears to be off the table at the moment anyway. I'm quoting here from UK Government electronic material for political nature on internet and behaviour of conduct on internet by users and internet services providers at all times and again I think you kind of touched on that but again what you think your views would be and minister on that regard and you kind of touched on would there be legislation to create a similar regime in that regard? If I just answer on this point as I said to your original question there's many parts of this that we don't believe we have a monopoly on genius or ideas we do believe that there's obviously different ways forward we all now live in a digital world our legislation literally was for the electoral process itself we all live in a world where we know what goes on on various internet providers and social media so we would look at ways of modernising that and again when we go to consultation this would probably be one of the things that will be highlighted I'm not prejudging it but I would assume there'd be a highlighting of this as well but quite happy to bring Ian in if there's anything else to add. I mean I suppose just referring to minister's opening remarks that there's a difference between the two regimes the proposals in the UK elections bill are not the result of a dialogue as to which regime is to be favoured it's the UK government saying this is the way to go and their position is that it will apply across the board because they think it's entirely reserved. Thank you. Thank you Paul. Just to clarify a couple of matters does the Scottish government have takedown powers now or are they reserved to? That element is reserved and indeed in the minister's letter to the committee she pointed out that a UK wide regime will ensure a coherent and consistent approach for both those enforcing the regime and for campaigners and I know this is very difficult to do but if we put aside the political element of it is a given fact that with the internet and the base where people start off we would need a UK wide policy in a sense to ensure that coherent and consistent approach it's almost a fate accompli because of the way internet users and indeed internet providers are located and how the worldwide web works. I understand what the convener's point but the situation we have is that we have already legislated for part of the digital imprint if there had been an open dialogue where we could have engaged in a perfect world convener. I would have been sitting here in front of you saying there is no LCM we are going forward with this because we agree and so many things and there's that we do we actually want to do what's best for everyone that's here but I tried that I tried that during the negotiations during the my initial meetings with Westminster Government I tried my Welsh colleague tried that as well we both tried to although he's in a slightly different position than we are because obviously we've got the justice system fully devolved but we tried to get to that agreement but it just wasn't going to happen and this one in particular is a situation where we effectively tried to say that well let's work together and find a way to get it sorted out no it was effectively it will be done this way now I don't believe that's the way in the spirit of the devolved settlement amongst all the nations of the united kingdom I don't believe that's the way forward and I believe if it was a another particular minister sitting here in this chamber in our chamber that was doing my job they would be of a very similar opinion to me on this issue with regards to how we take this forward and how we deal with this as a Scottish Parliament but I'm quite happy to have Farine to give you any further detail I was going to ask minister because you know as I've said and I think you have put plainly in the evidence that you've given us today that there has been very serious communications difficulty the bottom line is one of the things that I am also picking up is that not withstanding that communications problem and challenge and engagement which is substantial there are still fundamental elements of this bill where there would be disagreement on other grounds which have been articulated particularly in written evidence and your evidence today but if we hone back just in in respect of the digital imprints there is an existence in Scotland a regime at the moment that applies during the elections the regime that is being proposed on my reading the substantial changes in relation to an ability to do something about it which is by common agreement reserved but also will extend it to all time not just periods of election and does the Scottish Government see a value subject to consultation in that broadening of the digital imprint requirement to see when the consultation that we have ourselves yes I do because I think as I said on to previous question was that I believe that we have that we have that option to be able to consult with the people involved in the process and ensure that they get that engage with us on that issue and we all know we all know as ourselves as public figures well know how toxic the mainly social media can be with regards to some of the things that can be said but at the end of the day for me the important thing was that we find a way why would we be a leader in the idea of digital imprint and when I quite reasonably said to my UK colleague I'm quite happy to take this forward in a Scottish bill and look at some of the ideas that you've had and see where we can go from there and more or less was told no we're totally in charge of that and we've been told by our legal advice that they actually we think that's a bit ropey ground for them as well thank you Phil I'm going to use wood clarifying certainly clarifying your position and understanding on it thank you now that concludes the questions in relation to what the specific LCM has been sought but there are other matters that are contained in the memorandum which it would be helpful to get your evidence on and Edward could I hand over to you to talk about voter ID yeah thank you convener can I just say at the outset that there are as we all accept significant differences between UK and Scottish elections which my mind is a benefit of devolution and there's some parts of that which I'm very proud that Scotland is leading the way maybe in voters and 16 year olds being able to give the vote but what we're talking about here is voter ID which has been identified by the UK Government as a problem in UK elections do you accept that view or do you just take the view that it isn't a problem in Scotland it isn't a problem in the UK minister with regards to voter ID we come to the main issue where we can't agree you know this is from day one in our negotiations and discussions this has been the situation where we can't agree and our position is that we feel that voter ID makes it even more difficult for those to engage we've just come off an election where we had the highest turnout on the Scottish parliamentary election ever we had a situation where people went to the polls and can express their opinion at the polls with a good turnout now my fear is that voter ID gets a situation where individuals will it does cause confusion because we won't be doing voter ID it does cause confusion so much that should you have a Westminster election within say because we never know when our Westminster election can happen even though there's the fixed Parliament act we all know Mr Mountain mentioned earlier on that there's probably going to be an election well before that so we all know that the Westminster election could happen at any point and you could have a scenario where on which really is difficult for us in the Welsh to deal with where a UK election could happen within the same day or within the time of a Scottish election now just imagine it was the same day which is a nightmare scenario we've been told by UK officials that they were trying not to do that but that doesn't fill me with any kind of encouragement that that would be the case but you could end up with a situation where they are actually voting on the same day and there's two processes plus there's a different voting system and to add to that you've got voter ID for one and not for the other now voter ID I'm against from the point of view that you could end up with just for talking sake an elderly person that has voted in the same electoral station for the last 20-25 years could be in a situation where they turn up to a Westminster election regardless when it is and they say I voted in this station for 25 years I wish I voted ID you've not done it it just makes it more difficult for the process at a time when we are trying to ensure that the public engage more in the political process so let's look at the successes that we've had in the Scottish parliamentary elections the last time and let's ensure that we encourage people to vote I think this is an example of how you actually discourage and dissuade people to vote as we go forward thank you minister for your opinion on that that actually wasn't the question I asked the question I asked specifically was because you don't perceive it as a problem in Scotland do you therefore perceive it's not a problem across the United Kingdom that's the specific question I asked well to answer that specific question specifically I would say that it's not for me to decide what the UK government does in their jurisdiction in their area of government okay so on that basis if they want to bring it in the UK parliamentary elections it's not by what you've just said not for you to decide it's not for me to decide but fundamentally but fundamentally I'm against voter ID but it's entirely up to democracy is that there is a conservative government in Westminster and they decide what they do under their jurisdiction okay so that there's two things I want to just go back to if I may one is that we know that elections on the same day don't work we've seen that before and I would totally agree with you that that and I'd be very surprised if anyone thought it would be a good idea to run the two on the same day it's just me doesn't really work you made a comment there all say that we're not having voter ID in Scotland which gives me a clear indication that you have decided what is in your election bill but you can answer me a question earlier on what was in their relation to a topic I raised earlier so you've decided on some parts of it and you've disclosed it that you can't decide on other parts is that right minister this is something where we fundamentally disagree in the whole process with the UK government I don't think the Scottish government has been quiet and it's idea or they don't believe in voter ID is a way forward I don't think it's something that mr mountain you've just heard today from me I think it's been something that's been shouted from the rooftops that we fundamentally disagree with voter ID and for me there's a big difference between something that we all fundamentally disagree with and aspects of this bill that I think that on the whole we could probably find a Scottish solution to that issue you know there is a huge difference between that okay so so what you're saying is you're going to put everything else up to consultation but because you fundamentally disagree with this you're not going to put it out to consultation and that you are going to you personally wish to see a separate decision in Scotland regarding UK elections which is not part of the devolved settlement have I got that wrong minister mr mountain I would have difficulty as minister for parliamentary business in this in this in our chamber of minorities I would have difficulty getting an idea that voter ID passed through every political party in here I think probably the conservatives may be and I'm not making judgments but I think the conservatives may be the only ones that would probably support an idea like that so I say that in issues again that we are fundamentally fundamentally disagreeing on I think I can draw a line and say that there's no kind of fuel for voter ID in the Scottish Parliament I think Edward's question to be fair sorry Edward I think his question was whether or not it will not be consulted on in the thing and I gather from your evidence that it won't form part of the consultation is that for me I would be I would be open for it to be part of the consultation but I could as we are with everything but at the end of the day the government makes decisions on various aspects and from the government percentile side of things we're against voter ID and as I probably mentioned earlier on I probably wouldn't get a majority even if it was for it to get it through this Parliament of minorities Edward my final my final point is just an observation that if it was agreed when it was put out to consultation as part of democracy you as a government would vote against it and wouldn't push it through the Parliament that's what you just said to me so I understand your position minister thank you that's all the questions I have bob I think you would like to come in on this yes thank you convener I think it's important just to put on the record why you've cleared the rule this this out convener we heard last week that only 0.7% of poll workers thought that electoral for lorod was an issue which is a tiny amount and in some of the voter ID pilots in England and one of them up to 30% of voters were turned away from the polling station so it might be able to put on the record why you believe that voter ID should categorically be rolled out I happen to agree with that but it's important that you're clear about why it should be categorically rolled out the clarity mr Doris isn't so much that the confusion it causes the fact that as you quite rightly state there is not a will for people believing that there is electoral fraud to such an extent that you need something like voter ID and for me it's just fundamentally making a process that we're trying to encourage the public to engage with we're just making it more difficult we're putting a barrier in the way of a member of the public being able to cast her vote and fundamentally for me that just is what I just don't want that I want to ensure that we have elections like we had this year in Scotland where it was an open and frank discussion and where the public came out in numbers that's helpful other members may wish to highlight that certain groups are more seriously impacted by voter ID than others but I'll let them do that but should acknowledge that I know that that's the fact so therefore my line of questioning I suppose would be the dangers of having voter ID at UK elections and not in Scottish elections and that's not a reason to bring voter ID into Scottish elections but do you see any dangers and there being a difference and do you see any concerns about perhaps making polling staff also becoming the gatekeepers if you like having to turn people away who don't have voter ID or have voter ID they think would be applicable but it turns out that it's not it's not on the list of acceptable ID so a little bit more about that specifically about the concerns you may have about different regimes or voting in Scotland between the UK and Scottish elections in this point I think Mr Mountain makes a reasonable point although I don't agree with his conclusion and that is it's for the UK Government to decide what voter ID looks like at UK elections but it's absolute for the Scottish Government to take a view on whether that could have negative consequences on democracy in Scotland for devolved elections. Yes well for me I've already explained a couple of times in the fact and I gave an example of why I believe it would cause confusion in a situation where if even if it wasn't on the same day you also have staff members who would have to be retrained and ensure that they know what levels of ID's available and how they can actually show who they are and make sure that that's available and the problem that you quite rightly bring up Mr Doris that you'd have a situation where people could be turned away and we've all been there at various polling stations when someone hasn't been on the voter's role and how upset they've been or aggressive to certain situations where it could escalate from that position so I just don't think in a democracy that is as mature as the one that we have that we need to go to this level of voter ID because I think we have a public that understands the process hasn't abused the process in general and I think you're treating the public with disdain and causing unbelievable confusion when you have a position where we can't guarantee there won't be two elections in one day here in Scotland and we know that that would be a problem having experienced that in the past. Thank you. We heard evidence from others with regard to personation in other words someone pretending to be somebody else as one of the elements of why voter ID is helpful. Does the Scottish Government have any evidence of the extent of personation within Scotland? I'll bring in Ian after I've said my initial part myself but on the whole there's not this isn't seen as a major issue I think if we all look at it from our own perspectives and our various communities that we live and work in there's been maybe a handful over decades of situations where these things have happened we've all heard the various stories of it been happening in mass kind of cases but that's not been proven that's not been proven it's always just been kind of minor cases so I feel that it's a it's an extreme you're using a sledgehammer to crack a nut effectively in this situation we're trying to solve a problem that isn't a major problem and I don't see how that really helps how voter ID helps with the situation you say. I'll bring in Ian at this point. I think the only thing I would add is it might be helpful for the committee to note that the House of Commons have a library research briefing paper from 1 September which has a helpful table of personation events across the UK. I think as you have pointed out minister subjective evidence seems to abound but objective evidence is much harder to find but with personation if it's successful we wouldn't know anyway would we? Well indeed yes but you would have to be we would have to be at a level of conspiracy theories that would make youtube producers blush you know because for us not to find out it would it would have to be of a massive scale so I do not believe that's the case. I'm grateful that the committee doesn't endorse youtube we're not affecting and that's from the minister. Edward, can I pass over to you to deal with postal proxy and the overseas voting changes please? Okay thank you convener just quick some quick questions to the minister. Does the Scottish Government believe that UK citizens living abroad should vote for be able to vote for more than 15 years? What do you think of that idea? I've already said previously that I think it's quite it becomes quite murky Mr Mountain and I'm not convinced it's a way forward. Okay would you be consulting on it on a Scottish elections? Possibly I'll need to check with Ian with regards to the consultation. If I wish to do it. I would highlight that the committee predecessor version of this committee did consider the issue of overseas voting during the passage of the Scottish elections franchise and representation act and concluded against but it's not to say that the issue is... So Mr Mountain's been asking my personal opinion in trying to pre get information with regards to how the bill's going to go. Again there's fundamental issues that we disagree on and for me this is one of the issues that I fundamentally disagree on. I don't think it's right Mr Mountain. Okay thank you. On postal votes we heard from at the previous evidence session that you can apply for a postal vote and it lasts for five years and the problem with bringing it down to three years was just a problem of checking the electoral register where there were digital electoral registers. It was relatively easy but before digital it was complicated. Do you think it would increase people's ability to vote if it was done every three years or do you think it would decrease? Mr Mountain I think it adds to the confusion actually and I hate to sound as if I repeat myself over and over again here but it does add to the confusion where we have a situation where in the five-year period for the evolved elections and then every three years you would have a situation where I do believe that they've got to reapply every three years and that reapplication whether it's a simple reapplication can you imagine out there in the real world someone tells you you've got to reapply for your voting and it may have been quite a traumatic situation when you've moved house and you've managed to get your postal vote sorted out and the idea of re-applying for your postal vote may seem a bit kind of difficult and I think that's the problem you've effectively got to reapply it's a new application every three years as opposed to the current system which is just a continuation of what we've done before. I mean my my views on that are is that you know to keep the register up to date is really important and some people will move in in short time than five years I think of the armed services I think of people who are posted abroad who would benefit from having a postal vote being reminded to change that postal vote so they got that postal vote on time if there was a snap election which could happen in Scotland not at the moment obviously but if it was a minority government that that could happen so do you think therefore my question on that is do you think if the additional funding was made by the UK government to make sure that that could happen it would be something that you would be more comfortable we are looking at the the whole process and these ideas all the time it's not something that's actually been suggested by anyone to us at this stage so if that suggestion's made I'll look at it so it could be part of the consultation in your in 2022 for 2023 Mr Mountain I'm all for open government and open dialogue but you're trying to dictate what's in my consultation here so I'm quite happy I'm quite happy I'm quite happy to include just most things in the consultation that we've discussed here today in order to actually just get an open and frank ideal but at the end of the day as I say there's various red line points like voter ID like the the expats situation that I have difficulty with I have severe difficulty with and I think most people would as well I have to say on on expats I am I'm more sanguine in the sense that I believe they contributed to that country and therefore because they've lived abroad 15 years they shouldn't lose their vote but that's my opinion country to yours I understand that. Thank you. Thank you Edward and the last aspect that I would like to address is really with regard to the accessibility to polls and I do this because in the LCM the Scottish government state that they agree that there is a need to improve the law in this area and intend to make a full assessment of possible improvements for devolved elections in order to bring forward its own changes for the fourth one and indeed the evidence that we've heard about tactile voting devices which you know when many people read it on a piece of paper imagine something terribly sophisticated when an actual fact it is not but similarly not particularly successful when it comes to that consultation and I'm not trying to force anything into your consultation I will certainly not trying to dictate but those people and those groups that you will consult will be wide enough and broad enough so the full challenges that are faced by any disability users going into a polling station will be addressed. I think you can guarantee that will be the case because again most of you will be aware of my own situation with my wife Stacy being having multiple sclerosis in a wheelchair user so it's important to me personally that this is taken forward. On the tactile voting proposal I think you're aware convener as well I've already visited the force valley to see how it works because I'm a great believer in seeing it and you're right and I'm digital age it is a very analog way of dealing with it but from what I've seen and use of it myself it's works and it makes it easier for everyone to be with with a sight loss to be able to actually deal and engage with the process and I'm all for trying to find easier ways but I'm also all too aware that how difficult it can be for those with physical disabilities sight loss and engaging with the process and a lot of that to do with training with staff and those in the actual polling stations themselves and if I can make one commitment and say that I will endeavour to do what we can to ensure that we can make sure that's not an issue and certainly this is an aspect that indeed we have discussed within this forum in relation to elections that are much closer to hand than other anticipated ones and I in no way question your experience of it but certainly I think some of the results from the tests that have taken place is perhaps the people who feel most challenged and least supported in casting their vote made the greatest errors using the current equipment and I do think and this committee has heard that there are groups out there that have an expertise they have an experience and to allow them access into the consultation in fact to go out and ensure that they are part of the consultation I think is very important. The convener is willing to give us these individuals and groups to my team we're quite happy to include them because we want to make sure that this is full and frank and open and they get the opportunity to say what they have to say and haven't been involved with disability groups most of my political life I'm only too aware that they will be pretty vocal in what they have to say and I'm quite happy to engage with that. I'm very grateful for that. I think that Bob wants to come in. Bob, over to you. Yeah, just to put it fully convener, I think that this is an area where we can all just agree and we should be quite straight forward as a positive about this UK bill quite frankly even if I don't agree with something a lot of policy intent and that is if the Scottish Government is reviewing accessibility at polling stations that's a good thing so let's just do it. Last week there was an exchange about concerns that whilst imperfect a lot of requirements for what polling stations should look like to be accessible were on the face of the bill and to move to reasonable adjustments could be suitably vague and lead to a patchwork approach across Scotland so just some reassurances that however the Scottish Government takes this forward a little bit consistent approach to accessibility in all polling stations and places across Scotland and I suppose secondly that it's kept under on-going review so the idea of a voting accessibility panel or something like that which could directly influence statutory guidance to electoral management board or to returning officers of polling stations in places could look like. I don't think we should do this once but we should keep it under under particular review so I would welcome your thoughts on that and just for time constraints given that I had one other question which we'll just ask on consultations just now but more generally minister if there's things you know you're minded or considering change on absolutely consult on that but if there are other things that you're pretty sure you're not going to change on then don't specifically consult on it because you'll create expectations changes coming when it's not and I don't think that's necessarily the right thing to do in any consultation I would hope there's space towards the end of it where if any individual or group wishes to raise additional matters that are not contained within the policy thrust of government legislation that they're afforded the opportunities to do that in those results would be analysed so that's a technical aspect of consultations but my substantive question was about let's not just do accessibility as a one-off consultation let's keep under constant review. With regards to accessibility in general I'm a member locally of Remfshare access panel have been since I was a councillor they do some fantastic work in order to work with I think I've mentioned it at this forum before to work with the Remfshare council and to ensure that any new buildings any new polling stations are accessible they've done various their job effectively when an access panel works well an access panel will effectively audit a new building but the problem is you have to ensure that local government and the access panel themselves they're not a statutory group they're not like a community council so therefore they don't automatically get included in the process so you have to ensure that that relationship is there I would probably say from my own perspective that is something that could be done at a local level while we're doing everything here ensuring that we're making sure that we're reviewing everything and everything's open for those with accessibility issues at a local level local authorities should be working with the volunteer group that's are the access panels across Scotland and in areas they work better and have more volunteers like any other volunteer organisation in better areas than others but for use examples of Remfshare they've done audits on access to the new St Mum stadium in 2009 access to the new town hall when it was renovated and now it's getting renovated again so they're going to get access to that as well and they're going to do all that so I would say if we maybe try and find a way to include them in with regards to polling stations which should be at a local level the local authorities should automatically deal with them at that local level then we should be okay so from our point of view we would probably maybe say as a suggestion to local returning officers that it might be an idea to engage with a access panel or local disability groups that are in the areas I think Bob also asked about trying to ensure that the very minimum and I choose my words careful expectation is applied across the whole of Scotland so that we don't in essence have a constituency lottery depending on where someone lives and I think that's important I agree that's been an ongoing issue whereas and again that's down to training and accessibility and organisations and returning officers who effectively have all that in place and those that don't have all that in place and that from our point of view we just need to make sure that we say you need to do x, y and z so that we can get this done and we need to make sure that that's part of the culture as we progress. Excellent, I'm grateful for that. We've covered a lot. Is there anything that you or indeed those that are advising you would like to put on the record before I call it? I don't think we've actually covered just about everything I'm not sure I'm asking Penny I think. Just on the final subject maybe we're highlighting the Scottish elections reformat to introduce the requirement for the Electoral Commission to report on moves taken by returning officers to assist voters with disabilities and indeed they include that within their report in the 2021 election so that's an ongoing requirement. So there we go. I'm grateful for that Ian and with that I thank you minister and your advisers for entering the committee den this morning and I wish you all well for the rest of today and this committee will now move into private. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you minister.