Chamber and committees

What do you mean by “unscheduled”?

Being the Minister for Parliamentary Business, I know that there are plans and plans. I think that the D day landings were probably easier than getting the programme for government together, given the organisation involved. I am not going to make myself a hostage to fortune on that, but we feel comfortable that we will have something in place in 2023, ready for the elections.

I hate to sound as though I am repeating myself, but it would add to the confusion, because we are in a five-year period for devolved elections and every three years people would have to reapply. Even if it is a simple application, can you imagine out there, in the real world, being told that you have to reapply to be able to vote? Someone might have managed to get their postal vote sorted out after moving house in a traumatic situation, so the idea of reapplying for it might seem difficult. That is the problem. In effect, voters have to reapply. It would be a new application every three years, as opposed to the current system, which is a continuation of what we have done before.

It is not for me to decide, but I am fundamentally against voter ID. Democracy means that there is a Conservative Government at Westminster and it decides what it does in its jurisdiction.

It is a concern because, in a busy world, if there are two processes, it is natural that people can get confused. We all know agents in our various political parties who believe that they know the process, but mistakes can be made, so that difference could cause issues.

However, again, I go back to the process that we have had to go through. When we have tried to explain that we think that there is a way of doing things differently, we have more or less been met with, “Speak to the hand,” to use the modern colloquialism. It has been very difficult for us. I am aware that there could be issues, but we believe that we can sort them out in our own bill.

It sounds as though I am repeating myself here, but my Welsh colleague and I had a very long conversation on all aspects of the UK bill and concluded that we would both be going down the route of having our own legislation. Where there are good parts in the UK bill, we will take them, and, where there are parts that we fundamentally disagree with, we will not. The situation could lead to general confusion between the two processes, but we are doing our best to try to ensure, within the powers that we have, that we can deliver for Scotland as my Welsh colleague is trying to deliver for Wales.

Does Iain Hockenhull want to add to that? He is shaking his head. That is unusual—I must have been bang on the money there, convener.

Thank you for asking me along to this morning’s meeting, convener.

Elections are governed by a complex series of interconnecting laws. I must stress from the outset that I am not opposed to developing a common approach to elections across the United Kingdom, if there are benefits for voters and administrators in doing so. However, I have to point out that although the UK Government has briefed us on its proposals there has been no collaboration on them. Instead, UK ministers have set out their plans in the expectation that we will fall into line 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 having been successfully extended to 16 and 17-year-olds and foreign nationals. We are also the first nation in the UK to require digital imprints for online campaign material. The Elections Bill’s attempt in effect to replace that regime is not the result of considered discussion about the merits of different approaches, but is an example of the UK Government taking a very broad view of the internet service reservation—a view that we contest.

There are other areas, such as voter identification, postal voting and the Electoral Commission, on which I am concerned about the UK Government’s approach, but I also recognise that the bill contains less contentious proposals on which I have tried to work with the UK Government in the past.

Our legislative consent memorandum is not a refusal to consider reform. I want to take time to assess the proposals in the bill and to hold a public consultation on the best approach next year. That work will inform a Scottish electoral reform bill to be introduced in 2023. It is also worth stressing that the next major devolved election to be held after the UK bill becomes law will be in 2026.

I am happy to answer members’ questions, convener.

I have issues with that. A number of issues relating to the bill concern me, and that is one of them. The idea that someone can live in a tax haven thousands of miles away and invest in an election—whether it be millions, thousands or hundreds of pounds—concerns me, because they are not part of the democratic process and do not contribute to the UK. I am not even talking about Scotland; I am talking about the UK. I am concerned that people who invest money in various campaigns from abroad skew elections to a certain degree. It is unfair. It is just not right. I am a great believer in doing things by the book, and that kind of thing just smells bad to me.

As I said earlier, in recent elections we have not had any examples of undue influence being a major issue. Third sector organisations and groups that are involved in elections are not screaming from the rooftops that the Government has to make a change in that regard. We are taking cognisance of the issue. We are listening to what the UK Government is saying and we are interested in what is going on, but, after our consultation in 2022, we will look at the matter—along with a raft of others—for our electoral reform bill in 2023.

To be fair, convener, in front of me is a sign that says “Minister for Parliamentary Business”. George Adam’s opinion is irrelevant in this situation. I am here as the Minister for Parliamentary Business to talk about legislation that we might introduce in the next while. Yes, I have my own opinions on various things but, in my role, I have to take proposals through Parliament in a way that is open and transparent and that gives everyone the opportunity to engage.

Yes I can, Mr Doris. The dialogue continues. We still have bilateral conversations with Wales or Westminster and trilateral conversations all together.

I admit that the most recent meeting was pretty fraught. The process has not been helped by there being a reshuffle in the UK Government, which meant that the minister with whom we had built up a relationship moved on, so we had to deal with a new minister and a new relationship. The UK minister’s portfolio has also become larger, so electoral reform is just one aspect of it.

We will continue to engage and communicate to try to find ways forward when we can. We are trying to work through the matter in a way that avoids confusion. I am not going to say that that will be easy, because of the way that things are, but we are doing our best to work through the situation.