���˿���

I understand the convener’s point. However, the situation is that we have already partly legislated for digital imprints. If there had been an open dialogue in which we could have engaged, in a perfect world, I would be sitting here, in front of the committee, saying that there was no LCM and that we were going forward with the bill because we agree on so many things and want to do what is best for everyone. However, I tried that during the negotiations in my initial meetings with the Westminster Government. I tried to get that agreement, as did my Welsh colleague—although I should point out that he is in a slightly different position to us, as our justice system is fully devolved—but it just was not going to happen. In effect, we tried to say, “Let’s work together and find a way to sort this out”, but the answer was “No—it will be done this way.” I do not believe that that is in the spirit of the devolved settlement involving all the UK nations, nor is it the way forward, and I believe that a minister of any party colour doing my job in our chamber would have a very similar opinion about how we, in the Scottish Parliament, should take the matter forward and deal with it.

I am quite happy for Iain Hockenhull to add to those comments.

If you are talking about our own consultation on the matter, my answer is yes, I do. As I said in response to an earlier question, we have the option to consult the people who are involved in the process and ensure that they engage with us on that issue. We, as public figures, all know how toxic social media, in particular, can be with regard to some of the things that can be said. However, for me, the most important thing has been to find a way forward, given that we have been a leader in the digital imprint area. When I, quite reasonably, said to my UK colleague, “I am quite happy to take this forward in a Scottish bill, look at some of the ideas you’ve had and see where we go from there,” I was more or less told, “No—we’re totally in charge of that.” In fact, we have received legal advice that suggests that those grounds are a bit ropey.

To answer that specific question specifically, I would say that it is not for me to decide what the UK Government does in its area of government.

I would be open to it being part of the consultation, as we are with everything. However, at the end of the day, the Government makes decisions on various aspects; the Government is against voter ID and, even if the Government was for it, we would probably not get a majority to get it through this Parliament of minorities.

I have already explained a couple of times, and I gave an example of why I believe that it would cause confusion. Even if elections were not on the same day, staff members would need to be retrained to ensure that they knew what levels of ID were available and how people could identify who they were.

The problem—as you quite rightly say, Mr Doris—is that people could be turned away. We have all been at various polling stations when someone has not been on the voters roll and we have seen how upset or aggressive they can be, and in certain situations that can escalate.

In a democracy as mature as ours, I do not think that we need that level of voter ID, because the public understand the process and have not abused it. We would be treating the public with disdain and causing unbelievable confusion, because the position is that we cannot guarantee that there will not be two elections on one day here in Scotland. We know that that would be a problem, having experienced it in the past.

I will bring in Iain Hockenhull after I comment. On the whole, personation is not seen as a major issue. If we consider the issue from the perspective of the various communities that we live and work in, there has been a handful of such situations over decades. We have all heard various stories of that happening in mass cases, but that has not been proven. There have been only minor cases. We would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We are trying to solve a problem that is not a major problem, and I do not see how voter ID would help with the situation that you mention, convener.

At that point, I was your chief whip rather than the minister, so I will ask Iain Hockenhull whether he knows anything regarding that.

It is not as simple as giving a yes or no answer. I have said that we will look at the process and at ensuring that we can incorporate something in our bill once we have consulted everyone. Mr Mountain, there is a process. I may be a St Mirren supporter and our colours may be black and white, but unfortunately the world is not black and white—there is a grey bit in the middle, and we must ensure that we can get things done and go forward. In answer to the question, the matter will be considered as part of our election reform bill.

I am not opposed to the moves in the bill on that issue. We have already said that we intend to consult in 2022 and to introduce a bill in 2023, and that we would consider the matter. However, in discussions that we have had, we have found that the issue is not as serious as others have said it is. Nonetheless, we are not opposed to introducing legislation on it. We are happy to consider the matter and, possibly, to make it part of the bill that we will introduce.

As I said in response to the original question, there are many parts to this. We do not believe that we have a monopoly on genius or ideas, but we do believe that there are different ways forward. We all live in a digital world. Our legislation was for the electoral process itself. We all live in a digital world and we know what goes on within various internet providers and on social media. We would look at ways of modernising that. Although I am not prejudging it, I assume that that will probably be one of the things that will be highlighted when we go to consultation. I am happy to bring Iain Hockenhull in if there is anything else to add.