Chamber and committees

Yes, indeed. My view is largely based on the view, “That’s the way it’s aye been done.” The count has always been done overnight, and I quite like it being done that way. When I reflected on that view, I realised that it was probably not enough of a reason to direct the Electoral Management Board to take a particular decision, which is why I have not done so.

My decision reflects the fact that there are different views on the matter. Some contend that a next-day count is preferable to an overnight count; some people like the overnight count. The latter might be media driven, because the media like the drama of being able to go directly to the count and report on it overnight, although, again, I observe that that, in and of itself, is not a reason to do it that way.

The fact that there are different views led me to conclude that it was not appropriate or necessary to replicate what has been done at UK level, which is to specify that the count must begin as close as possible to within four hours of the poll closing and that, if, for some reason, that cannot happen, the returning officer must explain the reason, and so on and so forth. We have to rely on and trust those who administer our elections to make the right decision.

That said, making that decision is of fundamental importance. I have said to the committee in correspondence, and I made the point quite clearly to the convener of the Electoral Management Board, that although such a decision is for the community of those who administer elections, it is very important that it is applied consistently. We do not want one constituency’s count to begin at one time and another’s to begin at a different time. I am clear that we want a consistent approach to be applied.

However, having engaged with the Electoral Management Board, I do not think that that requires a prescriptive legislative decision. If it turns out that we feel that that is required in future, we will not hesitate to reconsider the matter, but, at this stage, I do not think that it is required. I get the very clear sense that the Electoral Management Board understands the expectation and recognises that the application of a consistent approach is a necessary part of the experience of administering the election.

The decision has to be fairly clearly communicated—in the first instance, to those who participate in the election as candidates, to those who support them as election agents and so on, and, thereafter, to the wider public, to let them know, for example, that they should not turn on the telly at 10 o’clock and expect the election programming to begin; they might have to wait a bit longer. I await the Electoral Management Board’s decision, which will be made in consultation with returning officers. I know that a significant majority of returning officers favour a next-day count.

To be perfectly candid, ultimately, we rely on the Electoral Commission to take that work forward, because it is perceived to be a non-partisan, impartial entity in discharging that function. Communicating that is also a matter for those who are responsible for electoral registration. It goes back to my earlier point that there are many organisations that can assist with the dissemination of that information, and those will be the organisations that are around the table with the Electoral Commission. Therefore, the Electoral Commission will have to hear what is said by those organisations, reflect on that and act accordingly.

Indeed. The data that we have is in relation to the number of those aged 16 and over who have ceased to be looked after but who are eligible for continuing care and who would now be able to exercise that right. In 2023-24, 967 children and young people were eligible. About 33 per cent of them entered continuing care, and, as of 31 July 2024—these are probably the most recent available figures—there were 1,115 young people in continuing care. We have that type of information, so I guess that, yes, against that information, you can have some form of assessment of how many people are exercising that right.

The other thing that we have to reflect on is that, although it is a right, it is not something—

We would return with something only in extremis, but there is nothing anticipated. Iain has confirmed that nothing is anticipated that would catch the committee on the hop.

On the point that you made about areas that have been consulted on but not included in the order, that is largely because they will be captured either by an order that will look at matters of voter registration, which were not required for this election, or by another specific order—which I have already mentioned—for the 2027 local government election. There is time yet to deal with those things, and there was not an imperative to get that done in time for the coming election.

That is right. I think that the issue is very much a moot point. If we consider the circumstances in which a recall of Parliament would be likely, clearly such a recall did not happen during the coronavirus period, and I think that it would have been more likely to happen then than it will be as we move forward, certainly into 2026.

The provisions are just to cover all eventualities. Practically speaking, I would say that what we saw in the 2021 election was that the day-to-day functions of being an MSP did not really remain. Everyone was focused on being a candidate.

Not so long ago, in this Parliament, I engaged with the cross-party group on visual impairment to discuss this very matter; there were a number of organisations around the table that campaign and advocate for those with sight loss, and there were people in the room who had experienced sight loss, too. We had a very useful discussion, and there was a clear sense and understanding that the change was, in effect, intended to improve accessibility.

We went through the subject as we discussed the passage of the bill. I know that it might seem counterintuitive to move from something prescriptive that says that a specific tactile voting device must be provided to something more general about the need to provide some form of aid to ensure accessibility, but the first thing that I would say is that it reflects the experience in UK elections. Many things could be said about ways in which the UK election, and the Scottish experience, the last time round could be improved, but that was not one of them. The approach worked in practice.

In effect, we are seeking to move away from the prescription of a specific form of tactile voting device, which is not flexible. The feedback suggests that the existing device does not work effectively in ensuring that someone is able to cast their vote in secret. I think that Chris Highcock from the Electoral Management Board gave you a clear example from our previous election; some of the ballot papers for the Scottish Parliament election were so long that people had to put two tactile voting devices together.

In future elections, there will be a tactile voting device that is specifically designed around the number of candidates on the ballot paper. I think that we would all agree that that is a more sensible provision. Indeed, members will recall that I sent the committee samples of what was being worked on, and I hope that the committee felt that that demonstrated the type of innovation that is being taken forward and how it will improve things.

There has been engagement on this issue with not only the Electoral Commission and those who administer elections but those who represent the broad swathe of people who might have additional accessibility needs. Of course, that engagement will continue. I am certain that there will be further innovations and adaptations in future as technology advances and as things are tried and continually improved. That is what this change will enable.

Indeed.

In as much as we have made the change, yes, I am satisfied. That is the first thing—we have made the change to enable this.

As for the point about the practical experience of people who engage with the process of casting their vote, we often have to rely on the feedback of those who administer elections in the first instance. However, what that leads us back to is that, if an issue is raised as an area of concern, we must engage with that wider cohort of people—in this instance, again, young people—to try to understand the problem, how we can resolve it and how we can do better. Inevitably—this will be true of any election—if you encounter any problems, you will have to rely on those who administer elections in the first instance to flag up what those problems might be.

Of course. Reflecting back on the legislation itself, we put in a specific requirement for the Electoral Commission to engage in an awareness-raising campaign on how people cast their vote in local government elections, because we know that there can often be confusion in that respect and that that manifests itself in some communities more than in others. Indeed, it was Bob Doris who flagged that up. That is another example of our being informed by someone who has raised an issue that they have identified in their community.

I take the point: when it comes to those who do not cast their vote, how can we understand better what the impediment has been? Sometimes, we can identify it readily; incidentally, that is one of the reasons for the Government not supporting the use of some form of identification for people to cast their votes. That was one of the very issues that we flagged. If there are other issues, we will have to do our best to try to understand what they might be, and that will happen only if there is constant engagement. Again, in the case of young people, that will mean relying on and engaging with organisations that represent and have the most direct contact with them; they will be able to facilitate a conversation with young people, some of whom might not have cast their vote, and who will tell us the reason why.

It is certainly the case that no recommendation has been communicated to me.