Chamber and committees

Having recently been involved in the legislative agenda, I can certainly testify to the challenges around progressing additional primary legislation between now and the end of the parliamentary session.

A potential misogyny bill is clearly not possible in this session, but you referred to filling the gap. We will probably get more into this when we consider the regulations in more detail down the line, but could you perhaps speak a little bit more about what the SSI means in practical terms and how it fills the gap? I understand that this might be difficult to answer, but what types of incident will be captured by the law that are not, as it stands, and how prevalent are such incidents?

That is a legitimate point. That would represent a fairly big change. I understand that we could say that that would ensure absolute impartiality, but we must also reflect on whether that is what the individual who casts their vote wants—they might want it to be someone they know and trust. A balance needs to be struck. I can earnestly say that I have not heard that cited as a significant area of concern. If that was to emerge as an issue, we would need to reflect on that.

Yes, broadly speaking, I am content. Such things are borne out by practical experience, which is the point that I made to Ms Roddick. If a concern emerged, we would need to reflect on it.

At this stage, I see nothing that causes significant concern. It makes sense to take an adaptable and flexible approach rather than having to come back to specify each form or method of assistance at each election by introducing an order. The expectation is—all the evidence points to this—that such things will be subject to consultation. There is no sense that the community of those who administer elections wants to do anything other than maximise votes and help the greatest number of people to cast them.

I understand that such things are a concern. An attempt is always made to ensure that everything comes through as quickly as possible. Ultimately, that is always a challenge, because officials work on multiple things at any given time, and only so many people can do such work. We always try to ensure that things are provided in enough time to ensure that they are adequately and properly scrutinised. If there are any particular concerns, we are happy to reflect on them.

I had a wry smile on my face, because I am increasingly less and less inclined to view myself as a young person. All we can do is engage with the widest range of organisations that represent young people and, through those bodies, engage with young people. I will never be satisfied with a process that simply allows organisations to speak for young people. They play a role and we will listen to that voice, but let us try to use those organisations that have the greatest range of engagement with young people to actually speak to young people themselves. That would be what I would want to do, and there is a commitment to do that on an on-going basis.

It goes back to the point that I made in my opening remarks about the provision that we have made for those who were looked-after children to be able to register on the basis of a local connection. That was directly influenced by one young person engaging directly with my predecessor, and I hope that that demonstrates that we put such measures in place.

Can we do better? We probably can. The issue is the age-old challenge of how we reach out to those whom we find it hard to reach. We must always try to do as much as we can, and the Government is committed to doing so. We are talking about young people in this specific instance, but there are plenty of other cohorts of people about whom we could say the same.

He has stolen your question, you mean.

Broadly speaking, yes. There is the remotest of possibilities—an outside chance—but I think that that is very unlikely. I have been seeking to engage with the UK Government on the matter. In the first instance, I am very grateful to Tracy Gilbert for taking forward the private members’ bill, but I have been clear at all stages that my preference would have been for that to be devolved to Scotland through a section 30 order. I am confident that, on that basis, we would have been able to legislate for those provisions and put them in place in time for the 2026 election.

However, we have had to rely on the UK Parliament, and the bill has been caught up in the UK Parliament because of its byzantine processes, which you will understand a lot better than I do, convener, as you were a Member of Parliament. That is very unfortunate, and that situation could have been avoided. I am seeking to engage with a wide range of people to, at the very least, express frustration and say that I hope that lessons are learned. I also spoke to Jane Bryant, my counterpart in the Welsh Government, which is also having to grapple with the issue.

That was a long way of saying that, yes, broadly speaking, you are correct.

That is why I said that there is the remotest of possibilities. The Gould period begins on 7 November, so the likelihood of Tracy Gilbert’s private members’ bill getting royal assent in time for the election is very remote indeed. It is possible, but it is on the upper end of an outside chance. That was a longer way of saying that I have more or less made a decision that it is not going to be possible. I will communicate that shortly.

I want to make that clear to the committee. I do not want the committee to feel that I have not informed it that we are laying regulations on Monday to take account of some of the concerns and to ensure that those who have a postal ballot for the Scottish Parliament election will have an extended time to cast it. We do not want to get caught up in any of the confusion that might otherwise arise.

I do not want to mislead the committee, so I will ask Iain to answer that.

Thank you for inviting me to speak to the draft order, which seeks to make improvements to electoral law ahead of next May’s Scottish Parliament election.

The changes that the draft order introduces build on the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill, which the committee considered last year and which the Parliament passed, and which is now the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025. Many of the topics that the order deals with were highlighted as the bill progressed through the Parliament. Several of the changes are technical adjustments that are designed to ensure the smooth running of the election, and others have been requested by various stakeholders.

I particularly wish to highlight one change that first arose when we consulted on the age at which people can stand for election. In a round-table discussion with my predecessor, a young person with experience of the care system highlighted the challenges that she had faced in seeking to register to vote. The order specifically responds to her comments by allowing looked-after young people to register to vote by declaration of local connections. I hope that she can reflect today on that change that we are making to the law.

Another change that we are making—or a change that I hope to make; I am being very presumptuous—provides an example of how electoral law can develop across the United Kingdom, with changes in one nation influencing others. In 2020, the Scottish Parliament created an exemption for certain candidate expenditure in relation to security. The UK and Welsh Governments subsequently adopted that change, but they went a little further and applied it to security costs beyond those associated with public rallies or events. We are now seeking to adopt that expanded definition. It is clear—unfortunately, as we all know—that candidates often experience greater security challenges, and the measure is intended to offer assistance.

Other changes seek to complete the process that began with the bill last year by updating rules on campaigning, including those regarding undue influence and notional expenditure. Those rules will now be in line with those that apply to UK Parliament elections.

The draft order also builds on experience during the pandemic in relation to emergency rescheduling of elections. Moving the beginning of the dissolution period for the Scottish Parliament is intended to provide further resilience. The law currently says that dissolution is to occur 28 working days before the poll, and we are seeking to reduce that to 20 working days. For next year’s election, that means moving the date from 26 March to 9 April, but it is anticipated that Parliament will go into recess on the earlier date. The reason for that change is to allow the Parliament to meet in exceptional situations—for example, if a Prime Minister were to call a UK Parliament election for a date on or near to the date that was set for the Scottish Parliament election. We have worked with stakeholders to ensure that there will be no change to the electoral timetable as a result of the proposal.

We are seeking to make a number of changes to emergency proxies and assisting people with voting in the run-up to the election. That includes a change to allow those who are accompanying people to medical appointments shortly before the poll to obtain an emergency proxy.

The draft order introduces a broad requirement for returning officers to provide appropriate support to aid voters with accessibility challenges. It is hoped that, along with guidance from the Electoral Commission, that will greatly improve the support that is offered.

The development of the order has involved close engagement with key stakeholders, including the Electoral Management Board for Scotland and the Electoral Commission. I thank them for their engagement and look forward to working closely with them in the coming months on the preparations for May 2026.

I hope that the committee will agree that the provisions will make positive changes that will benefit voters, candidates and administrators and that it will therefore support the instrument.

If you will indulge me, convener, I will make one final point. I wrote to the committee to highlight the issue of the online absent vote application. We have been working closely with the Welsh and UK Governments to ensure access to that service for voters in Scottish Parliament elections. I am sure that we would all welcome the prospect of voters being able to apply online for a postal or proxy vote.

In my most recent letter to you, convener, I highlighted that serious concerns had been raised about a go-live for the system occurring before May next year. I am happy to discuss that point further today, if you are inclined to do so, convener, and I made that point in my letter. However, I want to let the committee know that I have already set in motion a mitigation measure, which is set out in statutory instruments that will be laid on Monday, to delay until the end of 2026 any signature refresh for absent votes that are required before the election in May. That measure should reduce any scope for confusion between the online absent vote application system for UK Parliament elections and the separate process for Scottish Parliament elections.

Along with Iain Hockenhull, Lorraine Walkinshaw and Jordan McGrory, I will be happy to answer any questions that the committee might have.