Chamber and committees

Discussions are at a fairly early stage, but Parliament is aware that we are taking forward the changes. It is akin to the situation that we had in the run-up to the 2021 election, when we also changed the dissolution period. I am not proposing that we do quite the same as we did then, when everyone remained a member of the Scottish Parliament right up to the point of the election. That was for very specific circumstances that related to the pandemic.

I have explained and set out the rationale. We are primarily thinking of circumstances—they might be felt to be rare, but they could happen—in which the UK Government decides to call a general election that falls either on the same day as or in close proximity to a Scottish Parliament election. The challenge is that the lead-in period for UK general elections is presently shorter than the period for Scottish Parliament elections. We are switching that around to enable the recall of the Parliament in order to consider such an issue. For example, would we want to delay the Scottish Parliament election? Powers are available, and we have legislated for the Presiding Officer to delay an election, but it might be felt that that would require and merit wider discussion by Parliament as a whole. The Presiding Officer would be able to recall Parliament if he or she were inclined to do so.

As for the practical experience, we are already engaged in dialogue about creating a short recess period to replicate the period of dissolution that we presently have under legislation. To all practical intents and purposes, people would not notice any difference. I am also aware that the Electoral Commission is actively engaging with the Scottish Parliament to think through how practical guidance would be laid out for those who are simultaneously members of the Scottish Parliament and candidates in the election.

Going back to the consideration by Parliament, I think that that is likely to happen, but it would be a matter for Parliament to determine the cessation of normal parliamentary activity or normal activity for parliamentarians, such as the lodging of written questions. Such activity would probably be suspended for the duration of any recess. Final details are still to be worked out, but there is engagement.

That will be the responsibility of individual returning officers, but through engagement with the Electoral Commission. Having had dialogue with the Electoral Management Board and those who represent this community, I think that that is well understood and that they take the responsibility very seriously indeed. The understanding of what is required for that group will come about through engagement with those who have practical lived experience and with the organisations that represent them. That is my expectation, and it is taken seriously by those involved in administering elections.

I believe so. Iain Hockenhull might be able to say more.

That speaks to the point that we have consulted on a number of other issues that are not included in the order. There will always be a continuous process. Indeed, there will be another order for the 2027 local government elections. If we are informed by individuals’ practical experience and if other concerns are raised, we will, of course, consult on that and make further changes.

With regard to postal votes, right now, we rely on the signature of the individual who is returning the postal vote to ensure that it has been cast in accordance with expectation and electoral law. I am afraid that there will always be a limit to how much oversight is possible of how that is done in the home or wherever a person might fill out their postal vote form. That is a practicality that will not always be accounted for, but, if more can be done, we should reflect on that.

We will also give further consideration to the point about the number of people who an assistant can help in the polling station. Right now, the number is two. There are good reasons for that, in order to account for the very concern that you are thinking about. Equally, we have heard that it could be helpful for those who work as carers to be able to undertake the role for a slightly larger number of people. It is a question of getting the balance right. We will give that further consideration.

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.