Chamber and committees

I will simply say that I will meet the Electoral Commission in due course, and I am more than happy to raise directly with it any concerns that the committee provides to me in writing.

In the context of elections, it is important that the guidance that is provided to everyone who participates in the process is clear and easy to understand. I will also reflect with the Electoral Commission on its approach to ensuring that the Parliament is fully engaged, where appropriate, and that that approach is borne in mind even when it is not immediately necessary. I can give you that undertaking if you write to me.

I ask members not to support the motion to annul, given the work that has been going on behind the scenes between the committee and the Electoral Commission and the commitment that I have provided today to act on the committee’s concerns.

Convener, you asked me whether we would provide an update to the committee on the point that you raised. I did not get a chance to say this yet, but we absolutely will.

That is a very good question. In looking through this in detail, we have identified one slight potential risk. That is where a voter’s signature might have changed substantially since their original application in 2020. If that is the case, there is a risk that the postal vote might be rejected due to signature mismatch.

The risk with regard to signatures is deemed to be highest among older voters and the very youngest voters, but we have been discussing the issue with the electoral registration officers and the Electoral Commission, and there is no evidence that the UK Government’s similar extension of postal votes as a transitional measure in 2023 resulted in any impact on postal vote rejections. The numbers that are available suggest that the postal vote rejection rates for the 2024 UK election were in line with previous elections; they were 2 per cent in 2024 and 1.9 per cent in the 2019 election in Scotland. That was despite many postal vote signatures being refreshed.

Clearly, we want to avoid any negative consequences. We have been in conversation with the EROs and the Electoral Commission on ways of mitigating any potential risk, and we will continue that work. As I have said, the risk is quite low, particularly among younger people—after all, the number of young people who are likely to access voting as absent voters is relatively small—but we are across this, if I can put it that way.

I will bring in Iain Hockenhull to talk about the work that is going on, and perhaps Lorraine Walkinshaw can talk about the compatibility issue.

Iain Hockenhull is across all of the detail about what is actually happening, but, at this stage, we are looking to move to the new system in June next year—I think that that is the date that we have in mind. There is a lot of work going on to ensure that we move seamlessly out of the Scottish Parliament elections and get the new system in place for the council elections.

I would, thank you. I am pleased to be here today to present these instruments. Members will be aware of the recent passing of a private member’s bill in the United Kingdom Parliament that will allow the Scottish Parliament to legislate on access to the online absent voting application for voters in the Scottish Parliament and local government elections. Although I welcome the change, it is regrettable that the bill’s passage through Westminster took longer than planned. I understand that that was largely as a result of the time that was taken up by the assisted dying legislation.

In any event, both the Scottish and Welsh Governments are now working on secondary legislation to allow full access to the system. We are also consulting the Electoral Commission and electoral registration officers on when the system should go live. The very strong recommendation from the electoral community is that it is now too late for the system to be available ahead of the 2026 election. As well as the technical risks involved in a system roll-out, there are significant practical challenges involved in merging the separate records that voters have for devolved and reserved elections.

Last week, I wrote to the committee to confirm that I had decided to postpone implementation until as soon as possible after the Scottish Parliament election in May. Taking the decision now to defer online absent vote applications removes uncertainty and will allow clear communication to voters of a projected go-live date, and it will also provide more time for the Electoral Commission to prepare guidance for administrators and the public on absent voting.

The instruments that I am presenting today seek to minimise potential confusion and inconvenience for voters ahead of next May’s election. Around 75,000 voters would have been asked this winter to refresh their signature sample in order to retain a continuing absent vote for Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government elections. That would have happened at the same time as the reapplication process for between 750,000 and 800,000 United Kingdom Parliament postal voters in Scotland, and there is concern that voters might have incorrectly thought that a reapplication via OAVA for a UK Parliament absent vote was the only activity required to vote by post or proxy in the Scottish Parliament election on 7 May next year.

The two instruments before the committee today seek to avoid that by extending postal and proxy votes that would lapse before the election if no signature sample were provided. That will mean that the 75,000 voters whom I mentioned will not need to take any further action to vote by post in next May’s election. It is hoped that the move will remove the scope of voter confusion and the potential for people to have to suddenly seek an absent vote in the spring of 2026.

I hope that those comments are helpful, and I am, of course, happy to answer any questions.

I am concerned that that occurred and it would be wrong of me to say otherwise. The issue was brought to my attention within a few days of my coming back into post, and my question to officials and to the lawyers was how that could have happened.

In a moment, I will bring in Douglas Kerr to give some background to how that came about, but we take the matter seriously and I do not in any way want to be seen to be making excuses for what occurred. It is clear that a sizeable proportion of the errors pertain to a particular set of regulations relating to pensions, which is a very complex area, and there was another similarly complex area with an evolving situation of policy change. That has prompted us to go away and look at what more we must do. I will come to that in a moment but, if it would be useful, I will ask Douglas to explain the background to what occurred.

I will bring in Douglas Kerr to answer that.

I absolutely agree that committees have a crucial role in scrutinising delegated powers in bills. Since April, the Government has consistently provided more than the minimum amount of time that is required between bill stages, including having a voluntary 14-day gap between stages 2 and 3—a period that exceeds by four days the period set out in standing orders. We are trying to do everything that we can to support further scrutiny, but I understand the frustrations that committees sometimes feel about finding time for that, given their other workloads.