Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

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.

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.