���˿���

That is largely with the members—it starts with them. I am happy to hear what people think. I am torn between two options—actually, I am not torn because, instinctively, I quite like the overnight count. I do not know what others round the table think, but I am willing to bet that they also like the overnight count. However, we have heard that there might be practical considerations in that regard, and we have to take those seriously and consider them. That also needs to be balanced against the practical experience that, as far as I can see, there have not been significant difficulties with overnight counts thus far. The perspective is being articulated that it might be more appropriate to do the rest of the count the next day, so we have to consider that, but I need to be persuaded of its merits. I am keen to hear what other members think.

At this stage, no, convener, but I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak with you about the matter. As much as I am giving my perspective, I am genuinely interested in other people’s perspectives as well.

No, but I will be happy to write to the committee on that.

I can understand that, on the face of it, it might seem to be concerning that we are no longer prescribing that the tactile device that has been deployed should still be deployed. I am using those words because what has been prescribed is the utilisation of one type of device and, frankly, it has probably been overtaken by new developments that might be a little better. If one takes the issue at face value, one might well ask, “Why are you removing what has already been prescribed, given that it is there to assist people?”, but we want to ensure that there is a wide range of more appropriate support, and I am happy to talk through what is being done just now.

For example, the Electoral Management Board for Scotland’s accessibility sub-group, which includes representatives of councils, the Electoral Commission and the Scottish Government, is looking at a range of issues. One involves enhancing the existing polling place finder app, which is provided by a charity called Democracy Club. The app is available for anyone to use to find where their polling place is, but we think that it is particularly helpful for those with sight loss, and we are looking to see whether we can enhance the app, with trials of that expected to start shortly.

A tactile ballot paper overlay is also being developed—that is probably the most relevant development in relation to the existing tactile voting device. In a nutshell, the difference is that the overlay that is being designed works with specific ballot papers. It is designed around the size of the actual ballot papers that people will use, whereas the current tactile voting device is not quite the same. It has to be affixed by a person in the polling station and it does not necessarily match the exact size of each ballot paper. You can see why that change might lend itself to being an improvement.

Work is also being done to look at greater audio support through automated telephone lines. Those were piloted successfully during the Northern Ireland Assembly elections in 2022 and were rolled out for local elections in Northern Ireland last year. A voter can phone a helpline to get information on how to cast a vote and details on who is standing. Anecdotal evidence shows that that service was not taken up in huge numbers but that those who used it found it very helpful. That was not an expensive innovation—the cost of setting it up was about £10,000. The Electoral Management Board sub-group is in the process of setting up a similar trial in Scotland.

We are also looking at digital polling cards, which we think could be helpful and could benefit certain groups of people by enabling them to get their polling card in a digital format.

I hope that that gives reassurance that we are not seeking to reduce the quality of support that is available to people and that, actually, we are looking to enhance it.

I am happy to speak about that a little just now—

To be perfectly candid with you, convener, I am just operating on an open-door basis. Let me place on the record now that if any member of the Scottish Parliament wants to speak to me about any element of the bill, I am happy to speak with them. If it is felt that it might be useful to have some other form of consultation, I am happy to consider that, although it is not our usual approach. You rightly make the point—I share the perspective—that this is Parliament’s bill.

I am being reminded with a discreet note from Iain Hockenhull—well, it is not that discreet, because I am about to say it—that the Scottish Parliament political parties panel has also been contacted, so that is another way that we have engaged in order to get views.

I await a reply.

A balance has to be struck. By and large, yes, of course, on an operational basis, the Electoral Management Board must be able to operate independently of political direction and interference. That is a given; we would all agree with that. I have made the point about the activity that the Electoral Commission might undertake, funded by the Scottish Government. We cannot compel the Electoral Commission to undertake work, so that would be done through a process of dialogue and agreement.

Of course, Parliament is a pluralistic entity, and if any individual member of the Scottish Parliament has concerns, they will raise them. In the same way, if organisations out there have concerns, I am sure that they will raise their voices, too. By and large, we have a transparent, open and democratic system that enables people to raise their concerns and allows us to deliberate on them.

I hope that most people would recognise that that is a sensible thing to do. We are still going through the process of looking at how we would put that into operation.