Response to MHCLG consultation on the Legislative Reform Order to allow applications for absent voting for devolved elections in Scotland and Wales to be made online
Introduction
We are pleased to respond to the consultation on the proposal by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) to use a Legislative Reform Order (LRO) to allow applications for postal and proxy voting arrangements for devolved elections in Scotland and Wales to be made online. This would also align the identity verification requirements and the cycles for renewing postal vote applications for reserved and devolved elections.
We of course recognise that devolution allows for policy divergence and we work closely with the UK’s governments and parliaments through our advice and guidance to support implementation of relevant policies. However, in this specific instance, where there is policy alignment between the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments, resolving the current areas of divergence will benefit both electors and Electoral Registration Officers (EROs):
- In addition to the existing paper route, voters in Scotland and Wales will benefit from having the option to make a single online application to arrange a postal or proxy vote for every election in which they are eligible to participate;
- Extending OAVA to devolved elections will reduce the administrative burden of processing applications for EROs;
- Alignment will also benefit parties, candidates and campaigners by enabling them to simplify the messaging they use to raise awareness of absent voting options.
We therefore support the proposals set out in the consultation document and agreed between the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments.
All of the legislative changes to extend OAVA services to devolved elections need to be in place by October 2025. This will provide EROs with clarity about the changes and adequate time to plan and implement them. We will be developing our communications plan for voters and our guidance for EROs so that electors are ready to start using the service for the May 2026 elections.
The Absent Voting: Elections in Scotland and Wales Bill is the UK Government’s preferred legislative vehicle for making these changes, with the LRO acting as a backup in case the Bill fails to progress. Should the Bill fail to progress, the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments will need to act swiftly to implement the proposed LRO in the UK Parliament, Scottish Parliament and Senedd.
We also recommend that in future the UK Government should extend the OAVA services to electors in Northern Ireland to provide them with the option of applying online for a postal or proxy vote arrangement alongside the existing paper application route.
Question 1: Do you agree that the current situation whereby electors cannot apply for an absent vote for devolved elections online makes applying for an absent vote more difficult for electors?
We agree that the current situation makes it less convenient for electors to apply for an absent vote for the reasons outlined in the consultation document. It is potentially confusing to be able apply online for an absent vote for some, but not all, elections. The exclusion of devolved elections from the OAVA services means that electors must either duplicate their efforts by making two almost identical applications – an online application for reserved elections and a paper application for devolved elections – or request a single paper form that covers all elections. Requesting, completing and returning paper application forms is more time-consuming than completing online applications. Finally, most electors will choose to apply online for an absent vote as the UK Government’s statistics show.
Question 2: Do you agree that the current situation whereby electors cannot apply for an absent vote for devolved elections online creates administrative burden for Electoral Registration Officers?
We agree that the current situation creates administrative burdens for EROs for the reasons outlined in the consultation document. Their work is duplicated if electors choose to apply for an absent vote online for reserved elections and on paper for devolved elections.
In addition, several responses to our electoral administrator survey for the July 2024 UKPGE highlighted elector confusion in Scotland and Wales about the need to apply separately for absent votes for reserved and devolved polls and the additional work this created for staff through call and email communications.
Paper applications are also more time-consuming to process because of issues understanding handwriting that may require follow-up contacts and because paper applications need to be manually entered into EROs’ Electoral Management System (EMS) software. These issues are not present with online applications.
The AEA’s response to this consultation further noted that combined paper applications for reserved and devolved elections require EROs to transfer information from the form into the ERO Portal to process the reserved elections part of the application. If most electors chose to apply online, that would reduce the need for EROs to transfer information from paper applications to the ERO Portal.
Question 3: Do you agree that having different ID verification requirements for reserved and devolved elections may be inconvenient and confusing for electors?
We agree that this is likely to be inconvenient and confusing for electors for the reasons set out in the consultation document. Electors may not understand or be confused that they must provide their National Insurance (NI) Number for reserved elections but not devolved elections. They may be confused and inconvenienced that they have failed an ID check for reserved elections but not for devolved elections and have successfully set up an absent vote for devolved elections but not reserved elections. This will be even more confusing if they have submitted a combined paper application for both types of elections. This may lead to them not completing an application in time before an election and therefore being unable to vote.
Question 4: Do you agree that having different ID verification requirements for reserved and devolved elections creates extra burden for EROs?
We agree that this creates extra burden for EROs for the reasons set out in the consultation document. EROs need to follow two different procedures for processing reserved and devolved applications which involves processing applications in two different systems, the EMS and the ERO Portal. It is potentially challenging to communicate to electors why an NI Number is needed for reserved but not devolved elections, and why an ID check has failed for reserved but not devolved elections, which may lead to elector confusion and complaints.
Question 5: Do you agree that the current divergence between reapplication/refresh cycles for reserved and devolved elections may be confusing for electors?
We agree that the current divergence may be confusing for electors for the reasons set out in the consultation document. Electors may not know that the postal vote reapplication cycle for reserved elections is every three years whereas the signature refresh cycle for devolved elections is every five years. This divergence may inconvenience them by requiring them to submit two reapplications or lead to the mistaken assumption that when they renewed their postal vote for reserved elections, they also renewed their postal vote for devolved elections. This may lead to electors being unable to cast their vote using the method they want because their postal vote arrangement has lapsed.
Question 6: Do you agree that the current divergence between reapplication/refresh cycles for reserved and devolved elections creates extra burden for EROs?
We agree that the current divergence creates extra burden for EROs for the reasons set out in the consultation document. EROs must contact voters about their postal votes twice as often, which may also lead to or exacerbate voter confusion. Where postal voting arrangements lapse because of divergence, it may lead to electors reapplying during busy election periods placing extra strain on EROs.
Question 7: Do you support the proposal to allow electors living in Scotland and Wales to use the OAVA services to apply for absent votes in devolved elections?
We support the proposal to enable electors in Scotland and Wales to apply for an absent vote for devolved elections using the OAVA services because of the clear benefits it will bring to electors, campaigners and EROs and because it has the express support of the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments.
Question 8: Would you agree that making it possible for a single online absent vote application to be made online for all elections – both devolved and reserved – in Scotland and Wales would be beneficial for electors in Scotland and Wales? (continued)
Question 8: Would you agree that making it possible for a single online absent vote application to be made online for all elections – both devolved and reserved – in Scotland and Wales would be beneficial for electors in Scotland and Wales, and make it easier for them to manage their absent voting arrangements?
We agree that it would be beneficial and easier for electors to have the option to make a single online absent vote application, instead of having to make separate applications – an online application for reserved elections and a paper application for devolved elections. It should also prevent applications for devolved elections being granted while applications for reserved elections are rejected because of ID verification which may lead to elector confusion.
Electors will continue to have the option to submit one paper application for both types of elections but with the same ID verification requirements for both, which would preserve the integrity and security of the absent vote process. The retention of this option will be important from an equality perspective, ensuring that those who wish to apply via this route (such as those who are digitally excluded) may continue to do so, while streamlining the process so that these electors also experience the benefits of alignment.
Question 9: Would you agree that making it possible for a single online absent vote application to be made online for all elections – both devolved and reserved – in Scotland and Wales would reduce burden on EROs?
We agree that it would reduce the burden on EROs because it would eliminate the need for electors to make separate applications for reserved and devolved elections, reducing the volume of applications. It would eliminate the need to manually enter information from paper applications into Electoral Management Software. It would also be easier to communicate to electors how to apply for an absent vote.
Question 10: Do you see any downsides to the proposal to enable electors in Scotland and Wales to use the OAVA services for devolved elections? If so, what are they?
We do not see any downsides to this proposal. Allowing electors to apply online for devolved elections will reduce confusion, improve convenience and expand choice, and they will continue to have the option to apply using a paper application form if they prefer.
Question 11: Do you support the proposal to align ID verification requirements for absent vote applications for devolved and reserved elections?
We support the proposal because it would reduce the burdens set out in the consultation document and in our responses to Questions 3 and 4 and ensure the integrity of the absent voting process. We agree with government that it will also lower the financial public costs of software development and implementing changes to the OAVA services.
Question 12: Do you agree that aligning ID verification requirements for absent vote applications for devolved and reserved elections would be beneficial for electors?
We agree that it would be beneficial for electors because it would reduce the burdens set out in the consultation document and in our response to Question 3.
Question 13: Do you agree that aligning ID verification requirements for absent vote for devolved and reserved elections would be beneficial for EROs?
We agree that it would be beneficial for EROs because it would reduce the burdens set out in the consultation document and in our response to Question 4.
Question 14: Do you see any downsides to aligning ID verification requirements for absent vote applications for devolved and reserved elections? If so, what are they?
One possible downside is that electors may fail the ID check for both reserved and devolved elections, whereas in the past they may have passed the check for devolved elections and successfully set up a postal vote arrangement.
Aligning the ID verification requirements would mean that electors who are only eligible to vote at devolved elections would have to provide more information than presently. However, we believe these additional checks are essential to the integrity of the process. Aligning verification requirements will also make the system easier to understand for voters, improve consistency and workability for EROs.
Question 15: Do you support the proposal to align the rules for postal voting in Scottish and Welsh devolved elections and reserved elections (i.e. a 3-year renewal cycle rather than a 5-year signature refresh)?
We support the proposal because it would reduce the burdens set out in the consultation document and in our responses to Questions 5 and 6. We agree with the UK government that it will also lower the financial public costs of software development and implementing changes to the OAVA services.
Question 16: Do you agree that aligning the rules for postal voting in Scottish and Welsh devolved elections and reserved elections (i.e. a 3-year renewal cycle rather than a 5-year signature refresh) would be beneficial for electors?
We agree that it would be beneficial for electors because it would reduce the burdens set out in the consultation document and in our response to Question 5.
Question 17: Do you agree that aligning the rules for postal voting in Scottish and Welsh devolved elections and reserved elections (i.e. a 3-year renewal cycle rather than a 5-year signature refresh) would be beneficial for EROs?
We agree that it would be beneficial for EROs because it would reduce the burdens set out in the consultation document and outlined in our response to Question 6. We agree with the AEA and SAA that the reapplication and signature renewal cycles should be aligned by 31 January 2026 so EROs can align their workloads before the May 2026 polls.
Question 18: Do you see any downsides to the proposal to align the postal voting renewal cycle for reserved and devolved elections? If so, what are they?
No. Alignment will prevent postal voting arrangements from lapsing in situations where electors assumed that, when they renewed their postal vote for reserved elections, this also covered their postal vote for devolved elections. It will help electors and electoral administrators ensure that dates of birth and signatures are correctly recorded, reducing the risk of their postal vote being rejected because identifiers don’t match.
We agree with the AEA that as EROs must write to reserved poll postal voters by 31 January 2026, it would make sense to extend the reapplication cycle to devolved polls, so electors only need to make a single reapplication before January 2026. The legislation, Commission guidance and communications plan should be in place ready for EROs to start inviting reapplications from October 2025 at the latest.
Question 19: Do you agree that the Legislative Reform Order proposed in this consultation meets the preconditions described in paragraphs 49-68?
i) Are there any non-legislative means that would satisfactorily remedy the difficulty which the proposals intend to address?
Without amendment to primary legislation, we do not believe there is another mechanism for extending the Online Absent Vote Application services at devolved elections.
ii) Are the proposals put proportionate to the policy objective?
We agree that the proposals are proportionate to the policy objective. The LRO will provide the necessary powers to Scottish and Welsh Ministers to make their own provision to extend the use of the digital service to devolved elections and to align the ID verification requirements and the refresh cycles for reserved and devolved elections. This will be achieved by making amendments to the relevant primary legislation, namely the Representation of the People Act 1983, the Government of Wales Act 2006 and the Scotland Act 1998. This appears to be the minimum scope of the LRO to achieve the required outcome which is granting the necessary powers.
iii) Do the proposals taken as a whole strike a fair balance between the public interest and any person adversely affected by it?
We agree that the proposals strike a fair balance. We agree with the consultation document that the benefits of making this change appear to outweigh the potential negative impacts. We also cannot see any downsides for EROs who will no longer have to process duplicate applications from the same person.
iv) Do the proposals remove any necessary protection?
Removal of a wet signature in the absent vote application may be considered removing an element of security in the application process. However, the digital service has existing safeguards in place that appear to mitigate risk in loss of security. Additionally, the ID verification requirement will enhance the security and integrity of the absent vote process.
v) Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which he might reasonably expect to continue to exercise? If so, please provide details
The availability of the digital service does not take away the ability to apply for an absent vote using a paper application. The LRO itself provides Welsh and Scottish Ministers the power to make provisions to align the application process with reserved elections. Neither the LRO nor the wider proposals appear to take away an existing right or freedom, although they do shorten the term of absent voting arrangements and impose identification requirements during the application process.
Question 20: Overall, do you support the proposals in this document?
Yes, we support the proposals and will support the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments and electoral administrators with implementation through our advice and guidance and electors through our communications campaign.