Seòmar agus comataidhean

Forgive me if I am not being clear. The point that I am trying to drive at is whether people could subscribe to both points of view or could support only one or other of the options. I appreciate that you might not be able to answer that right now so, if we could get more information, that would be helpful.

You referred to the possibility of a subsequent supplementary LCM. This might be an unfair question, because it is a great imponderable, as these things are outwith the Parliament’s control, but can you foresee circumstances in which more than one additional LCM might be required?

I also have a follow-up question, which I will get out of the way now. Has the interaction between your officials and UK Government officials been positive? Are you getting good engagement? Are there any challenges?

Will the committee get a good heads-up if anything is coming down the track?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I have a few quick questions on procedural matters. In the initial LCM, there was a recommendation to refuse consent for elements of the bill. I think that I am right in saying that that issue has now been resolved and that the bill has been amended satisfactorily in the UK Parliament, but I would like some clarification on that. If that means that there is now no reserved position, is it the Government’s recommendation to just proceed with consent?

That brings me to my second question, which is about the first supplementary memorandum, LCM-S6-57a. Paragraph 11 refers to a divergence of views in relation to whether an element of the bill is reserved or not. That might be felt to be a moot point, because even though there is a difference of view on whether the element that relates to internet services is reserved, the recommendation is still that we would consent. I will, however, ask a quick question. Is there a difference of opinion on what is reserved and not reserved in any other elements of the legislation, particularly with regard to further supplementary memoranda that might be required?

My only interest that might be relevant to the work of the committee is my membership of Amnesty International.

My questions relate more to the context in which we should consider the regulations, which are clearly at the draft stage—we will come to the specifics in due course. We have found at least one person who can testify to this point, as Mr Kerr said that, at the time of the bill’s passage, he thought that this should be included in primary legislation, and I recall that some constituents who got in touch with me at the time of the bill’s passage suggested something similar. My first question, therefore, is whether we should bear that in mind as part of the context. Yes, we took the approach that we could do it through secondary legislation, but at the time of the bill’s passage there was a cohort that said that we should do this.

I clearly understand your wider point about the misogyny bill but, given that the Parliament legislated for the provision that enabled the Government to bring forward the order, do you think that it is important that we consider it on its own merits, irrespective of whether such a bill comes forward?

Having recently been involved in the legislative agenda, I can certainly testify to the challenges around progressing additional primary legislation between now and the end of the parliamentary session.

A potential misogyny bill is clearly not possible in this session, but you referred to filling the gap. We will probably get more into this when we consider the regulations in more detail down the line, but could you perhaps speak a little bit more about what the SSI means in practical terms and how it fills the gap? I understand that this might be difficult to answer, but what types of incident will be captured by the law that are not, as it stands, and how prevalent are such incidents?

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.