Seòmar agus comataidhean

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 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.

I believe so. Iain Hockenhull might be able to say more.

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.