Well, I think the efficient management of elections is something that is always under consideration, and of course has been in the various inter-ministerial discussions. For example, the proposals that are being made by the UK Government, even in respect of just Westminster elections, will have some financial costs, and we've made the case to the UK Government that those costs, obviously, have to be covered. The response has been received, I believe, positively.

In respect of the voter ID issue itself, you know that our view and our difference on this is that we see voter ID as essentially two things: (1) it doesn't have an evidential base to justify it, but, secondly, it is more about voter suppression than it is about robustness of elections. And if that were not the case, there would be an evidential base for its introduction. That evidential base has never been produced, or in fact even solidly argued.

But I think the point you do make is this: that, in the management of elections, we obviously want to see reform in the future, and, of course, the introduction of an electoral reform Bill. We want to see digitisation of the electoral system, which will make it much easier to manage elections, much more cost-efficient to manage elections, and also much more accessible. But, in circumstances where there might be two elections taking place with different franchises, then I think the systems are alert, as they have already been, to the fact that there are those areas of divergence, and there will be different systems. But it has to be managed. It's unfortunate that it's there, but I think it's in the nature of devolution. We have a particular direction in terms of elections that is about accessibility and openness and maximisation of capacity to vote and votes to be counted. I believe the approach adopted by the UK Government is one that goes in a direction that is different.