Recommendation 13

HM Government Acknowledged

The Government does not accept the assertion that there was a ‘lack of pre-legislative consultation and scrutiny’ in the development of the Elections Bill, which is a product of a wide range of views and engagement with the electoral sector, civil society organisations, parliamentarians and the Parliamentary Parties Panel. Many elements have stemmed directly from reports and reviews conducted by Parliamentarians, such as the 2016 report on electoral fraud by Sir, now Lord, Eric Pickles. Four sets of measures in this legislation - namely, those on accessibility, overseas electors, intimidation and digital imprints - have also been directly subject of Government consultation. In addition to this, ahead of bringing forward the legislative proposals for voter identification, we undertook a range of voter identification pilots in 2018 and 2019 which were independently reviewed by the Electoral Commission. Furthermore, we have proactively sought the input and expert eye of those with detailed knowledge of the operation of elections and those who would be impacted by the measures in the Bill. Since the announcement of the Bill, it has received scrutiny from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the provisions have been debated in two Westminster Hall debates and it has undergone Committee stage in the House of Commons, including four evidence sessions. As the former Minister of the Constitution and Devolution, Chloe Smith MP highlighted in oral evidence1 to the Committee, it is standard practice for the Government to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of Acts following Royal Assent, so it would not be necessary for the Bill to be amended to include a specific provision to this effect. Moreover, in order for post-legislative scrutiny to be able to effectively review the impact of the legislation, it will be important to allow time for elections to take place. The Bill already makes provision for an evaluation of the impact of the implementation of voter identification to be completed following the first three sets of elections where the requirements apply. The Electoral Commission also already has a statutory duty under PPERA to undertake reports on the administration of each Parliamentary elections, and has routinely published reports following Local Elections. A specific statutory requirement risks not allowing for the necessary flexibility to report following elections as they happen. With regards to secondary legislation, a significant amount of the policy intent and function is set out on the face of the Bill, and has been scrutinised in detail in the House of Commons; the House of Lords will shortly be undertaking its own detailed scrutiny of the Bill in the same way. The Government has also published an updated Delegated Powers Memorandum2 setting out the provisions of the Bill as amended in the House of Commons that confer or amend powers to make delegated legislation, explaining in each case why the power has been taken and the nature of, and the reason for, the procedure selected. It must be noted that the nature of elections and the lack of room for vagueness or uncertainty in our democratic processes means that electoral law is, as is widely acknowledged, detailed to the point of prescriptive. For this reason it is right that in areas where operational detail is to be determined, and where process updates need to be made with some regularity, primary legislation is not a suitable vehicle. It is therefore entirely appropriate that some elements are expanded upon through secondary legislation and it follows long-held principles that when a procedural or acutely technical change to electoral law is required, that the Government needs to be able to make the changes in an agile fashion, without having to revert to primary legislation each time. The Government respects the role of Parliament in scrutinising the intent and operation of secondary legislation. We are committed to providing both Houses with transparency and sufficient detail in this area during the passage of the primary legislation to support its work. It is for this reason that on the 6 January, the Minister of State at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Kemi Badenoch MP, issued a written ministerial statement3 updating Parliament on the publication of the voter identification policy statement detailing our proposals for how voter identification will operate in future regulations, a copy of which has been placed in the libraries of both Houses. We have listened carefully to the comments and questions raised during the Bill’s passage in the Commons and have sought to ensure these questions are resolved. We will continue to share information on other aspects of our implementation planning for the legislation in due course, and we have recently published two additional policy statements setting out further detail on the changes brought forward by the Bill for overseas electors and on the new absent vote identity verification an