Select committee: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Recommendation 34

Fifth Report - The Elections Bill Published 13 Dec 2021 Paragraph 167

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee The Elections Bill All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗

Recommendation (the committee's words)

Given the Government’s stated objective of improving parliamentary scrutiny of the Electoral Commission, we recommend the application of the ‘super-affirmative procedure’ for approval of the Statement, to ensure that parliamentarians have the formal opportunity to feed into and make recommendations on the draft Statement before it is laid for approval (via the ‘affirmative’ parliamentary approval procedure). We consider this additional scrutiny step is necessary and proportionate given the novelty and importance of the Statement.

From: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Fifth Report - The Elections Bill (HC 597), paragraph 167, 13 December 2021

Government response

The government responded to the whole report on 10 February 2022 (deadline 13 February 2022).

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The government accepts some of the Committee's recommendations in part, for example agreeing "in principle" that electoral law would benefit from consolidation, but disagrees with others, including removing the Electoral Commission clauses, and does not accept that there was a lack of pre-legislative consultation and scrutiny.

On consolidating electoral law, the government "agrees in principle" that it would benefit, but calls it "a long-term project" and "not something to rush", with its immediate priority being its manifesto pledges.
On post-legislative scrutiny, it says an amendment is not necessary as scrutiny after Royal Assent is "standard practice", and a statutory requirement "risks not allowing for the necessary flexibility".
On the Electoral Commission, the government says it "disagrees" with the recommendation to remove the relevant clauses, and does not consider the effect of the duty to "have regard" to the Statement needs clarifying on the face of the Bill.
On voter ID, it does not pause the policy, citing its Equality Impact Assessment and a 2021 survey finding 98% held accepted photographic identification, and says it will "carry out thorough research" on implementation.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error