Source · Select Committees · Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

2nd Report – Review of the 2024 general election

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee HC 487 Published 22 July 2025
Report Status
Government responded
Conclusions & Recommendations
69 items (20 recs)
Government Response
AI assessment · 69 of 69 classified
Accepted 13
Accepted in Part 8
Acknowledged 12
Deferred 9
Not Addressed 9
Rejected 18
Filter by: Clear

Recommendations

7 results
11 Rejected

Require Government to clarify acceptance of electoral law simplification and consolidation

Recommendation
The Government should make clear whether it accepts in principle that UK elections law needs simplification and consolidation, and if it does not should set out its evidence for this position in full in its response to this report. (Recommendation, … Read more
Government Response Summary
The government explains that while it understands calls for electoral law consolidation, it is not prioritizing this major reform due to the extensive time, resources, and multi-Parliamentary commitment required, focusing instead on current manifesto pledges and its ongoing Review of Electoral Registration and Conduct, which explicitly excluded consolidation.
View Details →
14 Rejected

Start simplification and consolidation of electoral law, committing to introducing legislation upon completion

Recommendation
The Government should start the process of simplification and consolidation of electoral law alongside the work being carried out to produce a Bill to implement its manifesto commitments and the outcome of the strategic review. In doing this it should … Read more
Government Response Summary
The government rejects starting the process of electoral law simplification and consolidation, stating that such a major, multi-Parliamentary reform is not feasible alongside its current manifesto commitments and was explicitly out of scope for its ongoing Review of Electoral Registration and Conduct.
View Details →
16 Rejected

Produce annual report assessing readiness for elections for Parliament and committee

Recommendation
We recommend that the Government produce an annual report assessing the readiness for elections, and that it provide this report to this committee, and lay it before Parliament. (Recommendation, Paragraph 70) 66
Government Response Summary
The government rejected the recommendation to produce an annual report on election readiness, stating it would not be conducive or appropriate as planning and delivery falls within the autonomy of independent Returning Officers.
View Details →
18 Rejected

Include resilience plan for supplier failure in annual election readiness report

Recommendation
We recommend that as part of the annual report on readiness for elections, the Government include a resilience plan in case of supplier failure. (Recommendation, Paragraph 71)
Government Response Summary
The government rejected the recommendation for a resilience plan in case of supplier failure, as it had previously rejected the overarching recommendation to produce an annual readiness report which this plan would have been part of.
View Details →
35 Rejected

Review Royal Mail's readiness to deliver postal votes in annual election report

Recommendation
As part of the annual election readiness report, recommended above, the readiness and preparedness of Royal Mail to deliver postal votes and campaign materials should be reviewed. (Recommendation, Paragraph 106)
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the recommendation for an annual review of Royal Mail's preparedness, stating it already works closely with Royal Mail and that both the Electoral Commission and the Committee have concluded Royal Mail performed well, indicating no need for further regulatory intervention.
View Details →
41 Rejected

Explicitly mention the delivery of ballot packs, postal votes, and poll cards in universal service obligation.

Recommendation
We recommend that the delivery of ballot packs, postal votes and poll cards (subject to the consideration above) should be explicitly mentioned in the universal service obligation. (Recommendation, Paragraph 110)
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the recommendation to explicitly mention election mail in the universal service obligation, explaining that Ofcom regulates the USO, and election mail services are business accounts not covered by it, thus no further regulatory or government intervention is considered necessary.
View Details →
45 Rejected

Conduct six-month feasibility studies for embassy, online, digital, and telephone overseas voting options.

Recommendation
We recommend that the Government conduct feasibility studies to report within six months for the following alternatives for overseas voting: • Embassy and consulate voting • Online voting • Digitally receiving and returning ballot papers • Telephone voting (Recommendation, Paragraph … Read more
Government Response Summary
The government notes the committee's recommendation for feasibility studies on alternative overseas voting methods but highlights significant logistical and administrative burdens for embassy/consulate and telephone voting, without committing to conducting the requested studies within six months or any specific timeframe.
View Details →

Conclusions (11)

Observations and findings
2 Conclusion Rejected
In line with previous elections, the fabric of our electoral administration system held together sufficiently at the 2024 general election to allow a well-run election to be delivered. However, as the Electoral Commission report sets out increasing demands and tight deadlines are placing ever greater pressure on the system. Our …
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledges calls for consolidation of electoral law but largely rejects major reform, citing extensive time and multi-parliamentary effort required. It highlights its existing ambitious agenda and ongoing Review of Electoral Registration and Conduct as current efforts to improve elections.
View Details →
10 Conclusion Rejected
There is a clear consensus in our evidence around the necessity and benefits of simplification and consolidation of electoral law. This is not a new position and has been reiterated by the practitioners and experts of electoral law for some time, and this appeared to have been accepted by this …
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledges the calls for consolidation but rejects undertaking major reform now due to the extensive time and cross-Parliamentary effort required, prioritising its existing manifesto commitments and ongoing Review of Electoral Registration and Conduct, which specifically excluded consolidation.
View Details →
13 Conclusion Rejected
We are however concerned that the Government has not put in motion the work necessary to simplify and consolidate electoral law. It is clear to us that the conclusion of the Law Commissions’ report was correct, and that the UK would be better off with a single elections act. We …
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledges the committee's concerns but rejects the immediate commencement of electoral law simplification and consolidation, explaining that such a major reform would be a multi-Parliamentary undertaking and not a current priority over its manifesto commitments and ongoing electoral review.
View Details →
20 Conclusion Rejected
A review of the funding of elections should be carried out by the Government and published to coincide with the first report of readiness for elections. This review should look at how funding structures can be simplified and consider whether money is being spent in the most efficient way. As …
Government Response Summary
The government rejected the recommendation to carry out and publish a review of election funding, stating that remuneration for electoral administrators is a matter for local authorities, despite describing efforts to provide greater funding certainty and access to contingency funds.
View Details →
32 Conclusion Rejected
Currently postal ballot packs are dispatched in two batches. This should be replaced with a system where, following the first dispatch, ballot packs are printed and dispatched on a rolling basis. The first and last dispatch dates should be widely published and voters should be notified when applying. (Recommendation, Paragraph …
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the recommendation for printing and dispatching ballot packs on a rolling basis, stating it is impractical with current system capabilities.
View Details →
34 Conclusion Rejected
There has been a decline in the UK and around the world in the number of letters being delivered, and thus in delivery capacity, and it appears this trend may continue. While the UK postal system is currently still able to cope with the large sudden demands of an election, …
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledges the committee's concerns but states it already works with Royal Mail on election preparedness and sees no need for further regulatory or government intervention, expressing confidence in Royal Mail's ability to handle election mail.
View Details →
38 Conclusion Rejected
Postal ballot packs must continue to be a next day delivery, and poll cards should also be delivered the next day. The freepost election mail should be delivered second class, so within 3 days of posting. We do not feel we can designate a delivery period for paid for election …
Government Response Summary
The government rejects next-day delivery for poll cards due to estimated £52 million additional cost and states printing ballot packs on a rolling basis is impractical. It does not address the recommendations for next-day postal ballot packs, second-class freepost election mail, or keeping records of paid-for election mail delivery times.
View Details →
39 Conclusion Rejected
As part of the Government’s current review, we ask it to consider the continued utility of poll cards. (Recommendation, Paragraph 109)
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the recommendation to consider the continued utility of poll cards, stating it has no plans to remove them as they are considered a vital communication tool.
View Details →
44 Conclusion Rejected
Other countries make greater use of other means of voting for overseas voters in addition to a postal vote option. We are disappointed that the Government has ruled out considering the Electoral Commission’s recommendations for embassy and telephone voting for those living overseas as part of its current review. We …
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledges the committee's recommendations for overseas voting mechanisms but reiterates concerns regarding the significant logistical and administrative burdens of implementing embassy/consulate and telephone voting, effectively maintaining its stance against considering these options.
View Details →
53 Conclusion Rejected
When asked what criteria the Government would use to assess the effect of the voter ID policy on turnout, the Government told us that it had commissioned research from IFF Research. However, this research does not consider the impact of the policy on turnout, which was the question put to …
Government Response Summary
The government defends its approach to voter ID, citing its commissioned IFF Research, which it states looked into impacts on different demographics, implicitly rejecting the committee's critique of the research. It reiterates its commitment to improve accessibility by accepting bank cards as ID.
View Details →
68 Conclusion Rejected
We believe the Electoral Commission carries out a vital role as an independent regulator in the elections sphere, providing vital guidance and support to electoral administrators, political parties, individual candidates and the wider public. However, it is a regulator without sufficient teeth. Approbatory assessments and warnings are not sufficient. We …
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the call for an independent review of the Electoral Commission's powers, stating it has no plans for such a review. It notes existing capabilities for criminal referrals and outlines its own reform plans to increase the Electoral Commission's maximum fine to deter rule evasion.
View Details →