2nd Report – Review of the 2024 general election

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The government rejects the recommendation for printing and dispatching ballot packs on a rolling basis, stating it is impractical with current system capabilities.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.