One of the key pieces of legislation currently going through the parliamentary process is the Governments new Elections Bill. The Bill is, according to the Government designed to strengthen the integrity of the electoral process and ensure their security in the future. It makes changes to the role of the Electoral Commission, and to financial reporting and regulation during elections. Many of the changes have been heavily criticised by a range of organisations throughout civil society as unnecessary- none more so than the proposal to introduce a requirement for voters to show ID before being allowed to vote.

Critics of the proposals have pointed out that there is no evidence of significant or widespread voter fraud or election security issues in the UK, that voter ID requirements always disproportionately impact upon minority groups, and that where such changes have been tried in the past (even within the UK) there has been a marked depression of voter turnout. Nevertheless, the Government is continuing to push the legislation.

Another group has now added its voice to the cavalcade of opposition, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. In a report published this morning, the cross-party Committee has rendered its opinion on the Bill. The Committee’s concerns are largely founded on the lack of public consultation on the proposals. They identify three key areas that they suggest should have been consulted on, but weren’t.

The first is the aforementioned voter ID requirement, the second is the proposal to give ministers the power to direct the Electoral Commission, and the final is the proposal to impose the first past the post electoral system on all mayoral, and PCC elections across the UK. None of these are small changes, and all of them are go to the heart of the democratic process and principles- they are exactly the sort of thing that we would expect to see extensive public consultation on.

In each case, in addition to the general reasons for consultation, there are special circumstances that further enhance the need for careful consideration of the proposals. In the case of the voter ID requirements, the need is twofold. Firstly, that there is no real evidence of voter fraud, and therefore the change would seem to be unnecessary. Secondly that, even were the changes to be proved to be useful, there are significant likely side impacts, particularly on groups with protected characteristics.

The proposals to give the Government influence over the operations and decision-making of the (until now) independent regulator of elections require special consideration because, as the Committee identifies, it’s not the same as other regulators where the primary concern is the imposition of Government policy. The Electoral Commission’s remit is instead protecting the process that leads to the election of the Government itself. In light of this any changes “especially when plans have been drawn up behind closed doors” are likely to be viewed with suspicion.

The proposals on local elections were inserted late into the Parliamentary process after the second reading of the Bill, something which the Committee described as “disrespectful to the House”. In addition to this, we would aver that there are further reasons that this should be subject to consultation and engagement. The changes are not insubstantial, and stand largely to benefit the two major parties (but especially the Conservative party). Similar to the voter ID changes, there is little evidence too of a problem to be solved. The Government claims that people find the current supplementary voting system is confusing, but have provided no evidence to back this claim up. Without consultation, we might wonder how they have come to this conclusion.

In short- the whole Bill seems to have been constructed on the basis of not much evidence at all. Were we being cynical, we might suggest that this is another example where the Government has chosen not to consult because they knew it would be a bruising experience (see also the protest power section in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill) which would not support their positions. Naturally, this is not a legitimate reason for not consulting.

We’d certainly like to know exactly why the Government has not felt the need to consult on these provisions. There is more than a similarity here to what is often seen in America, where there is no independent electoral regulator, and political parties are adept at gaming and changing the system to their own advantage. We’re going to reach out to the Cabinet Office, to see if we can get a copy of any advice they were given on consultation requirements for these changes. We’ll let you know what they say.