Letter to PACAC Chair on the Committee's Review of the 2024 general election

Dear Simon,  

I am writing to follow up on our oral evidence to your committee on 7 January.  Due to time constraints, we were unable to cover all the topics, so I hope that these responses are useful as part of your inquiry.  

Abuse, harassment and intimidation at elections

Abuse and intimidation can have a significant impact on candidates’ campaign activity. Our election research has identified a trend of increased candidate abuse and intimidation since 2022. The majority (56%) of respondents to our recent post-election survey said they avoided some form of campaign activity at least once due to a fear of abuse. Abuse and intimidation risk putting people off wanting to stand for election and can prevent voters being able to hear from candidates directly.  

Tackling this issue requires coordinated effort from a range of organisations from across the electoral and law enforcement sectors. There are already clear definitions of behaviour that would be illegal, and we support police and candidates to understand the law and how to report an offence. We plan to do more to understand the public's attitudes to behaviours through future research. We will work with partners to understand this issue, and to collectively develop effective responses. We will support the Speaker’s Conference ongoing work in this area, as well as the work led by the Home Office and the Defending Democracy Taskforce. While we see legislative change as an important part of the response, we don’t believe it is the only lever.

Political parties must play their part in strengthening deterrents. Over a third (38%) of respondents said that they experienced abuse from campaigners and candidates from other political parties. For this reason, we have recommended that all political parties ensure that membership rules explicitly emphasise respect of other campaigners and take appropriate action to sanction members found to have abused or harassed campaigners.  Political parties also have an important role in providing proactive support to candidates, through clear information and guidance alongside the police. We will work with parties through a variety of forums, including the political parties panels, to explore how the principle of encouraging respectful debate can be implemented and assured across all political parties.

We have also called on police forces and prosecutors to continue to treat allegations and cases of election-related intimidation seriously. They must demonstrate that those committing offences against candidates and campaigners will face significant sanctions. In our feedback from candidates at the general election, we received evidence of inconsistencies in how police forces responded to reported incidents, with variation between forces in the quality of contact and speed of responses.  

Abuse doesn’t only negatively impact the individuals themselves, but acts as a wider deterrent on those considering standing, limiting the diversity of candidates and choices for voters, and ultimately harming our democracy. Our report calls for those found guilty of criminal offences committed against candidates, campaigners or elections staff to face penalties which reflect the wider impact on the democratic process.  

We are committed to working with partners across the wider electoral community to develop a clear shared understanding of what constitutes unacceptable behaviour, as opposed to robust political debate. We have already worked with the police to publish updated guidance to candidates on what behaviour constitutes a criminal offence and how to report it. We will continue to work on this issue to create a consistent approach that protects candidates and gives them the confidence to participate. This should particularly take into account the different experiences of those most affected by abuse and intimidation (including women, people from ethnic minority backgrounds, and disabled people).  

We acknowledge that addressing this issue is a big challenge, and one made more difficult by the lack of a single responsible body. No one organisation can solve this problem alone, so it requires an effectively joined up response. We will do our part and hope to see our key partners tackle this challenge with us.

Electoral Administration 

The 2024 general election was well-run, in large part due to the professionalism and commitment of electoral administrators. The vast majority of voters were able to take part and cast their vote using their preferred method. Crucially, voters maintained high levels of confidence in the system. There would be serious implications if this was to be lost. For example, electoral failure could lead to legal challenges, through the petitions process, to individual results and a constituency’s result being voided and the election re-run. Such an event poses a wider risk to public confidence in the integrity of the process or the overall legitimacy of the result.

The UK’s democratic process is significantly dispersed, which limits the potential for widespread failure. However, electoral administrators face significant challenges and the Commission, along with others in the sector, has highlighted the resilience of electoral administrators as an area of concern. There is a clear sense in the feedback we received that administrators ‘got through it’ despite these challenges, rather than having sufficient time and capacity and fully functioning operational resources to support them to run the poll. Without significant change, including in the funding of elections, there continues to be the risk of administrative errors or failure of electoral administration processes in both the short and long terms. Improvements must happen before the next scheduled general election.  

Feedback from administrators show that finding and retaining staff remains a key concern. Of those surveyed, 90% of respondents experienced problems recruiting polling station staff. Comments from administrators highlighted that the increased complexity of the work, combined with the rate of pay offered, impacted their ability to recruit and retain staff. Others noted the difficulties created by the timing of the election during the holiday period in Scotland and Northern Ireland.  

To help tackle the challenge of recruitment, we have produced recruitment resources that local authorities can use to promote recruitment. We also include information on our website for individuals who wish to find out about opportunities to work in their local polling station.

Administrators have raised concerns with us about the suitability of the digital systems which they use to manage a range of elections processes, such as voter registration and absent voting applications. This includes Electoral Management Systems, as well as the Electoral Registration Officer Portal (EROP). Some administrators highlighted poor functionality and missing features in the centrally-delivered systems (such as the EROP) and that the multiple systems in place do not operate well together, creating extra complexity and administrative burdens. There is a need for a comprehensive risk assessment of capacity and resilience, including the supplier market. Administrators need to be able to rely on functional, joined-up digital systems to deliver their duties. The UK Government should work with the electoral community to continue to improve the digital systems that it provides.

The challenges facing administrators are further exacerbated by the hundreds of pieces of legislation applying to their role and functions, many of which place different requirements on different types of elections. The Commission develops and provides guidance for administrators however this legislative landscape creates a complex and costly operating environment. For example, the Government was required to create two statutory instruments, of 24 pages and 76 pages respectively, to add the veterans’ card to the accepted list of ID for all relevant polls. The complexity of the secondary legislation required to make even this simple change demonstrates the complexity of the law in this area and the burden placed on electoral administrators, and Government, when navigating it.

The UK’s Law Commissions have already provided a blueprint for electoral law reform that is widely supported by the electoral community and would modernise and simplify some of these legislative complexities.  

Royal Mail  

We recognise Royal Mail’s critical role at the most recent election and valued the positive engagement we had with their elections team in the run-up. Royal Mail is responsible for the delivery of polling cards and postal votes as well as candidate material. The Commission does not have a regulatory role over this work. We support political parties, campaigners and candidates with guidance on campaigning, including their entitlement to free postage on an election mailing during a general election.  

Our post-poll report found that fewer than half (48%) of candidate respondents agreed that they were able to effectively get their views across to voters during the campaign and 39% disagreed (12% said they neither agreed nor disagreed). Of those who said they had difficulties getting their views across to voters, around one in five mentioned the postal service in their reason (21%). We continue to encourage candidates to consult Royal Mail’s guidance on candidate mailings, and to contact Royal Mail to arrange to use their entitlement.  

The Committee asked Royal Mail in its session on 21 January (Q82) about the number of poll cards delivered. While we do not hold this data, there may be a number of reasons why more poll cards are issued than the number of eligible voters. For example, replacement poll cards may be issued, or voters may be sent an additional poll card if they change their voting preference after receiving their original card. Poll cards are also issued to those acting as a proxy voter, and more than one poll card may be sent to those who are legitimately registered at more than one address, such as students.

I trust that these responses, alongside our reports and oral evidence, are useful to the Committee.

Yours sincerely,

John Pullinger
Chair, Electoral Commission