The strategy statement compromises the neutrality and independence of both the Electoral Commission and Mr Speaker's Committee. It uses 'should' which implies a threat to ignore, skewing priorities with budgetary consequences.

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee warned about the threat to independence from this legislation. The use of 'should' implies a potential risk if ignored, and sets operational and budgetary consequences for the commission.

Asked for examples of things needing clarification beyond voter authority certificates and questioned what the Electoral Commission is doing wrong necessitating this statement.

Acknowledged the Minister's introduction but criticised the need for a strategy and policy statement, highlighting the independence of the Electoral Commission established by Labour in 2000. She argued that setting such a political agenda undermines the watchdog's impartiality.

Questioned the justification for the statement, emphasising the importance of the Electoral Commission’s independence over 20 years. She highlighted declining public trust due to government failures and scandals, while acknowledging that there are always areas for improvement in democracy.

Ordered Florence Eshalomi to address the Minister appropriately during her speech, reminding the House of the importance of parliamentary etiquette.

Welcomed the work done on the policy statement and acknowledged the role of Mr Speaker’s Committee. She argued for a strategy and policy statement, comparing it to other regulators like Ofcom and Ofgem, and encouraged broader engagement in the Electoral Commission's work.

Intervened to argue that comparing the Electoral Commission with other regulators is misleading. He suggested that government interference in the Electoral Commission’s operations would be inappropriate, unlike regulatory oversight in sectors like water.

The Elections Act 2022 was a missed opportunity to update electoral law properly for the next quarter of the 21st century. It removed proportionality from mayoral elections and imposed photo-identification requirements on poorer communities, while extending voting rights to overseas voters with less verification. The strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission further undermines its independence by imposing burdens that could conflict with statutory functions. The Government's consultation was limited in time and scope, raising questions about parliamentary sovereignty. This motion should be opposed as it appears unnecessary and potentially harmful to electoral fairness and transparency.

Betts expresses concern over perceived Government attempts to influence the Electoral Commission's independence and operational effectiveness. He states that despite detailed explanation from the Minister, no examples were given on how the statement will address current issues faced by the commission or improve its work.

McDonnell intervenes to ask about consequences for non-compliance with the Government's direction, suggesting that if other regulators face removal for failing to follow guidelines, there should be a similar process outlined for the Electoral Commission.

Foord questions whether removing ineffective regulators like Ofwat or the Environment Agency is more urgent than addressing issues with the Electoral Commission, implying that the current regulatory system for other sectors may need reform.

Hoare defends his opening remarks and clarifies that he did not compare the Electoral Commission to other regulators in a parallel manner. He emphasises the importance of reading Hansard for context.

Smith emphasises the importance of an independent Electoral Commission, supported by public opinion. She cites examples where the current Government has altered electoral regulations to potentially benefit themselves, such as repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and changing electoral registration rules. Smith warns that these actions are part of a trend towards politicising the commission and undermines democracy.

Hopkins supports her colleague's arguments, stressing the importance of maintaining the Electoral Commission’s independence. She criticises the Government's strategy as undermining public trust in democracy. She questions why such a statement is necessary when cross-party agreement already exists on the commission's role and expresses concern over voter ID requirements introduced without addressing real issues like disinformation and AI.

Foord argues that while he does not believe the Government intends to undermine democracy through this statement, such a perception exists among constituents. He cites local feedback opposing any government influence over the Electoral Commission's strategy or policy. He also references two Committees of the House which have stated that additional guidance is unnecessary and redundant.

The Minister is better than this motion—let us all agree on that. Like the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), I think it is a hangover from the Boris Johnson days, when the Electoral Commission upset him and he wanted to influence it. The Government claim that this strategy will enhance the parliamentary accountability of the Electoral Commission and increase public confidence in its work, but as everybody has stated today, it will do the complete opposite. This strategy and policy statement is little more than an attempt by the Government to undermine the independence of the Electoral Commission and to stamp their own agenda on the regulation of our democracy. We in this House need to take back control—that is important. Avoiding transparency and accountability seems to be the hallmark of the Government. Do not just take my word for it; the Electoral Commission itself wrote to MPs this week stressing that the principle of independence is crucial to maintaining confidence in our electoral system. It warned Members: ‘The introduction of a mechanism such as a strategy and policy statement—by which a government can guide an electoral commission’s work—is inconsistent with this independent role.’ If the commission is saying that, and the Speaker’s Committee is saying it, why is the Minister trying to convince us otherwise? This is not the first time that the Government have attempted to rig our democracy. They forced through their voter ID system, which threatened to disenfranchise the most vulnerable in society. Remember that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) mentioned, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) let it slip that that was a deliberate attempt to manipulate electoral outcomes in favour of the Conservative party, and then went, ‘Whoops!’ because he had made a mistake and said the quiet bit out loud. This draft strategy and policy statement sets out the Government’s strategic and policy priorities for the Electoral Commission. It also contains guidance to which the commission must have regard in the discharge of its functions. That places on the commission a concerning legal duty to consider first and foremost the Government’s priorities when fulfilling its duties. If a foreign Government were wielding that much power over their elections, there would be calls to send in independent advisers to ensure that their elections were being held democratically—that is how bad this is. When people ask, ‘Do we have corruption in our Government?’, I say, ‘Yes, we do, and this is an example of that.’ The Government keep focusing on the prevention and detection of voter fraud, yet there is little evidence that voter fraud is widespread. In fact, it is so rare that there were only nine convictions.

Order. The hon. Lady talked about corruption in Government. I want her to withdraw that; she needs to rephrase what she said. She does know that—she is very experienced—so I ask her to say at this point that she withdraws any allegations of corruption within Government.

Asked questions about the purpose and necessity of the statement, suggesting it either seeks to change how the Electoral Commission operates or does not seek to do that at all.

Objected to the Minister's portrayal of her point, clarifying she was comparing voting rights for 16-year-olds with those who have lived outside the UK for 16 years.