Minutes of the meeting of the Westminster Parliamentary Parties Panel held on Tuesday 11 September 2012, London Present: Labour: Liberal Democrats: Conservative Party: SNP: Plaid Cymru: The Electoral Commission: Law Commission: Margaret Lynch, Compliance Manager (Chair) David Allworthy, Head of Compliance and Constitutional Support Charlotte Harris, Compliance Officer Simon Day, Finance & Compliance Director Alan Mabbutt, Conservatives Scott Martin Rhian Medi-Roberts Andrew Scallan, Director of Electoral Administration Lisa Klein, Director of Party and Election Finance Alex Robertson, Director of Communications Tom Hawthorn, Head of Electoral Policy Kate Brightwell, Senior Public Affairs Officer Richard Percival, Team Leader Henni Ouahes (Team Lawyer) Apologies: Peter Wardle, Chief Executive (Electoral Commission) Page 1 of 7
A. Main Business 1 Minutes, and actions of the meeting and matters arising (ECPPP 19/06/12) 1.1 The minutes from 19/06/12 were agreed by the panel, subject to a two small amendments from David Allworthy (DA) to paragraph 2.3 and 2.4. 1.2 It was agreed that the action from 19/06/12 regarding the proposal of a joint letter from parties encouraging attendance at pre-election meetings with Returning Officers would be picked up as part of the integrity review. Statement of accounts and Disclosure policy 1.3 Lisa Klein (LK) confirmed that the new disclosure policy will apply to all enforcement cases that commence after 3 September 2012 and that, as suggested at the last PPP meeting, the policy would be reviewed in six months. 1.4 LK noted that the PPP participants had recently met to discuss standardised statement of accounts (SOA) and that corrected minutes of that meeting would be circulated today. 1.5 Scott Martin (SM) referenced his view that the Commission could make regulations targeting certain classes of parties and accounting units. LK agreed that the legislation provided the Commission with flexibility in making regulations for statement of accounts. 1.6 Simon Day (SD) reaffirmed that the Conservative party does not think regulation of statement of accounts is necessary and noted that it will have a negative impact on party volunteers. In his view, the case for regulation has not been made, and the 20% take-up rate of the standardised format by smaller parties and accounting units was not a valid reason for moving to regulation now. DA added that there was a fundamental difference between paid staff and volunteers dealing with party finance. 1.7 LK highlighted that the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) took a different view and was very clear about the inadequacy of voluntary compliance. She also added that any new regulations would need to be in place 18 months before the impact of them could be measured and therefore if there were further delays in moving forward it would be years before mandatory standardised SOA would produce the transparency that CSPL found wanting. Page 2 of 7
1.8 Margaret Lynch (ML) said that Labour shared the concerns raised by the Conservatives and Lib Dems and the PPP will continue to engage with the Commission discussions on this issue. SM added that the SNP was not opposed to regulation in this area. LK said she would relay the PPP s views to the Commission Board at its next discussion on the issue. 2 Law Commission 2.1 Richard Percival (RP) and Henni Ouahes (HO) gave a short presentation to the PPP on the Law Commission s review into electoral law. RP said that the scoping phase of the review was coming to the end and that the Law Commission will be reporting on its consultation at the end of the year. RP added that the review is currently being conducted centrally with collaboration with the Law Commissions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and it is hoped that the review will be covered by all four Commissions when the scoping phase is finalised. 2.2 HO said that the Law Commission had looked at the development of electoral law from its Victorian origins to the 1983 Act, describing this as the conventional model. HO said this law worked sufficiently at the local level but since 1983 has raised a number of modern concerns such as the volume and repetition of the law and complexity and fragmentation of the legislation. The Law Commission s analysis suggests these concerns arise because of developments in absent voter registration, increase of elections and voting systems with detailed rules for each election. 2.3 HO said that this analysis of the law to date has resulted in the aims of the project moving away from election specific legislation to focus on reviewing the legislative framework, reforming electoral administration law, with the overall aim for the law to be accessible and practicable and helpful to voters, candidates and administrators. 2.4 HO said that the review will be looking to find consistencies in the legislation but it will not be proposing a fundamental reform to the framework of how elections are run, such as a central co-ordination body. He added that they review may include local campaigning and national campaigning in the future but this is not on the agenda at the moment. 2.5 ML asked why the review was not going to look at institutional change of the framework for running elections. RP said that the Law Commission has not made a definitive decision on this but the provisional approach accepts that a central co-ordination body would be a very big step and beyond the scope of a law review by lawyers. 2.6 HO reminded the PPP that the deadline for submissions to the consultation is Monday 17 September and encourage all parties to Page 3 of 7
respond. The PPP agreed it was important and that parties would be making submissions to the consultation. 3. Review of Code of Conduct for campaigners 3.1 Tom Hawthorn (TH) said that the Commission is keen to review the Code of Conduct for campaigners handling postal votes to see if it can incorporate wider issues of electoral integrity. The Code of Conduct that is already in place has resulted in fewer complaints about parties handling postal votes which is positive. However, the issue of campaigners helping voters complete their postal ballots is still being raised and it is therefore important to consider what other issues the code should cover in the future. TH said in additional to this, the Commission would like to consider adding to the code to cover arrangements for proxy vote applications and campaign activity outside polling stations that parties could sign up to. These issues had been raised directly with the Commission via candidates and at the Integrity Roundtable. 3.2 TH said that the purpose of a revised code, from the Commission s perspective, was to provide clarity about what are agreed standards of acceptable behaviour by campaigners in order to safeguard the ability of campaigners to put their arguments to voters. 3.3 TH said the Commission was keen to start initial discussions with the PPP on expanding the code and then bring back some proposals for consideration at the November PPP meeting with the view to have something finalised and endorsed by the parties by the New Year. TH said this is also an opportunity to simplify the existing code and to make it more accessible. 3.4 Alan Mabbutt (AM) said he is keen to see a code of conduct addressing integrity issues but it needs to also be for Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and police, not just parties. He said the police need to enforce law that currently exists, particularly for intimidation outside polling stations. If the police take action it would help to address the issue which does not need a code of conduct to happen. All PPP members said that they wanted voters to be able to cast their votes without intimidation. 3.5 TH said that the police may be understandably nervous about using public order offences with campaigners outside polling stations, and that a code of conduct can help them to identify with campaigners what is an is not acceptable activity without resorting to formal intervention. TH added that the parties themselves had identified the benefit of good contacts locally that can help to diffuse issues when they arise informally before they escalate, and an agreed code can help with this. Page 4 of 7
3.6 DA said that proxy vote applications is similar to postal voting and therefore makes sense to be included in the Code of Conduct. 3.7 AS said that it is important everyone involved in elections understands the code of conduct and the issues it covers. Intimidation at polling stations is generated from a party base and therefore needs the involvement of parties to help set out what is acceptable behaviour. 3.8 AM suggested that the revised code for general use could set out who is responsible for what relating to elections, and then append a code of conduct that sets out what is expected of those holding such roles. 3.9 Action: TH said the Commission would contact parties directly via email with a paper setting out proposals to gather feedback before the November PPP meeting. He added that the Commission will also consider and set out ways in which the code can be used and share this with parties. PPP members agreed. 4 Electoral Commission update report November polls preparations 4.1 AS said that the Commission had issued a briefing (11 September) which highlights what has already been done and what remaining steps need to be taken to ensure the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) elections in November are well-run for voters and candidates. It also sets out the main issues that we will be monitoring to inform our post-election report. He added that the briefing also explains that the Welsh Forms Order is yet to be laid and approved by Parliament and if this is not approved in time will mean that ballot papers to be used in Wales at the elections in November will not be bi-lingual. AS said that the law is very clear what you can and cannot be translated and this is a matter for the Home Office to resolve. 4.2 AM said that he had contacted the Commission about which register details should be used on nomination papers given some conflict in the legislation. AS said that the Commission wanted to be pragmatic in finding a solution and would be updating guidance shortly on how PAROs should approach the issue. 4.3 LK reported that the Access to Elected Office Fund pilot is up and running, and is available for candidates standing in the PCC elections and those seeking to stand in the May 2013 local elections. The Commission has worked with Cabinet Office and Government Equalities Office officials to address an issue about the potential impact of A2EO funding on candidate spending limits. A2EO funding used during the regulated period may count as personal expenses, and at local elections, personal expenses count against the candidate s spending Page 5 of 7
limit. Accordingly, we have been liaising with the A2EO administrator who is alerting applicants to this issue. The Commission will be altering its guidance to candidates and agents to highlight this and request that PPP members liaise with their diversity colleagues on this issue. LK clarified that A2EO funding is permissible under PPERA. 4.5 ML asked how much the Commission public awareness campaign was costing and the separate Home Office campaign. Alex Robertson (AR) explained that the Commission campaign, costing 3.69 million, included a booklet that will be sent to all households in the 41 police areas in England and Wales explaining the role of PCCs, how to complete the ballot paper and the website and phone number of where people can get information on candidates. This will be supported by a TV campaign and local radio and press activity to raise awareness of the elections and alert people to look out for the booklet. The campaign will run from 22 October until polling day. AR said the Commission understands that the Home Office public awareness campaign will cost 3 million and will run from 5 until 24 October and will explain what PCCs are and encourage people to vote. This will be supported by TV, radio and online adverts. AR explained that in autumn 2011 the Commission had set out a number of options for public awareness work to the Home Office, including providing generic information from the Commission to be included in locally produced booklets with candidate information collated and distributed by Police Authority Returning Officers (PAROs) in each police authority area. The production and distribution of this booklet would have cost more than the approximately 1.5 million that the Commission s booklet costs - 41 different versions would need to be produced and delivered in a way that ensured voters received the specific booklet relevant to their elections - but this would to some extent have been offset by a reduction in the costs of the Commission s campaign. May 2012 election reports 4.6 ML said that Labour supported the Commission s plans to review the design of Supplementary Vote ballot papers after the November polls. AS said the Commission will be looking at this issue closely once more evidence has been gathered from the elections in November. 4.7 SM said that the recommendations for cost benefit analysis for electronic counting machines for London and Scotland were understandable but drew attention to the differences between an SV count and the count for Weighted Inclusive Gregory STV. AS said the Commission is keen to ensure that options were fully considered. Page 6 of 7
6. Dates of Next Meeting The date of the next meeting is Tuesday 27 November, Conservative to Chair. (General Secretaries/Chief Executives and Registered Treasurers also invited to attend) (The exact location will be given nearer the time). Actions from September PPP meeting: Action Owner Status EC to email PPP members with proposals for revising the code of conduct for campaigners. TH Completed. Page 7 of 7