DRAFT ECPPP 25/11/2014 Minutes of the meeting of the Westminster Parliamentary Parties Panel held on Tuesday 25 November 2014, London

Transcription

1 DRAFT ECPPP 25/11/2014 Minutes of the meeting of the Westminster Parliamentary Parties Panel held on Tuesday 25 November 2014, London Present: Conservative Party (Chair): Alan Mabbutt, Nominating Officer Andrew Stedman, Compliance Manager Daisy Woods, Deputy Compliance Manager Labour: Margaret Lynch, Compliance Manager Mike Creighton, Director of Audit and Risk Management Liberal Democrats: Plaid Cymru David Allworthy, Head of Compliance and Constitutional Support Darren Briddock Rhian Medi-Roberts, Plaid Cymru Scottish National Party: Scott Martin, Scottish National Party UK Independence Party: Matthew Richardson, Secretary The Electoral Commission: Peter Wardle, Chief Executive Andrew Scallan, Director of Electoral Administration Alex Robertson, Director of Communications Bob Posner, Director of Party and Election Finance and Legal Counsel Tom Hawthorn, Head of Electoral Policy Mazida Khatun, Communications Officer

2 A. Main Business 1 Minutes, and actions of the meeting and matters arising (ECPPP 09/09/2014) 1.1 The minutes from 09/09/2014 were agreed with no clarifications sought or noted. There were no other matters arising from the minutes. 1.2 Margaret Lynch (ML) referred to paragraph 9.2 of the minutes, where the Electoral Commission (EC) stated that it would look into the mandatory address fields in the generic nomination form produced by the EC for appointing agents at by-elections. Andrew Scallan (AS) said that the new forms for next year were unavailable at the moment and therefore unable to be shared with the PPP. 1.3 Alan Mabbutt (AM) noted that PPP members had received information about the date of the beginning of the long campaign for MPs being changed to a day later than originally planned, in conjunction with other information. It was agreed that important notifications such as this warrant separate correspondence and should not be included in a general update. Action: EC to consider means of notifying PPP members of important updates. 2 Code of Conduct for Campaigners 2.1 Tom Hawthorn (TH) began by referring to the proposals for changes to the Code of Conduct for Campaigners, set out in paragraph 2 of the EC s update report. He also noted that we must reflect the need for stronger guidance to address voters concerns, risks identified by Returning Officers (ROs), but also campaigners views. 2.2 David Allworthy (DA) pointed out that parties cannot be reasonably expected to enforce local codes that parties at the national leadership level will be unaware of. Therefore any local codes should use the nationally agreed code and any additional provisions should be shared with national executives during consultation so that they are aware of further responsibilities. 2.3 TH also noted that there is a need to ensure that local police forces and ROs are aware of the Code of Conduct for Campaigners. DA suggested that the EC take responsibility for sending this message out to police forces and ROs. ML recommended that this guidance is issued in advance of the beginning of the short campaign. Action: EC to inform police forces and ROs about the Code of Conduct for Campaigners. 2.4 TH shared a version of the proposed changes to the Code for discussion following consultation. It was noted that changes from pages 1-11 were

3 to make the language more direct, and there were no objections to this. It was further noted that minor revisions were made to page 12 to remind readers that campaigners fulfil a valuable function (Proposed changes to the Code of conduct for campaigners, Sept 2014, paragraph 1.1), and also that campaigners should ensure that any electoral registration forms and postal or proxy voting application forms conform fully to the requirements of electoral law (paragraph 1.2). 2.5 AM and ML stated that they would not recommend to their campaigners that they discuss registration forms or postal votes, therefore including paragraph 1.2 may seem like encouragement to do so. TH responded that evidence from campaigners at the Scottish Independence Referendum suggested that their work had helped register individuals to register to vote, with a particular focus on 16 and 17 year olds. Scott Martin (SM) added that campaigners went door-to-door to encourage voter registration, as well as visiting job centres and other community services. 2.6 AM recommended that to meet the concerns, a paragraph be included in the Code to make campaigners aware of their responsibility under the Data Protection Act to give individuals a clear choice about whether or not to provide their personal details. TH noted SM s intervention ahead of the meeting to make the EC aware of the fact that the term sensitive personal data has a strict legal definition and should be used appropriately. Action: TH to add reference to offering individuals the choice about whether to give their personal details to campaigners and to replace the term sensitive personal data. 2.7 TH noted the original proposed change to language at paragraph in 1.4 on page 13, had been to include reference to electoral registration forms and to make clear the code now requires that campaigners do not handle completed applications at any point. During the consultation, many respondents highlighted that this would hinder individuals ability to register, although voters were confused as to why campaigners could take their completed applications. Therefore the EC now recommends dropping this proposed change in favour of retaining existing guidance on the matter. However, it was further noted that in certain areas where there had been specific problems or allegations in the past of fraud relating to absent vote applications, locally agreed additions to the code may recommend other actions. 2.8 ML suggested that Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) should provide freepost address envelope if electoral administrators have concerns about campaigners handling completed applications. TH highlighted that while several Returning Officers, Electoral Registration Officers and electoral administrators who responded to the consultation supported restricting campaigners involvement in handling application forms, they did not agree (or were unable to afford) to provide an alternative local authority-run collection or freepost service for applications.

4 2.9 Peter Wardle (PW) said that although there were concerns about individual late voters being disadvantaged because absent vote applications could be misused by campaigners, the greater problem was that postal votes could be collected, but not passed on to EROs quickly enough. He further stated that large-scale mailings could be particularly risky, and that there had been mistakes made such as registration forms which allowed postal voters to vote in the European Parliament elections, but not the local elections, which should not be repeated. Therefore the EC will provide clearer, practical advice on the do s and don ts. PW also asked that EROs and where relevant, the EC, be made aware of planned large mailings. Action: EC to propose mechanism for parties to notify EROs and EC of planned large mailings where relevant TH referred to proposed changes to paragraphs 1.4 and 1.5 on page 13, which the EC was now recommending be discounted in favour of retaining the existing wording Darren Briddock (DB) asked what would constitute a large mailing of interest to the EC. PW responded that if large mailings are being sent to one or a handful of local authorities, then this should be made aware to the relevant local authorities/eros. In the event that mailings cover larger areas, then it is requested that the EC be made aware of this TH referred members to text added to paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 to emphasise that completed ballot papers or postal ballot packs should never be handled by campaigners. The EC recommended that this proposed wording be retained as a wide range of Returning Officers (ROs) had confirmed that they would provide collection services on polling day for completed ballot papers and packs. SM suggested that in rural areas it may be the case that campaigners are in a better position to collect ballot papers or packs than ROs. PW stated that the principle of campaigners informing the RO of such cases should be established. Andrew Stedman recommended that the word never be removed from paragraph 2.3. Action: TH to revise wording in paragraph 2.3 to reflect requirement to contact RO and remove the word never Mike Creighton (MC) said that those who intend to commit electoral fraud will not be prevented in doing so by the Code as it is voluntary. TH stated that the Code provided clarity on norms and what is outside of the normal procedures, thus alerting people to bad practice. PW further stated that although this type of fraud is an infrequent problem, the Code provides clarity and a guideline for assessing risk. The Code will also be part of the raising of awareness among voters as to what is and is not permitted. The Commission would be producing a simple guide for voters on what to expect from campaigners, keeping their vote safe, and what to do if they have concerns TH stated that the revisions to the Code would be circulated among PPP members, for comments by 26/11/14, with the aim of finalising a version by the end of the week commencing 01/12/14. Action: TH to circulate

5 revised Code to PPP members. Action: PPP members to provide feedback on proposed Code. 3. Guidance for Canvassers 3.1 AS informed the PPP that the Guide for Canvassers was intending to reflect the Code of Conduct for Campaigners, but to also provide more practical guidance on the do s and don ts of canvassing. It was requested that PPP with any feedback, contact the EC using the contact details in paragraph 4 of the EC update report by the 05/12/14. Action: PPP members to provide feedback on Guide by 05/12/ DR raised the question of the actual definition of a canvasser. AM responded that that sections 100 and 111 refer to canvassers, but the definition is still unclear. Action: AS agreed to give some thought to defining a canvasser in the context of the guidance. 3.3 PW stated that the guidance was likely to be in more than one part as not all guidance would be relevant to all types of canvassers. He noted that there was particular concern about the level of understanding about the transition to IER and how this would affect the UK parliamentary general election in He said that local authority staff had suggested that 50% of applications to register to vote might be duplicates. However, aside from calling EROs directly, there was no other way of making sure that individuals are registered to vote and this was no bad thing. 3.4 MC believed that there was confusion about which electors had retained their postal vote and this was a difficult subject to discuss on the doorstep. He suggested that EROs write to everyone who had a postal vote in the new year, to confirm their status. However, PW reiterated that the only way to confirm a postal vote was to call respective EROs. AS added that secondary legislation had been passed, allowing parties to see who had been automatically carried over to the new register and who was at risk of losing their postal vote. It was further noted that the EC had produced guidance on this matter. 4. Police and Crime Commissioner Elections 4.1 AS stated that Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) elections were due to take place in May He further reported that the EC believes the Cabinet Office should take over responsibility of delivering these elections from the Home Office as the expertise required to deliver elections were within the Cabinet Office. 4.2 AM remarked that PPP members would take this recommendation to politicians in their respective parties. Action: PPP members to discuss

6 the recommendation to transfer responsibility for PCC elections to Cabinet Office as soon as possible, with politicians in their respective parties. 5. Weekly Donations Reporting 5.1 ML stated that, at the time of putting the item on the agenda she had not received the dates for submitting weekly donations reports, not any further guidance on the matter. However, Bob Posner (BP) has confirmed that she now has this. 5.2 BP reported that the legislation sets out the statutory deadlines or weekly reports and these are not discretionary. As the deadlines for this UKPGE fall on a Sunday, parties must submit by start of EC business Monday morning. This can be done by PEF Online, post, , fax, or hand delivery (requesting a receipt from the reception at 3 Bunhill Row, which is open on weekends). Action: EC to ensure that receipts are provided by office reception when submissions are made over the weekend. B. Electoral Commission Updates 6. AS flagged the consultation being run by the Law Commissions of England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, as a historic opportunity to improve electoral law and asked PPP members to submit responses. C. Any Other Business 7. Party Primaries 7.1 Matthew Richardson (MR) asked for clarification from the EC on the question of spending on primary contests. PW stated that the normal rules on campaign spending applied as to whether expenditure is party or candidate related. 7.2 AM suggested that this matter could be considered by the Law Commission as part of their review. 8. Policy Development Grants 8.1 BP informed the PPP that the audit of policy development grants

7 (PDGs) would necessarily take place in early 2015, being the lead up period to the general election. The audits will be done mindful that it is obviously an exceptionally busy period for the parties and the EC.. The EC will likely be using an external auditing firm on this occasion, which will be closely supervised in their work by the EC. 8.2 ML enquired of BP as to whether the external audit was likely to cause delays or be carried out over an extended period of time. BP informed that the EC will write to parties shortly, outlining the relevant details, and reassuring that the reason for opting for an external audit was to ensure that the audits are carried out promptly, with no extra inconvenience caused. PW also confirmed that the expectation is for the audit to take similar time as in recent years. Action: EC to provide further details of the audit to the parties who had 2014/15 PDG. 8.3 BP also informed the PPP that consistent with the legislative requirement, the EC had written to the Minister for the Constitution recommending that the statutory instrument be revised to reflect UKIP s now eligibility to receive a PDG. 8.4 BP further reported that due to the end of the canvass in Scotland being 17 th February 2015, with a 2 nd March date for publication of the register, the EC had also recommended to the Minister that PDG Order 2006 be amended to reflect this as a one off impact on PDG calculation. 8.5 MR asked to know how much UKIP would receive as part of a PDG. BP advised that this would be reflected by the changes to the Order the Minister makes, and that the calculations are complex. He further stated that the PDG scheme has not been reviewed since 2001 so the EC will be reviewing it, including consulting with parties after the 2015 general election with a view to possible changes to scheme for allocations. 9. General Election 2015 Counts 9.1 PW reported that the EC had received a number of letters from MPs about ROs obligations to start the count for the UK parliamentary general election within a specified period of time. The EC will produce a guide on counting ballots, but PW noted that some ROs will have to manage up to four elections on the same day, which has implications for resourcing staff and premises and should be taken into account by parties. PW confirmed that the count should start within four hours of the close of poll, unless there was a good reason for not doing so, and that the EC would remind ROs of this obligation. PW further noted that due to several factors, it is likely that results will be announced later in 2015.

8 D. Dates of the 2015/16 Meetings 10. Proposed dates for PPP meetings in 2015/16 were agreed by members, with the understanding that the schedule for chairing meetings was subject to change following the 2015 general election: 3 March 2015 (Chair: SNP) 2 June 2015 (Chair: Labour) 1 September (Chair: Liberal Democrats) 1 December (Chair: Conservative) E. Date of the Next Meeting The date of the next meeting is 3 March 2015 SNP to Chair

9 Actions from November PPP meeting: Action Owner Status EC to consider means of notifying PPP members of important updates EC to inform police forces and ROs about the Code of Conduct for Campaigners Code of Conduct for Campaigners EC to revise wording to reflect discussion. EC to circulate revised draft of Code to PPP to members on 26/11/14. Feedback on Code of Conduct for Campaigners PPP to provide feedback on proposed Code by 05/12/14. Large mailings EC to propose mechanism for parties to notify EROs and EC of planned large mailings where relevant. Guide for Canvassers PPP members to provide feedback on Guide by 05/12/14. Defining a canvasser Define a canvasser in the context of the Guide for Canvassers Responsibility for PCC elections PPP members to discuss the recommendation to transfer responsibility for PCC elections to Cabinet Office as soon as possible, with politicians in their respective parties. Submitting weekly donations reports EC to ensure that receipts are provided by its office reception when submissions are made over the weekend. PDG Audits EC to provide further details of the audit the parties who had 2014/15 PDG MK AS TH PPP AS PPP AS PPP BP BP