Parliamentary Parties Panel minutes: 4 December 2018

AWi outlined the recent work of the ICO relevant to political parties, highlighting recommendations from their report ‘Democracy Disrupted?’ including the development of a Code of Practice for the use of data in political campaigning. She invited the PPP to contribute to a call for views on this matter.

AWi invited the PPP to attend a workshop on the Code of Practice taking place on 17 December. AW requested that the meeting could be rearranged for after Christmas due to staffing concerns. SM added that the PPP would like to all attend the same meeting. AWi committed to feeding back the PPP’s requests and added that arranging a second meeting may be possible.  

AWi highlighted a recommendation on providing information processing information, for instance on how commonly held data such as the electoral register is used. DB suggested that the ICO could support political parties’ calls for the electoral registers to have a common format. AWi asked DB to write to the ICO on this matter.  

DB explained that voters often incorrectly believe that political parties are not entitled to use their data if they do not appear on the open register. AW suggested that this should be clarified at the point of collection of the data in the annual canvass. He added that changes in this area should be led by the ICO, government and EROs.

AWi outlined plans for information audits of political parties in the New Year, referring to a letter the ICO had sent.

NV asked how political parties can prepare for these audits. AWi responded that parties should demonstrate that they are on the path towards meeting the requirements of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). DB raised concerns about how parties can demonstrate this if their plans are not in place yet. AWi said that this would be clarified as the audits are arranged. 

DB thanked the ICO for attending. 

The minutes were agreed.  

BP highlighted that the consultation on codes of practice on election spending by candidates and political parties formally closed on the day of the meeting and thanked the PPP for their contributions. He committed to returning to the PPP with the updated Codes in due course. AM noted his view that the draft Codes would require further amendment and added that campaigners on the ground would have important perspectives on the usefulness of the codes. 

NV mentioned that she would appreciate the inclusion of some examples of how the Codes would work. AM cautioned that examples included may become outdated as technology moves on, suggesting that they should be broad instead of specific. BP added that the Codes should have longevity as they will not be easily changed.  

BP reminded the panel that the Codes of Practice can only work to clarify the existing law, and cannot change the law. DB responded that the existing law is not fit for purpose, adding that when the Liberal Democrats met with the Commission he outlined real world scenarios where the Codes did not help.

AM said that parties are facing an increase in overheads and would not want the Codes to add to the law or increase their regulatory burden. BP reassured him that the Cabinet Office are helping the Commission to ensure the Codes remain within the scope of the law and do not extend it.

DB suggested that once the Commission has a further draft of the Codes a session could be held to stress test them. BP responded that the Commission would be open to that. 

KK gave an outline of the work the Commission is doing to help make elections more accessible to disabled people, referring to the Commission’s findings in the report ‘Elections for Everyone’ and the subsequent work of the Cabinet Office Accessibility of Elections Working Group. She highlighted the recommendations in the report which apply to political parties: to publish accessible manifestos in good time before the election and to hold hustings where voters can hear directly from the candidates. 

AW stated his support but highlighted that translating party manifestos into accessible versions has to be included in party spending returns. AW stated his support for an amendment to make the cost of translating election materials exempt from campaign spend and DB agreed. KE explained that the Commission has also made recommendations for changes to the law in this area.  

DB highlighted that parties have faced delays in translating their braille versions due to the limited capacity of the RNIB.

GD stated that access to areas such as nursing homes can be difficult for parties to access during election times. DB and AW expressed similar experiences with gated retirement homes and care homes. AW added that clear guidance expressing what parties are allowed to do would be helpful.

It was agreed that KK’s contact details would be circulated with the PPP minutes to enable direct contact with party officers responsible for accessibility. 

BP alerted the PPP that EW had sent them the Commission’s response to the UK, Welsh and Scottish consultation on the annual canvass that morning.

NV offered congratulations to BP on his appointment as Interim Chief Executive of the Commission.

AM stated his concerns that the Commission was going beyond its remit in its review of party descriptions. BP responded that the review was only to remove or change party descriptions which mislead the voter and the Commission were conscious not to go too far.

DB highlighted that party logos can identify a party on the ballot paper. AW questioned whether Labour’s ‘For the many not the few’ slogan identified the party closely enough even though it does not refer to the party name. BP specified that it is important that voters know who they are voting for on the ballot paper and explained that the Commission is leading on this work in the absence of legislative reform, which had been requested of the government.

GD stated that the Commission needs to be transparent about its decisions. BP responded that the party database is already online and searchable and that parties should specify if they have any issues going forward. 

BP referred to the South Thanet case currently in the courts. He added that if the PPP have concerns then a discussion could be scheduled.  

AW noted that it would be on the agenda for the PPP meeting with the Cabinet Office later that day.  

AM outlined political parties concerns about the case, specifically around how national campaign activity can impact on candidate spending limits.  

AW, SM and AM raised the contradictions in the law which make compliance challenging for agents. AM noted that agents are often in post on a volunteer basis.