Parliamentary Parties Panel minutes: 4 February 2025

KB requested an amendment to December’s minutes in section 3.4 ‘Police Constable’ was changed to say ‘Chief Constable’. 

psLondon outlined the purpose of their work, was to create a vision statement to outline the goals and long-term aspirations of how the Commission represents itself externally. They explained they would be working with internal Commission staff and key external stakeholders to gather contributions and insights, and that the importance of trust  had been identified as the critical foundation for the Commission.

KB highlighted that trust in the Commission is improving but explained that sometimes advice from the Commission can be second-guessed due to past experiences. AW stated that everyone wants the regulator to be an expert and confident at explaining the law.  MA explained that independence is important as it conveys that the Commission fairly  enforces PPERA no matter the party.

RP summarised the  direction of travel for the Commission. ‘Champions of democracy in a changing world – The Leader’, ‘There for you - ‘The Facilitator’, The election experts - The Educator and ‘Elections without barriers – The Enabler’. He asked the panel for their views on these. 

Champions of democracy in a changing world – The Leader

KB stated that the pace of legislative change can hold the Commission back. KB raised there is a misconception about what the Commission is for and that the regulator can be held accountable for things that they are not responsible for, such as the Representation of the People Act. 

AW raised that during the general election, the Labour party had some issues with candidate security which the electoral law didn’t cover. He noted that tyhe Commission were helpful as a liaison point but due to the law there was not much they could do otherwise. He suggested this would work better framed as the Commission having a role as a trusted voice in the debate.

The agency asked for  the panel’s thoughts on democracy being a product of the Commission’s work. KB stated that the Commission’s role is as a regulator, and its function is to make democracy happen, not its product. AW agreed the notion that the Commission is responsible for creating democracy could be a a grey area and its core responsibility is to regulate.

There for you  - The Facilitator

KB and MA noted that the majority of the public would not know about the Electoral Commission. KB raised that there are lots of people who want to participate in the political process but there is low understanding of how it all works in practice. . CL agreed that in terms of the general public, not many people will know the Electoral Commission exists and that new branding will not necessarily change this.

The election experts – The Educator

KB noted that the Commission should be seen as an expert, and that parties view of the Commission as an expert is improving, but is not there yet. AW noted that the Commission has an important role in providing advice and guidance to parties, candidates and campaigners. He stated that parties wanted to have confidence in the advice they are receiving and that the Commission is generally seen as an expert voice.

Elections without barriers – The Enabler

KB stated that the Electoral Commission’s remit is mainly political finance and that there were not many barriers to elections in the UK.

LC explained that that the Joint Election Security and Preparedness Unit (JESP) was currently updating and planning to disseminating candidate security guidance ahead of May’s elections. LC asked for the parties help  to notify as many candidates as possible that this guidance exists and they would be aiming to disseminate it through as many routes as possible and in a timely manner, building on lessons learnt from the general election.LC thanked parties who had met with JESP to share insights regarding candidate security and requested that any parties who had not yet engaged to do so. LC stated that due to conversations with parties, the unit had also engaged with the Local Government Association (LGA) and will now be able to disseminate guidance via their channels.

JF provided an outline of the contents of the guidance, explaining it would be similar to that for the general election, but would include information regarding Operation Ford. He noted they were aiming for a March publication date.. He noted there was also an online webinar aimed at Returning Officers, which parties would be welcome to attend.

KB asked when the parties would be able to read the guidance and raised that March was late as preparations for the May polls was already in full swing. KB asked when the parties would receive the contact details for the 4 SPOCs per area.

LC stated the contact details for the 4 SPOCS per area would be with the parties soon. 

AW stated that he shared KBs views and that the Labour Party had already started training for the polls. AW emphasised the importance of having the guidance in good time before campaigning starts, and that the party will happily disseminate. LC acknowledged the panel’s position and that feedback will be taken on board. LC said that the unit wanted to ensure a final guidance document was circulated, as opposed to disseminating further information as and when it was available.

AW asked whether there would be a specific briefing for parties alongside the briefing for returning officers in March. LC clarified that the webinar would be a chance for the police to set out Operation Ford and that as it is likely to be a smaller group of returning officers than usual, MHCLG hoped to parties would be able to attend it too and would send through relevant details.

JK outlined that the Commission had produced new resources for returning officers including a project planner, risk register, and training resources for returning officer’s staff. She highlighted that the polling station handbook was being finalised with additional updates on supporting clinically vulnerable staff and security measures. 

JK explained that the Commission would be running webinars and advice surgeries for candidates, agents and political parties which will provide practical advice, case studies and examples. She noted the advice service will aim to provide guidance within 1 day of receiving queries, to reflect the pace of the campaign. She explained that the Commission would also be publishing updated guidance on the use of crowdfunding platforms, in response to an increase of use of them by parties and campaigners  during the general election.

AW asked when the parties can expect to see the crowdfunding guidance.  

PM explained that the Commission would be looking to share the guidance with the parties in the next month, before the regulated period. He gave an overview of what the guidance would include, and how it would  , outline practicalities such as permissibility checking and returning anonymous donations.

KB asked whether the parties could see the agent’s guidance document included in the returning officer pack. AW noted that he found the returning officer guidance useful.

AW asked MHCLG for an update on devolution papers. PD explained that there will be news by the end of the week and clarified he had no advanced knowledge on which councils would be selected. PD stated that the department had conversations with elections teams to support with preparedness. 

KB asked about the discussions held with the parties by the department regarding the Ministry of Housing and Local Government’s review of the delivery of elections, including timing of nomination and provisions in law around candidate information. PD thanked those who attended and explained  that the department would still be happy to speak individually to anyone who had not made the meetings and highlighted that once proposals are consolidated they will make anyone affected aware. 
 

PM said that the Commission had used feedback from its advice service and analysis of the UKPGE candidate returns to identify common issues with the candidate return. The guidance team has used this analysis to develop a new version of the return. PM clarified that this version of the return would be available alongside the existing version at May’s elections. This would allow the Commission to gather feedback from those who tested the new version. 

PM outlined some of the changes in the form, which is now structured by type of payment rather than by category of spending. These included automating aspects of the form and changes to clarify the language, for example around ‘unpaid/disputed claims’. AW agreed that these terms were unhelpful. KB raised concerns on the accessibility of Excel. PM turned to the panel for feedback. 

AW stated that overall, the changes are broadly helpful and supported automation in the forms. AW stated that it was unlikely there would be resistance to moving away from categories on the forms and that the bulk of the Labour Party’s returns were notional spending. AW raised that the the return has not changed for a long time.PM stated that the return is a work in progress and that this is the first stage. In future the Commission will look the format of the return and how to integrate explanatory notes onto the return itself.

KB raised that spending categories are not relevant to modern campaigning techniques and questioned why a digital category was not included. KB raised concerns regarding the Excel form itself and how usable it would be if the formulae behind it were disrupted. 

PM said that the Commission had recommended updating the spending categories, but they are specified in law. 

MT questioned the logic of asking candidates to record in a column on the return any additional details for items where the amount reported does not match the amount on the invoice. MT said that the Conservative Party tell their agents to annotate their invoices, and that agents are unlikely to use any column on the return to do this. SD agreed that there was a risk that agents would use this column in different ways. AW said that there may not be enough space for complicated calculations, such as when an item of spending is split between multiple candidates.

PM suggested an alternative, of making this column a yes/no tick box, to indicate where additional information has been included on the invoice.

SD asked when the local election version of the return was likely to be ready and PM stated that the Commission would share a version once there was time to process their feedback. 

JK outlined that the Commission was obliged to produce a Corporate Plan every five years and that the current draft would go to Speakers Committee for approval in March and if approved come into effect from 1 April 2025. The plan has been developed based on evidence, learning and engaging with stakeholders and aims to address known stresses and strains on the electoral system and how the Commission aims to meet that challenge. 

JK outlined the key aims of the plan which are to support voters to participate, modernise the electoral system, protect the electoral system and voter trust and lead an informed debate about the future of elections. 

JK raised the ongoing PEF Online project and VR’s statement at the previous panel meeting that the Commission hoped to embed a new system in the next 18 months. JK outlined that a new Project Lead had recently been appointed and clarified that JK was the Senior Responsible Owner of the project. 

KB raised that the plan was interesting. AW stated that the plan was broadly sensible and what the party’s would expect. AW stated that he was glad the Commission has taken the parties seriously regarding candidate abuse and intimidation. 

AW raised the UK Government’s announcement regarding the introduction of digital driving licences as a form of digital identification. AW questioned whether this would be a permissible form of Voter ID, and whether this could be implemented via a Statutory Instrument if it becomes available.

PD stated that digital driving licences would not exist before May this year. The department need to look at the structure of legislation and they are in discussion with the relevant IT departments. 
 

There were no further comments. 

JK welcomed CL to the panel for the first time as party treasurer. JK extended the Commission’s apologies for scheduling the Westminster and Scotland Parliamentary Party Panel’s on the same day due to a scheduling error and offered assurances it would not happen again.

JK raised that an offer of accounting unit treasurer training was still open following requests from the Green Party and SNP, but engagement had been paused until after party returns were submitted. PM reiterated that the Commission would be happy to offer this more widely to other parties. PM outlined that the plan was to work closely with central parties to deliver training on accounting unit treasurer’s legal responsibilities. KB noted that the Liberal Democrats hold a treasurer training day, but that it would be too late to host it this year and February 2026 would be more likely.

KB raised that guidance regarding the Senedd elections was due to be published in September 2025. KB explained that parties needed to consider timetabling around signing-off budgets and scheduling training dates and that this timing was late to do so. PM acknowledged that the timetable was not ideal, but that this was dependent on the timetable for secondary legislation.