Parliamentary Parties Panel minutes: 1 December 2015

The minutes from 01/09/2015 were agreed with no clarifications sought or noted. There were no other matters arising from the minutes.  
 

CB explained that, as part of her role, she will be conducting a strategic review of the role of the Commission and its remit.  PPP members were asked to consider what they want from the Commission going forward so that this can be discussed at the group’s next meeting.  

MC suggested consideration might want to be given to the role of the Commission in the administration of elections, specifically around the Commission having more power to intervene. 

AS suggested that the Commission might want to consider looking at gaining more statutory powers over local authorities, especially where they might be underperforming.  He cited electoral registration as a particular area where this might be effective.   

CB replied that these are good indications of the kind of conversations the Commission is looking to have, but added that we do need to be mindful that any changes will need buy-in from Parliament. 

AR updated that, following a likely amendment to the Bill, the Commission will now be able to designate on one side of the campaign only if appropriate.  
 
AR explained that, once the Bill becomes an Act and provisions are commenced by order, an initial tranche of guidance will be published. 
 
On the voting age for the referendum, AR reported that there are a lot of measures that will need to be carried out to effectively enact votes at 16, including secondary legislation and changes to the Government Digital Service registration system.  He added that, when the referendum date is known, the Commission will be issuing an assessment of how much of the preparation has taken place and what will still need to be done. 
 
ML asked if the timescale was longer for the Scottish Independence Referendum and AR replied that it was a lot longer. 

MC asked if there are any legal problems around 16 year olds registering to vote, and BP responded that there are sensitivities around holding data on 16 year olds, but that measures were put in place at the Scottish Independence Referendum to manage this.

GD noted a lot of awareness raising usually takes place in universities but not as much seems to be targeted at young people that aren’t in education.  AR responded that the main way to remind people to register is through Electoral Registration Officers and that their activity is aimed at everyone.  Then, in addition, the Commission runs campaigns targeted at those groups that have been found to be typically under-registered, of which students are one. 

BP explained that the Enforcement Policy came in in 2010 and that, now five years have passed, it is felt that it’s time to revisit the policy through consultation.  He added that there will be a focus on targeting resources most effectively, and gave as an example the fact the team currently spend a lot of time reminding people to meet requirements, whereas this time might be more effectively spent on more substantive areas of work. He explained that, if appropriate, the revised Policy will be brought in before the polls in May 2016. 

AS commented that cases can take quite a long time to be resolved and that this can prolong the period of worry for the party volunteers involved. BP responded that, although the team need to be thorough, he is hoping to streamline the process on more straightforward matters. 

MC asked if the Commission will be looking at the impact of other legislation on its Enforcement Policy.  BP responded that there are sometimes overlapping regulatory regimes and the Commission is mindful of this. 

ML asked if the Commission is happy that everything is in place to ensure the register is complete and accurate, and added that she is concerned that the register could ‘erode’ over time.  BP responded that all statutory duties on local authorities / EROs remain and that the canvass will still take place.  He added that the Commission has a responsibility to monitor performance to seek to ensure that EROs work effectively, particularly as local authority resources get tighter.

AR commented that, now the transition to IER is complete, the Commission now has the opportunity to make registration better, and cited the use of behavioural insights and the sharing of best practice across local authorities as ways in which this might be done. 

ML mentioned that the issue of CORE had been raised again recently, and wondered how much longer local authorities could continue to compile separate registers.

AS reported that parties have been discussing a standard data format for the register and that he and others will be meeting with Paul Avery at the Cabinet Office to discuss it.

BP explained that the Commission are planning to make updates to PEF online as it can currently be difficult to use.  He added that the Commission also want to introduce online guidance and forms, but that the project would require funding.

DB responded that, on the spreadsheet version of the form, there are four dates required for every transaction, and that two of them (incurred date and invoice date) aren’t actually required in statute.  He also added that there are different fields in the spreadsheet to those on PEF Online.  BP responded that this can be looked into. 

AS commented that he was disappointed to see that Commission had said in July in its post elections report that there should be full compliance now that PPERA had been around for 15 years, considering that accounting units are run by volunteers with limited terms.  BP replied that the Commission does recognise that there are occasions where compliance might be more challenging. 

Members asked about the online consultation on new party registration applications.  BP explained that there is currently a pilot whereby new applications are put online and people can them comment.  BP agreed to circulate the details of how members could get involved with the consultation. 

ML explained that there is a difficulty around banker’s drafts from the Cooperative Bank being accepted as payment for election deposits, and asked if the Commission had looked into enabling electronic transfers.  BP replied that he would feed this back to the Electoral Administration team. 

AS commented that problems are posed by the fact that letters from local authorities confirming that someone will be added to the register don’t confirm when they will be added, which causes challenges around the permissibility of donations. AR responded that the template letter has been changed so that the date will now be included. 

The date of the next meeting is 8 March 2016 – SNP to Chair