Parliamentary Parties Panel minutes: 3 December 2024

The minutes were approved without any changes.

VR thanked PPP members for their collaboration with the Commission during the election period. VR hoped that the support and guidance offered by the Commission both before and after the election was helpful.

VR highlighted four key themes from the Commission’s report: candidate abuse and intimidation, postal voting, overseas voters and funding arrangements for electoral administrators.

Candidate abuse and intimidation

VR explained that the Commission had worked with the government, police and candidates to provide updated guidance and support to candidates. VR acknowledged that this was not sufficient given the high and unacceptable levels of abuse and intimidation that took place at this election.

VR said that the Commission was now considering what changes could happen ahead of the elections taking place in Scottish and Wales in 2026. He explained that this included exploring with UK Government whether candidates should have to publish their personal addresses; addressing how we work with police to help ensure a consistent response; and the potential role of the UK Government’s Online Safety Act.

There was an extended discussion around concerns regarding the use of addresses and the impact it had on candidates’ security. SM questioned how useful it is for Returning Officers, as most correspondence is now done by email, although he explained occasionally someone may wish to serve a writ on their agent. KB raised that after the election, candidate and agent addresses remain on some local authority’s websites. VR noted that we know that candidates do want to use their address to prove local credentials but are concerned they are compromising their personal security by doing so.

JK said that balancing considerations around both security and transparency is important. JK raised that in PCC elections the address of the constituency is published, but not the full address which confirms local credentials but falls short of a full address.

Postal votes 

VR noted some of the challenges at the election relating to postal votes as some people did not receive their ballots in time to complete and return it before polling day, including in Scotland and Northern Ireland where polling day fell shortly after the start of the summer holidays. This made it harder for some people to vote and placed additional pressure on electoral administrators.

There was a detailed discussion around postal votes. PD explained that numbers of people applying for a postal vote continued to rise, which was putting additional pressure on the supply chains, including printers and the Royal Mail. PD noted the significant number of people who applied on the final registration day, which resulted in further pressure on postal vote system. CL asked if there was a bigger decision to be taken at some point to stop putting in resources for postal votes, and drawing a line between public expectation and what the public sector can deliver. VR said expectations must be managed around applying last minute for a postal vote as it may not be guaranteed. VR noted there could be alternatives to the current supply chain, including whether exploring whether we should look at giving voters more flexibility such as early voting.

MA asked whether it was possible for every registered voter to have a unique voter identification number. VR explained that this does exist in Northern Ireland, but not across the UK. PD said previous attempts at a unified register have been extremely difficult and that Northern Ireland comes from a different place both historically and how they run elections.

Overseas voters 

VR said improvements could be made to overseas voter’s experience, given the low numbers of voters who were able to return their ballots in time. This could include exploring whether consulates and embassies could provide an in-voting person option for overseas voters.

Funding arrangements for local authorities

SM said that the message should be for overseas voters to get a proxy vote. SM noted that some organisations had been in contact to explain that because of the timing of the election during school holidays in Scotland, some voters did not have someone available to exercise a proxy for them. VR noted that more could be done to make it clear to overseas voters that a proxy vote could be the safest bet to ensuring they could vote in time, particularly for those living in places like Australia and New Zealand. KB raised there has been misinformation circulating that parties could organise proxy votes for voters.

PD raised that MHCLG had previously discussed the option of using consulates and embassies for voting, but that returning officers don’t feel they have the same level of control and oversight abroad.

VR noted that the challenges to the resilience of the electoral system – including funding – need to be addressed. He explained that resources had been acutely stretched with a general election being called only three weeks after the delivery of May’s local elections.

OR flagged the concerns of the resilience of local authority election services teams especially in smaller services. OR explained how vulnerable there are even if one member of staff is not present, which could lead to applications not being processed and multiple issues. JK highlighted that this is a priority for the Commission in the next corporate plan and a key area of focus of what we can improve and the support that we offer to this vital teams.

LC provided an overview of the work the Joint Election Security and Preparedness Unit (JESP), explaining that it sits between the Cabinet Office and MHCLG. LC outlined the unit’s responsibilities for coordinating government election security and driving government activity in areas regarding cyber, personal and information security. LC said the unit’s focus is now in ensuring candidates are aware of what is support is available to them, and ensuring plans are ready for the local elections. LC requested that each party provide a key contact going forward to discuss candidate security with.

BM explained JESP plans for candidate security at the local elections in May 2025. This included updated guidance on social media safety, protective security and cyber security. BM highlighted that protective security is a real priority for ministers due to rising levels of violence, abuse and intimidation. BM said the Home Office is working with police to provide all local representatives including councillors, police crime commissioners and mayoral candidates with a dedicated police officer in their local force. 

BM said JESP would be sharing more about the security package in due course, and wanted to ensure they maximised engagement with parties. BM asked PPP members how the unit could engage with their candidates and welcomed any thoughts or feedback. 

KB welcomed the intentions but raised concerns about how effectively plans could be implemented locally. KB raised that consistency of the police response was very important, as party is nervous to raise candidate’s expectations of the security offer if it is not met.

OR noted that ensuring consistency of police responses was important as the varying response from forces was an issue. TP explained that there is a new network of police officers being embedded in police forces and this would be their primary role. TP said while it is not an excuse, Operation Bridger was not the sole focus of police officer’s role and that this new approach should help with a more consistent response. 

KB explained that the party have had to email chief constables for a response before, and that they should not be going to that level. 

AW said the Commission had been helpful in unblocking communications with the Home Office. AW raised there seemed to be varying degrees of knowledge within the police regarding both electoral and intimidatory legal offences and lots of issues in polling stations.  AW appreciated this was being looked at. 

 VR raised the broader issue of how we communicate with candidates as a whole and that information flows are best communicated from parties, as the candidate’s primary source. VR said with the candidate security package, ensuring parties are the main conduit would be helpful. VR said this may be helpful to look at a future meeting, to which panel members agreed.

CL asked for clarification on whether the Commission redacted suppliers addresses when they published returns. LD agreed to take this away but explained that we would not publish personal addresses of suppliers who were individuals.

PM opened a discussion on the Commission’s new drafted aggregations guidance, which had been circulated to parties for consultation on 4 November 2024. PM outlined that we had identified there was significant variation in practices between parties and that the Commission could have provided clearer and more detailed advice on how to deal with aggregated donations. PM gave an overview of the updated guidance and explained that from 1 January 2025, the Commission was proposing the new approach would apply. PM said the Commission hoped the guidance delivers more transparency for voters and is also easier for parties to implement and asked for feedback from attendees.

KB said that the revised approach was welcome and was common sense.

JC welcomed the changes in the drafted guidance but asked whether there was a statutory basis for delaying the sweep of accounting unit donations under the reporting threshold to Quarter 4. JC said this delayed transparency on these donations. PM responded that there was a priority in the legislation that the normal process of aggregation must run throughout the year, before accounting unit donations can be treated as central party donations in an end of year sweep. If this were done each quarter, the normal process would be disrupted. The wording of the legislation makes clear that it is intended at the end of the year only. PM said there is potential for a delay in reporting by a couple of quarters, but everything will end up being reported at the end of the year. JC asked that if accepting this interpretation is correct, could the guidance specify to do the sweep in Quarter 4, but not Quarters 1, 2 and 3. PM said that this was made clear in the draft guidance. 

AW said the new guidance was welcomed and that the approach is more in line with the party’s approach. AW said the approach is easier to administer and better for transparency and expressed support for the changes.

CL welcomed the guidance and noted that when you look at the legislation the revised changes is closer to it. CL explained that implementing new changes is difficult asked for the Commission’s understanding and support in the next few quarters while the parties work to reflect these guidance changes in their reporting. PM responded that the Commission will be taking a proportionate response and offered meetings with each of the parties. LD reiterated the offer of these meetings and said the Regulatory Support Team are happy to go through the process with each party and look at what they are planning to report if it should be helpful. 

CL said that examples in the guidance are very helpful and easier for those using it to follow.CL noted that using ‘aggregate’ instead of ‘adding up’ was preferable. 

SM said that the guidance on the end of year sweep is consistent with the legislation if not the intention of parliament. 
 

Attendees had no comments.

KB raised that it was AM and SM’s last panel meeting, and thanked them for their work over the years, their significant contribution to the panel and wished them well for the future.

The next meeting was agreed for 4 February.