Minutes
of the Sixth Meeting of the Speaker's Committee
Wednesday 12 March 2003 in the Speaker's House
Present: Rt
Hon Michael J Martin MP, Speaker, in the Chair
Rt Hon Lord Irvine of Lairg QC, Lord Chancellor
Mrs Angela Browning MP
Lady Hermon MP
Apologies for absence: Rt
Hon Alan Beith MP, Chairman, Committee on the
Lord Chancellor's Department
Rt Hon Nick Raynsford MP, Minister for Local Government
Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman MP
Mr Humfrey Malins CBE MP
Mr Peter Viggers MP
1. The Committee's working methods
The Lord Chancellor commented that officials in both
his department and ODPM, which had the policy leads on electoral
policy generally and local elections respectively, had expertise
which could usefully be placed at the disposal of the Speaker's
Committee. Following discussions with Mr Raynsford, he offered
to bring together a small group of officials, drawn from both
departments and chaired by a senior official of his own department,
to assist the Committee in its work. He envisaged that all members
of the Speaker's Committee, and its Secretary, would have access
to this new resource, which could also act as a channel for Treasury
comment.
The Committee noted the Lord Chancellor's proposal.
2. Consideration of the Electoral Commission's
Main Estimate for 2003-04 and Corporate Plan for 2003-04 to 2007-08
The Committee noted the papers submitted by the Electoral
Commission following the meeting on 24 February on its training
strategy, its programme of reviews and giving answers to written
questions put by the Committee.
[Mr Sam Younger, Chairman of the Electoral Commission,
and Mr Roger Creedon, Chief Executive, were invited to join the
meeting]
Training
The Commission's proposed expenditure on training
development and delivery in 2003-04, for which Estimates provision
of £3.107 million was being sought, was further considered.
Mr Younger again pointed out that the bulk of this—£3
million—related to training for electoral administrators
in connection with the European Parliamentary election in June
2004. In respect of the 1999 European Parliamentary election,
training for electoral administrators had been centrally funded
by the Home Office. The Electoral Commission, to whom the relevant
Home Office responsibility had now passed, was simply proposing
to follow this precedent.
Mr Younger agreed that, in the event that the full
£3 million provision for European Parliamentary election
training proved not to be needed, he would be content for the
underspend not to be taken up elsewhere in the Commission's budget
without the prior approval of the Speaker's Committee.
The Committee raised the need for the Electoral Commission
to be involved in providing training itself, given that local
authorities, as employers of most of the relevant staff, would
also be providing this. If it was to provide training, might it
not recoup some of the cost by charging for it? The Committee
also raised the need for there to be some benchmarking of the
Electoral Commission's training activity and to measure outcomes.
It was important to measure the effectiveness of the training;
effective training might result in a lower level of resources
having to be devoted to this function in future.
Mr Younger pointed out that the Commission was barred
by statute from making a charge for training provided to Electoral
Registration Officers and Returning Officers, so it would not
be able to recoup in this way any of the money it spent on training
for the European Parliamentary election.
He accepted that the need for the Commission to provide
training might fall over time, but that point had not yet been
reached. There could even be a case, he argued, for a greater
amount of training to be provided by the Electoral Commission,
rather than other public sector providers, if this led to more
efficient overall use of resources. Further experience might be
gained in this area in the context of forthcoming referenda.
The Committee noted that, in terms of training delivery,
the Electoral Commission appeared to rely very extensively in
Great Britain on two particular providers, SOLACE Enterprises
and the Association of Electoral Administrators. It expressed
some disquiet that both bodies, and their members, might have
various conflicts of interest in their involvement with the Commission
in providing training services.
Mr Younger commented that the Electoral Commission
shared the Committee's concern at the limited number of potential
suppliers of training for electoral administrators. In its published
training strategy, the Commission made clear that one objective
was to try and create a larger and more competitive market for
training. As regards next year's training for the European Parliamentary
election, if no satisfactory tender was received that provided
value for money and could be financed within the current financial
provision, the only alternative option would be for the Commission
to arrange the training in-house. It would take this step if necessary.
The Commission was monitoring the value-for-money
aspect of the contracts for training in connection with the devolved
assembly elections in the current financial year. Single bids
had been received for the contracts for Scotland and Wales, but
the scope of the exercise and the pricing by contractors had been
designed to fall within the resources the Commission was willing
to make available. Mr Younger recognised that this was not an
ideal arrangement, hence the development of an in-house benchmark
for the much larger programme of training for the European Parliamentary
election in June 2004, against which external bids could be assessed.
The Commission had, in effect, done the same thing in relation
to evaluation of the local authority pilots in 2002, substantial
parts of which were, as a result, carried out in-house.
Electoral Registration in Northern Ireland
Concern was expressed by the Committee about the
apparently poor level of take-up of the new electoral identity
cards being introduced in Northern Ireland, and the possible consequences
of significant levels of disenfranchisement as a result at the
forthcoming elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Mr Younger commented that Electoral Commission had
responsibility for ensuring that voters were aware of the new
arrangements, but operational responsibility for introduction
of the cards rested with the Chief Electoral Officer. The Commission
had budgeted £500,000 for publicising the new arrangements,
split between encouraging registration and information about the
voting procedure.
There was a marked difference between the number
of people who had asked for information on the cards at the time
the new Electoral Register was compiled and the number who had
actually applied to date. The reason for the discrepancy was not
clear, the Chief Executive said. Mr Younger said that the Commission
would look at the resource issues, and consider whether further
advertising might be appropriate in the new financial year.
The Powers of the Electoral Commission
The Committee noted that some of the Commission's
range of statutory powers were mandatory and others permissive.
It would be helpful if, in its public pronouncements, it made
clear on each occasion into which category particular actions
and initiatives fell. When looking at the focus of the Commission's
work, it would also be helpful for the Committee to have details
of how the Commission's proposed activities and allocation of
resources were split between the two categories. As regards the
electoral process, the principal element in the Commission's role
appeared to relate to securing its integrity and ensuring consistency
of approach.
Mr Younger commented that there was a structural
difficulty in the legislation: where the Electoral Commission
has regulatory authority, PPERA gives it enforcement powers, but
not otherwise. On electoral administration, the Commission has
a power to monitor, but not to control. Advice and practice in
this area could differ from authority to authority, as the function
is decentralised. The Commission sought to develop consistency
of practice by Returning Officers and Electoral Registration Officers
through training and good practice guides. As previously mentioned,
PPERA explicitly prevents the Commission from charging for such
advice and assistance.
Mr Younger noted that policy developments might lead
to changes in the Commission's statutory powers. For example,
the principal political parties favoured moving towards what would
in effect be a national register of electors. This would require
the setting and monitoring of mandatory national standards. Many
Electoral Registration Officers already sought advice from the
Electoral Commission, and would like to be able to rely on it
as definitive. Although the Commission always gave the best advice
it could, it had no power to give definitive rulings.
[Mr Younger and Mr Creedon withdrew from the meeting]
3. Decisions of the Committee
The Committee proceeded to consider formally the
Electoral Commission's Main Estimate for 2003-04 and its Corporate
Plan for 2003-04 to 2007-08. In reaching its decisions, the Committee
had regard to the advice of the Treasury, as set out in the letter
of the Chief Secretary to the Speaker of 24 February 2003, and
to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General to the Committee
dated 3 March 2003.[5]
Main Estimate for 2003-04
The Committee was satisfied that the estimated level
of income and expenditure proposed by the Electoral Commission
for 2003-04 was consistent with the economical, efficient and
effective discharge by the Commission of its functions. It therefore
approved the provision sought by the Electoral Commission, namely,
a Net Resource Requirement of £25,708,000 and a Net Cash
Requirement of £25,879,000, subject to the condition that
any underspend on the provision of £3,000,000 for European
Parliament election 2004—training development and delivery,
is not used to cover overspends elsewhere in the Estimate without
the prior approval of the Committee.
The Committee also agreed that the Electoral Commission
may, without further reference to it, make such minor and insubstantial
adjustments to the Estimate as may be required for technical reasons,
subject to Treasury agreement in each case.
Corporate Plan for 2003-04 to 2007-08
The Committee modified the Corporate Plan by substituting
the version of Table 10[6]
sent to its Secretary by the Chief Executive of the Electoral
Commission on 3 March 2003 for the version in the Plan as originally
submitted. The Committee was satisfied that the Plan, thus modified,
was consistent with the economical, efficient and effective discharge
by the Commission of its functions, and therefore approved it.
In view of the advice of the Treasury, and the Commission's
own recognition that more work needs to be done on the impact
its activities will have, the Committee asked the Commission to
submit to the Committee's autumn meeting a report on the progress
it is making towards refining its targets, with a view to its
next Corporate Plan, to be submitted early in 2004, making greater
use of outcomes when defining targets.
Other decisions
In view of its concerns about aspects of the Electoral
Commission's role in providing training for electoral administrators,
particularly the value for money aspects, the Committee decided
to invite the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine the Commission's
activity in this area in 2002-03 as part of his statutory annual
examination of the Electoral Commission.
5 
