House of Commons - Speaker's Committee

The Speaker thanked those Members of the Committee who had responded to the consultation on the proposed reappointment as Electoral Commissioners of Pamela Gordon and Sir Neil McIntosh. Following completion of the statutory consultations of party leaders, he had written to the Leader of the House on 8th December formally to request that the proposed reappointments be put to the House.

The Speaker told the Committee that at his meeting with Mr Sam Younger on 30th November, Mr Younger had raised the issue of appointing an additional Commissioner, principally in anticipation of the transfer to the Electoral Commission of the work of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions. A range of concerns were expressed regarding these transfers, and the extra burden of work which it would place on the Electoral Commission.

Mr Raynsford commented that the Electoral Commission already had responsibility for reviewing local government boundaries in England and had recently completed a Periodic Electoral Review of these. The transfer to the Commission of responsibility for reviewing parliamentary boundaries had long been Government policy, and he reminded the Committee that the enabling legislation had been enacted in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. However, no date had yet been set for bringing it into force, and the timescale for the transfer was flexible enough to accommodate further discussion. He undertook to discuss the matter further with the Lord Chancellor and to propose that no action on the transfer of responsibilities should be taken until the proposed Speaker's Committee Review of the Electoral Commission had been completed.

2. Briefing from the Chairman of the Electoral Commission

The Committee noted the Annual Report and Accounts of the Commission for 2003-04, laid before the House on 18 November 2004, and the paper submitted by the Chairman on subsequent developments. It raised a number of points in discussions with Commission representatives.

[Mr Sam Younger, Chairman of the Electoral Commission, Mr Peter Wardle, Chief Executive
and Mr Roger Gough, Director of Corporate Services, were invited to join the meeting.]

The Commission's finance function

Mr Wardle commented that the Commission had taken very seriously the recommendations made by the National Audit Office (NAO) regarding the staffing of the Commission's finance section. This now had seven full-time members of staff, of whom three were qualified accountants. He was satisfied that the Commission's financial controls were effective, and he believed that the NAO agreed with this assessment. The Commission also proposed to appoint a Head of Finance who will have a specific remit to assist him as its Accounting Officer in discharging his responsibilities in this capacity. The Commission had also now asked the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy to undertake a further review of the Commission's finance function, and would discuss the outcome with the NAO.

New Initiatives Fund

The Committee asked how the Commission assessed the effectiveness of New Initiatives Fund projects, and the contribution of individual projects to meeting the overall objectives of the Fund and thus to the overall objectives of the Commission. Mr Younger said that each project was evaluated on a basis agreed when it was approved, and that this had to include an independent element. While it was very difficult to measure the long-term impact of such projects, success was measured in terms of the delivery of its stated objectives; the number of people reached; and the effectiveness of its interventions (the degree to which people's knowledge or attitudes had developed along the intended lines). He was confident that individual projects had met the key intention of reaching people who would otherwise have remained outside the electoral process, and that the Fund helped small organisations to undertake niche projects that the Commission itself could not.

Mr Younger said that the Commission was satisfied that, overall, a 'critical mass' of the Fund's projects had been successful. He added that, in 2005, the Commission intended to take a look at the performance of the Fund to date, and how this expenditure fitted in to the overall pattern of the Commission's expenditure on public awareness.

Perceptions of the Commission

The Committee noted that, as had been mentioned at the previous meeting, there was a perception that the Commission sometimes appeared out of touch with politicians and the political process, and asked what steps the Commission was taking to develop closer links with the political parties and with parliamentarians. Mr Younger said that Commissioners were intended to be independent, and valued this status very highly. The statutory Political Parties Panel had been very important in terms of communication with party administrators at head office level, but the Commission was looking at other ways of engaging with the parties, particularly elected representatives. It is developing links with local politicians through links with the Local Government Association. Mr Younger acknowledged that there was more to be done in fostering links with parliamentarians. Recent initiatives involving party Whips and back bench committees (particularly with the Conservatives through a sub-committee of the 1922 Committee) were showing signs of success, but the Commission was keen to develop a more systematic and effective mechanism for building links with parliamentarians on an all-party basis. This, he thought, would be a better way forward than changing the criteria for appointment of Commissioners to allow appointees with recent political experience.

Mr Younger added that opportunities for the Commission to appear before Select Committees were valued, and that it would welcome an opportunity for its Annual Reports to be looked at in this context. Asked about contacts with representatives of Northern Ireland political parties elected to Westminster, Mr Younger confirmed that these took place within the Parliamentary Parties Panel strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions; the Commission dealt with all such parties in the context of their representation in the Northern Ireland Assembly through the (non statutory) Northern Ireland Parliamentary Panel.

Commissioners' Objectives

The Committee asked whether Commissioners had written job descriptions, and objectives. Mr Younger told the Committee that while Commissioners did not have written job descriptions or specific personal objectives, particular responsibilities, such as responsibility for the Commission's work in a constituent part of the United Kingdom, were itemised within an overall context of collective responsibility for the Commission's work. There was also discussion with Commissioners of objectives in the context of appraisals. In response to a question about the lack at present of a Commissioner resident in Northern Ireland, in contrast to the position regarding Scotland and Wales, Mr Younger noted that the Commission nonetheless had a member who specifically oversaw its work in Northern Ireland, and the importance of this role would undoubtedly increase as and when the Electoral Commission took over responsibility for reviewing parliamentary constituency boundaries there. While there might well be advantage in this respect in having a Commissioner who came from Northern Ireland, it was necessary also to balance this factor with the overall requirements of the Commission.

Mr Younger anticipated that the objectives of the Commissioners would continue to evolve along with the structure and responsibilities of the Commission, which faced growing expectations (including expectations that the Commission had a role to play on an international level).

Staffing

The Committee asked about the difference between the actual staffing level of the Commission in 2003-04 and that forecast in the 2003-04 Corporate Plan. Mr Younger said that the projection had taken into account the maximum number of staff required to carry out local government reviews and that in the event fewer staff had been needed than originally anticipated.

Mr Younger confirmed that the Commission was not expecting any real increase of staffing for 2005-06, although he expected some strengthening of middle and senior management within the existing complement. While the Commission would clearly need to increase its staffing level if asked to take on new functions (and suggestions were regularly made as to functions it might take on), he felt that, with its present functions, the current staffing complement of 135-150 was a sustainable level.

Mr Younger undertook to provide information to the Committee on the ethnic makeup of the Commission's staff in its Belfast office. He confirmed that the Electoral Commission had an equality scheme in place across the UK.

Pay of Senior Staff

The Committee asked about the apparent substantial increase in the pay of certain senior staff in 2003-04 revealed in the Commission's published accounts. Mr Wardle said that the figures given in the Report were the actual sums paid to the individuals concerned in the course of the relevant years, and not their annual rate of pay. Direct comparisons year on year could not reliably be made because some of the figures included elements such as back pay, and others were affected by the fact that the staff member had joined in-year. None of the individuals concerned had received an increase in their annual salaries materially different from the 3½% overall average.

The 2005-06 Estimate

The Committee asked what level of increase in resources over 2004-05 the Commission was planning to seek in respect of its core functions in 2005-06, and for what non-recurrent items the Commission was planning to seek resources in respect of 2005-06. Mr Younger said that he did not anticipate any real terms increase in the Commission's core funding. As regards non-recurrent items, there might be a need to provide for expenditure on a referendum on the European Constitution. This was dependent on a Government decision; it might be better to seek a Supplementary Estimate when the Government's intentions were clearer. Other than that, the only other likely outlay beyond the Commission's baseline spend would be on work related to changes in Parliamentary constituency boundaries, particularly in Scotland, assuming this responsibility was to be transferred to the Commission on a timescale that made this necessary. As regards other possible areas Mr Younger told the Committee that the Commission's intention was to avoid adding to the Estimate until the requirement for extra resources became clear.

Corporate Plan 2005-06 to 2009-10

The Committee asked about progress in improvements in the Commission's planning processes, and how it would ensure that meaningful comparisons could be made between figures in future Plans and those in previous Plans. Mr Wardle told the Committee that previous Plans had sought to include too much detail. He agreed that there was a need to focus more on outcomes rather than outputs, and to have more regard to the potential roles of others. He had seen an early draft of the next Plan and in his view this was both more focused and more balanced than previous Plans. Having been established for four years, and grown rapidly in that time, the Commission was now, in his view, entering a consolidation phase in terms of policy development. This would allow it to focus less on policy reviews, and more on other operational priorities, such as registration and compliance, which are also central purposes of the Commission. He anticipated that such a change of approach would be welcomed by many stakeholders. He agreed that it would be important to ensure comparability of information with previous Plans.

The Commission's Responsibilities

The Committee asked about the wide-ranging responsibilities of the Commission and in particular whether it was able to secure a consistent approach across its areas of responsibility. Was an all-embracing Commission necessarily the best way to handle a range of disparate functions? Was it well enough known to the public, and was it listened to?

Mr Wardle commented that the staff of the Commission worked in focused groups, for instance, on operational matters, such as political parties and candidates, and on policy matters. Operational teams had good links with those on the receiving end of policies, which helped to ensure that policy was made in much less of a vacuum; there was good feedback on the day-to-day operation of the rules.

Mr Younger acknowledged that cases had arisen in which lower priorities had had to give way to higher priorities (such as statutory requirements). The Commission also acknowledged the need for more effective communication by minimising the occasions when it appeared to be speaking with more than one voice. There was also a case for removing overlap in the regulatory system, such as applied to Members of Parliament; he had put to the Wicks Committee the difficulty of regulating the conduct of individuals and the conduct of political parties in parallel systems.

Mr Younger acknowledged that the complex remit of the Commission might be difficult for members of the public to understand. He told the Committee that the Commission's view was that it was more important for members of the public to gain a greater understanding of the electoral process than of the Commission and its remit. The Commission had been attracting an increased amount of media coverage owing to the attention given to electoral issues in recent months, but proactive work with the media had been carried out within available resources with the aim of enhancing awareness of electoral issues, not promoting an Electoral Commission 'brand'.

In response to a specific question, Mr Younger undertook to write to the Committee on a particular outreach project carried out by the Commission with a group of young people in Holywood, Co. Down.

The Government's Response to recent reports from the Commission

The Committee asked if the Commission was satisfied with the Government's response to its recent reports on postal voting and on electoral law modernisation. Mr Younger replied that the Government had accepted around 70% of what the Commission had recommended in Voting for Change, and had agreed to look carefully at the Commission's forthcoming proposals on a foundation model for voting arrangements. While he acknowledged that there had been well-publicised disagreements between the Commission and the Government, he was concerned that the extent to which its advice, much of it in politically non-controversial areas, had been taken was not fully recognised. The extent to which the Government had responded positively to the Commission's advice was in his view evidence of the constructive working relationship between the Government and the Commission.

The Speaker thanked the Electoral Commission representatives for their attendance, and for their helpful responses to the Committee's questions.

[Mr Younger, Mr Wardle and Mr Gough withdrew from the meeting.]

3. Designation of a new Accounting Officer for the Electoral Commission

In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 19(1) of Schedule 1 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Committee agreed to designate, with immediate effect, Mr Peter Wardle as Accounting Officer of the Electoral Commission, in place of Mr Roger Creedon.

4. Next Meeting of the Committee

The Committee agreed to meet on Tuesday 18th January 2005 at 4.30 p.m. in Speaker's House.



© Parliamentary copyright 2005	Prepared 27 July 2005