Minutes of the Third Meeting, Session
2005-06, Wednesday 25 January 2006
Present: The Rt Hon
Michael Martin MP, Speaker, in the Chair
Rt Hon the Lord Falconer of Thornton, Lord Chancellor
Rt Hon Alan Beith MP, Chairman, Constitutional Affairs
Committee
The Rt. Hon. Sir Gerald Kaufman MP
Mr Peter Viggers MP
Apologies: Mr
Humfrey Malins CBE, MP and Lady Hermon MP
1. Speaker's Opening Remarks
The Speaker informed the
Committee that the Prime Minister had notified him on 24 January
2006 that, in exercise of his power under section 2(3) of the
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, he had
appointed Mr Phil Woolas, Minister for Local Government, as a
member of the Committee.
2. The Electoral Commission's Estimate,
2006-07, and Five Year Plan, 2006-07 to 2010-11
The Committee noted the
advice of the Treasury on the Electoral Commission's Estimate
for 2006-07 and its Five Year Plan for 2006-07 to 2010-11 (the
Corporate Plan) as set out in the letter of 14 December 2005 to
the Speaker from the Chief Secretary, including concern that the
Estimate provided for an above-inflation increase compared with
2005-06. In his advice, the Chief Secretary invited the Committee
to "look at what scope exists to depress the increase".
The Secretary reported that
he had shown the Treasury advice to the Electoral Commission,
and invited its comments. In the light of the advice, the Electoral
Commission had submitted a revised bid, which he had circulated
to the Committee, with the Request for Resources for 2006-07 reduced
from £25.145 million to £24.895 million[20],
and the equivalent figures in the Corporate Plan for the following
years adjusted accordingly.
[Mr Sam Younger, Chairman of the Electoral Commission,
and Mr Peter Wardle, Chief Executive, were invited to join the
meeting].
The 2006-07 Estimate
Mr Wardle reported that
the gap between the revised bid he had submitted on 10 January
and the 'inflation only' increase favoured by the Treasury was
about £190,000. He had looked again at the underlying figures,
and had now found that provision in the Estimate for employer's
National Insurance contributions had originally been overestimated
by about £150,000 as a result of a mistake in the way it
had been calculated. He was satisfied that he could also make
further efficiency savings equivalent to the remaining difference
between the revised bid and an 'inflation only' increase over
2005-06 without damage to the Commission's performance. He was
therefore now further reducing the Commission's bid to a Net Resource
Requirement for 2006-07 of £24.704 million.
The Committee expressed
surprise that Treasury reservations had apparently emerged so
late in the day, and asked what discussions had taken place between
the Commission and Treasury before the Estimate had been submitted.
Mr Wardle explained that several discussions had taken place between
Commission staff and Treasury officials, who had received draft
figures about a month before the Estimate came to the Committee.
The original bid was slightly below the indicative provision for
2006-07 in last year's Corporate Plan, and the Treasury had given
no indication of concern or dissatisfaction on its part until
the Chief Secretary had written to the Speaker.
Given the Commission's independence
from Government, and that its relatively modest financial requirements
belied its political significance, it was agreed by the Committee
and the Commission representatives that, in future, discussions
with the Treasury on the Commission's resource requirements and
forward plans should be concluded at a higher level. This would
provide a much better chance of any substantial Treasury reservations
being identified, and addressed as far as possible, at an earlier
stage.
The Committee asked whether
the proposed reduction in the Estimate made it more likely that
the Commission would need to bring forward a Supplementary Estimate.
Mr Wardle said that supplementary provision would have been sought
in any event to cover new functions arising from enactment of
the Electoral Administration Bill. Activities such as the proposed
duty to set and monitor local authorities' performance standards
in relation to electoral matters, accrediting observers, and acting
as a CORE keeper, would be additions to the Commission's core
costs. Also, the Commission could incur significant costs in relation
to the proposed piloting of personal identifiers. The precise
financial requirement in 2006-07 will depend on the final provisions
of the legislation, which will not be known until the Bill has
completed its passage through Parliament. However, the Commission
needed to be ready and was therefore discussing the likely financial
implications with the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
The Five Year Plan, 2006-07 to 2010-11
The Committee noted the
Treasury's suggestion that the Commission's absolute priority
objectives are unclear. The Chairman commented that the Commission
had statutory obligations in a range of discrete areas, and, while
it can prioritise within them, it cannot prioritise between them.
The Committee also noted the Treasury's suggestion that the Commission
move towards a smaller set of targets centred on the key outcomes
it aims to deliver. The Chairman responded that the Commission
believed its targets were appropriate, given the number of disparate
areas in which it operates, and did not think there was a need
to reduce them.
Mr Wardle commented that
the Commission's approach in his view compared well with that
of a Government unit of a similar size. The Chairman added that
the need now was to focus on refining the nature and precision
of the targets.
The Committee asked if the
Commission had too many responsibilities, and if it would be better
if the law prioritised these. The Chairman thought not, in his
view it was appropriate that one body, the Electoral Commission,
dealt with the different electoral-related areas. Mr Wardle added
that while there was no question of prioritising between
the Commission's areas of responsibility, it could and did prioritise
within areas. While there was an irreducible minimum resource
requirement within each area if the Commission's statutory obligations
were to be met, subject to that, it concentrated resources, where
appropriate, on dealing with higher risks, and also accorded a
lower priority to discretionary activity.
The Committee questioned
how the Commission balanced the resource demands of its different,
and potentially competing, responsibilities. The Chairman responded
that it was now broadly in a 'steady state' in relation to expenditure
on its core functions and was confident that generally it had
the right resources in the right places. In the unlikely eventuality
that the Commission ever judged that it had insufficient resources
overall to discharge its statutory obligations, it would seek
additional resources from the Committee.
The Committee asked what
account the Commission had taken in its objectives and targets
of broader social inclusion issues. The Chairman explained that
social inclusion issues went to the heart of the Commission's
work, and were also identified in the Electoral Administration
Bill. Asked how much of the Commission's public awareness spending
was aimed at the socially excluded, Mr Wardle estimated that about
£1 million a year was spent on programmes deliberately aimed
at the disadvantaged. He undertook to submit a note to the Committee
setting out details of the Commission's expenditure aimed at the
disadvantaged and the socially excluded.
The Speaker thanked the
Chairman and Mr Wardle for attending.
[Mr Younger and Mr Wardle withdrew from the meeting]
Decisions of the Committee
The 2006-07 Estimate
The Committee, having taken
account of the Treasury advice and the Comptroller and Auditor
General's 'value for money' report for 2003-04[21],
approved a Net Resource Requirement for the 2006-07 Estimate of
£24.704 million, a Net Cash Requirement of £24.684 million,
and Appropriations in Aid of £45,000 as consistent with the
economical, efficient and effective discharge by the Electoral
Commission of its functions in that year. The approved Net Resource
Requirement equals the revised provision sought at the meeting
by the Chief Executive, and represents an 'inflation only' increase
over the corresponding 2005-06 Requirement.
The Committee also agreed
that the Commission may make, without reference to it, such minor
and insubstantial adjustments to the Estimate as may be required
for technical reasons, subject to Treasury agreement in each case.
The Five Year Plan, 2006-07 to 2010-11
The Committee noted the
Chief Secretary's welcome for the Corporate Plan, and his recognition
that this addressed the concerns raised by his predecessor on
the previous year's Plan. Having taken account of the detailed
comments made by the Chief Secretary, which it commended to the
Commission for detailed consideration, and the Comptroller and
Auditor General's report mentioned above, the Committee approved
the Corporate Plan (including the minor amendments to the original
version notified to it by the Commission) as consistent with the
economical, efficient and effective discharge by the Commission
of its functions, subject to the substitution for the table of
resource implications originally included in the Plan of a revised
table based on a Net Resource Requirement for 2006-07 of £24.704
million.
3. Appointment of Electoral Commissioners
The Committee held a further
brief discussion on whether the chairmanship of the Electoral
Commission needed to remain a full-time position, and agreed to
discuss the matter further at a future meeting.
4. The Speaker's Committee Review of the
Electoral Commission
The Committee noted that
the Scrutiny Unit would be submitting its report very shortly,
and agreed that it would give initial consideration to this at
its next meeting. The Committee also agreed that the Secretary
should send a copy of the report to the Electoral Commission as
soon as it was received, and invite its comments before the Committee's
next meeting.
5. Date of next meeting
The Committee adjourned
till Wednesday 29th March at 3.30 pm.
20 An 'inflation only' increase, based on the Commission's
approved Net Resource Requirement for 2005-06 of £24.101
million, and the 2005 Pre-Budget Report projection for
the GDP deflator for 2006-07 of 2.5%, would correspond to a figure
of about £24.704 million. Back
21
See The Speaker's Committee Third Report 2005 (HC 783 (2005-06)),
Appendix 1. Back
| 
