The chair of the Electoral Commission has described current legislation as a threat to the regulator’s independence and called for it be repealed.
John Pullinger told a committee of MPs that the Elections Act passed under the Conservative government in 2022, which allows ministers to publish a “strategy and policy statement” to which the commission “must have regard”, undermines confidence and scrutiny of the watchdog at a time when public confidence in democratic norms is dwindling.
When asked during an appearance before the Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee whether the statement, issued for the first time in February 2024, poses a threat to the commission, Mr Pullinger was forceful in calling for reform.
He said: “Yes, it is a threat, because it exists on the statute book. So in the public mind and in many debates in this House there have been statements about the formerly independent Electoral Commission and the Government having this power.”
Mr Pullinger added that the statement had led to questions over the commission’s role which otherwise would have been “unthinkable”.
Announcing the legislation in 2021, then Tory constitution minister Chloe Smith said the watchdog “should be fully accountable to Parliament for the way it discharges its functions”.
“Some across the House have lost confidence in the work of the commission and have questioned the adequacy of the existing accountability structures,” she added.
Conservative MPs had criticised the commission for perceived partisanship following its investigations into the figures on the vote leave campaign, who were later cleared of any wrongdoing.
Mr Pullinger confirmed that the commission considered the statement when it was published last year but “decided we will carry on acting independently”.
When asked whether reform of the system of electoral law should start from scratch as it appears not fit for purpose, he said a significant amount of work had already been done in Wales and Scotland, which “gives us something to start from”.
“So we don’t need to start from scratch, but we do need a fundamental review that thinks of the electoral system as an entity and as part of our critical national infrastructure,” he added.
Duncan Hames, director of policy and programmes at Transparency International UK, earlier told the committee that it has become “increasingly hard for the commission to enforce rules that we do have”.
He said the regulator can only impose fines of £20,000 for breaches of electoral law at a time when only a small number of wealthy donors are responsible for a large proportion of the money received by political parties.
The commission had been “stripped of the power in recent legislation to mount criminal prosecutions,” he added.
Mr Hames said: “I could privately mount a criminal prosecution but the Electoral Commission isn’t allowed to, which is perverse.
“Having an independent body like the Electoral Commission able to do so would would be very helpful. They lost an important part of their independence.
“It was a very powerful signal when the requirement was introduced that there should be a strategy and policy statement for the Commission published by a Government minister.
“it really doesn’t live up to international standards. You see that sort of thing happen in other countries, and you question the independence of their electoral regulatory body.”
Mr Hames also said the current arrangements had limited the scope of monitoring and responding to the growth of foreign money in domestic politics.
“(The commission) and others have looked a cases where it has appeared that foreign money has come into British politics and they have, as far as we can see, been unable to do anything about it,” he said.
Parth Patel, associate director for democracy and politics at the Institute of Public Policy Research, said the UK is currently vulnerable to foreign influence “that is within the letter of law if not the spirit of the law”.
“It feels like a relative no-brainer for us to act on that,” he added.
Mr Patel also questioned why public contractors are currently able to donate to political parties when doing so creates a conflict of interest.
He highlighted that in the US, which “is not held up as a gold standard for political financing”, has a ban on contractors donating to political parties during a period of negotiations and until completion of the contract.
“If you look at people getting public contracts in the UK at the moment, there is quite a high share of them that donate to political parties,” Mr Patel added.
