The rolling saga that is security checks for people attending Liberal Democrat conference has generated a lot of heat, some light – and a fair degree of confusion. So this post is my attempt to untangle the main aspects of the story, which really fall into three sections: the principle of the checks, the way the checks have been communicated and the way the checks have in practice been carried out.
In theory, the principle of whether or not the Liberal Democrat conference organisers should have agreed to the police’s request for extra security checks on attendees for the autumn conference is a fairly clear one for people to chew over.
Poor communications
However, it has been muddled by communications that have at times been unclear or even completely absent. From checking with people involved in the last few days, it seems clear to me that the party’s Federal Conference Committee is retaining the final say over who does or does not come to party conference but it’s very easy to understand why many people have come away with a different impression given some of the ways the process has been described up to now. Even the emails sent out after people have been accredited are rather a missed opportunity, as I highlighted a few days ago (though to their credit the conference team are now looking at changing the wording of that email).
What also has not helped is the lack of communication about when people can expect to hear the outcome of their security checks.
The bald numbers don’t sound too bad. As of the Wednesday evening 4,773 had been through the process and accredited. 841 were being processed, with that number expected to fall to under 500 by the end of the weekend. [Update: for more recent figures see here.]
But until you get an email saying you are through or with a query, you have faced silence.
People who registered back in January and whose surnames are low in the alphabet are in the 841 and understandably silence breeds concern, nervousness and lack of confidence in the system. It also has a slightly nasty twist for access to conference, as broadly speaking the later you find out for sure if you can go to conference, the more expensive accommodation or travel is to book. For better off people either you risk it and book in advance or you take the hit of the higher costs. But if you struggle to meet the costs of conference, then you face a tough dilemma.
My guess is that if we’d all been told at what speed the process would work in advance, many people would have been far happier – but we shouldn’t forget the impact on the cost of conference for some people who struggle to afford it.
No-one blocked from attending conference so far
Then there is the question of who has not been approved. There’s been lots of chatter online about various people being rejected for conference. The answer from the Federal Conference Committee’s chair, Andrew Wiseman, when I asked him how many had been rejected however was very clear: “zero”. The point being that some people have been asked to clarify information or submit a different photo, but that this is different from being rejected. Being rejected means you can’t go to conference, end of story; being asked something like to provide a different photo means just that – do that, pass the checks and you can go to conference.
Around 60 people have had their photographs queried and a small number of these cases have attracted a lot of attention online. However, rhe request for a clear and shoulders photograph is nothing new. I’ve been to federal party conferences since spring 1990 and as a result have sitting on the shelf to my left 23 conferences of photo badges, complete with head and shoulders photos on them (and, ahem, varying hairstyles).
So the question for me at least is how many of the 60 or so photographs that have been rejected would have also fallen foul of the party’s previous rules, which have been in place without questioning for more than two decades?
Certainly some. Two examples I’ve been told of are one person who submitted a “head and shoulders” photograph that actually showed two people. It would not have met the party’s old rules. Another was a photo so tiny that it too would have failed the old rules.
There are also signs that not all the photo issues are of this nature. In particular, the conference team has introduced an extra manual check to see if photos can be sorted out (e.g. by cropping) before being rejected. That is a a good move, but suggests that if had been done from the start things would have gone a little better. Callum Leslie’s experience also suggests a fallible system.
(My previous request to people who have had their photos queried to supply copies of the photos so we can all see how reasonable or not the queries are still stands by the way. If you’re in that category please do get in touch and I’ll update this post with any other specific examples.)
Three opportunities to influence the future
So, in conclusion – it is easy to see how the operation and communication of the system could and should have been better.
If you have not yet heard about your own security check, that does not mean anything has gone wrong and you should hear soon. The official expectation from Andrew Wiseman is that “For those who had registered by last Monday and where there are no queries I would expect them to be accredited by next weekend”.
Some of the claims about people being rejected are misleading, both because they have not been blocked from coming to conference, but rather asked to change or add to their application, and also because in at least some cases the people involved submitted photos that would have always been rejected by the party in earlier years.
That still however leaves quite a lot to debate and decide on ahead of future conferences, especially given cases such as Lisa’s (including a comment from Andrew Wiseman in the thread underneath) and the information that Zoe O’Connell secured via a freedom of information request (note how late in the day the police were leaving working out how their system would work). [Update: For more on some of these problems, see here.]
On which point there are three dates to bear in mind:
- 1pm Monday is the deadline for submitting written questions to the Federal Conference Committee report
- Saturday 17th, 14:40 is the Conference Committee report to conference
- Sunday 18th, 09:00 is the debate on a motion about conference accreditation
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Manuela Perteghella, Stratford-on-Avon and John Profumo
The "Just War" tradition
Our kids need a lorra, lorra, larffs!!
West End Ward Tuesday Surgeries #dundeewestend
Roland
Michael BG
Simon R
David Sheppard
31 Comments
Forget bad communication, how about bad planning and timing? Why is it taking so long to accredit people? Have there been unexpected delays in the accrediation process, or did the police just leave it far too late to begin accrediting?
The official expectation from Andrew Wiseman is that “For those who had registered by last Monday and where there are no queries I would expect them to be accredited by next weekend”.
That’s ridiculous. I’m one of those who haven’t heard yet, perhaps because my surname starts with W. I registered as soon as registration opened, and I have no criminal record, so accreditation ought to be fairly straightforward. Cost is an issue for me at the moment because of family illness that requires me to travel to assist with caring responsibilties; I’d already decided not to attend for the whole week, but am undecided as to whether or not to try to make it for the Sunday. I also have childcare responsibilties and an adult child starting university that weekend, all of which complicates the logistical arrangements. It’s in no way satisfactory that I should have to wait until the weekend before Conference starts to know whether or not I am accredited. The whole system seems to discriminate – however indirectly – against people who have limited financial resources, who have caring or childcare responsibilties, or – as Spiderplant has discovered – against people who have suffered violence in their homes. I hardly need to point out that all of these categories contain a disproportionate number of women, and at least one of them is likely to contain a disproportionate number of BME members. It really is entirely unacceptable and is severely eroding my goodwill towards the party and my willingness to campaign for it.
I shall be submitting a piece of my own in the next day or two, and will continue to comment on my own website about this appalling situation. I am also tabling an amendment that will strengthen the accreditation motion and send a clearer message what the Party will not tolerate in future.
Mark, as a party loyalist, paints a picture that highlights a number of rightful criticisms, in particular the exposure of staff due to a lamentable lack of communication. However, he misses a number of others. I’m also not convinced that all the information Mark’s been fed is 100% accurate. Certainly I’ve heard nothing further back a week after submitting a second ‘compliant’ photo; and the ‘appeal’ process has been set up and is not resulting in a major unblocking of the system.
One message that doesn need to be got across is: don’t blame the Conference Office staff. They didn’t inflict this nonsense on the Party, but are taking undeserved flak at what is the busiest time of the year for them. They are under considerable pressure and I don’t think they can be asked to take up all the individual cases outstanding.
Mark Thompson has posted a thoughtful piece at http://markreckons.blogspot.com/2011/09/this-lib-dem-conference-vetting-farce.html. He rightly compares this issue to the campaign against ID cards and the database state. Politicians (of all parties) should practice what we preach. The apparent caving in to a police force that appears to be out of control in its interference with the internal processes of a political party is totally unacceptable – on every level.
Liz is right to point out the discrimination in the system.
My photo was queried as it was black and white. When I suggested they could use the photo that was taken by them at Liverpool conference last year, I have gone two and a half weeks without a reply! The staff are certainly displaying incompetence, even if they are not to blame in the first place.
There are 5614 applications for conference?!! I’d better get there early if I want to get in.
Callum, to be fair, I think they are being swamped. They’re the messengers; it appears to be GMP running the process.
@callum did you fail to read the instructions which said the photo had to be in colour?
I still don’t see why all the applications done online could not have been started as soon as they were received.
It would be logical to spend the time on ones which were more fiddly.
I took my Passport to Sheffield on the off chance it would help with security and never used it.I just queued!
I am impressed that Mark got different photos accepted and used. I sent fresh photos and had passes with very old photos every time.
Good point Gareth about party staff. If, as seems the case, Conference Office staff have got too much work to do for the number of bodies they have, then we should be understanding about the situation individual members of staff are in.
Probably doesn’t help that Conference staff have had to move office in the middle of this.
Simon, what I did was tick the box which said I had already submitted a photo, assuming that meant the photo that they took in Liverpool, which they have yet to answer why they won’t use.
I also don’t see why black and white is not acceptable and asked for clarification on this point, which they have completely ignored. Phone calls have been batted away, and promises of being called or emailed back have gone unfulfilled. I have now taken a photo on my dodgy camera phone and sent it to them purely because I can’t risk waiting any longer!
I have always been understanding of conference staff issues and they are not in any way to blame for the new regs, but they draft in extra staff from every other department for conference, including taking Liberal Youth’s only staff member, and yet still can’t respond to emails in almost ten days. With two weeks to go until conference, that is not acceptable, and we should demand better.
Question – knowing the increased workload this new system would bring did the federal party increase the number of staff working in the conference office – even roping in volunteers add extra manpower? I suspect not.
With what money Lloyd?
Conference Committee is partly at fault for failing to stick their heads up above the parapet and deal with the communications, but that is nothing compared to the grossly wrong decision of inflicting this system on the party.
By the way, Conference Committee meets next Saturday and will presumably spend considerable time dealing with all the screw-ups – so now is a good time to get onto the case of the FCC member/s near you.
@Callum Leslie
“what I did was tick the box which said I had already submitted a photo, assuming that meant the photo that they took in Liverpool”
“I also don’t see why black and white is not acceptable and asked for clarification on this point”
“The staff are certainly displaying incompetence, even if they are not to blame in the first place”
Callum, wouldn’t it be easier to just follow the instructions, which I thought were fairly clear?
Then even if the staff were incompetent it wouldn’t really matter.
Could I suggest we set up a fund to help any members in difficulty because of this process. Perhaps some of the people who took the original decisions which led to the problems could be asked to contribute.
My surname begins with ‘B’ so not sure why I haven’t heard anything yet. My photograph is the same one that I successfully used for a new passport earlier this year. I have been waiting to book train tickets and have seen the prices rise.
I have also been unable to book my daughter on at the reduced rate as the web site says I must first contact Conference Office, who are not responding.
This is all just so frustrating.
Surely people know by now that pretty much all hotels allow cancellation upto at least 24 hrs before and the major one’s midday on the day of arrival. This negates any worry over booking in advance whilst not knowing whether you have been accredited or not.
@Gareth hence my call to use unpaid volunteers. Yes I know many can’t help 9-5 Mon-Fri but any help at any time would surly help in peaks of work. I have never seen an ad in Lib Dem News asking for volunteers to help out at HQ.
Gareth Epps, with all due respect, why haven’t you published the photo you originally submitted so that people can judge for themselves whether the decision to ask you to submit another was justified or not?
I think rejected photos really not something any contributor is qualified to judge but is something for FCC not only to explain but to justify. They have done a very poor job at both. Let’s put the blame for this debacle firmly where it lies.
Hey I’ve been rejected for conference and have a letter from Chris Fox to prove it.
According to him I’m suspended as a party member for a 14-week period starting on June 15th covering the date of conference.
However curiously, the Liberal Democrats won’t tell me who or what caused this suspension? Strange eh? Made a Data Protection Act request on the 4th June (’twas ignore for 40 days), followed it up with a letter giving another 14 days and got a partial record. That’s why I’ve filed a case in the local County Court as the party seems unable to give me access to or a copy of records it holds on me!
I’ve been through accreditation, I’ve paid, but they won’t let me register for September conference despite being a party member! I suppose I’ll find out more on Tuesday 6th September as the local party has a constituency executive meeting.
As a conference rep for my local party, they’ll be concerned if they have to find a substitute at short notice, but yes some of us pass accreditation but are excluded from conference, strange eh?
It does all seem to be a complete shambles. I know learn that I can’t just turn up and register as I often do if I decide I can’t keep away in spite of firm resolutions never to go again. I can turn up but will then have to wait 48 hours for a check by GM police.
So I can wander in and out of the parliamentary estate at will but not a LD conference.
This whole thing is a disgrace and seems to have been compounded by the kind of inefficiency and incompetence we have come to expect will come out of party HQ from time to time.
I have two specific questions. What’s this about the party not accepting cheques any more? Surely this is not true?
And why is this in the hands of Greater Manchester police which is known as one of the least competent forces in the country?
Tony Greaves
@ John Brace – perhaps it has something to do with this: http://johnbrace.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/birkenhead-liberal-democrat-party-suspends-john-brace/
“So I can wander in and out of the parliamentary estate at will but not a LD conference.
Most of which needs a pass though. Though I do think its a bit silly that people who are security cleared to work in Parliament need a seperate clearance to attend conference.
Much of the above discussion is about the inefficient operation of the accreditation process. I wouldn’t care if the process was the smoothest I had ever experienced. It is simply wrong that an organ of the state has any say in who attends a political party’s conference. No Liberal should have any difficulty understanding this principle. It is also wrong if the FCC can decide who attends. Does anyone really think that a party committee should be able to interfere with a local party’s choice of representative ? Even if you do think that, it’s not what our party constitution provides. I am bitterly disappointed that members of FCC either didn’t know this or didn’t care.
My passport does, of course, have a photo attached – it’s just out of date. I have no other photo ID.
This is pure incompetence on the part of the people who designed the system. When I was asked for a passport number, at no point did it request that the passport be current. If it is impossible to accredit someone with an expired passport, then current should have been included as the criteria.
I am now massively inconvenienced because of this incompetence, and there is ZERO information on the party website about late accreditation.
I realise this issue is splitting opinion and has some complexities for certain individuals, but it’s frustrating to see that some members seem to want lower professional standards of the party than they would accept for any other organisation.
Would anybody, for example, submit a black and white photo for a new passport and then pick an argument with the passport office about whether their policy on colour photos is correct? And if you did, could you then reasonably complain when you missed your flight without a valid passport?
On which note, I also don’t take the point that you can’t book for conference until you’ve been security cleared. Unless you have a very dodgy past, you know you will be cleared and can book accordingly in anticipation of receiving your pass. To return to the passport analogy, many people book a holidy 6-12 months in advance and renew their passport in the interim without bother.
Statistically there is more chance not making conference through illness rather than because you don’t get security cleared. I doubt however that many people wait until the last minute to book up just in case they feel a runny nose coming on the week beforehand.
Fundamentally, there is no reason whatsoever why you should have to give your passport details to the police in order to attend Conference as a party member. End of.
(It seems that the paranoid Blairite nonsense has taken passport bureaucracy to ridiculous extremes since the last time I had to renew mine). I don’t know who William Summers is but he seems to subscribe to this sort of rubbish.
For some reason, perhaps because of my discontent with the party’s direction these days, my comments seem prone to deletion – but isn’t this all symptomatic now of a party which has lost its way so completely that it doesn’t know what it’s doing?
Hm. I’d not even thought about it until now… I just sent the documentation/photo they asked for months ago and assumed it would be ok!
Cheers for the scaremongering!
I’ve had no problems. The information was sent as asked, It did not seem a complicated process. Sat back ,didn’t think about it again and like magic everything required dropped through my door last week. I would like to thank all involved for doing such good work, including the police.
I wasn’t sure where I was staying but last week looked on laterooms.com and found a 3 star hotel 3.7 miles away for £25 pounds a night. I can’t imagine things going better. Perhaps people should not be looking at the organization perhaps they should be looking at themselves.