The BBC reports:
The Electoral Commission will be asked whether a Conservative Vice Chair has broken the law in the marginal constituency she is contesting at the next election.
Margot James is the Conservative candidate in Stourbridge – one of the most marginal seats in the country.
The seat’s current Labour MP, Lynda Waltho, is to ask the Electoral Commission for clarification of the law on “treating”.
At issue is whether Ms James might have committed an offence by hosting a lunch for a group of pensioners at her constituency home and some receptions for the local Muslim community.
I don’t know more about the case than is in the BBC report, but it does seem odd that it is the Electoral Commission rather than the police that is being asked to intervene on a question of alleged electoral abuse that falls outside the EC’s regulatory areas of finance and returns.
However, regardless of who does look at the case this could be good news for the rest of us as the law around treating is important but arcane, unclear and often reliant on very dated case law. As a result people often take an ultra-cautious approach what has the merits of simplicity and clarity but does cause practical problems at times.
Given that by Margot James’s own admission she spent around £10 per head on giving people food, many of whom were her constituents, this looks likely to be a test case that gets to the heart of how much food and drink can be provided to people without counting as treating.
A modern test case could be tough on those involved, especially if someone is investigated and cleared, but also provide useful clarity for the rest of us.
UPDATE: Lynda Waltho MP in a comment below has said that some of the information in the BBC report is wrong.
14 Comments
Meanwhile in Rochdale Paul Rowen MP and Rochdale Lib Dems continue to get favourable coverage and their opponents unfavourable or non existent coverage from a local publisher .. who happens to have a substantial contract from PR Paul financed by the taxpayer through PR’s PCA. And he has an approving chorus from some video makers, and their friends, who have apparently received commissions (though unseen AFAIK by constituents) also from taxpayers’ money. And let’s not start on the Tax Payers Alliance accusation that Rochdale is the only local authority whose use of community cohesion / anti terror funds is not an open book which adds fuel to local complaints – valid or not, who knows – of partisan awards to pals. I don’t think any of these where influence is earnt by spending cash would count as “treating” however. The candidates in these alleged cases are not using their own money!
“but it does seem odd that it is the Electoral Commission rather than the police that is being asked to intervene on a question of alleged electoral abuse that falls outside the EC’s regulatory areas of finance and returns.”
Is this the modern version of the “I’ve reported this to the Returning Officer” meaningless complaint?
Clarifying the law on treating would be a good thing. However doing it by case law, a few months before a general election is the worst possible way of doing it. IIRC one outcome of the Adrian Slade Richmond judgement was that election expense practices accepted by all parties as being legitimate were ruled to be illegal.
Hywel: possibly it is the equivalent of that sort of meaningless complaint, though in this case the evidence from what the BBC says does look strong enough to justify a proper investigation. I’m less concerned than you about what a test case might say just before a general election because the basic line most people take is “do nothing”. A test case can only confirm that or allow you to do more. It’s a one-way bet.
May I correct a few points that you have sadly misreported?
Firstly I have made no complaint. Nobody has been accused of anything, the Vice Chair of my party has simply written to the EC for clarification of a few points relating to the action known as ‘treating’. Given that Ms James has no connection to Stourbridge whatsoever except having been one of David Cameron’s A List of millionaires, her only reason for being here is for the purposes of campaigning for a seat. Since being selected she has conducted a series of free wine tastings for community groups, Eid parties and visits to her country home in Worcestershire (not the house she has recently bought in the constituency as you also wrongly reported.)As we are only seeking clarification of the law in this case it is rightly referred to the EC rather than the Police. You will know that the rules regarding election spending have recently had their fourth change in almost as many years and the new rules refer to the ‘long campaign’ and the ‘short campaign.’ Accordingly clarification is needed as to whether Ms James’ actions of providing free drink, food and entertainment to voters in the run up to an inevitable general election constitutes ‘treating’. I hope this helps to clarify the matter.
Lynda Waltho MP, Stourbridge
Treating has never been time limited, either before or after the election date, so I doubt that the recent change in election law will have affected the position. I agree with Hywel, I can’t see that the Electoral Commission has any authority in the issue. It is a matter for the police, or for an election petition after the eletion.
Is someone intent on making comments as difficult to read as possible?
I think it would be a mistake to sacrifice your readers’ eyesight on the altar of style.
I agree with Herbert. Please make the words bigger.
oooh, there’s an Election Law Channel. How exciting! 🙂
It would be good to have some clarification on this.
The old archaic rules on treating apply during an election campaign, however, with the new ‘long campaign’ rules coming into force in the new year it would be useful to know if ‘treating’regulations come in to force.
“free wine tastings for…Eid parties”
Shurely shtome mishtake???
Sorry, I misread Ms Waltho’s post. “Free wine tastings for community groups” and “Eid parties” were separate concepts.
As for treating, what about parties “treating” campaign volunteers? I understand that this was cracked down on in the nineteenth century to end the practice of paid canvassing. What is the situation now?
@ Cheltenham Robin
In general terms the treating rules apply at any time. There isn’t a point at which they come into force. It’s probably fair to say that the proximity to polling day is a factor for the courts to consider but you could do it years before polling day.
@ Niklas
Paying canvassers is specifically illegal
Lynda: thanks for taking the time to comment. I’ve updated the post to highlight your comment though, as Nigel Ashton says, I don’t see the link between treating and expense limits as actions that count as treating are illegal even if included in an expense return that is well within the legal limit?
The problem is that prior to new rules on long campaigning treating outside the election period was largely ignored. MPs could buy a beer in the pub if they felt so inclined and nobody would run to anybody to complain. Now the campaign has begun, as Cameron has made clear, and all candidates have issues.
I’m hoping to stand as an Independent against Cameron and, unlike all but one of the declared candidates, I live in the constituency. My friends are my potential constituents and we buy drinks back and forth all of the time. I have been bought many a round and have reciprocated. I’m not seeking votes, but everyone I know is aware of my candidacy.
I can hardly use the election as an excuse not to buy my round for over 4 months. I’ll be a very unpopular person indeed. The Witney constituency is, after all, my home.
We definitely need clarification.