@ALDEParty: a day of advanced bureaucracy for political parties

It does sometimes seem hard to believe that I’m now in my seventh year as a member of the ALDE Party’s Financial Advisory Committee. Perhaps that’s because, when I was first appointed, it was on the basis that we would serve no more than three two-year terms, but for various reasons, we have all been extended, some of us for one year, the remainder (including myself) for two.

And in that time, the Committee has evolved. We still do financial advisory stuff, but we also consider grant applications to the Political Projects fund, we examine proposals for new types of spending and advise on such things as fundraising strategy. We are, perhaps, a sounding board for the Secretariat and the Bureau, given our experience of the internal dynamics of political parties. My history as a Regional Secretary, Treasurer and all around bureaucrat gives me an unusual perspective, which comes in handy.

Our relationship with the Secretariat is a healthy one, in that we are willing to ask challenging questions, but have, over time developed a genuine respect for the ability of the senior management team. Indeed, I find myself wondering how the similar relationship between the relevant bodies of the Liberal Democrats and the executive team works. Fortunately, that remains someone else’s problem.

Today, we examined the recently completed 2017 audit, looked at the 2018 budget figures to date, and discussed the relationship between the Committee and the Bureau. We also gave some thoughts on how the Bureau might look at filling the vacancies on our committee as they arise. 

I can’t, for reasons of organisational integrity, discuss the audit. It remains to be considered by the Bureau and the ALDE Party Council, each of which has legal responsibilities, but I am personally reassured that the Party’s finances are healthy and that the fiscal controls are in good hands.

We have had an influence over the years, drawing up an ethical fundraising strategy for the Party which, I understand, has been duplicated by the European People’s Party (plagiarism is the ultimate form of flattery, I guess, although a payment for our work would be nice...), and leading on a restructuring of the membership fee system to make it easier for small member parties from poorer countries.

One thing that does vaguely worry me though is that we appear to have become, almost by stealth, the only group holding the Bureau and the Secretariat to account. Council seems to take increasingly little interest in the day to day running of the ALDE Party, which is rather its constitutionally defined role. In an organisation where transparency is considered important, that might not be critical, but there is a principle here.

When the Liberal Democrats elect members of the ALDE Party Council, candidates tend to talk about ideas, about policy. They don’t talk about how a liberal political party should be run and operated, perhaps because it’s rather dull. And yet, a political party should, in the way it works, reflect its philosophical roots, within the confines of legislation.

I suspect, though, that our delegation is not alone in being more interested in ideas than in process. And if people aren’t interested in process, they are, not unreasonably, not going to pay much attention to such things, trusting the professional staff and the Bureau to take care of it.

Which is why I wondered aloud about reforming Council to sharpen its focus...

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act - the ripples reach Wales...

Gosh, this is complex. I had forgotten that the Devolved Administrations have powers that are impacted by this legislation, and in Wales, the list is as follows;

• Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings) (Wales) Regulations 1998

• Care Homes (Wales) Regulations 2002

• Registration of Social Care and Independent Health Care (Wales) Regulations 2002

• Leasehold Valuation Tribunals (Fees) (Wales) Regulations 2004

• Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (Wales) Regulations 2004

• Adult Placement Schemes (Wales) Regulations 2004

• Selective Licensing of Houses (Specified Exemptions) (Wales) Order 2006

• Child Minding and Day Care (Wales) Regulations 2010

• Residential Property Tribunal Procedures and Fees (Wales) Regulations 2012

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act and the ripple effect

There are times when you begin to realise just how complicated Government can be, and, whilst writing yesterday's preview of next week in the Lords, I came across The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) Order 2014. Being a curious soul by nature, I read Schedule A, which lists a series of pieces of legislation that require revision as a result. For your delectation and delight, here's the list in chronological order;

• Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869

• Pensions Commutation Act 1871

• Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act 1916

• Population (Statistics) Act 1938

• Marriage Act 1949

• Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951

• Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953

• Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Special Provisions) Act 1957

• Transport Act 1962

• Harbours Act 1964

• Sharing of Church Buildings Act 1969

• Consumer Credit Act 1974

• Social Security Pensions Act 1975

• Fatal Accidents Act 1976

• Legitimacy Act 1976

• Rent Act 1977

• Transport Act 1978

• Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979

• Family Law Reform Act 1987

• Housing Act 1988

• Child Support Act 1991

• Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992

• Social Security Administration Act 1992

• Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

• Pension Schemes Act 1993

• Jobseekers Act 1995

• Pensions Act 1995

• State Pension Credit Act 2002

• Civil Partnership Act 2004

• Mental Capacity Act 2005

• Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006

• Welfare Reform Act 2007

• Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007

• Welfare Reform Act 2009

• Equality Act 2010

• Welfare Reform Act 2012

"Liberal Bureaucracy", proud to bring you the facts that you never knew you needed to know. Don't thank me...

Will seeing the back of Atos actually make a difference?

The news that Atos Healthcare are in negotiations to withdraw from their contract with the Department of Work and Pensions to carry out fitness-for-work tests has been welcomed by many, especially those who oppose the way the current assessment regime works. Images of protestors with Socialist Worker placards - never terribly helpful to my mind - and reports of death threats against Atos staff demonstrate the passion with which groups have fought against the way things are done. But I can't help feeling that Atos are the symptom, rather than the cure, and that simply replacing them will make little difference, and might even make matters worse.

Without a sight of the contract, one must presume that Atos are obliged to carry out their assessments at a specified price, agreed in advance with the DWP. They are then free to order their affairs in such a way as to deliver the contract within that cost, maximising profit as far as they can. The profitability of the contract is, it appears, less of a concern than their competence.

But what incentive is there to do the job so poorly as to attract such a high rate of successful appeals as, presumably, Atos have to meet the cost of dealing with them, and the Ministry of Justice have to resource the tribunals - presumably what is driving consideration of levying charges against appellants. It appears to make little sense.

Perhaps it is the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that are part of the problem. What targets might you set as part of a contract to deliver fitness-to-work tests? A simple throughput incentive would provide little or no incentive to do the job properly, as the service provider could just pass everyone as being unfit to work. A target rate for failures would incentivise towards failing claimants regardless of whether that is merited.

How flexible is the assessment regime? The application of discretion would suggest that those people with long-term, incurable conditions need assessing less frequently, if at all, after an initial assessment, whereas others might benefit from a more frequent assessment. Does the current system allow that, and what is the impact of assessment on those who feel that they should strive, when tested, to demonstrate the limits of their capabilities, and thus give a falsely optimistic test result?

There is, of course, an underlying problem, that of who should qualify as being in need of support, and how do you ascertain whether or not an individual applicant meets the criteria set. Indeed, what should those criteria be, and what should be paid? And those questions drive the design of any assessment process.

So, unless we answer some of these questions, make relevant changes and discuss them properly, the chances are that, whoever takes the work on, be it a private supplier or by taking it back inhouse, little will change as far as those being assessed are concerned, as I find it hard to believe that Atos are any more heartless or inept as any other similar provider,. And, in any case, the staff who carry out the assessments will probably come from the same pool or have their contracts transferred over to any replacement provider.

There are some short-term solutions, however. Not charging people for appeals would be a good first statement of intent, as it indicates an acceptance that the assessment process is not without flaw - even the best system will have marginal cases. And yes, you may want to consider a means of dissuading frivolous appeals, assuming that they are significant in number, but not in such a way that puts at risk the genuinely vulnerable.

Publishing the terms of the contract as far as is possible would be the right thing to do, especially the Key Performance Indicators. Yes, some of the details will be covered by commercial considerations, but transparency when spending public money is, generally speaking, a good thing, likely to engender greater trust.

Ensuring that any new contract allows for sufficient time to carry out a proper assessment on applicants is important too. The appeals process is stressful, expensive and time consuming, an unnecessary waste of finite resources. Its impact upon those genuine borderline cases, and on those evidently mis-assessed, is traumatising and damaging. So, anything that increases the accuracy rate of assessments is beneficial to all of us.

Other issues, if you like, the bigger ones, require more reflection. Questions of who, how much, and to what end, need a more public debate, which is not shorthand for exchanges of abuse and death threats. If Atos have recorded an average of 163 death threats against their staff per week, that's either going to drive out those who genuinely care, or harden the hearts of those that don't, assuming that any of their staff are so heartless.

But there will always be a need for assessment of some kind, and a requirement for someone to carry out such assessments. There will always be error, and marginality, because the decisions are taken by humans about humans, and as even the Pope doesn't claim to be infallible, there will need to be a right of appeal. We should build compassion and humanity into those processes, whilst understanding that, for some people, compassion has a limit, and our humanity is not there to be abused.

The joys of being a 'politically exposed person'

I have been having what can only be described as a feisty exchange with a UK financial institution in recent weeks, caused by a piece of legislation that I was only dimly aware of, the Money Laundering Regulations 2007.

You may be surprised to hear that I am not actually engaged in money laundering - trust me, I wouldn't be travelling standard class on the train if I was - but in this era of international financial transfers, financial institutions are obliged to be far more careful than they might have been previously. This may have something to do with the increasing tendency to make organisations and individuals financially, and sometimes criminally, responsible for policing the acts of members of society, but it inevitably makes life more difficult for the inherently honest, i.e. most of us, by imposing a series of barriers to be surmounted before doing something that would otherwise be quite straightforward.

Some years ago, I invested a modest amount in said institution, and the funds have sat there ever since. I probably provided them with some evidence at the time, but they now wanted to see further proof of identity, as well as evidence as to where the funds came from. Easier said than done, as I hadn't retained the relevant documents - they're older than tax law requires me to retain, but they insisted.

I did indicate that I was curious as to why they should, after all this time, require such documentation, and I was told that it was a requirement of UK legislation, possibly their first mistake - I am a bureaucrat, and am 'rule-curious'. In reply, they indicated that they were sorry, but failed to provide details of the legislation, except to note that I am, apparently, a 'politically exposed person', although they didn't explain why.

I did guess, however, and did some research, uncovering the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, which indeed describe the criteria for such a classification. There was, however, a catch - whilst those holding high political office, as well as their direct family, are covered, there is an exception for domestic politicians.

So, in a spirit of inquiry, I asked if they were relying on the relevant Appendix, and whether they were aware of the exception, to which the answer came, "Yes, and yes, but it doesn't matter, we're within our rights to apply rules that go beyond the legislation stated.". I wasn't impressed. Whilst I acknowledge the right of the bank to apply their own criteria, I do object to being deliberately misled by a bank official as to the nature of those criteria and the manner in which they are applied.

But I am rather better informed as to the potential complications of my financial arrangements and of the need to retain paperwork in future. More filing...

ALDE Election Congress: reflections after the event

So, the Verhofstadt/Rehn joint ticket is unleashed upon an unsuspecting world, with a healthy 80% mandate, and most people seem to be happy that their goals have been achieved. All is, therefore, as well as it might be. The deal cut, whereby one or other candidate will visit a particular location based on the needs of the local member party, is clearly designed to allow the most attractive aspects of the ALDE platform to be showcased in a manner appropriate to the political culture and circumstances that prevail. That too appears to be a thoroughly good thing.

So, what have we learned from this?

Firstly, if you give people an opportunity to do something that suits them, they will take it, even if it might not, in the long run, be terribly wise. Second, process is a good thing, and acts as a means against summary (in)justice. Thirdly, politicians need bureaucrats, firstly to design process, and secondly to manage it.

And what, I hear you ask, does that mean?

Well, it means that we need to be far more transparent about how we decide upon our delegates to ALDE, both to Council and to Congress, especially as we may see a significant reduction in our entitlement in future years. In the past, there hasn't been a lot of competition, especially for Congress - we have a lot of places, travel and accommodation are unsubsidised, and the delegation has presumably grown in size as our electoral performance has steadily improved. If that changes, you need process, and one that is apparent to all.

It is something that has troubled me for a while now, and the events of the past fortnight have reminded me that the longer it is left, the more pressing it will become, and the solutions potentially less satisfying.

Ah well, I needed a project anyway...

An open letter to Luke Richards, a.k.a. 'Hypnotic Monkey'

Dear Luke,

Thank you for your comments. Whilst I understand the points that you make, I have to disagree as to their import. Taking your first post;

Assume for a moment:

Gordon Brown called the GE and it is taking place in 2 weeks. Every moment is vital and Liberal Youth own a printer, folder and stuffing machine that works at light speed. It would be a waste of time to open every request for a ballot and return them in dribs and drabs, so the exec decide to just print all the ballots and post them out to every member, for expediency. Rule that unconstitutional, would you?

I don't have to rule it as unconstitutional because it still is. Producing endless variations on the circumstances doesn't actually change what the Constitution says, and the Constitution is as members of Liberal Youth have chosen it to be. However, your example is flawed.

There is a minimum period in which an General Election can take place. It's rather longer than two weeks and the de minimis schedule can be found here. However, in the event that a General Election had been called, would you seriously expect a Liberal Youth election to proceed? As Returning Officer, I would consult senior figures in the Party and, in all likelihood, postpone any election until afterwards. And yes, I understand that such an act would be unconstitutional, which is kind of ironic, isn't it? But you know something, I don't think that anyone would complain, at least nobody with the interests of the Party at heart.

At the end of the day, 9.7 is there to ensure a basic minimum - that those who can't attend conference can still vote.

The 19th Ammendment to the US constitution reads:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

This doesn't mean it's unconstitutional for a specific state to pass a law to have universal automatic voter registration, it just provides a basic minimum right.

No, Article 9.7 was designed for an organisation where Officers and General Executive members didn't resign at a rate of one every three weeks (I believe that that is the average period of time between resignations since 1 July 2008 but am happy to stand corrected). And whilst your quotation of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is entirely accurate, nobody is being denied the right to vote, merely that they will have to take an action to allow them to do so.

In short, your argument implies that members are being denied the right to vote. That argument, carried to its logical conclusion, means that all elections held in this country are invalid, as people have to either apply for a postal vote in advance, or go to a polling station. Indeed, if they have not registered to vote, they don't get to take part at all. If you are suggesting that, you have a campaign to run, because this country is, on that measure, not a democracy.

So, Luke, I'm sorry, but I didn't sit up until three in the morning, making sure that my position is a secure one, only to be dissuaded from it by someone who has a gut feeling that they would rather have things differently but cannot express it in a way that reflects the Constitution of Liberal Youth. Of course, you can always change that Constitution...