Consultation on Party Election Broadcasts Allocation Criteria

Outcome of Consultation February 2016

Getting the best out of the BBC for licence fee payers

/ Outcome of Consultation Contents

Consultation statement 1 The Consultation 5

The Committee’s decision 19

Annexes 20

February 2016

/ Outcome of Consultation

Consultation Statement

Background

The BBC is required by its 2006 Charter and Agreement to ensure that matters of political controversy and matters of public policy are covered with due impartiality. It is also required to carry party political broadcasts (which include Party Election Broadcasts) in some or all of its UK public services.

The following elections are due to take place on 5 May 2016:1

 In Scotland – Scottish Parliament  In Wales – National Assembly for Wales  In Northern Ireland – Northern Ireland Assembly  In England (outside London) – Local government  In London – Greater London Authority including the Mayor of London

The BBC will publish criteria that have been approved by the BBC Trust for allocating Party Election Broadcasts (PEBs) in respect of these elections.

The criteria

The criteria are developed by the BBC Executive and are brought to the Trust for approval. The BBC Trust is the governing body of the BBC. It is separate and independent from the BBC Executive, which is responsible for the day-to-day management of the BBC. The Trust is also the final appeal body in the BBC complaints process. The Trust has given its Editorial Standards Committee (“the Committee”) delegated authority to approve the PEB criteria.2

The proposals

1 Elections for Police and Crime Commissioners are also due to take place on the same day in England (outside London) and Wales, but no Party Election Broadcasts are proposed for them. 2

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_operate/committees/2014/esc _tor.pdf February 2016 1

/ Outcome of Consultation

Allocation The amended criteria as originally proposed by the Executive can be found at Annex A to this document.

Changes

The principal changes proposed by the BBC Executive which were consulted on were as follows:

Scotland and Wales In Scotland and Wales, to add the word “constituency” to the threshold criteria to clarify which sort of candidate is being referred to under the Additional Member System (AMS) for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly:

In Scotland, a registered political party must stand:

▪ a minimum of 4 candidates in each of the 8 regional lists; or ▪ constituency candidates in a minimum of one sixth of the total seats being contested in the election (ie 22 constituency candidates)

In Wales, a registered political party must stand:

▪ a minimum of 4 candidates in each of the 5 regional lists; or ▪ constituency candidates in a minimum of one sixth of the total seats being contested in the election (ie 10 constituency candidates)

Northern Ireland In Northern Ireland, the current threshold whereby a registered political party must have three candidates in three different constituencies for the Assembly was proposed to be increased to 18 candidates overall (still across a minimum of three constituencies).

In Northern Ireland, a registered political party must stand:

▪ sufficient candidates to contest a minimum of one sixth of the seats in the Assembly (18 candidates) across a minimum of three constituencies.

February 2016 2

/ Outcome of Consultation

Following the consultation, the Executive modified its proposals for Northern Ireland, such that, to qualify, a party would need to stand a minimum of 12 candidates across a minimum of six constituencies: this is discussed further below.

London Changes were proposed so that a PEB may exceptionally be offered to an independent candidate (as before)3 and also to a candidate from a registered political party which is not standing enough candidates for the Assembly. The existing criterion of “substantial current electoral support” would be changed to read “significant past and/or current” electoral support. “Significant” is a lower test than “substantial” and it can be interpreted more widely than just by quantity. A candidate who qualifies for one PEB with “significant support” has to pass the higher test of “substantial support” in order to qualify for additional PEBs.

So overall this passage was proposed to read:

Exceptionally, a PEB may also be offered to:

(i) A Mayoral candidate who can demonstrate evidence of significant past and/or current electoral support in London, but is not representing a party standing sufficient candidates for the Assembly

(ii) a registered political party without a Mayoral candidate but which is:

(a) standing a full slate of candidates in all constituencies OR a full slate of candidates in all list seats; AND (b) can demonstrate evidence of significant past and/or current electoral support in London.

Criteria for Additional PEBs A change of wording was proposed in the criteria for additional PEBs to clarify that the phrase “additional PEBs” means “one or two additional PEBs.”

Anyone meeting the criteria for one PEB in the relevant nation (or area in the case of the London election) may qualify for one or two additional PEBs if they can demonstrate substantial levels of past and/or current electoral support in that nation (or area).

3 There is uncertainty over whether section 37 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 permits the broadcast of a PEB on behalf of an independent candidate: see below. February 2016 3

/ Outcome of Consultation

Note on circumstances in which a party may be considered to be standing a full list or to have met the minimum

Wording was also proposed to clarify that in certain circumstances (e.g. where a candidate withdraws) a party may still be regarded as standing a full list, or meeting minimum requirements. This brings these elections into line with a definition already used in European Election PEB criteria

A party may be deemed to be standing a full list or have met the relevant minimum, if it is clear that the intention was to stand the requisite number of candidates, but at a late stage failed to do so, for example, because a candidate had to withdraw.

The Electoral Commission

The draft criteria for the allocation of PEBs were sent to the Electoral Commission for comment: under section 11(3) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, in determining its policy with respect to party political broadcasts (including PEBs) the BBC must have regard to any views expressed by the Electoral Commission. The Commission provided two replies. (See Annex B) The following is from its first reply: The Electoral Commission’s view is that section 37 of PPERA may prevent independent candidates from qualifying for PEBs. This section provides that a broadcaster must not include in its services any party political broadcast made on behalf of a party which is not a registered party. As section 40(1) of PPERA defines ‘party’ as including any organisation or person, the Commission’s view is that section 37 prohibits a broadcaster from including a party political broadcast (which it considers would include a PEB) from any organisation or person other than a registered political party in its services. The Commission also noted the Executive’s proposals to make what it calls ‘substantive changes’ to the criteria for PEBs in Northern Ireland, by increasing the number of candidates from three in three constituencies to 18 overall. MLAs are elected by the Single Transferable Vote system or proportional representation, which the Commission said, by its very nature, increases the likelihood of smaller parties getting members elected. The Commission pointed out that if the proposed changes were applied to the 2011 Northern Ireland Assembly election, five parties would not have met this requirement. Before adopting this approach, the Commission said it would ‘encourage’ the BBC Trust to consider the implications of this further. It noted that the issues around applying a ‘UK wide’ approach in Northern Ireland – given the nature of the political environment there and the disincentives that exist for some smaller parties to stand candidates in certain seats – were under consideration.

February 2016 4

/ Outcome of Consultation

Beyond these points, the Commission confirmed it had not identified any issues where it would suggest changes. The Electoral Commission provided a second reply following the Executive’s revised proposals for Northern Ireland (see above and the fuller discussion below). The Commission confirmed they had no further issues with the changes the Executive proposed and welcomed the fact that the BBC had given political parties in Northern Ireland a further opportunity to comment. The Committee had regard to the Electoral Commission’s views when considering the criteria.

The Consultation

On 15 October 2015, the Trust published its consultation on the Executive’s proposed allocation criteria for PEBs. The Trust’s consultation document asked the following two questions: 1. Do the proposed Party Election Broadcast allocation criteria seem appropriate or not? Please explain why. 2. Do you have any other comments on the proposed Party Election Broadcast allocation criteria?

Responses

The Trust received 22 responses to the consultation; 13 were from individuals. There was also a submission (in two letters) from the Electoral Commission. The remaining 8 responses were from the following:

 The Conservative Party  The Green Party – England and Wales  The Green Party – Northern Ireland  The Green Party - Scotland  The Liberal Democrats  NI21  TUV  UK Independence Party

For these organisations’ replies, please see Annex C.

February 2016 5

/ Outcome of Consultation

Before reaching a decision on the Executive’s proposed criteria, the Committee considered all the responses to the consultation and took into account all relevant points raised. It also took into account the clarifications received from the Executive on some points. A summary of the key issues raised in the consultation responses is below, together with the Executive’s comments and the Committee’s decision.

Q.1 Responses regarding whether the proposed Party Election Broadcast allocation criteria seem appropriate or not

The Conservative Party

 The Conservative Party said they had no comments on the changes in relation to (a) the wording for “constituency” candidates in Scotland and Wales, (b) Northern Ireland thresholds, or (c) allowing political parties without London Assembly candidates to be able to qualify for London broadcasts if they have support.

 However, the Party stated that they disagreed with the proposal to allow London election broadcasts to be given to those with “significant” support rather than “substantial”. This is a major change to current practice and guidance, the submission said, which effectively signals that very minor parties or independent candidates could be eligible for one broadcast.

 The Conservative Party argued that such an approach would be inconsistent with other recent guidelines. For example, they said, the guidance on PPBs, amended in December 2015, used the “substantial” threshold. The tests in the PEB criteria should mirror the PPB criteria, for consistency, and no substantive reason was given in the PEB consultation to justify why the PEB test “should now be downgraded”.

 The Party said that it is not clear from the consultation what the public interest or public policy case is for this “significant” change, which potentially could open up election broadcasts to “new fringe groups/candidates”. For instance, the submission continued, “is the BBC Trust proposing that potential Mayoral candidates such as George Galloway should now be eligible for election broadcasts under the new test?”

February 2016 6

/ Outcome of Consultation

 The Conservative Party stated that the new wording is unclear and creates ambiguity about how “significant” should be measured and quantified. The party believes that the consultation paper suggests that it would be interpreted “more widely than just quantity” – which it believes is “clearly subjective and vague”. The Conservative Party added that this could open the BBC to an increased risk of judicial review.

 In conclusion, the Conservative Party asked that the current “substantial” wording is kept as the minimum threshold and that additional election broadcasts should then be allocated to those with the largest levels of electoral support.

The Green Party of England and Wales (GPEW)

 The Green Party of England and Wales said they were broadly satisfied with the criteria for allocating a first PEB for elections in London in May 2016 and with the criteria for allocating a PEB for local government elections in England.

 But they proposed that the party should qualify for an additional PEB for these elections on the grounds of its substantial level of past and current electoral support in London, adding that it has wielded significant influence in London politics over recent years

 Elections for the Welsh Assembly: the Party said they were broadly satisfied with the criteria for allocating a first PEB, but wanted to propose that the Green Party should qualify for an additional PEB for these elections on the grounds of its substantial and growing level of electoral support in Wales.

.

The Green Party in Northern Ireland

 The Green Party in Northern Ireland stated their submission referred only to proposals for Northern Ireland.

 The Party said the proposed allocation criteria did not seem appropriate and were, instead, “detrimental to smaller parties”. The proposal to increase the candidate threshold from three to 18 was a “significant” increase which brought with it “formidable logistical, financial and organisational obstacles” for a party of its size.

February 2016 7

/ Outcome of Consultation

 In order to fulfil the criteria as proposed, the Party would be required to stand more candidates than ever before.

 The Party said that as a smaller party they would find it more difficult to find candidates in each of the 18 constituencies in Northern Ireland compared to the larger parties (and there were reasons why it is “neither desirable nor practicable” to stand more than one candidate in a single constituency) .

 In addition, the Party noted there were significant organisational requirements and cost implications in increasing the eligibility requirements to 18, which would “be burdensome” for a party of the Green Party’s size.

 The Green Party said that as a smaller party in the context of Northern Ireland, to suddenly raise the limit from three to 18 candidates would leave them “disadvantaged compared to larger parties”.

The Scottish Green Party

 The Scottish Green Party said that while they agree with the changes proposed for PEBs, they would urge the BBC to reconsider its definition of “substantial levels of past and/or current electoral support”, a measure used to allocate additional PEBs. The Party said it has concerns over this aspect of the criteria.

 However, the Party welcomed the proposal to clarify that “additional PEBs” means “one or two additional PEBs”.

 The Party said that the BBC had indicated that it intended to retain its previous distinction between “major” and “minor” parties for broadcasting in 2016. Under this approach the Scottish Greens, UKIP and others would be listed as minor parties, consequently not qualifying for additional PEBs. The Party argued this distinction is based on an “outdated assessment” of the political landscape in Scotland and it urged the BBC and the BBC Trust to reconsider qualifying the Scottish Greens as one of the “major” parties, so enabling them to seek additional PEBs in the lead up to the Holyrood election.

 In making these points, the Party included a details account of its current and past levels of support based on party membership, opinion polls and a number of MSPs. In summary, the Scottish Greens stated that over the past two years, there has been a “huge surge” in the Party’s public support and profile.

February 2016 8

/ Outcome of Consultation

The Liberal Democrats

 The Liberal Democrats said they agree with the proposed criteria, though they believe that the requirements for qualifying for additional PEBs that assess “past and/or current electoral support” should take into account party performance over the last two electoral cycles. The Liberal Democrats argued it was important to consider parties’ performance over a reasonable time period to ensure all parties have fair representation in PEBs against a background of a more volatile political landscape in the UK. The Party stated that a good measure would be the previous two electoral cycles and the current one – i.e. 2005-2010, 2010-2015, 2015 onwards – in recognition of the multi-party political landscape.

N121

 NI21 said it believed the proposal to increase the qualification threshold in Northern Ireland to 18 candidates across 3 constituencies was unfair to smaller, new parties emerging in Northern Ireland. The Party said it was dismayed with the proposal, given the BBC’s apparent intention to widen the spectrum for PPBs to registered political parties that hold one seat or more in a relevant parliament or assembly and can demonstrate electoral success. NI21 argued this was a more equitable approach to the allocation of PEBs, stating that smaller parties are gaining momentum and must be given fair representation.

 NI21 said the proposed new allocation criteria will merely reinforce the current political set up and will not give political parties an equal footing for each fresh election. It called on the BBC to reflect on these proposals and suggested it may wish to consider applying the same criteria as that set for PPBs. It concluded by stating that a registered political party with one or more members in a relevant Parliament 4should not be at a disadvantage at the hands of the BBC.

TUV

 TUV – Traditional Unionist Voice, said it was surprised by the proposed increase in the threshold to qualify for a broadcast in Northern Ireland to 18 seats, which represent a 600% increase from the last election. It stated that the BBC rationale for such a “dramatic increase is highly questionable”. The submission argued that the BBC’s stated objective of bringing Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK to use the “one-sixth” threshold was not “comparing like with like”.

4 NI21 said there had been an error in the final paragraph of the party’s submission and that it had intended that the phrase ‘in a relevant party’ should read ‘in a relevant Parliament’.

February 2016 9

/ Outcome of Consultation

 To illustrate this point, TUV pointed to the contents of the consultation as they relate to Wales. TUV asked how could it be fair for a party in Wales (population 3.06 million) to qualify for a broadcast while running just 10 candidates, while a party in Northern Ireland (population 1.8 million) has to contest 18 seats in order to qualify for a broadcast? Arguing that the size of the Northern Ireland Assembly “is totally out of kilter with the population”, the Party added that it was irrational to argue that because the 1/6th rule is sensible when it comes to Scotland and Wales, it should therefore be applied to Northern Ireland.

 In practice, the TUV added, the 1/6th rule would require the party to stand, effectively, in every constituency in Northern Ireland to qualify for a broadcast. This is not the case in the rest of the UK, it said. It argued that this threshold did not, as the BBC suggested “strike a reasonable balance… between the level at which parties qualify for PEBs and the opportunity viewers have to vote for that party”.

 In terms of achieving a balance, the TUV said that in 2011 the party contested 12 seats and stood in 11 out of the 18 constituencies in Northern Ireland, which meant that over 60% of the electorate had a chance to vote TUV. The “folly” of the BBC’s proposal, it added, is that it would be possible to stand in just three of Northern Ireland’s constituencies and yet qualify for a PEB, representing 17% of the population, according to the proposals.

 TUV said the criteria for qualifying for one PEB needed to be looked at again. It suggested that while the current threshold of three candidates was evidently much too low, the current proposals make no sense. It said it would be more sensible to propose a system whereby the electorate’s ability to vote for a party was actually taken into account.

 TUV argued a sensible proposal would be to say that a party qualifies for a PEB by contesting a minimum of 10 seats across at least 10 constituencies, which would give a clear majority of people in Northern Ireland the opportunity to vote for it (i.e. “ strikes a reasonable balance …between the level at which parties qualify for PEBs and the opportunity viewers have to vote for that party”) while at the same time raising it from the currently unacceptably low level.

 TUV also stated that it should have a second PEB, as its vote in the 2014 Council and European elections show the party has appeal across Northern Ireland. It said the Party had elected representation in a majority of Northern Ireland’s councils.

February 2016 10

/ Outcome of Consultation

 In addition, TUV said it had been the voice of opposition in the outgoing Assembly. Therefore, it was “fundamentally anti-democratic” to limit media coverage to the parties who have, for the vast majority of this Assembly term, been in government together.

The UK Independence Party (UKIP)

 The UK Independence Party in its (UK-wide) submission said that it endorsed the draft amendments to the allocation criteria for Party Election Broadcasts. For background purposes, and given the growth of UKIP in recent years, it set out the history of the party’s growth in recent years in its submission and gave details of its recent performance in elections.

Individual responses

 Excluding political parties and the Electoral Commission, there were 13 other responses. These were from individuals. Not all of the individual respondents answered both questions and in some cases the comments were general rather than question specific. Two of these responses concerned the 2016 elections to the Scottish Parliament. A detailed summary of the responses is attached at Annex D.

o In response to Question 1, two responses said the criteria are appropriate. One response said it was not appropriate for Scotland.

o In terms of the Scotland response, the submission said that the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party have a clear right to representation, given that they all do have “a representation or two”. UKIP has none and should be ignored, it adds. The Green Party also has a special place in that they promote ethical, environmental and thoughtful policies that should be considered by all, it concluded.

The BBC Executive’s position on the responses

 The Executive’s position in response to the issues raised is at Annex E.

 Background: The Executive reiterated that the objective of the new draft criteria was to bring Northern Ireland more into line with the rest of the UK where the rule that a party needs to stand in one-sixth of seats is well-established, albeit that the one-sixth rule needs to be adapted for different voting systems. This objective, it said, had been supported by other broadcasters in the Broadcasters’

February 2016 11

/ Outcome of Consultation

Liaison Group. In setting out its proposal, the Executive said that the use of the Single Transferrable Vote as applied in Northern Ireland across the 18 Westminster constituencies (electing 6 MLAs from each), is a system unique in the UK. The Northern Ireland Assembly is a 108 seat chamber. This compares to the Welsh Assembly which is a 60 seat chamber and the Scottish Parliament which has 129 seat altogether. In Wales and Scotland, Westminster-style constituencies are combined with top-up lists; the minimum number of candidates in the constituency section is 10 and 22 respectively, and more in the top-up sections.

Response to Northern Ireland political parties  Candidate threshold in Northern Ireland: The BBC Executive said it consulted directly with the parties in Northern Ireland, drawing their attention to the proposed changes and inviting submissions to the Trust consultation. Three of the parties who might be affected by the change responded (see above); all were strongly opposed to the increase.

 The Executive maintained its view that three candidates was too low a threshold and pointed out that there were no submissions arguing for the status quo – it said TUV explicitly acknowledged the existing threshold is too low. However, it said that it accepted that the proposed requirement for 18 candidates would be too high: first, moving from three to 18 was too steep an increase in one go – this would mean that seven parties who qualified for at least one PEB in 2011 would no longer qualify, if they stood the same number of candidates in 2016; and second, because of the particular nature of the electoral system in Northern Ireland.

 Referring to the proposed 18 candidate threshold, the Executive noted that if smaller parties were required to stand 18 candidates, they would either have to stand one in each constituency or stand more than one candidate in some constituencies, which, potentially, might put them at an electoral disadvantage in the Single Transferable Vote system. The Executive stated that neither of these was an intended consequence of the proposal to increase the number of candidates required.

 The Executive noted the Green Party of Northern Ireland argued strongly against a rise to 18, saying the proposals were “unfairly weighted against smaller parties”. However, it added, the party did not “suggest an alternative or explicitly defend the status quo”.

 The Executive said it is “not persuaded” by the suggestion from NI21 that PEBs should rely in part on representation, as PPBs do. The principle, across the UK,

5 http://www.broadcastersliaisongroup.org.uk/ February 2016 12

/ Outcome of Consultation

that PEB threshold criteria should normally rely on candidature is one that should be maintained, it added.

 However, the Executive said it did accept some of the arguments put forward by the TUV, especially in pointing out that an increase in the number of constituencies where candidates are required to stand would have more effect on the proportion of the electorate having an opportunity to vote for a particular party.

 The Executive indicated that it was “not persuaded” by the TUV’s comparison with Wales and that PEBs should have some relation to the number of seats being contested in the Northern Ireland Assembly as it is currently constituted.

 In considering the number of candidates and constituencies, the Executive stated that the principle should be to adopt the solution that works best for Northern Ireland with its particular landscape. It stated that a balance needs to be found in which smaller parties are not required to stand more candidates than makes electoral sense, whilst asserting the principle that there should be a reasonable minimum level of candidature – higher than was the case in 2011. The Executive added that, in line with the aspiration of the Broadcasters’ Liaison Group to bring NI more into line with the rest of the UK, the threshold should also bear comparison with the other devolved institutions. On present numbers, it said, that would suggest the threshold in Northern Ireland should be higher than Wales but lower than Scotland.

 In the light of the submissions from political parties and from the Electoral Commission – and following further consultation with other relevant broadcasters – the Executive put forward an amended proposal which stated that:

 The minimum number of candidates should be 12 across a minimum of six constituencies.This would mean voters in at least one third of Northern Ireland’s constituencies would have the opportunity to vote for a party which had a PEB across the whole of NI, according to the Executive. In addition, it would give some flexibility to a smaller party. It would also put Northern Ireland’s threshold slightly higher than for constituencies in Wales, but significantly lower than for Scotland.

 The Executive also noted that the size of the Assembly in Northern Ireland is to be reduced by the next election after 2016, due in 2021. It said that it would review the impact of this proposed change and may seek corresponding adjustments in the threshold for future elections, if necessary.

February 2016 13

/ Outcome of Consultation

 The amended proposal was sent to all the relevant parties in Northern Ireland, asking for further comment. None were received.

Response to Other Party Submissions  The Executive noted that the Conservative Party submission set out the Party’s disagreement with the proposed change in the “exceptional” aspect of qualification for a threshold broadcast in the London elections and argued that the test should be “substantial” and not “significant”. The Executive said that it considered “substantial” to be a higher test than “significant”. For instance, it said a party or candidate might come third in an election and yet still have lost its deposit. In beating others who previously had more electoral support, such a result might be regarded as “significant”, but it would not necessarily demonstrate “substantial” electoral support.

In proposing this change, the Executive stated that its reasoning was that the threshold criterion (i.e. for one broadcast), must be lower than the criterion for additional broadcasts. It pointed out that, given that these are for “exceptional” circumstances, if the criterion for a threshold were to be exactly the same as the normal test for additional broadcasts (i.e. both requiring “substantial” support), then any party or candidate qualifying – exceptionally – for a broadcast in this way, would argue that it should automatically also qualify for additional broadcasts. The Executive argued that could put such a candidate or party at an advantage over those who qualified for a threshold broadcast in the normal way.

The Executive stated that it did not agree that this change “potentially could open up election broadcasts to new fringe groups/candidates”, or that the wording “creates ambiguity”. It believed that to qualify for PEBs in London, parties should normally be standing candidates in both the mayoral contest and the London Assembly election, but that, exceptionally, for instance, where it may cause a lack of impartiality in one or other of the elections, it believed there is a need for a mechanism to deal with other circumstances.

The Executive said it was also opposed to the suggestion that PEB criteria should “mirror” PPB criteria. Candidature, which is an important element of the former, is not relevant for PPBs, it said.

 In relation to the submissions by the Green Party of England and Wales and the Liberal Democrats, the Executive said that there were no issues relating to PEB criteria, (as against prospective allocation).

 The Executive said it had no issues in terms of the submission by the UK Independence Party.

February 2016 14

/ Outcome of Consultation

 In terms of the response by the Scottish Green Party, the Executive stated that the submission was mistaken in saying that the BBC had, in recent past elections, classified the Scottish Greens as “minor” and that it had, therefore not been allocated any additional broadcasts. It explained that the Scottish Green Party had been given an additional broadcast, both in the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary Election and in the 2015 General Election. The Executive stated that the Scottish Green Party seemed to be taking the wording of the draft Election Guidelines (a separate consultation) in setting out relative levels of coverage regarding the BBC’s editorial output – and applying that (mistakenly) to PEBs. It explained that the BBC (unlike Ofcom) has no categorisation (such as “major” or “minor” parties) in relation to PEBs – it has criteria which apply to all parties.

The Committee’s decision

Candidate threshold in Northern Ireland: Having taken into account all the responses, the Committee considered it appropriate to implement the Executive’s amended proposal for candidate threshold in Northern Ireland that “the minimum number of candidates should be 12 across a minimum of six constituencies”. In doing so:

 In relation to the proposal to increase the candidate threshold to 18, the Committee noted the BBC’s objective of bringing Northern Ireland more into line with the rest of the UK by introducing the ‘one-sixth’ threshold, and accepted the Executive’s view that three candidates is too low a threshold. They acknowledged that there were no submissions arguing for the status quo. The Committee recognised that a balance needs to be struck to take into account changing political circumstances, and that there is a need to be fair and transparent in how a policy is applied, and for an appropriate and fair solution to the circumstances of the electoral landscape in Northern Ireland. The proposed increase which was consulted on appeared to the Committee to be too great a change to carry through. Trustees noted the initial comment on the proposed change from the Electoral Commission which stated that it would ‘encourage’ the Trust to consider the implications of this further and they also took into account concerns raised.

 Trustees considered the views expressed by the Green Party in Northern Ireland, NI21 and the TUV in their submissions. In particular, they noted the potential impact of an 18 candidate limit on smaller or emerging parties in terms of access to a PEB. The Committee considered the effect such an increase might have in terms of party organisation, funding and electoral disadvantage. Trustees questioned the Executive about the impact of the 18 candidate requirement and the fact that it might rule out up to seven parties which did qualify for at least one PEB in 2011, if they stood the same number of candidates in 2016. However, Trustees accepted that the BBC did not intend that its proposals should, put smaller parties at an electoral disadvantage in the Single Transferrable Vote

February 2016 15

/ Outcome of Consultation

system. The Committee agreed that the initial proposal (which was that the threshold should move from three to 18) was too steep an increase.

 On the NI21 suggestion that PEBs should rely in part on representation, as PPBs do, Trustees did not agree with this view and restated the principle that across the UK, the PEB threshold criteria normally rely on candidature.

 Trustees considered the argument put forward by the TUV in pointing out that an increase in the number of constituencies where candidates are required to stand would have an effect on the proportion of the electorate having an opportunity to vote for a particular party. The Committee noted that the BBC accepted this argument, stating that the principle should be to adopt the solution that works best for Northern Ireland with its particular landscape. Trustees accepted the Executive’s argument that on present numbers, the threshold should bear some comparison with the other devolved institutions and should be higher than Wales, but lower than Scotland.

 Trustees welcomed the decision by the Executive to amend their original proposal of an 18 candidate threshold to 12 candidates across a minimum of six constituencies. The Committee noted that this proposal was sent to all the relevant parties in Northern Ireland for further comment, but no responses were received. Trustees also took account of a second reply from the Electoral Commission stating that it had “no further issues” with the changes and welcoming the fact that the BBC had given the political parties in Northern Ireland a further opportunity to comment.

Introduction of the word ‘significant’ in the London Mayor criteria: Having taken into account all the responses, the Committee considered that the proposal to add wording to sub-paragraph (ii)(b) of the Exception clause in the London Mayor criteria, is appropriate and should be implemented. Wording is added so that a registered political party without a Mayoral candidate would qualify if it was able to demonstrate evidence of “significant past and/or current” electoral support rather than “substantial” support (to draw a distinction between the threshold criteria and the criterion for additional PEBs). In doing so:  In relation to the points raised by the Conservative Party concerning “”significant” and “substantial”, the Committee considered that the aim is to ensure that the allocation criteria provide sufficient flexibility to take account of the political landscape. The Trust’s role is to approve the criteria by which parties are allocated a PEB and the basis on which they should be broadcast. It is the role of the BBC Executive to apply the approved criteria.

 On the use of the word ‘substantial’ the Committee noted that in this context the phrase is well-established and understood by those eligible for a PEB. They accepted the Executive’s argument that there needs to be a higher test of

February 2016 16

/ Outcome of Consultation

‘substantial’ in relation to qualification for additional broadcasts, which is why they have moved to ‘significant’ for the threshold .

 Trustees accepted the Executive’s view that it does not agree that this change “potentially could open up election broadcasts to new fringe groups/candidates” or that the wording creates “ambiguity.” The Committee agreed with the Executive’s position that, to qualify for PEBs in London, parties should normally be standing candidates in both the mayoral contest and the London Assembly election, but that, exceptionally, for instance, where it may cause a lack of impartiality in one or other of the elections, it believed there is a need for a mechanism to deal with other circumstances.

 The Committee disagreed with the suggestion that PEB criteria should “mirror” PPB criteria. The Committee considered that PPB and PEB criteria are measuring different things and so do not have to mirror each other. In addition, candidature is an important element of the former, but is not relevant for PPBs.

Q.2 Other additional comments on the proposed Party Election Broadcast allocation

 The Green Party of England and Wales said they would welcome clarification as to how the BBC Trust will define and apply the criteria for allocating additional PEBs. In particular, the Party asked how it would “evaluate and determine” substantial electoral support, past and present, in connection with local and regional elections, and over what electoral cycles this assessment will be made.

 The Green Party in Northern Ireland said the consultation process itself is “disproportionately unfair” to smaller parties which may not have planned to stand 18 candidates and added that the uncertainty and lack of time before the next election is a “significant burden.” The Party also stated that the timeline of the consultation was forcing it to make strategic decisions based on possible eligibility for a PEB, which is unfair. The Party stated that they believed the current proposals are designed (albeit unintentionally) in such a way to deny smaller parties in Northern Ireland access to a PEB, and will, therefore, hamper the democratic process.

 The Liberal Democrats said the party meets the criteria required for PEBs, and additional broadcasts in each area it is standing. It set out details of this in its response including share of the popular vote achieved and numbers of elected representatives. The Party concluded its submission by stating that the Scottish Liberal Democrats should be given parity in terms of additional broadcasts with larger parties.

February 2016 17

/ Outcome of Consultation

 There were a number of individual comments on a number of topics. One submission said they broadly agreed with the criteria, provided there is some kind of appeals procedure, preferably independently decided. Another submission said the words ‘substantial’ and ‘significant’ needed clarifying. Other respondents discussed the BBC’s political coverage more generally, while another submission said there is too much time allocated to PEBs. Three submissions referred to the Green Party and the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections. One said the Green Party was being unfairly treated in the proposals, while another response said the BBC was “showing the usual bias against smaller parties, particularly the Scottish Green Party”. A third respondent said they broadly favoured the proposals for election coverage in Scotland during the Scottish Parliament Elections, with the exception that the Liberal Democrats should not be treated as a “major party” – but classed as a “minor party.”

The BBC Executive’s position on the responses

 The Executive’s position was that in relation to the points made by the Green Party in England and Wales and the Liberal Democrats, there were no issues relating to PEB criteria (as against prospective allocation). The issues raised by the Green Party in Northern Ireland had been considered in the Executive’s response to Question 1, as had the points about ‘substantial’ and ‘significant.’

The Committee’s decision

o Having taken into account all these responses, the Committeeconsidered that in general, the points related to the application of the allocation criteria, which is a matter for the Executive. In the past, the Committee has assessed critically the way in which the Executive has analysed what is “substantial support” and concluded that the Executive has the discretion to determine eligibility.6

Independent candidates

The Committee noted the view (see above) of the Electoral Commission that section 37 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 may prevent independent candidates from qualifying for PEBs. The Commission, however, acknowledged that the

6 http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2012/peb_reconsiderati on.pdf http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2012/peb_finding.pdf

February 2016 18

/ Outcome of Consultation

Trust took a different view of the law7 and Trustees decided that, on balance, it was appropriate for the allocation criteria to leave open the possibility that an independent candidate who satisfied the criteria could be offered a PEB.

The Committee’s decision to approve the criteria (as amended)

Having taken into account all the responses it received to its public consultation the Trust approved the criteria for Party Election Broadcasts (PEBs) with the amended allocation criteria for Northern Ireland. The final policy is attached at Annex F and comes into effect immediately.

7 See the ESC’s decision, “Appeal by Siobhan Benita, Independent Candidate for Mayor of London” (2012), paras. 5.2 to 5.5: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2012/peb_finding.pdf February 2016 19

OCTOBER 2015 Annex A - Party Election Broadcasts

The BBC’s proposed criteria for allocation of PEBs at the following elections on 5 May 2016

1. In Scotland - Scottish Parliament 2. In Wales - National Assembly for Wales 3. In Northern Ireland - Northern Ireland Assembly 4. In England (outside London) – Local government 5. In London – Greater London Authority

Threshold Criteria for PEBs

To qualify for one PEB in the relevant nation (or area in the case of London elections), a political party must be registered with the Electoral Commission and satisfy the following criteria:

In Scotland, a registered political party must stand:

. a minimum of 4 candidates in each of the 8 regional lists; or . constituency candidates in a minimum of one sixth of the total seats being contested in the election (ie 22 constituency candidates)

In Wales, a registered political party must stand:

. a minimum of 4 candidates in each of the 5 regional lists; or . constituency candidates in a minimum of one sixth of the total seats being contested in the election (ie 10 constituency candidates)

In Northern Ireland, a registered political party must stand:

• sufficient candidates to contest a minimum of one sixth of the seats in the Assembly (18 candidates) across a minimum of three constituencies.

In England (Local government elections)

A registered political party must stand candidates in a minimum of one sixth of the seats being contested in the English local government elections (excluding the GLA). Qualification entitles a party to a PEB in England, outside the GLA area or its nearest broadcast approximation.

In London (Mayoral/Assembly election)

A registered political party must stand:

(i) a candidate for Mayor

AND

October 2015 1

(ii) a full slate of candidates in all constituencies OR a full slate of candidates for all list seats.

Exceptionally, a PEB may also be offered to:

(i) A Mayoral candidate who can demonstrate evidence of significant past and/or current electoral support in London; but is not representing a party standing sufficient candidates for the Assembly

or

(ii) a registered political party without a Mayoral candidate but which is:

(a) standing a full slate of candidates in all constituencies OR a full slate of candidates in all list seats; AND (b) can demonstrate evidence of significant past and/or current electoral support in London.

Criteria for Additional PEBs

Anyone meeting the criteria for one PEB in the relevant nation (or area in the case of the London election) may qualify for one or two additional PEBs if they can demonstrate substantial levels of past and/or current electoral support in that nation (or area).

BBC Services which will broadcast PEBs

in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on: BBC One and BBC Two, On BBC Radio Scotland, BBC Radio Nan Gaidheal (broadcast in Gaelic), BBC Radio Wales and BBC Radio Cymru (broadcast in Welsh language); BBC Radio Ulster

In England, on TV on BBC One only (not on BBC Two, which does not split its transmission between the regions, including the London area) as well as on BBC London (Radio).

PEBs for London and English local elections

Where parties meet criteria for both the London election and English local government elections (and broadcasts were allocated for simultaneous transmission), they could deliver:

. either a single PEB for England including London; or . alternate PEBs – one for London and one for the rest of England.

October 2015 2 Notes

A party may be deemed to be standing a full list or have met the relevant minimum, if it is clear that the intention was to stand the requisite number of candidates, but at a late stage failed to do so, for example, because a candidate had to withdraw.

All PEBs will be available online via iPlayer from first transmission at least until polling day.

No PEBs will be allocated for the Police and Crime Commissioner elections, because they do not align with relevant transmission areas.

Electoral Commission

As is required by section 11(3) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the draft proposed criteria for the allocation of PEBs are sent to the Electoral Commission for comment.

October 2015 3 ANNEX B ANNEX B ANNEX B ANNEX C ANNEX C ANNEX C

Response to BBC Trust consultation on allocation criteria for Party Election Broadcasts for 2016 Thank you for inviting us to respond to proposed criteria for Party Election Broadcasts for elections that will be held during 2016. 1. Do the proposed Party Election Broadcast (PEB) criteria seem appropriate or not? Please explain why. The Green Party would like to comment on the criteria under separate headings for three groups of elections – for the London Mayor and Assembly, for the Welsh Assembly, and for other local government elections in England. Elections for the London Mayor and Greater London Assembly The Green Party is broadly satisfied with the criteria for allocating a first PEB for elections in London in May 2016. We would like to propose, however, that The Green Party should qualify for an additional PEB for these elections on the grounds of its substantial level of past and current electoral support in London. The Green Party have been continuously represented in the London Assembly since inception in 2000. In 2012, the Greens came third in the Mayoral race for the first time, beating the Lib Dems and UKIP. The Party has never had fewer than two members on the Assembly. The Greens have also wielded significant influence in London politics over recent years, having used their position holding the balance of power in the London Assembly to negotiate budget deals with former Mayor Ken Livingstone in the period 2004-2008, and pushing for the implementation of a number of policies including the London Living Wage, increases to the cycling budget, and the trial of civil partnerships. Elections for the Welsh Assembly The Green Party is broadly satisfied with the criteria for allocating a first PEB. We would like to propose, however, that The Green Party should qualify for an additional PEB for these elections on the grounds of its substantial and growing level of electoral support in Wales. The Green Party achieved 3.5% of the vote in each of the last two elections for the Regional section of elections to the Assembly and will be fielding a record number of candidates in both the Regional lists and the constituency section at the elections in 2016. The Green Party’s level of support in General Elections in Wales rose six fold between 2010 and 2015 – rising from 0.4% to 2.6% - and the Party’s membership in Wales has grown dramatically over the last two years. Elections for local government in England The Green Party is broadly satisfied with the criteria for allocating a PEB for local government elections in England. 2. Do you have any other comments on the proposed Party Election Broadcast allocation criteria? The Green Party would welcome clarification of how the BBC Trust will define and apply the criteria for allocating additional PEB’s. In particular how it will evaluate and determine substantial electoral support, past and present, in connection with local and regional elections, and over what electoral cycles will this assessment be made. Green Party of England and Wales 7th January 2016

ANNEX C

1st Floor

76 Abbey Street

Bangor

County Down

BT20 4JB

17th December 2015

Re: Consultation on Party Election Broadcasts (PEB)

Having read the consultation document on proposed changes to the PEB, and following our meeting with representatives of the BBC, UTV and the BBC Trust in Belfast on 2nd November, I would like to respond to the proposals on behalf of the Green Party in Northern Ireland. Our response refers only to the proposals for Northern Ireland specifically.

In response to the question “Do the proposed Party Election Broadcast allocation criteria seem appropriate or not?” - We believe that they do not seem appropriate and are, instead, detrimental to smaller parties.

As pointed out in the consultation document, the previous criteria for PEB eligibility was for a party to have candidates in at least three constituencies in Northern Ireland. Therefore, a small party such as ours was required to have three candidates in order to qualify for a PEB. The proposals would increase this six fold to 18, which is a significant increase in the required number of candidates and brings with it formidable logistical, financial and organisational obstacles for a party of our size: ANNEX C

 As explained at the meeting in Broadcasting House on 2nd November, the most candidates the Green Party in Northern Ireland has ever stood is 13 (in the Assembly elections in 2011). Therefore, for us to meet the criteria as proposed, we would be required to stand more candidates than we have ever stood before. This does not seem appropriate in allowing smaller parties access to a PEB  As a smaller party, we would find it more difficult to find candidates in each of the 18 constituencies in Northern Ireland compared to the larger parties. While the option is there to stand more than one candidate in a single constituency in order to meet the criteria, this is neither desirable nor practical in terms of party organisation, election strategy or voter perception to do so.  There is significant organisational requirements in finding, selecting and nominating candidates and increasing the eligibility requirement to 18 would be burdensome for a party of our size.  Furthermore, the cost involved in standing extra candidates would be detrimental to the finances of our party, as further deposits per candidate would be required.  As a small party in the context of Northern Ireland politics, to suddenly raise the limit from three to 18 candidates in order to avail of a PEB, would leave us disadvantaged compared to larger parties

In response to the question “Do you have any further comments”, we believe that the consultation process itself is disproportionately unfair to smaller parties which may not have planned to stand a minimum of 18 candidates.

Although the consultation closes in early January, and you hope to provide a final answer shortly afterwards, the uncertainty and lack of time before the next election is a significant burden. You will appreciate that it takes time to organise a selection process for candidates, so we will have to begin selecting- or trying to select- candidates for all constituencies now as we cannot wait until the consultation has finished to find out the agreed final criteria.

For a party which prides itself on grassroots democracy and member involvement in decision making, we find the timeline of the consultation is forcing us to make strategic election decisions based on possible eligibility for a PEB, which is unfair.

The current proposals, therefore, would appear to be an assault on democracy in being unfairly weighted against smaller parties by imposing comparatively large burdens of finance, organisation and logistics which can easily be met by larger parties.

Imposing these criteria- especially such a dramatic increase in the number of candidates from three to 18- within six months of election day, adversely affects our existing election campaign planning. It means that we have to organise the selection of a larger number of candidates to meet PEB criteria, rather than being able to focus on a smaller number of candidates who are standing on Green principles to offer an alternative to the voter.

We feel strongly that the current proposals are designed (albeit unintentionally) in such a way as to deny smaller parties in Northern Ireland access to a Party Election Broadcast and will, therefore, hamper the democratic process by denying voters of a key communication from alternative parties. ANNEX C

As such, we urge that our concerns will be taken into consideration when the Trust makes its final recommendations.

Thank you for this opportunity to respond. If you have any questions on the points raised above, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards

ANNEX C

ANNEX C

ANNEX C

ANNEX C

ANNEX C ANNEX C ANNEX C ANNEX C

NI21

19 Market Square Dromore Co. Down BT25 1AW

7th January 2016

To whom it may concern,

I am keen to respond formally to your consultation on Party Election Broadcasts, as I believe the new proposals to increase the qualification threshold to 18 candidates across 3 constituencies to be unfair to smaller, new parties emerging in Northern Ireland.

I am dismayed that the BBC is proposing such a change, given that a previous consultation has suggested that the BBC intend to widen the spectrum for Party Political Broadcasts to Registered Parties holding one or more seat in a relevant Parliament; albeit with a caveat of demonstrating electoral success.

I believe this to be a much more equitable approach to the allocation of Party Election Broadcasts. Smaller parties are gaining momentum and for the sake of true democracy they must be given fair representation. The proposed new criteria for allocating slots will merely reinforce the current political set up and will not give political parties an equal footing for each fresh election.

The BBC should reflect on these proposals and may wish to consider applying the same criteria as that set for Party Political Broadcasts. A Registered Party with one or more member in a relevant party should not be at a disadvantage at the hands of the BBC.

ANNEX C

Ref:JA/SM/Party/7132

Party Election Broadcasts Consultation BBC Trust Unit 180 Great Portland St London W1W 5QZ

07 December 2015

Re Consultation on proposed allocation criteria for Party Election Broadcasts 2016

Response by Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV)

TUV is surprised that the proposed threshold to qualify for one broadcast in Northern Ireland has increased from contesting three seats in 2011 to eighteen seats in 2016. This represents a 600% increase from the last Assembly election.

The BBC rationale for such a dramatic increase is highly questionable. It is claimed: “the objective is to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK in terms of the required candidature for PEBs, that is, to use the well-established “one-sixth” threshold used elsewhere in the United Kingdom.” However, the BBC is not comparing like with like. One need look no further than the contents of the consultation to find evidence of this. In the case of Wales the BBC say a party will qualify for a broadcast if they stand “a minimum of 4 candidates in each of the 5 regional lists; or constituency candidates in a minimum of one sixth of the total seats being contested in the election (i.e. 10 constituency candidates)”.

How can it be fair for a party in Wales (which has a population of 3.06 million according to the last census) to qualify for a broadcast while running just 10 candidates while a party in Northern Ireland (which has a population of 1.8 million according to the last census) has to contest 18 seats in order to qualify for a broadcast?

The size of the Assembly in Northern Ireland – which is something TUV has consistently said should be reduced – is totally out of kilter with the population of Northern Ireland. One by-product of this is that it is irrational to argue that because the 1/6th rule is sensible when it comes to Scotland and Wales it should therefore be applied to Northern Ireland.

In practice, for a party like TUV contesting 1/6th of the seats requires them to stand, effectively, in every constituency in Northern Ireland in order to qualify for a broadcast as each constituency is represented by six MLAs. This is not the case in any other part of the UK. In Wales a party will qualify for a PEB by contesting just 10 of the 40 constituencies. This threshold does not, as the BBC suggests, “strike a reasonable balance … between the level at which parties qualify for PEBs and the opportunity viewers have to vote for that party”.

[email protected] 38 Henry Street Harryville Ballymena Co Antrim BT42 3AH

ANNEX C

If we are taking about achieving a balance between “the level at which parties qualify for PEBs and the opportunity viewers have to vote for that party” it is worth considering that in 2011 TUV contested 12 seats and stood in 11 of the 18 constituencies in Northern Ireland. This meant that over 60% of the electorate in Northern Ireland had a chance to vote TUV in 2011.

The folly of the BBC proposals is highlighted by the fact that it would be possible to stand in just three of Northern Ireland’s constituencies and yet qualify for a PEB because your draft proposals state: “In Northern Ireland, a registered political party must stand: sufficient candidates to contest a minimum of one sixth of the seats in the Assembly (18 candidates) across a minimum of three constituencies.”

How can standing in only three constituencies be said to “strike a reasonable balance … between the level at which parties qualify for PEBs and the opportunity viewers have to vote for that party”? Under the BBC proposals it would be possible for a party to qualify for a PEB while affording just 17% of the population of Northern Ireland the chance to vote for it while a party which affords over 60% of the population the chance to vote for it would fail to qualify for a PEB!

TUV believes that the criteria for qualifying for one PEB needs to be looked at again. We suggest that while the threshold of three candidates was evidently much too low the current proposals make no sense whatsoever. It would be much more sensible to propose a system whereby the electorate’s ability to vote for a party was actually taken into account – something which isn’t the case at the moment where it is possible for a party to qualify for a PEB while affording just 17% of the population the chance to vote for it.

We suggest that a sensible proposal would be to say that a party qualifies for a PEB by contesting a minimum of 10 seats across at least 10 constituencies. This would afford a clear majority of people in Northern Ireland the opportunity to vote for it (i.e. “strike a reasonable balance … between the level at which parties qualify for PEBs and the opportunity viewers have to vote for that party”) while at the same time raising it from the currently unacceptably low level.

When it comes to additional PEBs TUV would make the following points in support of our case for a second Party Election Broadcast: 1) The vote obtained by TUV in the 2014 council and European elections shows that the party has appeal across Northern Ireland (TUV currently has elected representation in a majority of Northern Ireland’s councils) and 2) TUV has been the voice of opposition in the outgoing Assembly. It is fundamentally anti- democratic to limit media coverage to the parties who have, for the vast majority of this Assembly term, been in government together. Much has been made in the BBC consultation of bringing Northern Ireland into line with other devolved regions of the UK yet where else in the UK will only parties which have made up the government in the previous mandate be granted additionally Party Election Broadcasts?

Yours faithfully,

[email protected] 38 Henry Street Harryville Ballymena Co Antrim BT42 3AH

ANNEX C

Thank you for granting us the opportunity to comment on the draft amendments to the allocation criteria for party election broadcasts (PEBs). UKIP endorses the draft amendments to the existing rules for PEBs put forward by the BBC Trust. Given the growth of UKIP in recent years, it might be useful here, if I set down some history, in order to assist the BBC Trust in their deliberations:

RECENT HISTORY

UKIP was founded as a political party in 1993, with the intention of campaigning to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union. In subsequent years, it has broadened its political platform and now campaigns on a wide range of issues, locally, nationally and also in Europe. In recent years, it has performed strongly in parliamentary by-elections and local elections. A 2014 poll for The Sun newspaper highlighted the fact that UKIP was the most trusted party on immigration, with 43% of voters trusting it on the issue, and only 21% trusting the Conservative Party.1 UKIP has a strong track record of digital engagement. It currently has 506,900 ‘Likes’ on Facebook (Labour has 400,700, the Conservatives 537,800 and the Liberal Democrats 127,100). UKIP has some 111,000 followers on Twitter and UKIP Party Leader Nigel Farage has 247,000 followers on the same social media platform. UKIP prides itself on being a national party and is the only British political party with some form of elected representation in all parts of the UK. At the time of writing, membership stands at 40,761 members, an increase of some 8,000 since the party's submission to the Electoral Commission on 31 December 2013. According to a report in The Times newspaper on 2 January 2014, UKIP’s councillors have the best attendance record of all the UK’s political parties, (UKIP 92.4%; Conservative 88.6%; Labour 88.4%; Liberal Democrat 87.7% and Green 79.6%). At the time of writing, the party currently has 487 councillors. When UKIP contested its first European Parliamentary elections in June 1994, it received a total of 150,251 votes and failed to win a single seat in the Brussels parliament. At the same elections in 1999, the party got 696,057 votes and secured three seats in Brussels. UKIP fielded 428 candidates in the 2001 general election, getting 390,563 votes, but no seats. In terms of vote share, it came fifth. In the Euro elections held on 10 June 2004, UKIP came third, with 2,650,768 votes and 12 seats. In the general election held on 5 May 2005, the party got 605,973 votes, but no seats.In the Euro elections held on 4 June 2009, UKIP won 13 seats, coming second to the Conservatives, with 2,498,226 votes. UKIP fielded a total of 572 candidates in the 2010 general election and attracted a total of 919,471 votes, but once again, won no seats. In the local elections held in England and Wales on 2 May 2013, UKIP fielded 1,700 candidates, gained a total of 147 councillors and averaged 25% of the vote in the wards where it stood. UKIP’s performance in May 2013 would be described by The Guardian newspaper as the ‘biggest surge for a fourth party’ in British politics since the Second World War. The geographical growth of the party may be seen at both Annexes A and B.

1The Sun 9 September 2014 ANNEX C

In the European elections held on 22 May 2014, UKIP topped the polls with 4,376,635 votes and for the first time since the 1906 general election, neither the Labour Party nor the Conservatives won a national election. The party's vote in Scotland was up 5%, 12% in the North West region, 14% in the North East, 14% in Yorkshire and the Humber, 15% in Wales, 10% in the West Midlands, 16% in the East Midlands, 10% in the South West, 13% in the South East, 6% in London and 15% in the East.2 UKIP had 24 MEPs elected (including one in Scotland), its highest tally to date. The party currently has 22 MEPs. On the same day, the party gained 163 council seats, three of which, were in Northern Ireland at Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon, Mid and East Antrim and Newry, Mourne and Down.(The party has also had a Member on the Legislative Assembly (MLA) of Northern Ireland at Stormont since 2012). In the May 2015 general election, UKIP stood 624 candidates (out of 650 seats) and polled 3,881,099 votes, winning only one seat (Clacton). However, the party quadrupled its share of the vote, winning 14 per cent in England (and 12.6 per cent across the UK). UKIP finished second in 120 seats and won a vote share of over 20 per cent in 45 seats. In total, it accrued nearly four million votes – almost as many as the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats combined. The total number of seats won by those parties was 68 - for UKIP’s one. On the same day, the party won 202 council seats and took control of Thanet District Council. At that point, UKIP had 494 seats out of a total of 19,385 council seats in England (excluding the City of London).Whilst UKIP returned only one MP to Westminster in May 2015, this outcome was the consequence of the inability of the 'first-past-the-post' electoral system to cope with the fact that the UK now has a multi-party political landscape, rather than just the two major parties it was originally designed for. It should also be noted that UKIP currently has three peers in the House of Lords. However, if Prime Minister David Cameron had honoured the pledge he made in the ‘2010 Coalition Agreement’ that: ‘Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election’ – UKIP would now have several dozen peers in the upper house. Further evidence of UKIP’s growing support may be taken from the change in its vote share over the last 15 years:

1999 Euro elections: 7%. 2001 General election: 1.5% (saved deposit in one seat). 2004 Euro elections: 16%. 2005 General election: 2.3% (saved deposit in 38 seats). 2009 Euro elections: 16.5%. 2010 General election: 3.1% (saved deposit in 100 seats). 2013 local elections: won 147 seats across 35 councils in England and Wales. 2014 Euro elections: 27.49%. 2014 local elections: won 155 council seats. 2015 General election: 12.6% (1 seat, 79 lost deposits, 120 second places). 2015 local elections: won 202 council seats.

2http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/05/26/european-elections-2014-results-breakdown ANNEX C

ENGLAND

In the 2010 general election, UKIP got 866,633 votes in England, but no elected representation. In the May 2014 European election, the party topped the poll in England, receiving 4,009,534 votes, (Labour 3,466,095, Conservatives 3,429,333, Greens 1,103,395 and the Lib Dems 963,383). In the 2015 general election, UKIP got 3,611,367 votes in England (14.1%). This was more than the Lib Dems, the Greens and the smaller parties put together. Despite getting the third-highest share of the vote, due to the vagaries of first- past the post electoral system, this resulted in only one Westminster seat. There are 2,260 council seats up for election in England on 5 May 2016 and UKIP will be standing at least 1,500 candidates.

NORTHERN IRELAND

On 22 May 2014, UKIP received 24,584 votes in the European elections in Northern Ireland. On the same day, UKIP gained 163 council seats, three of which, were at Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon, Mid and East Antrim and Newry, and Mourne and Down. The party has also had a Member on the Legislative Assembly of Northern Ireland at Stormont since 2012. The Assembly has 108 elected members - six from each of 18 constituencies, In May 2016, UKIP will be standing at least one candidate in each of the 18 constituencies.

SCOTLAND

In the 2011 Scottish Parliament election, UKIP got 18,138 votes. In the 2014 European elections, UKIP received 140,534 votes in Scotland and for the first time, sent a Scottish UKIP MEP to Brussels. In the 2015 general election, UKIP got 47,078 votes (1.62%). In May 2016, at the very least, the party will be standing at least four candidates in each of the eight regional lists in the election to the Scottish Parliament.

WALES

In the 2007 Welsh Assembly elections, UKIP got 38,490 votes. In the May 2010 general election, UKIP got 35,690 votes. In the 2011 Welsh Assembly elections, the party received 43,756 votes. In the May 2014 European elections, the party received 201,983 votes and elected a UKIP MEP for Wales. Rather unusually, the party continued to increase its share of the vote between that election and the May 2015 general election twelve months later, where it received 204,330 votes (13.6%). UKIP will stand a full slate of 60 candidates in the May 2016 election to the Welsh Assembly and given the proportionality of the voting system used, would expect to see candidates elected to the Welsh Assembly.

LONDON

In recent times, UKIP's share of the vote in London has risen from 43,274 (2%) in the GLA election of 2012; 371,133 (7%) in the European election of May 2014 and 286,981 (8.1%) in the 2015 general election. (By comparison, in the latter contest, ANNEX C the Lib Dems got 272,544 votes in London and the Greens 171,652). At the time of writing, London has one UKIP MEP. UKIP is standing a full slate of 25 candidates in the Greater London Assembly elections being held on 5 May 2016, as well as a candidate for London Mayor. Given the proportional voting system used for the GLA election, we expect to see UKIP members elected to the London Assembly.

SUMMARY

UKIP won the 2014 European election in the UK and came third in terms of vote share in the 2015 general election. With the radical decline of the Lib Dems and the equally dramatic rise of the SNP, in the period 2010-15, the UK’s political landscape can be said to have been drastically altered. In May 2016, UKIP will stand candidates in the county council elections, the London Mayoral elections, the Scottish Parliament elections, the Northern Ireland Assembly elections, the Welsh Assembly Elections, mayoral contests, the Police and Crime Commissioner elections, in addition to the normal council seats up for election, as part of the normal three, four-year, or ‘all-up’ electoral cycle. Additionally, UKIP will also play a major role in the referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union, which Prime Minister David Cameron has stated will be held prior to the close of 2017.

ANNEX C

Annex A

Results of the 2014 European Parliament election in England. Districts where UKIP received the largest number of votes are shown in purple. Conservative areas are shown in blue, Labour in red and Lib Dem in yellow.

ANNEX C

Annex B

Map of UKIP second places in the 2015 general election

Annex D – Individual responses

Party Election Broadcasts (PEBs) – Consultation Responses December 2015/January 2016

NAME COMMENTS

My submission is that the allocation criteria do seem appropriate

“Every party has its nutcases. Some parties more than others and the nuts roll in all directions at varying speeds. As everyone has a

different view then in principle there should be no need for limits on who can stand or where. …” “I can fully understand you wanting to apply threshold criteria to simplify things and, in principle, broadly agree. Howevery, to

broadly analogise, it is comparable to buying six boxes of Christmas crackers. Seventy one of the jokes are old and stale and everyone grimaces at best. But one DOES make everyone

laugh and they’re still bringing it up next year.

To be fair, I was unaware of the previous criteria as well. Perhaps there could be an appeals process for the few cases where a candidate seeking but denies a PEB applies…” “To summarise: I broadly agree with these criteria on condition there is some kind of appeals procedure, preferably independently decided. The minefield of costs rears its ugly head in anticipation…”

General comment only (see page 7): In my opinion there is too much time allocated to Party Political Broadcasts altogether, particularly to the two major parties. In consequence people get fed up with politics and many don’t vote at all.

There does not appear to be anything in these pages that lays down how long in durations a PEB may run for, or how many each

registered party will be allocated. Accordingly, the usual Tory(Labour bipartisan stitch up looks set to continue, at the expense of Plaid Cymru and the SNP. And this doesn’t regulate

February 2016 28

news bulletins content’ of what are essentially freebies to the Tory/Labour parties under the guise of “news”. It’s all still the same old British State-sponsored hegemony. One can see how the London-centric BBC really treats Wales (& Scotland) by way of the example below (at this point a complaint about getting the document in the English version of his name and address). Rather sums up your actual attitude to Cymru and Cymraeg doesn’t it. The BBC is still a racist organisation.

1.Yes, the allocation criteria proposed seems appropriate in as much as it standardises provision across the U.K.

2. ‘Substantial’ and ‘significant’ need clarifying. Whilst substantial could be quantified in terms of party support in recent elections, number of candidates elected and variety of policies; it should not be self-referenced: ‘significant’ is even more problematic: If is too open to interpretation which could be challenged as unfair.

1. Scotland and Wales – add “constituency” – Yes I agree 2. Northern Ireland – threshold increase to 18 – Yes I agree 3. London – Points a.b – No: In the Exceptional clause – (i) No, (ii) No comment 4. Criteria for Additional PEBs – “one of two additional PEBs” – Not sure Re wording on ‘standing a full list’ – Yes I agree

I would only make one point, please keep the coverage of election to the bear minimum, politicians use election to make false promises, expose their party in the media and generally annoy viewers.

Do the proposed PEB allocation criteria seem appropriate or not?

No – not for Scotland “Recent developments have clearly shown SNP to be the main party in Scotland, however, the Tories obviously need to be represented as the Westminster government and Labour as the main opposition in England. In Scotland, LibDems 5.2%+ & The Green Party 4.4% have a clear right to representation given that they all do have a representative or tow. UKIP have none and should be largely ignored The Green Party also have a special place in that they promote

/ Outcome of Consultation

ethical, environmental and thoughtful policies that should be considered by all.”

Do you have any other comments on the proposed PEB allocation criteria? No

“The BBC needs to give a wide as view as possible for elections and give impartial reporting on all parties. The BBC appears to favour the two main parties and has become lightweight in its news and very often biased in its reporting. The public deserves as much information as possible to make informed decisions.”

Dear BBC, I am writing to add my voice to those who feel the Green Party is being unfairly treated in your proposals for PEBs for the 2016 Scottish Parliamentary elections. The BBC is currently reputational fragile in Scotland (as I am sure you are well aware). This proposal, which is manifestly unfair to the Green Party for reasons which have been well-articulated by them and of which you are aware, if confirmed, will further damage the BBC’s reputation in Scotland, not just in the eyes of Green Party supporters, but across a much wider cross-section of the Scottish electorate who, even if intending to vote for other Parties, hold the Green Party in respect and regard it as one of the significant players in Scottish politics in general and in the upcoming election in particular.

Dear BBC…you were a government establishment mouthpiece during the Scottish Independence Referendum… I feel, after reading your editorial guidelines on the 2016 Holyrood campaign, you are showing the usual bias against smaller parties, particularly the Scottish Green Party. At the same time, you are treating the Lib Dems as a major party(!).

This should be changed.

I am broadly in favour of your proposals for election coverage in Scotland during Scottish Parliament elections, with the exception that it is simply not appropriate , credible nor acceptable for you to treat the Liberal Democrats as a major party.

They consistently poll in low, single figures for the Scottish Parliament elections and are set to return fewer MSPs than even the Scottish Greens. They have only one MP. They are almost certain to lose significant numbers of councillors in 2017.

February 2016 30

There is NO justification for that party to be classed as a major party: they are not. It is only right and proper in democratic terms for you to class them as a minor party for May’s elections. This is a position supported by John Curtis, Scotland’s most prominent political statistician.

Wants the BBC to give “precise rules” re eligibility of parties for extra PEBs. BBC must make clear the following: Substantial levels of past or current electoral support/weighting to most recent general election results/weighting given to 2011 election results/weighting given to other elections/weighting given to opinion polls/weighting given to number of seats gained in the various parliaments/weighting given to the percentage of the vote achieved/weighting given to additional factors/ what constitutes a large and small party/ what is the algorithm which is used to compile all this weighting information to give the level of support enjoyed by parties?

Says the BBC must show how they have arrived at their allocation of extra PEBs.

Submission then talks about BBC’s obligation to Impartiality and due Impartiality and how it relates to party coverage. Uses examples from Scotland and Wales. And it continues ( If BBC staff intentionally fail to allocate PEBs on a basis of due impartiality then …such staff would appear to have committed misconduct in public office and maybe possible fraud on license fee payers. As the BBC… do not run a fair complaints procedure, complaints will be straight to the police.)

February 2016 31

Annex E – Response from BBC Executive

Executive Response to submissions to the BBC Trust’s public consultation on PEB criteria: Northern Ireland Background: The draft criteria proposed a significant increase in the number of candidates needed to qualify for a PEB in the NI Assembly elections. The objective was to bring NI more into line with the rest of the UK, where the principle of “one-sixth” is well established (albeit one that has to be adapted for different voting systems). The proposal was discussed at the BLG meeting in September 2015, and was supported by other broadcasters. The use of the Single Transferrable Vote as applied in NI across the 18 Westminster constituencies (electing 6 MLAs from each), however, is a system unique in the UK. The criteria in 2011 for qualification for a threshold PEB was for a party to stand a minimum of three candidates in three different constituencies. The Northern Ireland Assembly is a 108 seat chamber. A simple application of the “one- sixth” rule means that a party would need to stand 18 candidates – and this was the proposal in the draft criteria: 18 candidates in a minimum of three different constituencies. This compares to the Welsh Assembly (60 seats altogether) and the Scottish Parliament (129 seats altogether), which both combine Westminster-style constituencies with top-up lists; the minimum number of candidates (in the constituency section) is 10 and 22 respectively (though more in the top-up sections). Submissions: The BBC Executive consulted directly with parties in NI, drawing their attention to the proposed change and inviting submissions to the Trust consultation. In the event, three of the NI parties who might be affected by the change took part: all were strongly opposed to the increase. The TUV set out a detailed argument suggesting a less marked increase and amendments regarding the number of constituencies in which candidates needed to stand. NI21 suggested a more “equitable approach” would be to align the PEB criteria more with those introduced recently for PPBs. The Green Party of NI argued strongly against a rise to 18, saying the proposals were “unfairly weighted against smaller parties”, imposing “comparatively large burdens of finance, organisation and logistics” – but they did not suggest an alternative or explicitly defend the status quo. In addition, the Electoral Commission commented on the proposed change, encouraging the BBC Trust “to consider the implications of this further”, pointing out that three parties which currently have members of the Assembly would not have met this requirement. One of those parties – UKIP – in its (UK-wide) submission indicated that it would be fielding 18 candidates in NI at the coming election and was generally supportive of the proposals.

February 2016 33

BBC Executive response: The BBC Executive had signalled to the ESC that its proposed increase in threshold would raise a number of issues which may need further consideration in the light of submissions and before a final decision was taken by the Trust. The Executive accepts that the electoral system for the NI Assembly is different from all other elections in the UK and that the “one-sixth” rule cannot necessarily be applied in exactly the same way. It further accepts that a specific and appropriate solution needs to be adapted to the circumstances of the electoral landscape in NI. The Executive maintains its view that three candidates is too low a threshold; there were no submissions arguing for the status quo – indeed, the TUV explicitly acknowledged it is too low. However, the Executive accepts that the requirement for 18 candidates is too high, not only because moving from 3 to 18 is too steep an increase in one go (meaning that seven parties who did qualify for at least one PEB in 2011 would no longer qualify, if they stood the same number of candidates), but also because of the particular nature of the electoral system in NI. Political parties stand candidates using different strategies to maximise their representation and vote. The larger parties often stand several candidates in some constituencies, where they have a chance of winning more than one of the six seats. However, it very rarely makes electoral sense for smaller parties to stand more than one candidate in any one constituency. That means that if small parties were required to stand 18 candidates, they would either have to stand one in each constituency – in effect giving 100% of the electorate the opportunity to vote for them – or stand more than one candidate in some constituencies, which, potentially, might put them at an electoral disadvantage in the Single Transferrable Vote system. Neither of these is an intended consequence of the proposal to increase the number of candidates required. The Executive is not persuaded by the suggestion from NI21 that PEBs should rely in part on representation, as PPBs do. The principle across the UK that PEB threshold criteria normally rely on candidature is one that should be maintained, where possible. However, the Executive does accept some of the arguments put forward by the TUV, especially in pointing out that an increase in the number of constituencies where candidates are required to stand would have more effect on the proportion of the electorate having an opportunity to vote for a particular party. However, the Executive is not persuaded by the TUV’s comparison with Wales – that candidature should relate more to the size of the population than to the number of seats in the Assembly. PEBs should have some relation to the number of seats being contested in the NI Assembly as it is currently constituted. The TUV suggests a minimum of ten candidates across ten different constituencies. Arguments could be made for different numbers of each – the principle should be what works best for NI with its particular electoral landscape. A balance needs to be found in which smaller parties are not required to stand more candidates than makes electoral sense, whilst asserting the principle that there should be a reasonable minimum level of candidature – higher than was the case in 2011. In line with the aspiration of the BLG to bring NI more into line with the rest of the UK, the threshold should also bear some comparison with the other devolved institutions. On the present numbers, that would suggest the threshold in NI should still be higher than Wales, but lower than Scotland. In the light of the submissions from political parties and from the Electoral Commission – and following further consultation with other relevant broadcasters - the Executive’s amended proposal is that:

February 2016 34

- the minimum number of candidates should be 12 across a minimum of six constituencies. That would mean that voters in at least one third of NI’s constituencies would have the opportunity to vote for a party which had a PEB across the whole of NI. It would also give some flexibility to a smaller party that did decide it wanted to stand more than one candidate in a given constituency. And it would put NI’s threshold slightly higher than for constituencies in Wales, but significantly lower than for Scotland. The size of the NI Assembly is to be reduced by the next Assembly election after 2016, due in 2021: the BBC Executive would review the impact of this proposed change and may seek corresponding adjustments in the threshold for future elections if necessary. This amended proposal has been sent to all the relevant parties in Northern Ireland, asking for further comment. None were received.

Response to Other Party Submissions UKIP – no issues Lib Dems and Green Party (England and Wales) – no issues relating to PEB criteria (as against prospective allocation). Conservatives: The Conservative submission sets out the party’s disagreement with the proposed change in the “exceptional” aspect of qualification for a threshold broadcast in the GLA elections. It argues that the test should be “substantial” not “significant”. The BBC Executive considers “substantial” support to be a higher test than “significant”. For instance, a party or candidate might come third in an election and yet still lose its deposit. In beating others who previously had more electoral support, such a result might be regarded as “significant”, but it would not necessarily demonstrate “substantial” electoral support. The Executive’s reasoning in making this change was that the threshold criterion (ie for one broadcast), must be lower than the criterion for additional broadcasts. Given that these are for “exceptional” circumstances, if the criterion for a threshold broadcast is exactly the same as the normal test for additional broadcasts (ie, both requiring “substantial” support), then any party or candidate qualifying – exceptionally – for a threshold broadcast in this way, could argue that it should automatically also qualify for additional broadcasts. This could put such a candidate or party at an advantage over those who had qualified for a threshold broadcast in the normal way. The Executive does not agree that this change “potentially could open up election broadcasts to new fringe groups/candidates”, or that the wording “creates ambiguity”. The Executive believes that to qualify for PEBs in London, parties should normally be standing candidates in both the mayoral contest and the London Assembly election, these being two parts of a single system of government for the Greater London Authority. However, exceptionally – for instance, where it may cause a lack of impartiality in one or other of the elections – the Executive believes there is a need for a mechanism to deal with such circumstances. The Executive is also opposed to the suggestion that PEB criteria should “mirror” PPB criteria. An important element of the former is candidature, which is not relevant for PPBs.

February 2016 35

Scottish Green Party: The Executive would point out that this submission is mistaken in saying that the BBC has, in recent past elections, classified the SGP as “minor” and that it has, therefore, not been allocated any additional broadcasts. The criteria allows for an additional broadcast or broadcasts to be given to any party with evidence of substantial electoral support. In fact, the SGP has been given an additional broadcast, both in the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary election and in the 2015 General Election. The SGP seems to be taking the wording of the draft election guidelines in setting out relative levels of coverage regarding the BBC’s editorial output – and applying that (mistakenly) to PEBs. The BBC (unlike Ofcom) has no categorisation (such as “major” or “minor” parties) in relation to PEBs – it has criteria which apply to all parties.

February 2016 36

ANNEX F Party Election Broadcasts February 2016

The BBC’s final criteria for allocation of PEBs at the following elections on 5 May 2016

1. In Scotland - Scottish Parliament 2. In Wales - National Assembly for Wales 3. In Northern Ireland - Northern Ireland Assembly 4. In England (outside London) – Local government 5. In London – Greater London Authority

Threshold Criteria for PEBs

To qualify for one PEB in the relevant nation (or area in the case of London elections), a political party must be registered with the Electoral Commission and satisfy the following criteria:

In Scotland, a registered political party must stand:

 a minimum of 4 candidates in each of the 8 regional lists; or  constituency candidates in a minimum of one sixth of the total seats being contested in the election (i.e. 22 constituency candidates)

In Wales, a registered political party must stand:

 a minimum of 4 candidates in each of the 5 regional lists; or  constituency candidates in a minimum of one sixth of the total seats being contested in the election (i.e. 10 constituency candidates)

In Northern Ireland, a registered political party must stand:

 At least 12 candidates across a minimum of six constituencies.

In England (Local government elections)

A registered political party must stand candidates in a minimum of one sixth of the seats being contested in the English local government elections (excluding the GLA). Qualification entitles a party to a PEB in England, outside the GLA area or its nearest broadcast approximation.

In London (Mayoral/Assembly election)

A registered political party must stand:

(i) a candidate for Mayor

AND

(ii) a full slate of candidates in all constituencies OR a full slate of candidates for all list seats.

Exceptionally, a PEB may also be offered to:

(i) a Mayoral candidate who can demonstrate evidence of significant past and/or current electoral support in London; but is not representing a party standing sufficient candidates for the Assembly

or

(ii) a registered political party without a Mayoral candidate but which is:

(a) standing a full slate of candidates in all constituencies OR a full slate of candidates in all list seats; AND (b) can demonstrate evidence of significant past and/or current electoral support in London.

Criteria for Additional PEBs

Anyone meeting the criteria for one PEB in the relevant nation (or area in the case of the London election) may qualify for one or two additional PEBs if they can demonstrate substantial levels of past and/or current electoral support in that nation (or area).

BBC Services which will broadcast PEBs

In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on: BBC One and BBC Two, on BBC Radio Scotland, BBC Radio Nan Gaidheal (broadcast in Gaelic), BBC Radio Wales and BBC Radio Cymru (broadcast in the Welsh language); BBC Radio Ulster

In England on: BBC One (not on BBC Two, which does not split its transmission between the regions, including the London area) and on BBC London (Radio)

PEBs for London and English local elections

2

Where parties meet criteria for both the London election and English local government elections (and broadcasts were allocated for simultaneous transmission), they could deliver:

 either a single PEB for England including London; or  alternate PEBs – one for London and one for the rest of England.

Notes

A party may be deemed to be standing a full list or have met the relevant minimum, if it is clear that the intention was to stand the requisite number of candidates, but at a late stage failed to do so, for example, because a candidate had to withdraw.

All PEBs will be available online via iPlayer from first transmission at least until polling day.

No PEBs will be allocated for the Police and Crime Commissioner elections, because they do not align with relevant transmission areas.

Electoral Commission

As is required by section 11(3) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the draft proposed criteria for the allocation of PEBs are sent to the Electoral Commission for comment.

3