A Freedom of Information (FOI) response from the Electoral Commission about the SNP indyref and indy booklet fundraisers monies and their involvement in the initial Branchform investigation of the SNP can be reasonably summarised as:
“xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx” or “Nah nah nah, no telling ye.”
If you want the exact wording, read on:
“Part A
“Please provide the information held by the EC regarding James Kelly’s 2017 communication to the EC, such as, but not limited to, the request for investigation, what the EC did in response to these concerns such as any investigation, the conclusion reached by the EC. If parts of it cannot be released, please provide the parts that can be released.”
The Commission has considered this part of your request.
Following searches of the Commission’s records, no information has been identified as being held within the scope of this part of your request. Accordingly, pursuant to section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, we can confirm that the requested information is not held.”
It begs the question: Did James Kelly follow through on his assertion of complaining to the EC about fundraising by the SNP?
“Part B
“Please provide the information held by the EC such as when it became aware monies in those two SNP specific-purpose fundraisers were being spent by the SNP for purposes other than the asserted purpose of the fundraisers and whether the Electoral Commission assessed whether the SNP were potentially acting illegally / unlawfully in doing so.”
The Commission does not hold information falling within the scope of this request.
As explained publicly by the Commission, our regulatory remit concerns compliance with political finance legislation, including the permissibility, recording and reporting of donations and loans. The purposes for which a political party seeks, obtains or uses donations are matters for that party and do not generally fall within the Commission’s regulatory functions.
Accordingly, accordingly, pursuant to section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 the Commission does not hold information recording when it became aware that funds had been spent for purposes other than those asserted by the fundraiser, nor does it hold information recording an assessment of whether doing so was unlawful.
Part C
“Please provide the information held by the EC regarding who within the SNP authorised / had the authority to spend the monies raised in the above fundraisers.”
The Commission does not hold the information requested. The Commission does not regulate the internal governance or spending authorisation arrangements of political parties. Accordingly, it does not hold information identifying who within a political party authorised expenditure from particular fundraising activities unless such information was provided to the Commission for some separate regulatory purpose.
Thus, no information is held within scope of your request.
Part D
“Please provide the information held regarding where the Commission is given a remit to have an active role in working with police investigating potential criminal activity that is not covered by PPERA/electoral laws.
Specifically, please provide the information regarding the Commission’s input regarding allegations of embezzlement of the 2017 and 2019 SNP fundraiser monies made to Police Scotland in 2021 resulting in Operation Branchform.”
Information explaining the Commission’s role is publicly available.
Under PPERA, the Commission is responsible for regulating and enforcing the political finance regime. The Commission may investigate suspected breaches of PPERA and works with police forces where appropriate. The Commission has published information explaining that police can investigate PPERA offences and that certain offences can only be investigated by the police. The Commission also works with police where it believes police action is more appropriate or where offences fall outside its own powers.
This information is reasonably accessible to you and is therefore exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The relevant information can be found at:
link to electoralcommission.org.uk
link to electoralcommission.org.uk
Information regarding alleged embezzlement and Operation Branchform:
The Commission can neither confirm nor deny whether it holds information within the scope of this part of your request.
Section 31(3) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 applies, by virtue of sections 31(1)(g) and 31(2)(c).
You refer in your correspondence to statements made by the Commission regarding its general approach to working with police forces and its publicly acknowledged support for a particular police investigation.”
(Seems they can’t even bring themselves to specify the part of Branchform that consisted of the investigation into embezzlement by Peter Murrell).
“However, those public statements do not remove the Commission’s ability to rely on section 31(3) in relation to different requests seeking information about specific regulatory engagement, discussions, assessments or communications concerning particular allegations or matters.
Confirming or denying whether information is held in relation to the matters specified in your request would itself reveal information about the Commission’s regulatory activity and engagement with other bodies in relation to a specific matter. This would be likely to prejudice the exercise of the Commission’s functions for the purposes set out in section 31(2)(c).
Section 31 is a qualified exemption and thus subject to the Public Interest Test.
The Commission recognises the public interest in openness and transparency concerning the regulation of political finance and engagement between public authorities.
However, there is a stronger public interest in avoiding prejudice to the Commission’s ability to carry out its regulatory functions effectively. Confirming or denying whether information is held could reveal information about the existence, nature or extent of regulatory engagement in relation to specific allegations and could discourage the effective exchange of information between regulatory and law enforcement bodies.
Having considered the competing public interests, the Commission has concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny outweighs the public interest in confirming or denying whether the requested information is held.
The Commission therefore neither confirms nor denies whether information within scope of this part of the request is held.”
