A single cup of tea could involve more corrupt intent than laying on a full buffet.

The vexed issue of what refreshments, if any, an election candidate could provide to members of the public has proven to be one of the trickiest to solve.

Rob Callister and Lawrie Hooper, who both stood successfully, were critical of the advice they received from the Cabinet Office, about whether they could provide food or drink to voters. That advice was to seek their own legal advice.

’Treating’ is an offence under election law, but it is the intent, rather than what the treat is, that matters.

In its response to the original select committee report on the organisation of last year’s election, the Council of Ministers says: ’Candidates correctly assume there is no legal problem with ordinary hospitality.

’However, the issue is not what constitutes hospitality, but rather, what constitutes corrupt intent.

’One individual could provide a cup of tea, for example, with more corrupt intention than another person who provides a full buffet.’

It adds: ’It is not possible for the Cabinet Office to be expected to know what is in the mind or what the intent of the candidate is when providing food and drink, or interpret what is acceptable for a candidate to provide.

’If this were to happen, a government department, in this case the Cabinet Office, would risk an allegation of negligence if it purported to give advice in circumstances which resulted in a candidate being investigated or even prosecuted.’

The select committee says in its report candidates would have found it helpful if they were advised that ordinary hospitality was not regarded as treating. CoMin says the information was provided by email to ’more than one candidate’.

A recommendation that Cabinet Office should issue guidance on treating, and not merely tell candidates to seek their own legal advice is accepted, but the Council of Ministers does warn the advice would have to remain general.

’The Attorney General’s Chambers have advised that it would be inappropriate for the Cabinet Office to be expected to offer detailed advice or interpretation, as they could not reasonably know what is in the mind of the candidate, and accordingly cannot be expected to confirm whether a particular circumstance is acceptable or otherwise.’