House of Commons - Constitutional Affairs

Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs Joint First Report

2 INDIVIDUAL REGISTRATION

Principles of electoral registration systems

7. The importance of an effective electoral registration system in a democracy cannot be overstated. The Electoral Commission has consistently stated its view that it "considers electoral registration to be the lynchpin of the electoral system".[6] In order for an election adequately to reflect the views of those eligible to vote and hence command public confidence in the result, as many electors as possible must be registered. The system must reduce to the minimum the opportunities for fraud. The criteria against which the effectiveness of any country's electoral registration system should be judged can usefully be summarised, in rough order of precedence, as:

Completeness
Accuracy
Convenience to electors
Ease of compilation
Usefulness
Security
Cost

These criteria reflect international guidelines and best practice, such as those issued by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the international body charged with observing elections in member countries. Its objective for examiners looking at voter registration and registers states that "The legal framework should require that voter registers be maintained in a manner that is transparent, accurate, protects the right of citizens of legal age to register, and prevents the unlawful or fraudulent registration of persons."[7]

8. Some of these criteria are in conflict. A register which places security issues before convenience to electors, for example, would have far fewer entries than one which places lighter burdens on electors and had lower standards for checking eligibility. As our witnesses accepted, a balance has to be struck between accessibility and security.[8] Whilst aiming at the highest possible degree of completeness and of accuracy, there will always be tension between ensuring that everyone who is eligible to vote is on the register and ensuring that no one who is ineligible is included. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, expressed the hope that completeness and accuracy "are not mutually exclusive".[9] In a perfect world this may be the case but it may be necessary to give priority to one factor over another in order to devise an electoral registration system which is practical, not prohibitively expensive to run, and not too burdensome to any would-be elector, including those with special needs. The Minister for Local and Regional Government and Fire, ODPM, argued that "there is a greater risk of reduced numbers of people registering for a variety of reasons than there is of increased inaccuracy in the register".[10] We agree that the most important feature of an electoral registration system is that it should offer the greatest number of eligible people the opportunity to vote. We have borne this, as well as the other criteria listed above, in mind in weighing the merits of any proposed changes to the system currently used in Great Britain.

Individual registration and household registration

9. The key difference between individual registration and household registration is that the former requires each eligible voter to take responsibility for ensuring that he or she is included in the electoral register. Household registration instead places the responsibility for registering on one member of the household.

10. In Great Britain at present we have a mixture of the two systems. Households are canvassed once a year as of 15 October by means of a form sent by the local Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) which asks for details of all those residing at that address who are eligible to vote (Form A). There is considerable local discretion in how the local authority chooses to gather this information beyond this central obligation. For example, the form may be blank or pre-filled with the names of those previously registered as residing at that address, and provision may be made for the "occupier" to confirm "no change" returns by telephone, rather than by completing the form. Practice also varies widely as to how non-returns are followed up by the ERO: in most cases, reminders are sent; in many areas, canvassers deliver Form A in person or visit to chase up where the form has not been returned. This is not true of all areas, particularly the inner cities, where personal canvassing may be perceived to be too great a risk to personal security, or rural areas, where it would not be cost-effective to travel the long distances necessary to recruit single households. Once they have been collected, the completed Form As are used to compile first a working register which can be inspected to uncover errors and then as of 1 December a published register which remains in force until 30 November the following year.

11. Individual registration is allowed in Great Britain during the nine months of the year (December to August) outside the period of the annual household canvass. Under this system of rolling registration, introduced in 2001, eligible electors may add their names to the register at any point by notifying their local ERO of their wish to do so. Many who register in this way will be among the significant proportion of the population who move house in any given year. In other cases, they may have been missed off the register by accident or may have decided that they now wish to take up their right to register for a variety of reasons, including to meet the needs of credit-checkers. It is important to note that whilst it is compulsory to return Form A under the annual canvass, there is no similar compulsion to notify the ERO of any change in circumstances under rolling registration. Individual involvement is also required for postal voting, where a further form is sent to individuals listed on Form A as wishing to vote by this method.

Individual registration in other countries

12. Individual registration has been introduced as the single method of being entered on the register in several countries which have similar electoral systems and traditions to Great Britain. In Appendix One to this report we outline briefly the experience of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and California. We examine below the more recent example of Northern Ireland which is close to our own situation.

NORTHERN IRELAND

13. Individual registration has been used in Northern Ireland since the passing of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. As the title of the legislation implies, the change was designed to combat the widespread perception of significant levels of fraud in Northern Ireland elections. In its current form, each individual is required to complete an annual registration form, supplying personal details including a National Insurance number. Further security measures involve the production of a form of photographic identification at the polling station in order to be allowed to vote. There is no data-sharing to allow the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland to identify non-registrants from other sources.

14. The Northern Ireland electoral registration system was comprehensively examined by the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee in a report published on 15 December 2004.[11] The Committee concluded that the measures taken had been "successful in reducing both the perception among the electorate of the prevalence of fraud and the actual level of electoral fraud, as far as it can be measured".[12] Nevertheless, the Committee's concerns about the experience of individual registration in Northern Ireland were such that it recommended that, until the problems identified in their Report had been alleviated, the Government should hold back from introducing individual registration to the rest of the UK.[13] These concerns centred around the significant decline in the numbers registered. The first register under the new system contained about ten per cent fewer names than the previous household-based register, which was to be expected under a change designed to weed out fraudulent entries. The decline continued under subsequent rounds of canvassing. This led the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to conclude that there is "emerging evidence of a continuous structural process of decline in the electoral system".[14]

15. Comparison of the turnout figures for the Assembly elections of 1998 and 2003 supports this analysis that individual registration has led directly to the loss of many potential electors from the register (see Table 1). Although the electorate, number of votes cast and turnout all declined between the two elections, the estimated participation among the voting age population fell more dramatically than could be accounted for by the decline in turnout alone. Evidence presented to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee suggested that this decline in registration, and hence participation in the electoral process as a whole, was particularly marked amongst young people, less advantaged social groups and people with disabilities.[15] To combat these trends, the Committee called for the reinstatement of some form of the carry-forward mechanism, whereby those on the register one year are not automatically excluded from the next register if they fail to return their form, and for greater emphasis on educative campaigns to promote awareness of the electoral and registration systems, aimed both at the general public and at specific groups, such as young people.[16] The Government has responded by re-introducing the carry-forward process under the provisions of the Electoral Registration (Northern Ireland) Act 2005.

Table 1: Turnout at Northern Ireland Assembly elections, 1998 and 2003

	Electorate	Total Votes	Total Valid votes	% Turnout *	% Turnout as prop. of voting age population
1998	1,178,556	824,391	810,245	69.9	67.9
2003	1,097,526	702,249	692,028	64.0	56.2
Diff.	-81,030	-122,142	-118,217	-5.9	-11.7

* Turnout is calculated by reference to all votes cast whether valid or not

Source: The Northern Ireland Assembly Elections 2003, The Electoral Commission (2004)

LESSONS TO BE LEARNT FROM OTHER COUNTRIES

16. Although none of the examples can be cited as a direct analogy to the position in Great Britain, given that the switch to individual registration in Northern Ireland was based on pre-existing circumstances which do not prevail in the rest of the UK, there are still lessons that could be learnt from the experiences of other countries with the introduction of individual registration. The most pressing of these is the tendency of individual registration to result in a less inclusive register than under household registration, with a disproportionate effect upon those groups already perceived as being less likely to participate in the electoral process (see the Northern Ireland and Canadian examples). In order to meet the tests of an electoral system which we set out at the start of this section of the Report, there is a clear need to ensure that individual registration does not sacrifice comprehensiveness and ease of enrolment for accuracy and security.

17. The experiences of Australia and New Zealand may provide lessons in how to ameliorate the negative effects of individual registration on the coverage of the electoral roll, through data-sharing to capture those who might otherwise be missed and through making it easy for electors to register.

The need for change in Great Britain

18. The question of whether to change the electoral registration in Great Britain has been given a high profile by the Electoral Commission which regards individual registration as central to the Government's modernisation strategy of moving towards offering electors a multiplicity of voting methods (see paragraph 35 below).[17] Regardless of whether "multi-channel voting" becomes a reality in the near future, there is an existing and increasing demand for postal votes for which individual involvement is already required. Further pressure for change at this time comes from concerns over data protection and the provision on Form A to state whether one's name should appear on the edited or the full register. Under household registration, one person takes responsibility for making this decision for all living at that address. There is no means of checking whether the form accurately reflects the wishes of each individual on this point, with the result that there may be doubt as to whether the individual has given consent as required under law for his or her data to be used as indicated by the householder.[18]

19. The Information Commissioner regards household registration "as a remnant of the Victorian requirement of property qualification for voters".[19] Many people, particularly but not exclusively young people, live in households where no-one is likely to take charge as "The occupier". The Scottish Assessors Association (SAA) argued that in such cases "it might be presumptuous to assume one or other as the head of the household",[20] a sentiment with which COSLA agreed, adding that the term itself now "seems antiquated".[21] There is also greater mobility between residential addresses than used to be the case, with the result that a register based on addresses can be quickly out of date. The fact that one's right to vote stems from individuals and not houses has been recognised in the extension of registration to the homeless who can prove a local interest but who are without a permanent address. We note that the regulations governing the content on Form A now stipulate "Return by Occupier as to Residents", rather than householders.[22]

20. A third issue is that of public trust. Some witnesses expressed firm confidence in the existing process. The Scottish Assessors Association put it to us that "the current system is understood and generally works well".[23] The Electoral Commission agreed that "people have been able to use [the current system] and use it perfectly comfortably for very many years".[24] Recent changes to the system, particularly the introduction of rolling registration, have complicated the picture so that there is a great deal of uncertainty about how the register is compiled and how names may be added to it. There is also evidence of growing concern about the robustness of the household system of collecting data. The Conservative party raised issues of security and fraud which led them to conclude that "the standing of the system of electoral registration in mainland Britain has in recent years been undermined".[25] It did not "concur" with the Electoral Commission that public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system in Great Britain was high.[26]

21. The proportion of the eligible population not included on the register has risen in recent decades. The Executive Director of the Association of Electoral Administrators (AEA) told us that "canvassing at the annual audit stage is becoming more and more difficult".[27] Work by the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys judged the register to be 93% accurate in 1981 but only 91 to 92.6% accurate in 1991, meaning that approximately 3 million adults were then missing from the register. There were, and continue to be, considerable variations within these averages, between inner city and non-metropolitan potential voters, between different ethnic groups and between different age groups (see Table 2 below). The Government and the Electoral Commission are both currently undertaking research projects into the extent and causes of non-registration, but the most recent evidence from the 2001 General Election suggests that 29% of young people aged 18-24 years and 19% of black minority ethnic (BME) groups surveyed cited not being registered as the reason for not voting.

Table 2. Extent of non-registration for different groups (1991)

Classification	% not registered
Inner London	20.4
Non-metropolitan	6.3

Age 18-19	12.1
Age 20-24	20.0
Age 50+	2.1

New Commonwealth citizen	36.6

Owner occupier (owned outright)	2.6
Rented privately, unfurnished	38.2

Source: P. Heady et al, The coverage of the Electoral Register in D. Butler and I. McLean (eds.), Fixing the Boundaries. London: Dartmouth, 1996.

22. The figures for individual parliamentary constituencies bear out this fall in registration. Table 3 below shows the total and percentage change in the 20 constituencies with the greatest fall in the number of registered electors between 2001 and 2003.

Table 3. Change in number of registered electors by Parliamentary constituency

Constituency		Electors 1 February 2001	Electors 1 December 2003	Absolute change	Percentage change
1	Brentford and Isleworth	83,420	67,934	-15,486	-18.6
2	Belfast West	60,377	47,139	-13,238	-21.9
3	Belfast North	61,646	49,054	-12,592	-20.4
4	Portsmouth South	77,372	66,162	-11,210	-14.5
5	Belfast South	59,937	49,207	-10,730	-17.9
6	Edinburgh Central	66,296	55,714	-10,582	-16.0
7	Foyle	71,835	62,321	-9,514	-13.2
8	Belfast East	59,044	49,930	-9,114	-15.4
9	South Antrim	71,316	62,906	-8,410	-11.8
10	Strangford	72,948	64,718	-8,230	-11.3
11	Lagan Valley	73,494	65,545	-7,949	-10.8
12	North Down	63,944	56,030	-7,914	-12.4
13	Rhondda	56,096	48,332	-7,764	-13.8
14	Glasgow Maryhill	55,087	47,525	-7,562	-13.7
15	Bradford West	72,193	64,663	-7,530	-10.4
16	Edinburgh South	64,437	57,274	-7,163	-11.1
17	Brent East	58,082	51,114	-6,968	-12.0
18	East Antrim	61,597	54,644	-6,953	-11.3
19	Bolton South East	68,080	61,198	-6,882	-10.1
20	Dulwich and West Norwood	70,301	63,489	-6,812	-9.7

Source: Office for National Statistics

23. The downward trend in registration is underlined by figures from the University of Plymouth on the number of Form As returned by 1 December, the date on which the register comes into force. The average percentage returned by this date in 2003 was 91%; by 2004 this had fallen to 89%. In 2003 65 authorities reported that they had returns of over 95% and 70 reported returns of below 90%. In 2004 19 and 90 authorities, respectively, were in this position. Table 4 below indicates the variation in the figures between the different types of authorities but shows a decline in all cases.

Table 4. Form A returns at 1^st December 2004 & 2003

Type of authority	Mean - 2004 (%)	Mean - 2003 (%)	N=
Districts (all-out)	91	93	81
Districts (thirds)	92	93	47
London Boroughs	89	90	16
Metropolitan boroughs	84	88	25
Unitary councils	87	88	31
Wales	89	90	13
Total	89	91	213

Source: Survey conducted by LGC Elections Centre, University of Plymouth, December 2004

These findings are backed by informal discussions with Electoral Registration Officers, which suggest that in one case barely 80% of Form As had been returned from the 2004 canvass. When the widespread expectation of a General Election is taken into account, a factor which is usually taken to boost registration by making it seem more relevant to the voter, these latest figures are more disturbing.

24. It is important to note that there is no evidence that the decline in registration is directly linked to the current system of registration nor that changing the system would in itself lead automatically to a more comprehensive register. Nevertheless, household registration as currently practised has not prevented the decline, and amendments to the system, whether minor or large-scale, may be considered to be part of the solution.

25. These factors add up to a case for examining whether individual registration could provide a better match to the aims of the electoral registration system than household registration. They also highlight areas of difficulty which should be addressed, regardless of whether the basic system of registration is changed, most importantly finding ways to encourage potential electors to register.

Arguments in favour of individual registration

The principle

26. None of our witnesses argued against the principle behind individual registration to any serious degree. The Electoral Commission described "the overriding principle" to be that "a right as fundamental as voting should only be secured by personal initiative", explaining that "no-one would suggest, for example, that voting itself should be exercised by the head of the household on behalf of other householders".[28] This also fits with the concept of individual responsibility, with the individual becoming accountable for his or her entry on the register, or indeed for failure to register.[29] Moreover, the British Youth Council argued that household registration discriminates against young people and those without a permanent residence.[30] The Council saw individual registration as "a move towards the creation of a person-centred (individual) system, one that does not discriminate against citizens on the basis of the lack of permanent residence, but enshrines and celebrates every citizen's democratic right to be placed on the register".[31] This principle has to be correct. The question is whether the practical advantages of introducing individual registration outweigh the disadvantages and the upheaval necessary in making such radical changes to the basic system of electoral registration.

OTHER ADVANTAGES

27. The Electoral Commission identified five advantages of individual registration over household registration. These are:

consistency

enhanced compliance with data protection and human rights legislation

increased participation, over time

increased security and accuracy

support for modernisation of voting arrangements.[32]

28. The Commission's argument on consistency is twofold: that a move to individual registration in Great Britain would result in consistency in registration systems across the UK, and that it would remove the distinction between the current twintrack approach of individual rolling registration and annual household registration.[33] On the first of these points, we agree with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, that devolution "means that, from time to time, we have a different approach in different areas".[34] The circumstances prevailing in Northern Ireland prior to the implementation of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 are not those which currently prevail in the rest of the UK with regard to the extent of the perception of fraud. We have more sympathy with the second call for consistency made by the Commission. A robust electoral registration system should be easy to explain as well as easy to understand. In recent years the system in Great Britain has become much less simple than it was before.

29. The issue of the compliance of the registration process with data protection and human rights legislation was raised with us by witnesses other than the Electoral Commission. The Deputy Information Commissioner told us that "in principle we are strong supporters of individual registration from a data protection point of view".[35] In written evidence the Commissioner himself argued that "the most reliable way to ensure that individuals are able to exercise their choice [as to whether their data should be sold direct to marketers via the full register] would be for registration to take place on an individual basis".[36] He added that "from a data protection perspective, we can see no obvious advantages in registration continuing to be carried out on the basis of households rather than individuals".[37] The credit reference agency, Experian, pointed to the extreme example of university halls of residence where the warden is responsible for sending in forms covering around 1000 individuals; in these cases, the data subject is not usually asked for their instructions in respect of opting out of the register.[38] The Electoral Commission had anecdotal evidence that "wardens of halls of residence and so on [were] unhappy about having to register students individually on a composite return because of human rights issues".[39] We found no dissenters from this view that individual registration was more in keeping with data protection and human rights legislation than household registration. As the Scottish Assessors Association concluded, these arguments are "hard to resist".[40] Nevertheless, we concur with the Deputy Information Commissioner that "there are other issues to be taken into account" and that data protection issues should not necessarily of themselves prevail.[41]

30. The Electoral Commission continue to believe that despite the lower level of registration in Northern Ireland, the introduction of individual registration could nevertheless lead to increased participation in the register. The Commission's argument runs that "the ultimate outcome of individual registration should be to empower and encourage some under-registered groups to participate in the democratic process and vote"; for example, when dealing with young people, "inculcating the habit of registration from an early age could be beneficial in maximising registration rates in later life".[42] More generally, the Commission's view is that an effective awareness campaign on individual registration could increase participation and that the new system would "facilitate the introduction of more user-friendly systems of registration" and indeed voting, perhaps leading to more people making the effort to get on the register.[43]

31. It would be possible to graft education campaigns and new ways of registering onto the existing basic system, thus gaining the benefits without the disruption of major change. There is some support for the Commission's view that of itself individual registration could lead to increased participation rates.[44] The Executive Director of the Association of Electoral Administrators, not noted as supporters of individual registration, pointed out that under the current system "only about 40 per cent of eligible electors [ie the "householders"] are actually involved in completing the data … it automatically leads to people feeling not part of the process and ultimately therefore might lead to them not voting".[45] Speaking for young people, the British Youth Council argued strongly that individual registration "would help re-engage, what has become a disengaged and disillusioned generation … with the formal democratic process," and that "it will serve as a way to educate and inform citizens, regardless of their age, residence or any other factor, about our democratic process and the vital importance of their participation".[46] Given the level of concern about the current participation rates of young people in particular, these are certainly not minor considerations in weighing the balance of advantages and disadvantages in changing to individual registration.

32. We note that the increases in participation forecast are theoretical and not based on empirical evidence. Whatever the system of registration, there will remain a hard core who do not wish to register and who will resist all attempts to make them do so. The important issue is how many others are not registered.

33. The fourth advantage identified by the Electoral Commission, increased security and accuracy, is one on which there is more agreement. The Commission see this working in two ways: first, by allowing for the collection of individual identifiers which could be used to check the identity of a voter at registration and at the ballot box, and secondly, by removing the opportunity for inaccuracy and fraud offered by the current arrangement whereby the householder provides information about other individuals.[47] On the security issue, most evidence we received suggested that individual registration would make it easier to detect fraud by means of providing a signature against which postal votes, for example, could be checked[48] or to check eligibility to vote through the identifiers supplied by the individual.[49] Prevention of fraud and increased security are the main reasons cited by both the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats for their support for individual registration in Great Britain.[50]

34. No such warnings were sounded on the potential for individual registration to deliver greater accuracy. It is clear that where an individual completes a form for him or herself, there is a greater likelihood of that information being correct. This was a point made by most of those concerned with the administration of the system, including the Association of Electoral Administrators who argued that "It would provide a far more accurate register if it was possible to achieve a high percentage return".[51] That caveat recalls the balance between comprehensiveness and accuracy which we noted in discussing the aims of the registration system. A further contribution individual registration would make towards increasing the accuracy of the register would be that, unlike a register based on households which change regularly, one based on individual registration would be more up to date. The introduction of rolling registration into the current system is evidence of this fact but its advantages would be all the greater if this were the means of registration used by everyone.

35. The part played by individual registration in support for modernisation of voting arrangements has been touched on earlier. The Commission believes that individual registration is necessary in the immediate term to "provide a robust framework for meeting the increasing demands from the voting public for postal voting on demand" and in the longer term to "underpin the development of the Commission's proposed new `foundation model' of voting" and to "provide a key building block in enabling electronic and other multi-channel voting in future elections, which necessarily demand a more robust system of registration".[52] We accept that, in order for the system to remain secure whilst offering increased opportunities to electors to cast their votes, signatures or other forms of identification have to be collected from individuals and some form of individual registration will be required to collect this data. Postal voting and other remote voting methods, including the ability to vote wherever one happens to be, all rely on features of individual registration and add to the case for its introduction.

Arguments against individual registration

36. The arguments made against the introduction of individual registration are mainly practical objections to how it could be implemented, including serious reservations about the increased costs, and deeper concerns about the impact on the numbers on the register.

ADMINISTRATIVE OBJECTIONS

37. The Association of Electoral Administrators argued strongly that "there are far more administrative disadvantages" than advantages to individual registration.[53] Amongst these were the increased cost of collecting returns, delays in response and a subsequent reduced electorate.[54] There can be no doubt that at least in the first instance the cost of individual registration would be higher than that of the current system. The figure of two to three times the current cost has been estimated, calculated by that scale of increase in the number of forms which would have to be sent out, with associated postage, stationery and processing costs. Local authorities would also require new computer systems, both in terms of hardware and software. It is likely that canvassing would be more expensive as it would require more visits to locate individuals in a household, rather than just one member of it. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) pointed out that provision also "needs to be made for follow-up, assistance, general awareness raising and local campaigning to increase the proportion of those eligible to vote on the register."[55]

38. The Government has made an initial assessment that "the administration of individual registration could cost an additional £23m in the first year and an additional £6m every year thereafter."[56] The Minister for Local and Regional Government and Fire explained that this would take "the current figure of around £51 million up to £74 million, and annual cost would be £57 million".[57] He added that these figures were subject to verification: "obviously, as part of the later consultation which we will be undertaking, we will want to test further the validity of those figures and see whether there is scope for economy in some areas".[58] Both the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators suggested that costs could be cut after the initial transition by dispensing with the annual audit.[59] The example of Canada suggests that this could indeed save substantial sums of money. We note that most concerns raised by local authority representatives about the costs centre on how the authorities would finance the additional expenditure. The Government assured us that any such additional costs would have to be covered by central government under the principle of new burdens.[60] This leaves open the question of how the ongoing costs would be funded in future years, unless the annual canvass were abandoned.

39. Part of the increase in cost would arise from the additional workload which EROs and their staff would have to bear to implement individual registration. The two concerns here are the amount of work required where the number of forms had doubled or even tripled[61] and the doubt as to whether it would be practical to aim at complete coverage of all eligible electors in a given area. One ERO argued that under individual registration "personal canvassing is no longer viable as each person in the house would need to be present to get the form completed".[62] The Scottish Assessors Association also pointed to the practical difficulties faced by EROs, some of whom would "argue that the ERO is at least likely to know the name of a householder as opposed to every potential elector at an address".[63] The Association asked "how are potential electors to be canvassed if their name is not known to the ERO in the first place or even the number of people residing at that address?"[64] The workload would be further increased with delays in returning forms leading to the need for more follow-up action. Several witnesses stressed the particular difficulties which would be faced by the disabled and others not able to fill in forms by themselves and by residential homes where collective registration has long been the normal practice.[65] It should be noted that representatives of groups with special needs gave evidence in support of individual registration even in these circumstances.[66]

40. There are ways around the individual difficulties referred to above as we discuss further in the next section of this Report. As to the administrative challenges posed by individual registration, we recognise that any move to a new system would place substantial new pressures on those responsible for compiling the register. It is not an impossible task, as the experience of other countries has shown, and the initial transition is likely to prove much the hardest part, with maintenance of the register under the new system a less onerous imposition. The representative from SOLACE was concerned to ensure that we were "aware of the pitfalls" of implementing a new system but also assured us that local authorities could do it, provided that it was recognised that it "will take a lot of planning, preparation, proper resources, proper training and quite a while".[67] The Executive Director of the Association of Electoral Administrators put the necessary lead-in time at two years.[68]

IMPACT ON PARTICIPATION RATES

41. Part of the concern about the administrative difficulties of implementing individual registration is the impact that this might have on the numbers on the register. As we have seen, some witnesses, including the Electoral Commission, argue that individual registration should increase participation in the system. The example of Northern Ireland, however, suggests the opposite. Potential electors could be lost through the inability of EROs to trace them for whatever reason, through disengagement with the political system or through ignorance. COSLA, whilst in favour of individual registration, argued that:

The household registration system lowers the threshold for engagement. With the paperwork completed by a member of the household "impulse voting" is possible for those who might otherwise have chosen not to register individually or neglected or for other reasons not been able to do so. Without this form of support there is a reasonable chance that the new arrangements will disenfranchise some even if they are not consciously opting out. The most affected are likely to be potential first time voters.[

This concern was echoed by EROs, including Dr Pickering from Trafford who foresaw that "whole areas of the electorate will not respond, ethnic minorities, students and young people who are already the poorest responders".[70] There has to be concern that once these people have been lost from the register, they will never join it again and will lose their opportunity to participate in the electoral process. The Labour party cited the potential "immediate fall in registration levels", with its disproportionate impact on young voters, as its main cause for caution over the shift to individual registration.[71] We do not underestimate this issue. The key advantage of household registration is that it allows for one person, say a parent, to include in the register those in the household who may be less energetic in registering themselves.

42. There are steps that could be taken to ameliorate the effect of individual registration upon registration rates. The Local Government Association suggest a gradual introduction of the new system, with discretion being given to EROs to retain names on the register where they have reason to believe that those electors are still resident at that address.[72] They also suggest, as a transitional step, retaining household registration but with individual members of the household signing the registration form.[73] This is an idea which the Association of Electoral Administrators dismissed as "too complicated" and likely to "lead to unacceptable delays in the form being returned".[74] Nevertheless, it has the merit of meeting COSLA's requirement that the "advantages of the current system should be transferred to the new arrangements".[75] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, saw the advantage of simplicity in filling in a household form individually, but expressed concern about its likely size and asked "what would happen if the individual were not at home during the period in which the form had to be returned?"[76] He described the Government's position as "sympathetic to looking at" a household form with multiple signatures.[77]

Government policy on individual registration

43. The Government's enthusiasm for introducing individual registration has waned noticeably since the ODPM Committee last examined the subject in 2004 . In its response to the recommendation in favour of individual registration in the Committee's report on Postal Voting, the Government undertook to consult on the "broad thrust" of the Electoral Commission's view that individual voter registration would need to be in place to allow all-postal voting at local elections.[78] This consultation was expected to begin that autumn.[79] Nothing was announced and by December 2004 the Government's line on the Committee's recommendation had been modified: "we are sympathetic to the principles of individual registration and appreciate the benefits that it might bring, but we are concerned about maintaining a simple and clear system, and comprehensive registers."[80] A similar form of words was used to describe the Government's position on individual registration in its memorandum to this inquiry.[81]

44. This change in attitude can be attributed to the experience of the reduction in levels of registration in Northern Ireland, leading the Government to state that "while the work to reform Northern Ireland's registration system further to ensure that registers are complete as well as accurate is not concluded, the Government does not believe that it would be appropriate to introduce the system in place in Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK at this time."[82] In oral evidence, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, explained that they could not predict how long it would take to roll out individual registration to Great Britain "until we settle on the mechanism that we feel is best to form a good, successful process for individual registration".[83]

45. It is not evident that work is being actively undertaken within Government to develop an appropriate mechanism for individual registration in England, Scotland and Wales. The consultation promised on individual registration appears to be bound up in the "number of different pieces of reform" which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, told us are intended to be published as "an electoral modernisation strategy".[84] He was unable to give any indication as to when this might be published, although he did state that the Government "intend to wait and see what the foundation model recommendations are from the Electoral Commission",[85] a report originally expected by the end of March 2005, although the timetable may change. The Government was also waiting "for the Electoral Commission recommendations on their foundation model to come forward in particular to help inform us of the particular concerns they have about individual registration".[86] The Electoral Commission on the other hand told us that the Government "has indicated that it intends to publish an "electoral modernisation strategy" shortly,"[87] and they were clearly not expecting the Government to wait for further reports from themselves.

46. It appears that the Government has no immediate plans to act upon this issue, either by implementing individual registration or by taking steps towards implementation by consulting on the principles or practicalities. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, readily identified the benefits of individual registration as "greater security and accuracy in the register," but also argued that "we do not want to see a system that is unduly burdensome for the elector".[88] He later clarified that "in principle, we can see the benefits but we do have concerns about the effect on numbers".[89] His colleague, the Minister for Local and Regional Government and Fire, ODPM, went further and asked "It would be perverse, would it not, to ignore the evidence that has come from Northern Ireland which moved towards a system of individual registration first, and where there have been clear benefits on the one side but also disadvantages which are now being highlighted?"[90] We accept that the issue has been clouded by the experience in Northern Ireland and the fall in registration rates there which has apparently resulted from the introduction of individual registration. Nevertheless, we expect the Government in its response to this Report to give a firm indication of its policy on the introduction of individual registration and of the part it plays in the Government's wider electoral modernisation strategy and to announce a timetable for the publication of its consultation paper on these issues.

Options for electoral registration in Great Britain

47. The question remains of how far it is necessary to change the existing electoral system. We note that a significant majority of respondents to our inquiry expressed views in favour of individual registration. This was as true of the political parties (albeit with reservations about the speed of implementation on the part of the Labour party) as of those representing groups with special needs, such as the elderly or disabled people, and the hard to reach groups, such as young people and ethnic minorities. Strong support also came from the Electoral Commission, the Information Commissioner and some EROs. Indeed, opposition to the introduction of individual registration came mainly from the representatives of electoral administrators, and then generally on practical grounds of administrative difficulties in its initial phase.

48. It is essential that the whole of the UK learns from the example of Northern Ireland and that successful efforts are made to address the problems of decline in registration rates experienced there. A strong case can be made for a change to individual registration, which should be addressed. We have identified four options for moving forward:

Introduce individual registration by a set date. We understand from electoral administrators that this could be done after two years' notice, allowing time and funding to enable local authorities to handle the transition

Accept the principle that a move to individual registration would be desirable but with no date set for implementation

Adapt the existing system by requiring individual signature on household forms

Let the system evolve as it has done in recent years, maintaining occupier responsibility while new methods fill gaps in registration.

We recommend that the Government consult on these options. The advantages and disadvantages of each should be set out even-handedly.

49. In the rest of this report, we turn our attention to detailed issues within the electoral registration system. Many of these are matters which should be addressed whether or not the basic system is altered. A change to individual registration would, however, provide a platform for the introduction of many other reforms which would improve the performance of the electoral registration system against the criteria we have identified. In this context, we discuss these issues mainly from the perspective of the introduction of individual registration.

6 Ev 6, para 3.2 , HC243-II [Electoral Commission] Back

7 OSCE, Guidelines for reviewing a Legal Framework for Elections (2001), page 13 Back

8 Eg Association of Electoral Administrators, Ev 31; Local Government Association, Ev .49 , HC243-II; Labour party, Q119 Back

9 Q272 [Mr Leslie] Back

10 Q269 [Mr Raynsford] Back

11 First Report of Session 2004-05, HC131. Back

12 Ibid, paragraph 10 Back

13 Ibid, paragraph 21 Back

14 Ibid, paragraph 2 Back

15 Ibid, paragraphs 21 to 36 Back

16 Ibid, paragraphs 9 and 15 Back

17 Ev 6, para 3.6 , HC243-II [Electoral Commission] Back