CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Individual Registration
1. The
most important feature of an electoral registration system is
that it should offer the greatest number of eligible people the
opportunity to vote. (Paragraph 8)
2. 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. (Paragraph 41)
3. 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. (Paragraph
46)
4. 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. (Paragraph 48)
Encouraging Registration
5. We
look forward to the publication of the research findings from
both the Government and Electoral Commission into the extent of
and reasons for non-registration. We expect both bodies to use
these findings to inform their development of strategies to increase
the levels of registration. We expect the ONS to have used corrected
and amended 2001 Census information for this study. (Paragraph
53)
6. We see merit in
the idea of the carry-over mechanism and in using resources to
target under-represented areas or groups, rather than households
which have remained static over a long period of time. A periodic
audit, say every three or four years, would be required to ensure
that the register was accurate but the doubts over the effectiveness
of the current annual audit make us question whether this is the
best approach to adopt. We also see merit in giving flexibility
to local EROs to determine how best to canvass their areas, subject
to overarching guidelines by the Government and Electoral Commission
on maximum periods between audits. We recommend that if individual
registration is adopted, the requirement for an annual comprehensive
canvass be replaced by an obligation to conduct an audit of the
full register every three years or a third each year, though not
necessarily at any fixed time during the year. (Paragraph 56)
7. We recommend that
the Electoral Commission, in consultation with EROs, produce mandatory
best practice guidelines for local authorities to follow in the
compilation of electoral registers and that the Commission be
charged with monitoring compliance with these guidelines. (Paragraph
58)
8. We recommend that
the Electoral Commission work with the professional bodies representing
estate agents and conveyancers, the Land Registry, the utilities,
the DVLA, TV Licensing and schools to develop promotional materials
and strategies by which these bodies could help reach eligible
electors who need to change their registration or register for
the first time. (Paragraph 61)
9. We recommend that
the Department for Constitutional Affairs and ODPM explore with
the ONS, as a matter of urgency, ways in which the electoral registration
may benefit from the Citizen Information Project in order that
the requirements of electoral registration may be built into the
project from the start. We also recommend that the Government
clarify the data protection implications of allowing EROs greater
access to data held by other public bodies and government departments
and that any necessary legislation is brought forward to permit
such access to EROs for the purposes of maintaining the electoral
register, specifying which public and private bodies are under
a statutory obligation to inform EROs of changes of address. (Paragraph
63)
10. We recommend that
the Government clarify the data protection issues involved in
a 'one stop shop' for registering with councils for electoral,
council tax and other purposes and bring forward the necessary
legislation as soon as possible. This is an issue which is as
relevant under the current system of rolling registration as it
would be under any future system of individual registration and
it is one which can only be seen as helpful to the elector and
therefore likely to increase registration levels. (Paragraph 64)
11. We recommend that
the necessary legislation be brought forward to implement a later
closing date for registration prior to an election in time for
the next local elections in 2006. (Paragraph 65)
12. We recommend that
the Government consult on whether there should be a new compulsion
to register with the local ERO under rolling registration, and
if so, how this would work. This consultation should also examine
whether the current penalties are adequate. We also recommend
that legislation provide similar penalties for the provision of
false information as apply to the annual canvass for the provision
of false information to an ERO under rolling registration. (Paragraph
69)
13. On balance, we
consider that most incentives directly linked to registration
could only be seen as gimmicks and run the risk of undermining
the integrity and dignity of the system. (Paragraph 70)
14. Imaginative campaigns
to promote registration are needed, run at national, local and
community levels; they must be adequately funded; and they must
draw upon all available expertise. We agree with witnesses that
the Electoral Commission is the right body to oversee general
and micro campaigns on registration and we note some of the more
imaginative ways in which they are undertaking this role. At a
local level, campaigns need to respond fully to local circumstances.
Local authorities should act with some degree of latitude under
best practice guidelines. These guidelines should include the
recruitment and use of canvassers from the communities which they
serve. (Paragraph 76)
15. We recommend that
the Electoral Commission consult widely on ideas for work with
grassroots organisations aimed at encouraging registration among
hard to reach groups and use Government funding for the most promising
proposals. (Paragraph 76)
16. We recommend that
the Government issue a clear statement of the legal position of
EROs in relation to the promotion of registration. This would
be necessary even if only to allow EROs to follow with confidence
Electoral Commission guidelines. We support the Electoral Commission's
recommendation that EROs adopt the best practice put forward in
the Commission's report Making an Impact: the local promotion
of electoral issues (2002). The two measures taken together should
ensure that EROs may take a more direct role in encouraging registration
in an effective way without imperilling their political neutrality.
(Paragraph 78)
17. We recommend that
the Electoral Commission in conjunction with groups representing
those with disabilities draw up best practice guidelines for the
registration of such people with special needs, including details
of what should be offered through an exceptions service and the
means by which electors may indicate on the registration form
the type of assistance which they require. (Paragraph 80)
18. We recommend that,
in the event of individual registration being adopted, the circumstances
in which a representative should be permitted to sign a form on
an elector's behalf be made clear. (Paragraph 81)
19. We recognise the
need for clearer information to be provided to attestors on their
responsibilities under electoral law and see also a requirement
for specialised promotion campaigns aimed both at electors with
special needs and their carers or representatives. (Paragraph
81)
20. We recommend that
the Electoral Commission produce best practice guidelines to be
followed by local authorities and test promotional strategies
to target residents and managers of residential accommodation
to ensure registration levels do not fall. (Paragraph 82)
21. We expect the
MoD to monitor the effectiveness of its revised Defence Council
Instruction issued in late January 2005 on electoral registration
and report the results to Parliament. It is already too late for
service personnel to register for the local elections or any general
election on 5 May 2005, but we recommend that the MoD adopt a
policy of issuing annual individual registration forms to each
service person to encourage them to register. We expect the MoD
to look into the issue of electoral registration among service
personnel as a matter of urgency and we urge the relevant select
committees in the next parliament to follow it up. (Paragraph
84)
Personal Identifiers and Security
22. We
agree with the Electoral Commission that it would not be necessary
to include provision of a National Insurance number as a requirement
of registration in Great Britain. (Paragraph 92)
23. We believe that
the inclusion of a signature in the list of required identifiers
is the correct approach. As a corollary, we would stress that
the use of signatures to prevent fraud is only as efficient as
the checking mechanism employed to compare registration forms
with submitted postal votes. Where signatures are being used,
some effort must be made to check at least a sample. Otherwise,
signatures provide scant deterrence to fraud. (Paragraph 93)
24. We believe that
there is merit in the creation of a scheme of unique individual
identification numbers for electoral purposes, allocated for life
upon first registration, provided that they are used for administrative
purposes and do not create an additional burden on electors. (Paragraph
96)
25. We recommend that
the Government consult on the best means of developing and supporting
an electoral PIN number. Where signatures provide better security,
as with postal votes, these should be relied upon rather than
PIN numbers which should not then be required of the elector.
(Paragraph 98)
26. We recommend that
under a system of individual registration there be a requirement
for electors to sign for ballot forms at polling stations. We
do not recommend that any further means of identification be required
at that point in Great Britain. (Paragraph 99)
27. We recommend that
the Government enable EROs to compile the register on the basis
of preferred names, whether this requires a change in legislation
or the issue of best practice guidelines. It would be necessary
to ensure that this change did not lead to registration under
false or assumed names which might make detection of bogus or
multiple entries more difficult. To address this difficulty, we
further recommend that the preferred name permitted by EROs be
restricted to the commonly used name of the elector. (Paragraph
100)
Electronic Forms of Registration
28. We
should like to see much greater emphasis placed by the Government
on the development of a secure system for electronic registration
by telephone and on-line. We recommend that once that system is
devised, it be implemented through a series of pilot programmes
designed to test its integrity and that it be rolled out nationally
only once independent auditors are satisfied with the security
of the system. We further recommend that paper forms be retained
alongside electronic registration to ensure that the availability
of the latter widens accessibility rather than narrows it. Paper
forms may also need to be retained in instances where a signature
is regarded as essential to the security of a particular method
of voting. In such cases it should be made clear that it is not
necessary for electors to provide a signature on each occasion
that they re-register; a five-yearly check should be sufficient.
(Paragraph 107)
Development of a National Register
29. A
national electoral register based on locally-owned and maintained
local registers appears to be the most appropriate way forward.
(Paragraph 110)
30. We recommend that
the ODPM work to an absolute target of being in a position to
use the 2005 canvass as the basis for a national register through
the CORE project and that it publish a timetable with milestones
for the completion of the CORE project. (Paragraph 115)
31. We recommend that
the ODPM consult the Information Commissioner without delay on
the likely data protection issues of the CORE project so that
his views can be accommodated in its design. (Paragraph 116)
32. We recommend that
the Government set out without delay the relationship between
the CORE project and the other projects which form part of the
electoral modernisation agenda and that the project definition
of CORE be adjusted accordingly. (Paragraph 117)
33. While the date
for the possible introduction of individual registration may depend
upon the successful realisation of a national register, care should
be taken to ensure that the system could accommodate the demands
of individual registration, and the opportunities it brings, with
minimum modification and disruption. (Paragraph 118)
Access to the Register
34. We
recommend that the Government include in its consultation on access
to the electoral register the possibility of limiting the use
of the register to electoral purposes. We also recommend that,
pending the outcome of that consultation, the Government take
steps to ensure that registration forms clearly state to what
uses the data supplied by an individual or occupier may be put.
(Paragraph 123)
35. We recommend that
the Government publish its response to the Electoral Commission's
report on the marked register in good time and allow limited consultation
on its plan for action before moving to legislate in time for
the next General Election but one. We believe that the marked
register, including postal voters, should be available to political
parties. (Paragraph 126)
36. We believe that
there needs to be a standard policy on anonymous registration
which should apply across the country. The Government's proposals
will no doubt take some time to appear and may require legislation
to implement. We recommend that they be produced for consultation
as soon as possible. In the meantime, we recommend that either
the Electoral Commission or the Government draw up clear guidelines
for EROs to apply when considering requests for anonymous registration
and that guidance be made available to them for dealing with particular
cases. (Paragraph 129)
37. We agree that
the registration process should allow disabled people to indicate
a desire for assistance but that reference to this should not
be included in the published register. We see no reason why this
measure should not be implemented regardless of progress in the
introduction of individual registration or other related matters.
(Paragraph 130)
Role of Government Departments and the Electoral
Commission
38. There
is a need for a greater lead from Government on how the agenda
may move forward and on how it intends to tackle some of the issues
which can be addressed without the wholesale embrace of individual
registration: for example, anonymous registration, the change
in the final date for registration before an election and access
to the marked register. (Paragraph 133)
| 
