Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs Joint First Report


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)


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 24 March 2005