Memorandum by Andrew Sparke, Chief Executive,
Dudley Council (VOT 06)
In relation to the current consultation, I write
to express my view as a local government professional with some
25 years experience in supervising electoral services. My comments
largely focus on practicality but inevitably raise some issues
which raise political considerations.
Firstly, on average UK households contains two
or three persons over 18 who are eligible to vote. Individual
registration rather than household registration has the immediate
consequence of doubling or tripling the transaction volumes which
result in the production of the electoral register. This carries
a substantial cost implication.
Secondly, household registration is dependent
on only one person in each household taking on the responsiblilty
of completing a canvass form listing all of those in the household
eligible to vote. If each such eligible person is required to
individually register the inevitable consequence will be less
vote registrations and thus a smaller electorate. If maximising
voter registration is a primary purpose then individual registration
will retard it. However, a smaller electorate comprising those
who have all individually chosen to register, presumably because
they wish to be able to vote is likely to lead to increased percentage
turnout at elections which might be viewed as an advantageous
outcome.
From the above, one extrapolation is that individual
registration would be likely to reduce the number of young adults
still living in parental homes who appear on the electoral register.
The same could well be true in "male-dominated households"
in both poorer white and BME communities where women and young
adults are currently included on the register by a male "Head
of Household" without him being given much say in the matter.
Compulsion to register is one potential tool
to maximise registration under both household and individual registration
regimes. However, persons are required to return the canvass form
at present but prosecutions for failure to do so are few and far
between. Enforcement is the real issue here and unless the legal
duty is clear-cut, failure to comply with compulsory registration
will not be seen as a serious matter by those who choose not to
register. In fairness individual registration would clarify legal
responsibility for registration and render effective enforcement
of compulsory registration easier.
The other issues raised in the consultation
are matters of detail. Electronic registration will grow gradually
if we afford the opportunity but paper based systems will be required
for some years to come. Rules can be devised to assist disabled
registration and the basis for individual registration could be
something other than address, especially if national identity
cards are rolled out in the medium term future.
Finally, if a move to individual registration
were to become the preferred government option, consideration
could be given to the creation of a single national electoral
register. The issue will be the risks for elections occurring
within the transition period as a national register was being
established. The scale of such a change should not be underestimated
and I would probably argue that on balance local registration
is likely to remain the most cost-effective and voter-friendly
methodology. This does not mean that a mirroring national register
could not be created by compiling a single data base comprising
every electoral register produced by each and every UK district,
Metropolitan, London and Unitary Borough. The main questions would
be what purpose would such an exercise serve, who would it benefit
and how much would it cost?
Andrew Sparke
Chief Executive
| 
