Memorandum by The Scottish Assessors'
Association (VOT 24)
INTRODUCTION
1. The Scottish Assessors' Association (SAA)
is pleased to contribute the following submission to the Joint
Committees inquiry into voter registration. The SAA comprises
the 14 Scottish Lands Valuation Assessors together with members
of their senior staff. All 14 Assessors have also been appointed
and act as EROs for their respective unitary authorities with
the exception of the City of Dundee. The SAA accordingly represents
all Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) in Scotland with the
exception of the ERO for the City of Dundee. This submission deals
with the issues in the order they are set out in the announcement
of the Joint Inquiry.
2. By way of general introductory comment
the SAA is very concerned about the likely detrimental effect
of moving to individual registration on the level of registration.
Under-registration is a growing problem which the SAA considers
will drastically increase if individual registration is introduced,
particularly if a form is issued to each elector. It is considered
that moving to individual registration, even if it were to be
made compulsory, would result in significant losses in the number
of electors registered. The case for a change to individual registration
has to be fully investigated, costed and its potential ramifications
considered.
3. If consideration is being given to using
the Electoral Register for other purposes (for example identity
cards, citizens accounts etc) then the SAA believes that this
should be declared at an early stage so that these wider aspects
can be considered and incorporated into any draft proposals. Otherwise
as Electoral Administrators we are concerned only with the function
of collecting, maintaining and making available the data on the
Register of Electors for elections.
4. When domestic rates were replaced with
Community Charges significant important information on owners,
tenants and occupiers was no longer available to a variety of
organisations including government and local government departments.
Any change to the current system should therefore be considered
very carefully since it may not be possible to return to the current
system at some future date without loss of data and confidence
in the system.
5. It is clear that EROs would incur significant
additional costs if individual registration were to be implemented.
These would include, for example, additional costs relating to
staffing, implementing the necessary changes to existing IT systems
and stationery and postages. The SAA is concerned that these additional
costs are fully investigated and financed.
Advantages of individual registration compared
with the existing system of household registration
6. The SAA considers that the advantages
of a system of individual registration compared with the existing
system of household registration have to be viewed in the context
of a move in the future towards electronic voting. If the ultimate
policy aim of the Government is to enable electronic voting then
stronger personal identifiers (including, as a minimum, dates
of birth and signatures) would require to be captured. Individual
registration would facilitate the inclusion of stronger personal
identifiers in the registration process. As the current system
stands it would not be possible to capture the signatures of individual
electors.
7. It is hard to resist the data protection
and human rights arguments for a move to individual registration
especially in relation to the opt-out question. The Robertson
case has pointed towards the introduction of individual registration
because of certain requirements of Human Rights and Data Protection
legislation. It seems contrary to 21st century thinking in relation
to data protection and respect for the individual's human rights
for a "head of household" to have responsibility for
completion of the form on behalf of other individuals in the "household".
The very concepts of "head of household" and "household"
have changed and are less applicable in 21st century Britain compared
with the 19th century. There are many more households in which
unmarried adults live together where it might be presumptuous
to assume one or other as the head of household. Also the looseness
of the concept of head of household, whilst it has served well
as a practical tool in relation to the annual canvass, has rendered
prosecution impractical for non-return or return of false information.
8. The contrary argument, from an EROs point
of view, is that the current system is understood and generally
works well. A move to individual registration would give rise
to practical difficulties. The collection of additional identifiers
would represent an expansion of the design requirements of registration
and election management systems which would require to be specified
and financed. Some EROs argue that the householder is more likely
to register residents than each individual doing it for themselves.
They argue that the ERO is at least likely to know the name of
a householder as opposed to every potential elector at an address.
Another important question is 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.
Strategies for encouraging registration, in particular
among young voters, and tackling resistance to registration; and
examination of the advantages and disadvantages of compulsory
registration
9. Local authorities should be under an
obligation to assist the Electoral Registration Officer to carry
out his duties by making available relevant information.
10. Education on voter registration and
awareness of democratic participation should be undertaken by
central government or Electoral Commission.
11. Best practice guidelines for canvassing
and obtaining changes in registration should be developed and
followed by the Electoral Commission in consultation with EROs.
12. At the basic level, one of the root
causes of under registration is the lack of engagement of the
electorate, particularly in the 18-25 age group. Civic education
at an early stage and as an essential part of the schools curriculum
is one area which should be tackled.
13. In relation to the compulsory registration
issue, the sanctions which currently apply in Scotland are costly
to pursue and difficult to enforce. At present in Scotland offences
have to be referred to the Procurators Fiscal. Experience has
shown that electoral registration cases are low priority in the
workload of Procurators Fiscal and generally they are reluctant
to pursue registration cases. In any case the degree of proof
required is high and often not practicably achievable. Creating
a new offence of failure to register would shift the onus of proof
onto the individual who would have to demonstrate good reason
as to why they were not registered. A new offence might ultimately
have the effect of increasing the completeness of the register.
14. In relation to sanctions for failure
to register it is suggested that unless individual identifiers
are used and registration linked to other national databases—for
example, driving license, national insurance, benefits agency,
inland revenue, etc, compulsory registration would be ineffective
and unworkable with respect to effective sanctions.
15. It is difficult to envisage effective
reforms to the current system other than the adoption of a system
of civil penalties which from the experience of Community Charges
would be administratively cumbersome. A system of Civil Penalties
imposed by the ERO would be easier to implement, but as with Community
Charge the maintenance of the charge on appeal, due to the many
valid excuses offered in mitigation, made the administrative process
particularly onerous, and with little benefit.
16. Increasing fines and/or civil penalties
to a level sufficiently high to encourage voters to register may
have an effect if at the same time prosecutions/levies were pursued
to give a clear message to people who have not complied.
17. As an alternative to compulsory registration
a back to basic approach could be adopted involving a massive
voter education campaign over a significant period to inform the
public and the schoolchildren who will be future electors on how
to register to vote and the benefits of participating in the democratic
process. This would increase awareness amongst the electorate
and could be run in conjunction with the following suggested changes
to the current system:
— The registration system should be
based on an annual canvass of individual eligible electors per
household.
— One option would be to use a household
form which would allow for signatures from all individuals resident.
— The penalty for non-return should
be removed, as the system should remain voluntary.
— The form could be amended to highlight
the disadvantages of failing to register to vote and allow any
elector to sign a statement that they do not wish to register
to vote.
— The penalty for supplying false information
should be increased and highlighted.
— A new penalty could be introduced
for denying another elector the opportunity to vote by failure
to return their information.
Issues of geographic and ethnic variations in
levels of voter registration
18. Publicity, electronic registration,
the targeting of ethnic and community organisations and schools/colleges
and the education and involvement of political agencies could
each offer some improvement.
19. The provision of additional Electoral
Commission support and by local community projects which are properly
funded, organised and rolled out to meet the requirements of the
identified client groups. Many individual groups are already targeted
by EROs particularly in the run-up to elections. This should be
formalised in good practice guidance.
20. Centrally funded TV and Radio advertising
initiatives, and other publicity should be co-ordinated by the
Electoral Commission. Compulsory promotion of the registration
process by organisations such as housing bodies, estate agents
and solicitors involved in conveyancing would also assist.
Advantages or disadvantages of electronic rather
than paper-based registration systems
21. Telephone and internet returns of canvass
forms where there is no change to the details held by the ERO
are already being used by a number of Scottish EROs. The technology
to move to full-blown electronic registration already exists in
other spheres—internet shopping, and banking is now widespread.
With political will and proper resourcing it is considered that
through the use of similar technology electronic and telephone
registration could be introduced within the relatively short term.
Introduction of such technology would be contingent upon additional
individual identifiers.
22. Extending the use of such technology
to electoral registration would however require further research,
stringent testing and possibly piloting before implementation.
Difficulties for the disabled and others unable
to complete forms
23. The current system of Household Registration
at the annual canvass allows the occupier to provided details
of other members of the household. This means that anyone who
is not physically capable of signing a form or who might have
a literacy issue can have their name added to the form by someone
else. The current legislation for Rolling Registration only allows
for the applicant themselves to sign the declaration. Administrators
currently use various methods to allow someone who is genuinely
capable of voting but is unable to complete either a registration
application or absent vote application eg the elector makes their
mark and a witness signs that this is their mark, a person granted
Power of Attorney (the Electoral Commission has advised that this
is not strictly acceptable, although it is difficult to see how
else administrators can deal with this issue when nothing is made
in legislation.) It is clear that consideration must be given
for this anomaly to be resolved in legislation, (in relation to
the problems currently being experienced by administrators and
not just the introduction of individual registration), as suggested
above and perhaps to allow others such as, an Appointee in relation
to state benefits, Doctor, Nurse, Social Worker etc to sign the
form on the applicant's behalf. This should be accompanied by
a declaration by the Attorney, Appointee etc that the applicant
is unable to sign the declaration and stating the reason. Full
Name and address of the attester should be a requirement.
24. Consideration also needs to be given
as to how residents in Care and Nursing Homes would complete individual
registration forms. If individual registration were to be introduced
it may be that registration of the residents in these types of
institutions should remain as it is.
25. Legislation currently allows the elector
to sign or make their mark on the Declaration of Identity which
accompanies a postal ballot paper. Legislation should be extended
to allow this anywhere the elector is required to sign a form.
(It is likely that in some cases, postal ballot papers are being
completed on the elector's behalf if they are not physically able
to mark the ballot paper).
Availability and confidentiality of the register
26. The current legislative arrangements
restricting the availability of the full and edited versions of
the Registers are reasonably satisfactory. One area of concern
relates to the lack of restriction on the use which can be made
of information copied from the register by means of hand written
notes. There is apparently no restriction on what information
may be obtained in this manner or what it may be used for. Individuals
or companies wishing to build a database for commercial use can
visit EROs' offices and could copy the whole unedited register
if they wished. This freedom seems contrary to the tight restrictions
elsewhere in the Regulations governing who may access and what
use they make of the full version of the register.
27. Another area of concern is the use which
can be made of the marked register. It is thought that the public
are not generally aware of the existence of the marked register
and the use made of it by political parties and others. Under
Human Rights and Data Protection such availability has to be legally
questionable since the ballot should be secret and so too the
fact of whether or not a person has voted.
28. Under the regulations relating to the
sale, inspection etc of the register and the introduction of the
edited register it seems anomalous that the marked, full register
can be checked and the names of those persons who have opted out
of the edited register can be identified.
29. There is possibly an argument for access
to the marked register by the political parties but with the limitation
that it only is available to those persons who are entitled to
a free copy of the register for political purposes and subject
to the same restrictions as exist for use of the information.
30. There is a harder line which suggests
that marked registers should only be available from the Sheriff/Lord
Chancellor if an election petition is raised.
Basis for individual registration eg address-based
or on personal criteria such as NI number or birth date
31. It is recognised that individual registration
will require to be based on individual identifiers. It is considered
that the individual registration should continue to be based on
residence at an address. The introduction of personal identifiers
such as NI number and date of birth as additional identifiers
would facilitate progress towards electronic registration and
electronic voting in the future. Experience of Community Charges
however, when there was a requirement to provide date of birth,
would suggest that asking individuals to provide NI numbers or
date of birth information is likely to meet with resistance from
some.
32. Not every potential elector would have
been allocated a NI number, for example citizens of other EU countries.
While this highlights the need for additional identifiers for
electors who legitimately do not have a NI number, it does not
in itself completely compromise use of the NI number. It does
highlight the need for a range of personal identifiers.
33. The use of personal identifiers to produce
a unique electoral number which individuals would retain for life
would assist greatly in the electoral process.
Examples of areas where a unique reference would
assist are as follows:
(a) it could be used in the process of confirming
existing registration details by electronic (or telephonic) means
during canvass;
(b) it would be required for electronic voting;
(c) it would assist in the referral of change
information from third party sources (Council Tax changes etc)
if these other sources were to adopt the same identifier(s);
(d) it would assist in the confirmation of
Absent Vote requests.
The desirability of a national electoral register
34. It is recognised that there is a need
for a national register for use by the Electoral Commission in
undertaking its statutory functions. It is recognised that the
credit reference agencies that are currently entitled to purchase
all locally produced Electoral Registers effectively use them
to compile a national database based on the information they gather
from the electoral registers. It would clearly assist them if
a national register were available. Other users, currently entitled
to copies of the full register such as law enforcement agencies,
would benefit from the availability of a national register.
35. It is considered that any national register
should be based on locally maintained registers.
Means of ensuring the security of the register:
PIN numbers, electoral voting cards, signatures
36. The Northern Ireland registration model
which uses date of birth, NI number, and signature appears to
be a secure system. These identifiers if introduced in Great Britain
could be used in the production of a unique electoral number which
would be retained by the elector for life. Combining a unique
electoral number with a PIN could be used to facilitate access
to electoral registration services as well as electronic voting.
| 
