Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-219)
1 FEBRUARY 2005
MR MALCOLM
DUMPER, MR
MICHAEL LITHGOW
AND MR
DAVID MONKS
Q200 Mr Soley: So it is
about the old system and new grafts that makes you worry that
we might have some criticism on the issue of registration security?
Mr Dumper: That is fair. I do
not know if Members have read the foundation model proposals by
the Electoral Commission, but a number of issues they have there
would impact. Clearly, the platform would be good, robust registration
to enable them to roll out the proposals they have, which are
similar to those employed overseas.
Q201 Mr Betts: Security
and personal identification: SOLACE suggest using National Insurance
numbers whilst the SAA favour a unique registration electoral
number. Why the difference?
Mr Monks: Certainly, from our
point of view, most people have a National Insurance number in
this country; I accept that not everybody does.
Q202 Mr Betts: There are
a lot more National Insurance numbers than people.
Mr Monks: There we are. I thought
that was something reasonably easily identifiable and reasonably
easily accepted in our society. I accept that not everybody has
one, I think that is as good a place as any to start. I think
whatever system you come up with, whether it is as the previous
witnesses suggested birthdays or signatures, National Insurance
numbers, there have to be problems with them all. I just thought
out of the lot of them the National Insurance number was the most
easily accessible.
Mr Lithgow: I think my point was
that if we could firmly establish someone's identity at the outset—whenever
the outset is—and allocate them an electoral number at that
stage which they could keep for life, then the National Insurance
number, date of birth, signature, whatever it is, would be a component
of us establishing that person's identity at the outset.
Chairman: How would that work for people
who are registered in more than one place? Sorry, I am going to
have suspend the sitting for 10 minutes.
The Committee suspended from 3.41 pm to
3.51 pm for a division in the House
Q203 Chairman: I asked you a question,
and you have had plenty of time to think about the answer.
Mr Lithgow: Yes. If an elector
was registered in two constituencies with the same electoral number
then in an electronic system it would be the way certainly to
check that they had not voted twice. At the moment, under the
current system, there is no offence in being registered twice
but there is in voting twice. It could have a practical advantage.
Andrew Bennett: Not at local elections.
Q204 Chairman: Voting
twice in the same election?
Mr Lithgow: Yes.
Q205 Chris Mole: Presumably
a national identity register would be very helpful to you?
Mr Monks: It would, except that
what you have to consider, if it went to a national register,
we have still got all these problems to tackle about accuracy,
getting people engaged, and inevitably in our society—we
have heard these concerns from other speakers—there are
some people who are determined not to go on the register. As I
said earlier on, levels of accuracy of our register are good though
I accept in certain city areas, like in inner London, they are
not so good, but you have to tackle those problems and then not
say "The national register is the answer", because it
is not. A national register would be useful.
Q206 Chris Mole: A national
identity register would be helpful for the purpose?
Mr Monks: Absolutely. I think
we had a question before about trying to link records of child
benefit. My understanding of those sorts of records, like tax
records, they are done on a national basis and you can pay your
tax via a tax office at the other end of the country. Those records,
those boundaries are not contiguous with our local authority records
and our constituency canvas. There are problems with mismatch
there. It is a case of trying to think of some of those issues.
Q207 Mr Clelland: In an
answer to a question I put to Mr Dumper earlier, he said it would
be quite legitimate for an electoral registration officer to add
people on to the list once they discovered they had not registered.
What would happen then in terms of the identifier, particularly
if it was a signature?
Mr Dumper: I think it is a question
of what information we had to request to validate that data. If
you are going to obtain that data from council tax records, for
example, then the applicant presumably would make some sort of
declaration on his council tax so you compare that to registration.
The difficulty you would have then is with other members in that
household. I think what it would be, it would be a precursor to
the ERO following up the information with somebody who had moved
address and then making an independent inquiry to that new address.
Q208 Mr Clelland: What
happens if someone refuses? If there was an identifier which had
to be provided by the elector, what would happen if they refused
to provide that?
Mr Dumper: I presume that would
be accounted for in legislation. If you do not provide the information
to enable you to register, the proper identifier, (a) you would
not register and (b) you would be considered for prosecution,
if the legislation provided for that.
Q209 Sir Paul Beresford: Should
you have to go on the register? If some people really do not want
to go on the register, why should they?
Mr Monks: Indeed.
Mr Dumper: There is a compulsion
at the moment to provide information for the ERO if he requests
it, that is the backbone of the current annual audit system. Why
people do not go on the register is for a variety of reasons but
the ERO will seek to obtain a 100% accurate register by the conclusion
of the annual audit.
Q210 Sir Paul Beresford: The
question is why should they have to?
Mr Lithgow: My view of that is
if the system is voluntary then people should not have to. One
solution may be, however, that they have to fill in the form,
they have to provide the information but they could be given the
option on the form to opt out, you make an opt out of registration
provision.
Q211 Sir Paul Beresford: We
have a Government that is collecting huge amounts of centrally
accumulated data, you mentioned benefit forms, many of these forms
have questions way beyond those which are required and it smacks
of an authoritarian police state in the making. Why should we
have to provide any information at all if we do not want to vote?
Mr Monks: I think we must plead
the humble servant carrying out the work of Parliament. The Act
says we have to get people to fill these forms in. I have never
pursued in my career, over 20-odd years as electoral registration
officer, a prosecution against anyone doing it because I do not
think it is worthwhile. Our experience, and the experience of
others through the courts is that inevitably we tend, in perhaps
some hapless way, to pick on someone who is 82 years of age who
has got a good excuse for not filling it in because they have
been in hospital or something like that. I think it brings the
whole system into disrespect. I think there is a very strong civil
liberties' view there, if I may use that as a label—excuse
me for doing that—which would place those that administer
the system in a difficult position. Are you expecting us to administer
the system and to make a value judgment? No, I think you have
to tell us to register all these people because they have to register
and then, once you start saying to us "Unless they have a
good excuse, unless they were on holiday or unless they have some—I
will use the word—conscientious objection to it", it
puts us in a judgment situation as to how to run it.
Q212 Mr Betts: We are
moving towards a national identity card scheme. Would it not be
sensible to use that as a basis for electoral registers? It is
not absolutely the same people but 90% certainly would be on it.
Mr Dumper: I think undoubtedly
you would secure a far more accurate register if there was some
condition of getting an ID card that your name was included on
the national register. Without a doubt that would be a major benefit
to the process.
Q213 Mr Betts: In the
interim, we have talked about data sharing and there are different
models of that in different countries. I understand in Canada,
you tick a box if you do not mind the information is provided
for another purpose or is used for electoral registration. In
Australia, many of the bodies—the utility companies, the
postal authorities, driving licence authorities—have by
law, as I understand it, to provide electoral registration officers
or the Electoral Commission with information that someone has
moved address. It is up to the Commission to chase them up to
get the information for electoral registration purposes. Is that
something you would like to see in this country?
Mr Lithgow: Certainly it would
assist in creating an accurate register if we were to be able
to access that sort of information.
Mr Monks: I think mechanically
these are very, very attractive ideas. I think you have to place
them in the context of our society. Someone was saying earlier
on, people are very sensitive about the information they give
out and how it is used against them. I do not think it is a simple
answer to say "Because you are an ERO then you have some
sort of semi-divine status and can have access to all these records".
I think a number of people in our society would feel very uncomfortable.
I think the fundamental on the ground is a point for central government
to have some more joined-up thinking on how it does these things.
Do not have a set of people over here working on identity cards,
do not have a set of people over here working on hospital forms
or electoral registration system and another set of people over
here who have some other records, we need more joined-up thinking
centrally. We are exhorted to do this in local government—I
will leave it your judgment as to our levels of success at that—but
if we had a bit more thought about that at central government
it would be useful.
Q214 Andrew Bennett: Is
everyone not signed up to CORE? There is supposed to be this scheme
which you are all feeding into.
Mr Dumper: Yes. We are working
actively towards that. I think without doubt that will be a major
bonus, also, to registration, as long as the registration is left
at the local level, which it will be within the current thinking
of CORE, but the move then to a national register, for other reasons,
may bring other issues which need to be considered. I would just
like to expand on the point that was raised about information
being given, and David's comments. We made mention in our submission,
the Association's submission, about the over-bureaucratic information
flow in local government. We need to widen the access to registration.
At the moment, looking at individual registration and looking
at the annual audit, they are the only two mechanisms of register
at the moment. Now somebody new to the area—take Southampton,
where I live—comes in and wishes to register for their council
tax. I do not think there is any reason why they should not have
the ability, through that registration process, to sign up for
electoral registration, to get their library card, to get their
leisure pass, to get whatever else the local authority can provide.
Although I would share David's view about there needs to be joined-up
thinking at central level, I think we should have the ability
to widen the access to the registration process at local government
also.
Q215 Mr Betts: It is like
with the Australian model, what they were saying was "But
why on earth do you bother chasing people up if they live in the
same house?", registration is going to be the same and their
details are the same year on year. What the system there allows
to happen is because other authorities notify the Electoral Commission
if people move, the Electoral Commission can then concentrate
all its efforts on following up to make sure they have the registration
details of those people who have moved. They claim that gets them
a 98-99% accuracy.
Mr Dumper: I would wholly support
that.
Q216 Christine Russell: I
am trying to fathom out quite what my question is. I was going
to ask the question about the disadvantaged groups, people with
disabilities, and I was reading through your submissions and I
cannot find the exact piece which I wanted to ask you about. But,
you made some comments about the difficulties posed by groups
who find it difficult, either because they are unable to write,
unable to see or whatever, perhaps you could enlighten us on that.
Maybe, by then, I will find the reference.
Mr Dumper: I intend to do that.
I think it is essential that we are able to get to disadvantaged
groups and those who will not ordinarily respond to the annual
registration form. There are a variety of ways of tackling this
and because registration and the annual audit are left to the
discretion of the ERO at the moment then registration officers
can do their own thing. If I could use the methods that we employ
in Southampton, we use specialist organisations to contact disadvantaged
persons to register through their care worker or through family
members who are known to them and we use people with language
skills in areas where there is high publicity so they can get
a better understanding of what the council is trying to get from
them. I think it is essential that we do use the skills which
other organisations have to ensure that everybody has an opportunity
to register.
Q217 Christine Russell: In
reality, how much checking is there of the forms or the lists
that your officers get which are completed by bursars or care
officers or whatever? Do you bother or do you just say "Oh,
well, those halls of residence, there may be 2,000 people—a
substantial part of the register", do you just accept them
all?
Mr Dumper: I think it is fair
to say, and my colleagues may have another view, that the information
is taken on face value.
Mr Monks: It is.
Mr Dumper: The person who provides
it is making a declaration that the information is correct and
the ERO will ordinarily accept it unless he is alerted to some
issue regarding the authenticity of the information. Very little
of the information that comes in on the annual report is checked.
The accuracy of it will be in transferring that information into
the register but the provision of the information, the information
provided by the householder is totally at face value.
Q218 Christine Russell: So
a change to individual registration would mean you would have,
therefore, to send individual canvassers in to every elderly person's
home or every hall of residence?
Mr Dumper: Yes. That needs a great
deal of thought because, as Mike mentioned earlier, the logistical
implications of conducting individual registration at annual audit
time is immense, without a doubt, because, at the moment, you
are dealing with a one person in the household, in houses of multi-occupation,
20 students occupying a large Victorian house, you are going to
have a problem getting that information. That is why I mentioned
earlier you need to widen the access to registration rather than
concentrating on a once a year in your face audit which people
now, I think, are not that turned on to. The comment was made
earlier "They don't vote, why should they register?"
and we need to address that in the round rather than focusing
on one period during the year.
Q219 Christine Russell: Do
you think any responsibility should be put on the institution
or the organisation to assist you to do it?
Mr Dumper: The way the regulations
are framed at the moment, that responsibility is with the person
who has the information we are seeking. They are empowered to
supply us with that information but it is the accuracy of that
information which concerns us, whether we are getting the right
information. The key issue with halls of residence, for example,
is we are not too sure whether we have the status of the elector
right with regard to their nationality. The new electoral form
asks for their nationality as you have various status for voting,
but when they are supplying to you a list with 750 people on,
giving the nationality of each individual, faced with "Do
we register these people with full voting rights?", it is
a very difficult situation, particularly when you have to hit
a deadline for publication on 1 December. We made a point in our
submission that maybe thought ought to be given, particularly
to those people who reside in this country for many years, pay
the council tax for many years, may be part of the community.
Why should they not be given full voting rights, why do we restrict
people's voting rights because they are not a British subject
if they have been part of the community for 20-plus years?
| 
