Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240-257)
1 FEBRUARY 2005
MR MALCOLM
DUMPER, MR
MICHAEL LITHGOW
AND MR
DAVID MONKS
Q240 Mr Betts: Just following
that up, if you can see from looking at your local knowledge and
information combined it is very obvious that forms are not being
returned from families with an Asian name because maybe there
is an issue of language there, would it not be reasonable to go
and target them?
Mr Dumper: Yes, we would. There
is a difference here in interpretation of what the Electoral Commission
would be doing in fronting up the individual registration.
Q241 Mr Betts: You, as
the local officer?
Mr Dumper: Yes. We would still
see ourselves undertaking the local canvas, the annual audit,
no matter who was targeting.
Q242 Mr Betts: And targeting?
Mr Dumper: Target the people who
do not respond, that is our job, that is an electoral registration
officer's job, to get the information from all those people who
are entitled to register.
Mr Lithgow: The previous question
was to do with proactivity. I think naturally in our processes
we would follow up non-returns of canvass forms, that happens
automatically across the board. In that sense, we are targeting
everybody regardless of their background or whatever. Proactivity
is a different issue, I think that is the point.
Q243 Chris Mole: How well
do you think the regulations are working on making the open register
publicly available? Have you any evidence that people who have
been registered by the head of household are concerned that either
they have been included or excluded from the full register for
the purpose of the open register?
Mr Dumper: Certainly the only
evidence that we have is when our staff are conducting the annual
audit. You get reaction on a doorstep that certain individuals
are not going to give the information because we will use it for
other purposes. I think the introduction of the edited version
was pretty much a sop to solve the Robertson case. Its worth is
nil, I would think. I do not know of any registration officers
who get any enquiries for purchasing or anyone who will want to
look at the edited register, people are only interested in the
full register. To assess the impact of negativity regarding that
is very difficult but it is out there. People are now more aware,
certainly by the introduction of the opt-out provision, that the
register is now being used for other purposes. I think that has
had a negative impact but I would not like to put a figure on
it.
Q244 Chris Mole: The Assessors'
Association raise concern on the lack of restriction about what
information we got by hand from the full register, and I suppose
essentially that is the point that Mr Dumper just made about the
pointlessness of the edited register. What solutions do you propose
there might be—some more drastic than others perhaps—to
address this question of taking unlimited handwritten notes from
the full register?
Mr Lithgow: I think in practice
it is a theoretical problem. I think in practice it is very unlikely
that someone is going to sit for days on end trawling through
the registers taking handwritten notes. It is possibly more of
a theoretical problem than an actual problem.
Q245 Chris Mole: I suspect
political parties would be concerned if they did not have access
to the marked register or do you see that as a separate set of
issues?
Mr Dumper: Yes.
Q246 Chris Mole: What
is your suggestion, that the marked register should only be available
if the Sheriff/Lord Chancellor has been petitioned to give access
to it?
Mr Dumper: It is a separate issue
but the law is very loose on the provision of the marked register
to such a degree that it undoes the legislation attached to the
provision of the full register. As the law stands currently anybody
can come in after the day of an election and purchase a copy of
the marked register, effectively anybody, therefore, can buy a
copy of the full register.
Q247 Chairman: Anybody?
Mr Dumper: It does not need to
be a political party.
Q248 Chairman: Not even
a political candidate or party?
Mr Dumper: No.
Q249 Chairman: That seems
to be a loophole.
Mr Dumper: It is. You will see
in our evidence, which supports the Electoral Commission's view,
that the electoral register should be used only for electoral
purposes. Only recently—this mainly is the opt-out provisions—was
there any indication that the information contained in the electoral
register was going to be used for other purposes, and that is
wrong. I do not think there is enough information on the form
as it stands currently that outlines that the information is provided
and used for other purposes.
Q250 Chairman: Do you
think in any way the electoral abuse of the register, that process
of registration, is damaged by the fact that companies make use
of the open register to identify where people live? Some credit
agencies have the full register for that and others use it as
a simple locator of people to confirm their addresses. Is that
damaging in any way to the main use of the register?
Mr Monks: I do not know if damaging
is the right word, Chairman. I think, and the Society agrees with
Malcolm and the AEA, that it should be used for electoral and
government policy purposes only, for example jury service or something
like that.
Q251 Chairman: I want
a straight answer to my question: whether you think that or not,
does it do any damage to the proper use of the register for electoral
purposes that it is used in these other ways?
Mr Dumper: In my view it does
but it is difficult to quantify. There is a negative impact by
some electors to providing information when they are aware that
the information they have provided is going to be used for other
matters.
Q252 Chairman: Even though
they have ticked the box—
Mr Dumper: Yes. People are becoming
aware now, of course, that the full copy is available to all credit
reference agencies which are trading and registered as such. It
is available to them.
Q253 Chairman: Something
else that was said to us was that it would be better if the register
showed people's preferred names so they did not constantly annoy
people saying "I have never been called Euphemus since childhood.
I hate the name. It is my other name that I use." If people
indicate appropriately, the register should show the name as they
prefer to be known.
Mr Monks: Yes. They fill the form
in and they are put on the register, if they have always been
called "Jack" and their name is "Euphemus"
or "Ebenezer" or something and they put down "Jack",
we do not send people out to say "Well, we would really like
you to be called something else".
Q254 Chairman: If they
write all their names down, their full name, is there a tendency
to print the first one with initials?
Mr Monks: Yes, because there is
a limit on the technology and how many characters it can have.
That does cause problems later on for the credit reference agencies.
I dread to tell you this story but when I worked in the Midlands
the Lord Lieutenant had a very, very full name indeed which we
could not get on the register and then when he went to change
his bank account or get a bank loan, let us say they did not think
he was a bona fide person. I had this rather difficult conversation
with the Lord Lieutenant. Yes, I am not lying, Chairman. It is
career directing, let us put it like that!
Q255 Chairman: With much
thanks for your assistance, this is perhaps your last chance to
say is there anything else you want to flag up in the complexities
which you have all referred to which ought to have some urgent
attention, those things which make it difficult to do the 21st
Century job of local registration?
Mr Monks: May I make two points
which I repeat at the risk of boring you to death. One is the
regulations we have been talking about this afternoon are horribly
complicated, even for people like loyal chief executives like
me who sit and read them, they are horribly complicated, very
inaccessible and in my humble submission need sorting out if we
are going to have some reforms. Secondly, I think it is fine to
say we must do better at registration, I believe in local government
we must do better at everything, however let us try and put that
alongside the demands made upon us by central government, the
Gershon Review, to try and knock 2 ½% off our running costs
for the next three years. I am sorry on those two ideas, I do
not want to be contradictory, we can do better but the point we
have not addressed this afternoon is that registration is a labour
intensive process, it involves people working on forms and it
does cost money.
Q256 Chairman: Knocking
on doors.
Mr Monks: To take 2 ½% out
of some budget is not going to be easy to move to the sort of
things we are talking about today. I am afraid it is a traditional
local government argument of we must have the resources to carry
out this work.
Q257 Chairman: Any other
takers?
Mr Dumper: I would support that
and we would very much support the modernisation agenda. I think
it is crucial at times to talk and engage with those people who
are at the sharp end and this is one of the difficulties we have
had with legislation that has been passed in the last five years
without any real thought to the practical implications of rolling
out that legislation and getting the job done. The Association
would welcome the opportunity of being involved in any further
dialogue or any other working parties which have been set up to
explore the agenda on individual registration.
Mr Lithgow: I think probably my
last plea would be for funding for any changes which come along.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
| 
