Memorandum by SOLACE (Society of Local
Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers) (VOT 41)
SOLACE (Society of Local Authority Chief Executives
and Senior Managers) is the representative body for senior strategic
managers working in the public sector. The Society promotes public
sector management excellence and provides professional developments
for its members who come from all areas of the public sector.
Whilst the vast majority of its members work in local government
it also has members operating in senior positions in health authorities
and central government. SOLACE spans all of the United Kingdom,
having membership in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England.
Members are drawn from a variety of professional
backgrounds and are:
— local authority Chief Executives
(the bulk of whom are Returning Officers/Electoral Registration
Officers)
— senior executives of local authorities
(or other related organisations)
— members of related international organisations
— past service members
SOLACE is uniquely placed as a professional
organisation to take an overview of all public sector issues,
especially those in local government and not simply electoral
issues. In particular, the Society is interested in all new management/leadership
developments to improve service to the public and responding to
numerous central government initiatives.
The Society organises its work into a number
of programme areas and one of these is Electoral Matters. A panel
of experienced practitioners meets regularly to discuss and comment
upon current issues and problems; this panel is chaired by David
Monks, Chief Executive of Huntingdonshire District Council, who
has been a Returning Officer/Electoral Registration Officer for
more than 20 years.
Although SOLACE would accept the view of the
Electoral Commission that registration is the lynchpin of the
electoral system it does not have a high profile in the culture
of local government administration. Essentially, it is work carried
out at a moderately low level in the organisation and does not
attract attention like many of our front line services such as
education, social services, housing, highways, planning, etc.
That is not to say it is unimportant—it is, but if it is
to be substantially reformed it must compete for attention (and
hence resources) in an essentially political arena alongside the
other "headline/sexy issues".
This significant consideration is amplified
well in a paragraph from the Electoral Commission Report on Local
Election in Wales 2004 (remember that registration staff and election
staff are synonymous).
It is important to recall that the administrators
who manage the day-to-day election planning are generally not
senior management staff. Returning Officers are Chief Executives
or other senior officers with many other responsibilities and
priorities. In Wales, as in England, few Returning Officers would
describe themselves as `hands-on' (although there are those who
are) and, understandably given their broader responsibilities,
tend to be involved in key decisions only. Electoral administrators,
on the other hand, are obliged to spend their time administering
complex processes aimed at meeting legal requirements and deadlines,
rather than considering broader strategy and wider issues beyond
delivering an election.
Thus electoral registration is conducted more
as a routine annual process, rather than a strategic service in
local authorities. To change this attitude will require a massive
cultural shift—not just new legislation.
All concerned with the electoral process wish
to both maximise registration and make such a procedure as available
and accessible as possible. The current system is not perfect
but it is well understood by those that administer it and, broadly
speaking, produces reasonably accurate results (there are some
notable exceptions, particularly in urbanised areas). Thus, at
the outset, if changes are to be made then they must be addressed
with clear objectives in mind (that are measurable) with easily
discernable benefits to the consumer. There must also be proper
consultation on these proposals with adequate resourcing and training
for those charged with operating any new system. It must be fairly
said that the record of central government in producing new legislation
for election work falls woefully short when measured against these
standards.
Moreover, rather like the act of "turning
out to vote" registration for the general public has little
attraction. It is done out of routine and duty and is seen by
many in the 18-24 age range as being connected to their credit
worthiness, opening a bank account, obtaining a loan rather than
an active step to participate in the democratic process of this
country; politics are not attractive (this is all evidenced by
research from companies like MORI and quoted in Electoral Commission
reports, for instance). Thus, if there were a move to have individual
registration by, say, all within a household signing the form
there would, inevitably, be a significant decline in names on
the register. Again, there would be increased delays in the return
of the form and a need for special provision for those with physical
and language disabilities, etc. Compared with the attractions
of the Lottery, reality television and voting out participants
in `Big Brother' this is not an issue that is likely to grab the
public's attention; legislative tinkering with details is not
the answer. The real issues centre on awareness and education,
involving a change in attitude in our society, which is rarely
achieved quickly after any new enactment.
Turning now to the detailed points listed in
the invitation to submit evidence and amplifying the themes outlined
above:
(a) Advantages of individual registration
compared with the existing system of household registration.
There are some apparent superficial advantages
in having individual registration rather than the current system.
Thus, the Returning Officer could, in theory, check postal vote
application forms and declarations of identity documents against
original signatures; however, it must be appreciated that this
would be a huge burden of work in an already ridiculously tight
timescale. Frankly, it is an unrealistic aim.
Individual registration would be more expensive
to operate, cause delays (as explained above) and would probably
reduce the size of the register.
(b) Strategies for encouraging registration,
in particular among young voters, and tackling resistance to registration;
and examination of the advantages and disadvantages of compulsory
registration.
There is always a case to be made for more citizenship
education in schools and colleges. Other more radical strategies
have been discussed—eg a refund of, say, £10 or £20
on Council Tax for either registering and/or voting in elections.
This is controversial though does have some instant appeal.
The same arguments concerning compulsory registration
also apply to compulsory voting. It only really works if there
is a determination to enforce it and, really, some desire amongst
the vast majority of people in this country to agree to such compulsion.
There will always be some resistance and it is the aspiration
of some people to appear as martyrs, particularly if enforcement
takes place through the courts.
(c) Issues of geographic and ethnic variations
in levels of voter registration.
These issues arise in certain areas of the country
and the answer is adding extra resources by having specialised
staff undertaking registration (canvassing) and greater levels
of publicity and education.
(d) Advantages or disadvantages of electronic
rather than paper-based registration systems.
There is a strong case to be made out for electronic
registration. Some authorities use a telephoned based system at
the moment to update the register. Why cannot some people apply
on line to be registered? As ever, there is resistance because
of worries about fraud and secrecy. The banking industry proves
that it is possible to take a view on this (risk assessment) and
conduct such work reasonably satisfactorily.
(e) Difficulties for the disabled and others
unable to complete forms.
Again, the answer is for special provision to
be made for those with disabilities (of whatever form) to have
assistance in undertaking the registration procedure. Levels of
this are available from most authorities.
(f) Availability and confidentiality of the
register.
SOLACE believes that the basic presumption and
starting point should be that the register should only be used
for proper election and public service reasons. It is widely sold
to credit agencies for a very small sum of money and, like many
other areas of public life, this is effectively subsidising a
very profitable industry. A possible increased source of revenue
for Electoral Registration Officers to undertake greater work
could be charging those companies a higher sum of money.
In the past when ideas have been put forward
to limit the access of these companies to the register there has
been considerable pressure brought upon government from them to
stop such moves.
The issue of anonymous registration for certain groups
of people (those under threat of violence from a former partner,
for example) is one that is dealt with in various ways at many
authorities. It really should be clearly legislated upon and have
a single solution throughout the country.
(g) Basis for individual registration, eg
address-based or on personal criteria such as NI number or birth
date.
National Insurance numbers would appear to be
a most attractive solution. It is understood that most people
have an NI number, though it is not blanket coverage.
Our society is very mobile and this is always
a problem with an address-based system.
(h) The desirability of a national electoral
register.
A national electoral register would be desirable
and such schemes as the Co-ordinated Online Register of Elections
(CORE) are moving towards this goal. However, the system will
only work if all the other problems that this Inquiry is addressing
are tackled and existing local registers can be made as accurate
as possible.
There should be some system of allowing people
to vote at a polling station other than the traditional local
one near their home. Thus, if they commute to London they should
be able to vote there or, better still, via their laptop/blackberry
on the train as they go to work.
(i) Means on ensuring the security of the
register: PIN numbers, electoral voting cards, signatures.
The current system has very high levels of integrity
and trust which, however, have been challenged recently with various
scare stories about postal voting. It would be disastrous to lose
that overall public confidence in the system and very strong scrutiny
measures must be built in to any revised system, together with
the resolution to prosecute those who are determined to carry
out fraudulent acts.
SOME CONCLUDING
THOUGHTS . . .
(i) The current regulations governing electoral
registration are horribly complex and convoluted—even for
experienced lawyer Electoral Registration Officers! If changes
are to be made then any new regulations should be simpler and
more accessible.
(ii) There must be some `joined-up' thinking
here. Central Government, via the Gershon review, is putting pressure
on local authorities to become more efficient, seeking savings
of 2.5% per annum on our budgets. If extended registration duties
are to be placed upon us then there must be proper and adequate
resources to accompany the new burdens.
|
