House of Commons - Northern Ireland Affairs

Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs First Report

3 Impact of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002

7. Although irrefutable evidence of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland has not been produced, public opinion surveys have revealed that the majority of the population considered fraud to be a widespread and significant problem. In October 2002, 66% of the population agreed that "electoral fraud is very common in some areas" whilst 64% thought that "electoral fraud in some areas is enough to change the election results."[10] Such perceptions are not proof that the actual level of fraud is high but it is reasonable to adduce a correlation between actual and perceived levels of fraud. Furthermore, if electors perceive fraud to be rife, and sufficient to change the outcome of elections, this is likely to undermine their confidence in the integrity of the electoral process. Such lack of confidence may, in turn, affect people's interest in politics and their propensity to vote.

8. Following the November 2003 Assembly elections which were the first to be held under the new system introduced by the Electoral Fraud Act, a representative survey conducted by the Electoral Commission found that 65% of the population believed that "new laws about registering and voting have helped to overcome electoral fraud."[11] A further survey in April 2003 indicated that approximately 72% of the population then felt that the new system would help alleviate their concerns about electoral fraud.[12] Before the implementation of the 2002 Act some two thirds of the population thought electoral fraud was common. After its implementation, more than two thirds had confidence that the new system would help to reduce fraud, though the majority did not believe that fraud had been eliminated altogether. This is a significant improvement in perception.

9. A survey of presiding officers in the 2001 general election, and repeated after the 2003 Assembly elections, indicated that the percentage of presiding officers who reported having seen people voting more than once under different names had decreased from 3% in 2001 to 0.1% in 2003. The proportion who had experience of voters being turned away because someone had already voted in their name had declined from 4% to 1%, and the proportion who had been presented with ID documents which they suspected to be forgeries had dropped from 3% in 2001 to 0.2% in 2003.[13] This evidence was further supported by evidence given by the Northern Ireland Police Service to the Electoral Commission.[14]

10. On the basis of the all the evidence currently available to us, we are satisfied that the Electoral Fraud Act (Northern Ireland) 2002 has been successful in reducing both the perception among the electorate of the prevalence of fraud and the actual level of electoral fraud, so far as it can be measured. The measures introduced in the Act have served to increase the level of public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process.

The decline in registered voters

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REGISTERS OF AUGUST AND DECEMBER 2002

11. The August 2002 register of electors was the last to be compiled on the basis of the former registration system. The former register contained 1,192,136 names, whilst the first register under the new system published in December 2002 contained 1,072,346 names[15]… a reduction of some 10% or 119,790 names.

12. The Electoral Commission has conducted an analysis of the available evidence on the pre- and post-2002 Act electoral registers in Northern Ireland and compared these to Census data. The total number of names on the August 2002 electoral register made up 95.5% of the number of people who, according to the 2001 Census, were eligible to vote. In theory, this indicates that the registration level was 95.5% of the population, a high figure compared to the 93% UK-wide registration level of 93%[16]. On the December 2002 register, the number of registered voters as compared to census data on the number of eligible voters had dropped to just 86% as compared to the 95.5% on the August 2002 register.

13. In practice, matching the names of the electoral register to people counted accurately in the Census is not possible because the recorded registration level will be affected by people who are not registered, as well as 'phantom names' that should not be on the register. These two groups in part cancel each other out although the net reported registration level will be skewed one way or the other if one of the two groups is significantly greater than the other. Ward-level data from the former, pre-2002 Act register lends support to the Electoral Commission's conclusion that the 95.5% registration level under the previous system was inflated. The former register reflected a "significant proportion of wards…[with] registration rates well in excess of 100%, illustrating the fact that there are more people registered in these wards than are recorded as actually living there." Indeed, one ward had a registration level of 126%.[17]

14. There is a high correlation between the registration levels of the August and December 2002 registers. Wards that had had high registration levels under the former system tended also to have high levels of registration under the new system. The opposite was also the case. The generally high level of correlation between the registration levels in wards under the former and the new registers is reassuring. However, the level of registration declined disproportionately in the most economically deprived areas and urban areas[18]. Seventeen of the 20 wards with the greatest decline in registrations are in Belfast constituencies.

SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE ELECTORAL REGISTER

15. As illustrated in Figure 1, between December 2002 and September 2003 the number of registered persons had increased by 25,205 as a result of rolling registration. Despite this the number of names on the register used for the 2003 Assembly elections Figure 1

DATA SOURCE: Electoral Commission and Electoral Office Northern Ireland

(the September 2003 register) was still 7.9% below the number included on the August 2002 register, the final register to be compiled under the former system of registration.

16. Following the second annual canvass in the autumn of 2003, the number of names on the register (published in February 2004) decreased again, falling below even the level from the first annual canvass in 2002. Names have subsequently been added and removed through rolling registration and by 1 June 2004, the register stood at 1,076,198. The 2004 canvass (published 1 December 2004) has seen a further decline in the register, whether compared tio the 2003 canvass, or the subsequent rolling registration figures. The electoral register now contains the names of 1,047,601 voters, as compared to the 2001 census figure of 1,248,301. The level of registration as compared to the census figure is thus 83.9%

17. The Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer both acknowledge that, whilst the new register is more robust than registers under the former system, the decline in the registration rate is a cause for concern.[19] Northern Ireland political parties across the political spectrum have also expressed disquiet about the number of individuals eligible to register but who do not figure on the current register.[20] UUP and Sinn Fein have scrutinised the 2001 Census figures and argue that in December 2002 a further 50,000 - 60,000 eligible individuals remained unregistered in Northern Ireland in addition to the 115,680 persons missing as compared to the August register.[21] These arguments assume that an unprecedented registration level of 100% is attainable.

A SPIRAL OF CONTINUOUS STRUCTURAL DECLINE IN THE REGISTER?

18. A pattern appears to be emerging for the number of registered electors to decline at each canvass only to show a slow increase thereafter as a consequence of rolling registrations. The Electoral Commission pointed to evidence suggesting "an emerging downward trend in the electoral register." Although this evidence was limited because the new system had been in operation for 18 months at the time, the Commission considered that "nonetheless the available 'like-for-like' comparisons indicate that the register is falling by about 1.5-2 per cent per annum."[22] This view is backed up by the 2004 canvass results, published on 1 December 2004, which show a further decline in the register to a registration level of just 83.9%

This finding is a particular cause for concern in Northern Ireland because the adult population of Northern Ireland is increasing at a rate of 0.7% per annum.[23] The Electoral Commission warned that:

"…unless it is rectified, the downward trend in the register has the potential of embedding itself structurally in the registration process. If the register is in decline, then the number that can be canvassed will also tend to fall from one canvass to the next, thus reinforcing the cycle."[24]

The registration rate in May 2004 had declined to just 84.8% of those eligible for inclusion on the register.

19. We are concerned by the emerging evidence of a continuous structural process of decline in the electoral register. Further serious decline would place the democratic integrity of the electoral system in Northern Ireland at risk. We recommend that the Electoral Commission should identify and evaluate the options available for arresting the decline in the register within the framework of the Electoral Fraud Act as a matter of urgency. The Electoral Commission should involve the Chief Electoral Officer in this process in order to ensure that any recommendations for improvement made are practical and capable of implementation.

ADVERSE IMPACTS

20. Electoral Commission research has demonstrated that the changes in the system of electoral registration have had a particularly adverse effect on the levels of registration, particularly among three groups which we discuss below: young people; people living in areas characterised by high levels of social deprivation; and people with disabilities.[25]

YOUNG PEOPLE

21. The age group 18-24 were the least likely to be registered in the first register to be compiled under the new arrangements in December 2002, with 29% not registered."[26] When giving evidence to us in July 2004, the Electoral Commission noted that this figure had risen to 33%. This compares to a non-registration level for the same age group of 11% in England, Scotland and Wales.[27] The levels of registration among 17-18 year-olds is only 20-25%[28]. Three out of four young people who may be eligible to vote in the next election are not on the electoral register. The Electoral Office for Northern Ireland clearly recognises that improving the numbers of young people on the register is a priority :

"What we would ultimately like to see is that the process of elections and registration is part of the curriculum in the final years of secondary schools and perhaps in the first year in tertiary education whereby it becomes the norm that the students in that age group be given some instruction on the political process, on the parliamentary process and on the registration process, and as part of that system that people are encouraged to register both for the main register but equally in order to get an electoral identity card because we see that as being somewhat of an attractive item for people of that age."[29]

22. Electoral processes do not currently appear in the school curriculum, and the Electoral Office is discussing with the Northern Ireland Office the possibility of launching an outreach programme in schools, colleges, and possibly universities in Northern Ireland.[30] This would involve a workshop, possibly in conjunction with visits by the mobile ID card unit. However, this proposal depends on funding being made available to the Electoral Office.[31]

23. The Electoral Commission is also targeting young people with specific advertising and outreach campaigns. Campaigns on student campuses, outreach campaigns in post-primary schools, as well as promotional activities at locations likely to be attended by young people have taken place.[32] The Commission told us that, in the course of one weekend, a Commission outreach officer attending a summer festival in Belfast was able to identify and sign up 500 young people who were not on the electoral register.[33]

24. Another novel approach which could increase the levels of registration among young people is to advertise the electoral identity card to them as a desirable means of proving their age and identity, for example, in clubs or to obtain credit.[34] Once the interest of young people has been stimulated and they have made contact with the Electoral Office, the Office considered that it would be easier to achieve their registration:

"…there has been some indication that when young people are trying to get the ID card—and they are trying perhaps to get it for other reasons to prove that they are 18 or over—there is some carry-forward interest into the area of registration and some of the rolling registration applications have come about because of young people trying to get ID cards."[35]

25. These initiatives are worthwhile and should continue. Consideration should also be given to placing responsibility on adult members of households who are being canvassed to identify young people who are 17 to the Electoral Office. This will assist the Office to contact those who will soon be eligible to vote, and help ensure that future voters are properly informed. While the responsibility for registering should remain that of the individual concerned, it is vital that those who are 'coming of age' should be made aware of their future role in the electoral system.

26. We are especially concerned about the unacceptably low levels of registration in the 17-24 age group. We commend the initiatives of the Electoral Office and the Electoral Commission in taking the electoral registration process to young people in schools, colleges and festivals and urge that this should be developed further. We recommend that the Government ensures that extra funding be made available to develop adequately a full range of outreach programmes to engage young people.

27. Intensive efforts must be made to bring about a system in which 17 and 18 year olds are entered on the electoral register as a matter of course. We recommend that consideration is given to making electoral registration, and the electoral process in general, a compulsory part of the curriculum for 16-17 year olds; and that adults in households should be made responsible for identifying to the Electoral Office of Northern Ireland young people of 17 residing in their households to assist the Electoral Office in making contact with them.

SOCIALLY AND ECONOMICALLY DEPRIVED GROUPS

28. Many of the wards experiencing the greatest decline in registration rates between the August and December 2002 registers were characterised by high levels of social and economic deprivation.[36] Among these wards are Whiterock, Falls, Twinbrook, Ardoyne, Woodstock, Shaftesbury and Springfarm. In the 20 wards with the greatest decline in electoral registrations, the percentage of people in receipt of income support and jobseekers allowance (33.5%) was significantly above the Northern Ireland average (17%). The unemployment rate in these 20 wards was 15% on average, compared to a Northern Ireland average at that time of 6.9%.[37]

29. Subsequent research carried out by the Electoral Commission has indicated that the association between social deprivation and electoral registration, as reflected in annual canvas data, is only part of the picture since the uptake of rolling registration appears to be higher in areas of high social deprivation than in other areas, therefore partially offsetting the lower levels of registration achieved in annual canvasses in these areas.[38]

30. In the December 2002 canvass, the inverse correlation between areas of high deprivation and low levels of electoral registration was exacerbated by the fact that areas of high deprivation were more likely than other areas to be canvassed by post as opposed to a canvasser. For example, the Belfast wards of Ardoyne, Woodstock and Shaftesbury were all canvassed fully or in part by post due to a shortage of canvassers. This situation arose as a result of difficulties in recruiting canvassers for those areas. This was particularly unfortunate because postal canvassing is correlated with lower than average levels of registration.[39] However, the Electoral Office has assured us that this situation had changed by the time of the 2003 canvass when canvassers were recruited for all wards.[40]

31. The Electoral Commission is prioritising its work in areas of social deprivation, for example, by initiating cooperation with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and by encouraging advice workers from the voluntary sector to highlight electoral registration in their work.[41]

PEOPLE WITH PHYSICAL DISABILITIES AND LEARNING DISABILITIES

32. MENCAP Northern Ireland and the SDLP were both critical of the new electoral registration procedures because they believe that there are aspects of the system that make it more complicated for people with learning difficulties to be entered on the electoral register.[42]

33. The Electoral Commission has acknowledged that people with disabilities are less likely than others to be on the electoral register.[43] Survey evidence suggests that disabled people were almost twice as likely not to be registered as other people because they had found the forms difficult to understand.[44] The Electoral Office has initiated a programme of cooperation with charities and other disability groups in order to make the electoral registration process more accessible to people with a variety of disabilities.[45] The Electoral Commission now makes its material available in formats such as Braille and audio tape.[46]

34. Under the current arrangements for individual registration, a parent or carer of a person with a learning disability or mental health problem may sign on that person's behalf. Thereafter they receive a letter from the Electoral Office in which they are asked to confirm that the person in question would "be capable of personally making a decision for whom to vote, without the assistance of another person". MENCAP claims that this procedure is liable to lead to eligible persons being omitted from the register, and that the letter "can be read as if to emphasise the denial of registration." MENCAP argues that the letter should be worded in a more positive manner. Based on information from the Chief Electoral Officer, the Electoral Commission states that approximately 1,000 such letters were sent out to carers, but of these, only 120 carers / relatives subsequently confirmed the request for registration.[47] However, the Chief Electoral Officer defended current practice:[48]

"We have had quite a number of people who have accepted that, having attested on behalf of someone else, that person should not be on the register. Therefore we have a number of people who previously, under the old family system, were probably wrongly included on the register and really should not have been there, but that has now come to light under individual registration and as a result some people with learning disabilities have been taken off the register. That is perhaps the way it should be: people who are not capable of making up their own minds should never have been there in the first place."[49]

However, it seems unlikely that such a high proportion of carers (nearly 90%), would have submitted an electoral registration form on behalf of their relative or friend without due consideration for the mental capacity of the person being registered. The Electoral Commission has admitted that "the process of individual registration may inadvertently have impacted on people with learning disabilities, thus effectively disenfranchising hundreds of people who in the past may have voted."[50]

35. Although there is clearly a balance to be struck, it would appear that a review of procedures and correspondence relating to electors with learning disabilities is justified. We recommend that the Electoral Office of Northern Ireland reviews its procedures for dealing with persons with learning disabilities and their carers with the aim of trying to be more inclusive.

36. The particularly low levels of registration among young people, less advantaged social groups, and people with disabilities, are a cause of concern. We believe that strategies need to be put in place by the Chief Electoral Officer to increase the level of registration in these groups. The Northern Ireland Office must also be prepared to make extra funding available to achieve this.

Causes for the declining number of registered voters

37. The Electoral Commission has concluded that the pre-Act electoral register was inflated by two factors at least:[51]

Electoral fraud: as discussed previously, there is no means of gauging accurately the real extent of fraudulent entries on the electoral register.

The carry-forward mechanism: under the former registration system, the carry-forward mechanism meant that names of non-respondents would be carried over from one register to the next for one year before being deleted. This meant that a name could have remained on the register for up to 24 months even though the person in question had died or moved away. This applied equally to a person who had moved within Northern Ireland and whose name would therefore have been registered at two different addresses. This may have accounted for up to 10% of the register at any point in time in the view of the Electoral Office.[52]

38. In addition to reducing electoral fraud as discussed earlier, the changes in the registration process following the Electoral Fraud Act 2002 have resulted in a reduction in the number of registered electors for at least two other reasons: the abolition of the carry-over mechanism which accounts for the greatest part of the decline in the number of people on the electoral register; and individuals not returning registration forms because of apathy or concerns about the disclosure of personal information such as national insurance numbers.

THE REMOVAL OF THE CARRY-FORWARD MECHANISM

39. The Electoral Commission has concluded that the removal of the carry-forward mechanism is likely to be the most important factor by far in the decline in the level of voter registration following the introduction of the 2002 Act. According to the Chief Electoral Officer, the response rate in canvasses has not changed with the introduction of the new system. The rate of responses has in the past been approximately 90%, and in the December 2002 canvass, the response rate was also about 90%. The difference is that whereas the non-responding 10% in the past would have been given one year's grace and left on the register, under the new system the 10% are now immediately removed from the register[53]. Both the Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer indicate that the drop in registrations of about ten percentage points is likely to result primarily from the fact that approximately 10% of names are no longer carried forward from one register to the next[54].

40. While there is agreement between the Electoral Office and the Electoral Commission about the main cause of the drop in voter registrations, the view of the Electoral Office that a system of carry-forward should be introduced is not shared by the Electoral Commission.[55] The view of the Chief Electoral Officer was that in the absence of a carry-forward mechanism, the register's year-on-year decrease was inevitable and he argued for a revised system of carry-forward:

"…I would like…to go further than simply having the carry forward, I would like to see a register that had occurrence of perhaps three years. I see the reinstitution of the carry forward as in effect giving us a register with a lifetime of two years but I think it would be better to have a register with a period of three years. I think we could then spend our resources and time in the interim period looking out and finding those people who are in the marginalised groups and getting them on to the register, getting them into the system rather than going around and finding the same people who year on year conscientiously complete their forms and send them in. I think we could spend our time and our money in a much better way to a better effect as far as the register is concerned^."[56]

However, Mr Singh of the Electoral Commission thought that carry-forward in the current circumstance held dangers, "...if you simply reintroduce the carry forward facility for a new system of individual registration…there is a concern we would have this might actually muddy the waters and actually perhaps lead to needless duplication."[57]

41. In a written statement to the House of Commons on 30November 2004, John Spellar, Minister of State for Northern Ireland, announced that the Government is "committed top moving away from the legal requirement for the register to be completely refreshed each year." He announced a consultation with political parties in Northern Ireland, and indicated that primary legislation may be brought forward in order to reinstate the carry-forward mechanism at least as a temporary measure ahead of the local elections in May 2005.

42. Any electoral registration system has to balance inclusiveness with accuracy.

43. There is little doubt that the decline in registrations results largely from the abolition of the carry-forward mechanism. Ways must be sought to counter the unfortunate effect of a sound decision. This change was crucial in eliminating 'phantom' names from the register and we do not recommend the re-introduction of the former carry-forward mechanism. It is also our view that the lifespan of the electoral register should be maintained at 12 months.

44. There is clearly a need for urgent action, but we believe that alternative and perhaps unconventional options should be explored. For example, it could be worthwhile exploring a compromise in which people who fail to respond to a canvass are excluded from the register but their details are retained for a further twelve months in order that they can be canvassed again the following year. Such a solution might give rise to data protection issues, but it may be worth considering whether these could be resolved.

45. We are puzzled that the views of the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Office of Northern Ireland differ markedly as to whether or not a system of carry-forward should be implemented. This issue is of considerable importance to the electoral process in Northern Ireland and we expect the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Office to examine the issue together and come to a clear conclusion which best ensures the integrity of the register. For example, it could be worthwhile exploring a compromise in which people who fail to respond to a canvass are excluded from the register but their details are retained for a further twelve months in order that they can be canvassed again the following year. Such a solution might give rise to data protection issues, but it may be worth considering whether these could be resolved.

ELIGIBLE VOTERS NOT RETURNING REGISTRATION FORMS

46. A range of factors, including apathy, lack of understanding about the system, and concerns over the disclosure of personal information (particularly National Insurance numbers) have been suggested as causes for eligible voters not returning registration forms. Research carried out by the Electoral Commission suggests that these factors are vital only in conjunction with the key change introduced by the 2002 Act from household-based to individual registration^.[58]

INDIVIDUAL VS. HOUSEHOLD REGISTRATION

47. The most significant reason for young people and other vulnerable groups not registering appears to be the introduction of individual as opposed to household registration.[59] The former arrangements were that the head of household completed a registration form for the whole household. Under the new system, every individual, including 17 and 18 year olds are responsible for registering themselves. Many people who would have been registered by someone else in the past have become responsible for their own registration.

48. The problems of young people registering are compounded by their high mobility, and among students in particular it is common to have two addresses.[60] The Electoral Office has no way of routinely acquiring information about all young people reaching the age of eighteen,[61] and those aged 17 and 18 do not automatically receive a pre-printed form but have to request one. This places the onus on them to play an active role in achieving registration. The issue of low levels of electoral registration and turnout among young people is not unique to Northern Ireland, but it is a major cause for concern if the system of registration there amplifies such a tendency.

49. The shift from household to individual registration is one of the key changes resulting from the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. This change was essential to eliminate some of the possible sources of 'phantom' names on the register. However, this is now one of the key factors contributing to the low levels of registration in certain population groups.

VOTER APATHY AND ALIENATION

50. Survey and focus group evidence suggests that apathy and alienation from the political process is a further factor which, together with individual registration arrangements, results in non-registration. The Electoral Commission found that 36% of non-registered respondents had failed to register because they had no intention of voting, whilst similar proportions said they could not be bothered, or just had not 'got round to it'.[62] The Commission concluded that "The move to individual registration is likely to have had the effect of 'flushing out' apathetic voters and those not used to registering."[63] In evidence supplied to the Electoral Commission, the National Union of Students and the Union of Students in Ireland thought that alienation and disengagement from political processes were particularly prevalent among students[64]

51. Apathy and a lack of engagement in politics is not unique to Northern Ireland and it is crucial to attempt to stimulate greater participation in the democratic process throughout the UK. But we believe this task assumes a special urgency in Northern Ireland where the history of violent conflict make efforts to ensure that the entire population feels able to engage in the electoral process a vital factor in the goal of establishing a fully normal society.

PUBLICITY AND EDUCATION

52. Electoral registration and voting is voluntary in the UK. Whilst complete registration of all eligible voters is, rightly, the aim of those responsible, we accept that this is unlikely to be achieved[65],. However, it remains essential for the integrity of the democratic process that people consider themselves well informed about how to register and vote and that they can do so with ease.

53. The Commission has monitored the degree to which people in Northern Ireland consider themselves to be well informed about the requirements for registering and voting. In July 2004, that level of awareness was "very high".[66] Prior to the last canvass in April 2003, 84% of the population said they knew about the changes to the electoral registration system.[67] Although this is a relatively high level of awareness, the level of awareness of the changes in the registration process is relatively low among the young people. In April 2003, only 68% of the 17-24 age group said they were aware of the changes in the electoral process.

54. The Electoral Commission is responsible for publicising the political process, although the Electoral Office also undertakes some work in this area. Since the implementation of the 2002 Act, the Electoral Commission has engaged in extensive public awareness campaigns including television advertisements, bill-board posters, and posters on buses.[68]

55. We commend the work that has been done by the Electoral Commission in informing and educating the public in Northern Ireland about the changes in the process of electoral registration and in the process of voting. We believe that regular, hard hitting campaigns to promote general awareness of the electoral and registration systems amongst the general population are required to prevent the registration level dropping. In addition, advertising and outreach campaigns targeted specifically at young people and vulnerable groups who have below average registration levels should be developed further as a matter of urgency.

Electoral process issues

THE REQUIREMENT FOR PHOTOGRAPHIC ID

56. Under the provisions of the 2002 Act, voters are able to cast their vote only once they have produced photographic ID. The forms of ID accepted are valid UK and EU passports, photographic senior SmartPasses, a valid photographic UK driving license, or an Electoral Identity Card (EIC). The EIC was introduced in the 2002 Act, and is available free of charge to all voters who request one.

57. Voters may indicate on their electoral registration forms if they wish to apply for the Card. In the first annual canvass under the new system in the autumn of 2002, 235,000 electors indicated that they required an EIC. However, by July 2004, only 93,000 people had applied for and received one.[69] The discrepancy between these figures has given rise to speculation that large numbers of people in Northern Ireland are effectively disenfranchised because of a lack of appropriate photographic ID.

58. When giving evidence to the Committee in July 2004, the Electoral Commission as well as the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland (EONI) indicated that the numbers of people without some form of appropriate photographic ID were likely to be relatively low.[70] In its report on the 2002 Act published in December 2003, the Electoral Commission estimated that some 37,000 voters who are on the electoral register do not have the appropriate photographic ID required to vote. At that time, the Commission indicated that every effort needed to be made to increase the take-up of the ID card.[71]

59. In trying to explain the discrepancy between the number who had indicated an interest in getting an EIC in 2002 and the actual application rate for the card, the Electoral Office told us that:

"…there were 235,000 people who ticked the box on the 2002 registration form, and we simply believe that many of those people ticked the box but when they got the application form which explained they could use a driving licence, passport or translink senior smart pass, they realised they did not perhaps need it. We believe that there is not a huge demand over and above the 90,000 odd that we have produced."[72]

60. Meanwhile, between 3,500 and 4,000 voters were rejected at polling stations during the November 2003 Assembly elections and the June 2004 European Parliament elections. About half were rejected because their ID, for example, passport or driving licence was out of date.[73] This is not a significant number in the view of the Electoral Office.[74]

61. We believe that the introduction of a requirement for voters to show photographic ID at polling stations was right and has been modestly successful. However, a number of voters were unable to cast their votes in the 2003 Assembly and 2004 European Parliament elections because they lacked appropriate ID. This consequence is unfortunate and we recommend that efforts to increase the uptake of the Electoral Identity Card should be redoubled. Campaigns to remind voters of the requirement for photographic ID need to be repeated regularly, particularly ahead of elections.

HOLDING ELECTIONS IN THE ANNUAL CANVASS PERIOD

62. During the second annual canvass in the autumn of 2003, one important problem emerged. After the canvass had started, it was announced that the Northern Ireland Assembly elections (postponed from May 2003) would take place within the canvass period and, as a consequence, the publication of the new register had to be postponed until February 2004. According to the Electoral Commission's Official Report on the Assembly elections, this caused confusion among the electorate, and a significant overburdening of Electoral Office staff.[75]

63. Holding elections in the period of the annual canvass causes confusion on the part of the public and places enormous burdens on election staff. We recommend that the Government should consider amending legislation to ensure that elections are not called within the annual canvass period.

10 Electoral Commission: The Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002: An Assessment of its First Year in Operation, table 3, page 17. Percentages are the total of respondents who answered either "tend to agree" or "strongly agree". Back

11 Electoral Commission: The Northern Ireland Assembly Elections 2003: The Official Report on the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections 26 November 2003, para 5.64 Back

12 Q1, Mr Singh Back

13 Electoral Commission: The Northern Ireland Assembly Elections 2003: The Official Report on the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections 26 November 2003, Figure 7, p84 Back

14 Q1, Mr Magee Back

15 Electoral Commission: The Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002: An Assessment of its First Year in Operation, para. 4.2 Back

16 Electoral Commission (2003), Attitudes towards Voting and the Political Process in 2003 Back

17 Electoral Commission: The Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002: An Assessment of its First Year in Operation, para. 4.13. Back

18 Electoral Commission: The Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002: An Assessment of its First Year in Operation, para. 5.8 & 5.11. Back

19 Q3 Electoral Commission, Mr Singh; Q41 The Chief Electoral Office, Mr Stanley Back

20 ER1, ER2 & ER2A, ER6A Back

21 ER1, ER2 & ER2A Back