House of Commons - Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions

Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Joint First Report

3 ENCOURAGING REGISTRATION

The problem of non-registration

50. The principal concern affecting the introduction of individual registration is that it would have a depressing effect upon registration rates, both at the outset when the register would be cleansed by cutting out names which should not be there and in subsequent years as people did not bother to register their details. High levels of non-registration could have significant outcomes. It would mean that an increasing proportion of the population was unable to exercise their democratic rights during elections, calling into question the validity of the results in representing the will of the local community. It could also lead to distortions in the drawing-up of Parliamentary constituencies which are largely based on the size of the register. Should fewer people register, a Member of Parliament might find him or herself with a remarkably high caseload as a result of the actual population of the constituency being far greater than would appear from those registered to vote.

51. The problem of non-registration is one which is already worsening. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, asserted that "we have the best registration levels of anywhere in the world".[91] Apart from the obvious examples of countries where registration is compulsory and automatic, there is reason to doubt that this is the case. The most recent estimate we have is that in 1991, 93% of those eligible to vote in Britain were registered,[92] but beneath this headline figure, there is a more worrying picture where "non-registration rates appear to vary by geographical area, by age, ethnicity and property ownership/tenure".[93] Of course, several factors will apply in some individual cases but in general those less likely to be registered are: men; those living in London; those living in urban areas and areas of economic deprivation; those aged 17 to 24; those in privately rented accommodation; and those from black and minority ethnic communities.[94] This last category should not be treated as a homogeneous group as there are significant variations within it, from some of the highest levels to the lowest. Analysis of the 1997 election, based on a relatively small sample, found registration levels of 96% for people of black Caribbean origin, 96.9% for white, 96.9% for Indian, 90.2% for Pakistani, 91.3% for Bangladeshi and 87.1% for black African.[95]

52. The Electoral Commission summarised the reasons for not registering, as follows:

Disengagement from the political process and politics generally;
Avoiding "the authorities";
Concern about the use of the register - the fact that the register is for purposes other than electoral purposes only;
The lack of a facility for anonymous registration; and
Assumption that data provided to one part of the local authority (eg council tax) will automatically lead to the electoral roll being updated or resentment by some members of the public to supplying their details to different council departments.[96]

Among BME communities reasons given to researchers for non-registration include newness, language difficulty, alienation, concerns about anonymity and confidentiality, fear of harassment, fear of officialdom, administrative inefficiency and doubts about residence status.[97] For some other groups, the difficulty of filling in forms, or even knowing what the form might be, present significant barriers. It is also be the case that, particularly in houses of multiple occupation, those where the inhabitants change frequently or those inhabited by young people, forms are likely to be lost or ignored. A further factor in non-registration which must be taken into account is the attitude and policy of the ERO for a particular area and the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of the canvass undertaken.[98]

53. Understanding the factors behind the registration rates is vital in developing strategies to encourage registration, and to ensure that the rates do not fall further than necessary, should individual registration be introduced. We note that there appears to be very little recent, up to date research available into registration rates and the reasons for non-registration. Most of the figures quoted are from data collected in 1991. We therefore note with interest that both the Government and the Electoral Commission are currently undertaking major research projects into this area. The Government-sponsored work consists of two strands:

Meanwhile, the Electoral Commission is working on a triple-stranded project:

Firstly, the Commission is currently retaining ONS to conduct a `register check` using 2001 Census data in order to produce accurate estimates for the proportion of those eligible that are actually registered to vote, as well as estimates for registration rates among key sub-groups

Secondly, the Commission is conducting desk research and case studies in-house. This includes selecting local authorities (against a range of different variables) for in-depth interviews with electoral registration staff in order to explore, among other things, reasons for non-registration and the impact of rolling registration on registration rates

100

This research will be published in a final report after April when the ONS's report is expected to be received by the Electoral Commission.[101] We look forward to the publication of the research findings from both the Government and Electoral Commission into the extent of and reasons for non-registration. We expect both bodies to use these findings to inform their development of strategies to increase the levels of registration. We expect the ONS to have used corrected and amended 2001 Census information for this study. We now turn our attention to examine such strategies, including those connected with the compilation of the register, notification and identification of potential registrants, compulsory registration, special measures to encourage and assist certain groups, educational and public awareness strategies and the role of local authorities in promoting registration.

Compilation of the register

54. One of the main features of the current system of household registration is the annual canvass of all households, conducted by the local ERO. Many of the concerns expressed by EROs about a possible move to individual registration have been based on the assumption that the annual canvass would remain, with all the difficulties in locating electors which this would entail. Indeed, in its report on The electoral registration process, the Electoral Commission recommended the retention of the annual canvass under individual registration as an interim measure.[102] The Commission's thinking on this issue, however, has altered since the publication of that report, and in its written evidence to this inquiry it suggested that, instead, the frequency of the annual canvass might be reduced, "thereby placing more incentive on electors to utilise the individual-based 'rolling registration' arrangements and enabling resources to be re-directed towards canvassing under-represented groups."[103] This would reflect the revised position in Northern Ireland where the Government has decided to abolish the annual canvass and concentrate resources on recruiting the hard to reach groups with the aim of increasing registration rates. Under this system, names would be retained on the register until the next canvass or audit or until the individual informed the local authority of a change in their circumstances.

55. There was some disquiet among witnesses at the prospect of the end of the annual canvass. For example, the RNIB had concerns that, in its absence, blind and partially sighted people would not be aware that they had received forms, let alone be able to complete the form without assistance.[104] This difficulty could be addressed through the directing of more resources to help this particular group, once they had been identified by the ERO. The political parties too felt that there was value in retaining the annual canvass because it "put the onus on local authorities to make an effort once a year in order to make sure their register is accurate".[105] The Conservative party related this to the removal of excess names from the register and the Liberal Democrats referred also to checks on changes in property, ie new build and demolitions.[106] By contrast, the Executive Director of the Association of Electoral Administrators believed that the increasing difficulties in conducting the annual canvass and the consequent impact of that on accuracy levels meant that "if individual registration was robust and secure, the electorate were aware of it and knew exactly what they should be doing, I do not see the need for an annual audit; a three-yearly or four-yearly audit would be sufficient."[107] The Local Government Association called for EROs to have discretion to decide how to compile the register and whether to continue with an annual canvass or move towards an audit process, with "the discretion to retain the names of those who have not re-registered for two years if they have reason to believe that those people are in fact resident at that address".[108]

56. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, pointed out that in England and Wales it was already the case that "if somebody fills in a form one October, they can stay on that register not just until the following year but for a further year at the discretion of the electoral registration officer, on the basis that it would be perhaps too onerous and too stringent to take persons off straight away, after one year".[109] He was hoping that the research into non-registration would help inform the Department whether the requirement to fill in annual form was a significant factor in people's decisions not to register, and hence help the Government to decide whether the balance was in favour of keeping a carry-over mechanism at the expense of an annual canvass from scratch.[110] We note by way of caution that carry-over of postal votes may have its own dangers, with ballot forms being issued to individuals who are no longer resident at the address given in the register. This may need to be taken into account in devising appropriate safeguards for carrying over registrations from one year to the next. In general, we see merit in the idea of the carry-over mechanism and in using resources to target under-represented areas or groups, rather than households which have remained static over a long period of time. A periodic audit, say every three or four years, would be required to ensure that the register was accurate but the doubts over the effectiveness of the current annual audit make us question whether this is the best approach to adopt. We also see merit in giving flexibility to local EROs to determine how best to canvass their areas, subject to overarching guidelines by the Government and Electoral Commission on maximum periods between audits. We recommend that if individual registration is adopted, the requirement for an annual comprehensive canvass be replaced by an obligation to conduct an audit of the full register every three years or a third each year, though not necessarily at any fixed time during the year.

57. As we have seen, one potential factor in variation in registration rates is the different attitude of EROs and local authorities towards compiling the electoral register in their area. The Labour party called for the Electoral Commission to "lay down and monitor basic standards of canvass to which local authorities must adhere if they are to have discharged their responsibilities, alongside sanctions to ensure compliance".[111] These should extend to "a formal performance monitoring system on registration rates" and "consistent standards on carry-over of names from non-responding households".[112] Less onerously, the Scottish Assessors Association argued that "best practice guidelines for canvassing and obtaining changes in registration should be developed and followed by the Electoral Commission in consultation with EROs".[113]

58. In the past the Electoral Commission has made recommendations "regarding the introduction of national performance standards for electoral services, including registration", which if accepted "should provide the basis for more effective future scrutiny and performance management, whilst retaining local discretion on exactly how these standards are met."[114] The Government's response to these recommendations was less than enthusiastic: it had "no objections to formalise" the role which the Electoral Commission already undertook on an informal basis but "such a role will need to be considered in relation to the existing Local Government Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) scheme".[115] We note, however, that the "electoral registration is not a specific area of focus within CPA" when the Audit Commission is examining the work of councils.[116] We believe that there is a need for best practice guidelines for local authorities on compiling the register, particularly but not exclusively in the circumstances of a change to individual registration. We also believe that performance in an area as important as electoral registration should be monitored if we wish to tackle the low levels of registration in some areas and communities. We recommend that the Electoral Commission, in consultation with EROs, produce mandatory best practice guidelines for local authorities to follow in the compilation of electoral registers and that the Commission be charged with monitoring compliance with these guidelines.

Notification by electors and data-sharing

59. Individual registration would place greater responsibility upon electors to notify the ERO not just of their details upon initial entry on the register but also of changes in their circumstances, such as moving house, changing name or gaining eligibility through attaining the age of 18 or taking British citizenship. Under rolling registration, it is already possible to change registration entries at any time of the year (apart from the three month closed period around the annual canvass). In order to achieve the highest possible rate of registration and the greatest accuracy of the register, the aim should be to make it commonplace for electors to notify changes as a matter of course. To make this easier and to reduce the burden it represents, the process of registration in such circumstances should be simplified. We discuss further below new ways of registering and the issue of compulsion which is clearly of relevance here.

60. There is huge potential in widening access by EROs to information which would enable them to identify electors who need to change their records who could then be either issued with reminders or automatically registered. EROs currently have the power to inspect records kept by the local council which appointed them and those kept by a registrar of births, deaths and marriages.[117] These powers are quite limited, especially compared to the scope for data-sharing with other public bodies demonstrated by the Australian Electoral Commission, among others. It is clear that if more information was available to EROs to indicate likely cases where records needed to be added or amended, then their efforts could be better targeted. The likely effectiveness of such an approach can be seen in the example of post office redirection forms: the Electoral Commission told us that by using this information they had brought in "50,000-odd new registrations" in the last "six or eight months".[118]

61. There are two levels in which data-sharing in order to identify individuals whose records needed updating could work. First, an array of organisations who hold details of changes in address or other circumstances could be either charged with the duty or merely encouraged to remind any eligible person of their obligation to register with the local authority for electoral purposes. Such organisations could range from schools to estate agents to TV Licensing, the utility companies and the DVLA. At its simplest these bodies could inform relevant individuals of how to change their registration, or could, where applicable, enclose a registration form with their acknowledgement of notification of a change in address or name. Such reminders would act to educate the public of their responsibilities, as well as to encourage the view of electoral registration as another task involved when moving house. Under this system the onus would remain on the individual to notify the ERO. We recommend that the Electoral Commission work with the professional bodies representing estate agents and conveyancers, the Land Registry, the utilities, the DVLA, TV Licensing and schools to develop promotional materials and strategies by which these bodies could help reach eligible electors who need to change their registration or register for the first time.

62. Secondly, there could be greater use of data-sharing between government departments or other public bodies and the electoral registration system. New powers could be given to EROs to access data held by other departments in order to target their own efforts. This would allow them to act proactively in sending out new registration forms to individuals identified from other databases. This would be particularly useful in cases where no records were previously held, for example, on those newly attaining voting age or those who had never registered to vote. The Government could consider using child benefit records to enable EROs to contact young people as they approach registration age. In its written evidence to us, the DVLA expressed caution about the data protection implications of such a move, adding that "previous legal advice has indicated that specific legal powers would be required in order to process personal data for reasons not compatible with the purposes for which the data was collected and held under statute".[119] When pressed for his views, the Deputy Information Commissioner stated that he would not want to dispute "that access to information should be made available in order to ensure a good and accurate electoral roll".[120] Whilst "it might well be that legislation is necessary", the Information Commissioner's office "certainly do not say that this is objectionable in principle and should be ruled out".[121]

63. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, agreed that "there was scope to make things simpler for the public at large, whilst respecting the basics of data protection principles" in the context of data-sharing across Government.[122] He pointed to the Citizen Information project (CIP), which is looking at data-sharing across all departments, as the way forward.[123] At the moment, according to the Registrar General for England and Wales who is responsible for the project, "there is no direct relationship between CIP and Voter Registration", although there is "a willingness" on the part of the Home Office "to examine how the ID Cards scheme can offer benefits to a future Voter Registration scheme."[124] We believe that it is not sufficient for the Department for Constitutional Affairs to "keep an eye on that project and plug into it".[125] We recommend that the Department for Constitutional Affairs and ODPM explore with the ONS, as a matter of urgency, ways in which the electoral registration may benefit from the Citizen Information Project in order that the requirements of electoral registration may be built into the project from the start. We also recommend that the Government clarify the data protection implications of allowing EROs greater access to data held by other public bodies and government departments and that any necessary legislation is brought forward to permit such access to EROs for the purposes of maintaining the electoral register, specifying which public and private bodies are under a statutory obligation to inform EROs of changes of address.

64. In the course of evidence, it was also suggested to us by the Association of Electoral Administrators that the information supplied by individuals to a local authority should be consolidated so that one application is made for all the services provided by the council.[126] The Association of Electoral Administrators Executive Director told us: "I do not think there is any reason why [someone new to the area who signs up for council tax] 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".[127] The Electoral Commission support this 'one stop shop' approach for notifying councils, describing in as "the ultimate goal".[128] Pamela Gordon, one of the Commissioners, told us that people already assume this is the case: "They assume when they move house and they are signed up for council tax, that information will go directly to the registration officer".[129] There are data protection issues here but the Deputy Information Commissioner told us that, although they might want to comment on data protection safeguards, this was "certainly something the Information Commissioner would not object to".[130] The Minister for Local and Regional Government and Fire, ODPM, described such sharing of information at council level as "very much part of the ongoing discussion."[131] He believed, however, that "it almost certainly will need legislation".[132] We recommend that the Government clarify the data protection issues involved in a 'one stop shop' for registering with councils for electoral, council tax and other purposes and bring forward the necessary legislation as soon as possible. This is an issue which is as relevant under the current system of rolling registration as it would be under any future system of individual registration and it is one which can only be seen as helpful to the elector and therefore likely to increase registration levels.

Deadline for registration

65. The Electoral Commission recommended in its report on Voting for change: An electoral law modernisation programme that the last date for registration should be moved so that it is normally the close of nominations (ie, the sixth day after the date of the proclamation summoning a new parliament for a General Election and eleven days before polling day). At the moment, by the time an election is announced, it is already too late for a potential elector to register to vote. For example, the last date by which the registration could be effected for any election to be held on 5 May 2005 was 11 March. Given that the publicity surrounding an election may act as a spur to get people interested in the process, it is unfortunate to say the least that they are then denied the opportunity of getting involved. There is general agreement that the Electoral Commission's proposal is correct. Although some would advocate registration on the day itself as in certain states in the USA,[133] many, including the other two main parties and the electoral administrators, would accept the Labour party's argument that "the electorate for a particular election should be essentially known and fixed for the period of the formal legal campaign" and that the close of nominations was the most appropriate point for the cut-off.[134] The counter-argument would be that late registration encourages participation and would be limited to very low numbers if stringent conditions were attached to it. The Government has accepted the Electoral Commission's recommendation on the change in deadline but has not moved to implement it.[135] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, told us that this would need legislation,[136] later clarified as primary legislation.[137] We recommend that the necessary legislation be brought forward to implement a later closing date for registration prior to an election in time for the next local elections in 2006.

Compulsory registration and incentives

66. The question of whether registration is compulsory in the UK is a debateable one. The Government's view, as expressed in its memorandum to us, is that "registration is, in effect, compulsory at the time of a canvass".[138] This is because it is an offence, punishable by a fine of up to £1000, to fail to supply information to a registration officer when requested or to supply false information. The Electoral Commission, on the other hand, describe the present situation as "a curious hybrid of compulsion and voluntarism," since there is no compulsion to register under rolling registration (and no offence of providing false information when doing so).[139] In addition, the penalty is barely used and the current sanction is regarded by many as "largely unworkable".[140] The Commission is not in favour of applying the sanctions more rigorously but of spending resources on "programmes and initiatives designed to encourage and educate about the importance of registration, rather than focused on deterrents for non-compliance with regard to the return of the annual canvass form."[141]

67. The Electoral Commission also pointed out that the introduction of individual registration would have an impact on the compulsory nature of the system by making it "appropriate to apply the current sanction for failure to provide information or false information to individuals rather than householders as at present."[142] The Information Commissioner held that "this would in effect constitute a compulsion for individuals to provide information about themselves", thereby emphasising "the need for effective safeguards against use of the information for unwarranted purposes".[143]

68. The majority view amongst those contributing to our inquiry was that there was no pressing need for change in this area, although it was generally recognised that enforcement was the issue rather than compulsion and that it was too expensive to enforce anyway.[144] The Association of Electoral Administrators argued strongly that "it would be far too time-consuming [for prosecutions for non-provision of information] to be undertaken on a much larger basis, and it does not have any perceived effect on others."[145] Nevertheless, the Association did argue for the extension of compulsion to rolling registration: "There could be a case for a change in legislation to require all electors who change address to report, in person, by post or electronically to the relevant local authority to ensure that they register for services including electoral registration."[146] Their Scottish equivalents, the Scottish Assessors Association, were also in favour of "a new offence of failure to register," which "might ultimately have the effect of increasing the completeness of the register".[147] That Association also considered that "increasing fines and/or 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."[148] Support for a tougher line came from the Electoral Reform Society which wanted "a significantly lower level of tolerance for those who fail to correctly complete (or fail to complete at all) a registration form", with "a presumption in favour of prosecution."[149]

69. On balance, we agree with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, that "if an electoral registration officer spent all his or her time prosecuting individuals for non-registration, very soon [the] resources of that registration officer would be used up so there would not be much left available to promote proactive registration amongst the wider population."[150] There is little point in EROs chasing up people who have no interest in or in fact an ideological objection to registering. One way round this last point could be to adopt the suggestion made by the Scottish Assessors Association that return of the form be compulsory but that electors be allowed to indicate that they do not wish to register.[151] This may be worth pursuing in the wider context of modernisation of the electoral process. The anomaly between household and rolling registration in terms of compulsion and offences, however, should be addressed. We recommend that the Government consult on whether there should be a new compulsion to register with the local ERO under rolling registration, and if so, how this would work. This consultation should also examine whether the current penalties are adequate. We also recommend that legislation provide similar penalties for the provision of false information as apply to the annual canvass for the provision of false information to an ERO under rolling registration.

70. We turn to consider incentives to vote. These can take many forms, both official and incidental. For example, at least one council will only issue parking permits to those on the electoral register. Many other councils advertise the fact that the register is used by credit reference agencies in order to persuade people to sign up. One such agency, Experian, argued that "registration is likely to be higher if the individuals themselves believe there to be an advantage to them in doing so".[152] They suggested that linking the register to eligibility checks for benefits, for example, might act as an incentive to those who do not use credit or internet shopping services.[153] We have also heard much about the incentive to register created by the use of the register by mobile phone companies for checking purposes, but, as the Director of Operation Black Vote warned us, "that did not translate into voting".[154] We have similar doubts over the efficacy of offering "a refund of, say, £10 or £20 on Council Tax", as cited by one witness as a more radical strategy.[155] On balance, we consider that most incentives directly linked to registration could only be seen as gimmicks and run the risk of undermining the integrity and dignity of the system.

Educational strategies and public awareness

71. Should the Government decide to introduce individual registration or to make any significant alterations to the system of electoral registration in Great Britain, it would be essential that the change be preceded and accompanied by intense publicity campaigns and strategies aimed at educating the public in the intricacies of the new system. Even without such major changes, however, we are concerned that more needs to be done to raise public awareness of how to register and to persuade particularly young and disaffected voters of the value of doing so. Both general and tightly-targeted campaigns would be needed.

72. The national body with responsibility for promoting participation in the electoral process is the Electoral Commission. In its memorandum to this inquiry, it set out its strategy for fulfilling this role.[156] In addition to producing registration forms and information leaflets, it undertakes a twin-stranded programme of promotional activity. The first strand of its work is aimed at reminding the entire electorate to check that they are registered prior to a forthcoming elections or referendum. The second strand is composed of "micro-campaigns targeted at tightly-defined and often hard to reach areas of populations", such as students, those moving home, overseas voters and service voters.[157] The campaigns use a variety of media and encourage people to register at any time of the year. For example, the Commission has on-line advertising on home-mover websites aimed at reminding visitors to those sites of the need to register with the local ERO.[158] Six thousand people clicked the link in the spring 2004 micro-campaign targeted at home-movers. The Commission also has an outreach programme which works "to encourage registration specifically among young people aged 16-24 outside formal education".[159] In relation to the 2004 European parliamentary elections this programme included "the Box" tour of Great Britain, which resulted in over 1000 registrations among young people.[160] The research does not yet exist to show the relative size of this increase in registration among this age group but to put the result in context, research after the 2001 General Election indicated that 10 per cent of non-voters aged between 18 and 24 were not registered on the electoral roll.[161]

73. The Box roadshow was praised in evidence to us by the British Youth Council as a positive example of the Commission taking its message to hard to reach groups, rather than waiting for members of such groups to approach them.[162] Other examples of local initiatives were the city-wide youth council in Plymouth and a town-wide youth forum in Leighton Buzzard.[163] The important feature to note about such activities is that they involve some young people in issues in which they are directly interested. Both the British Youth Council and Operation Black Vote underlined this point, particularly in the context of educating schoolchildren in the process.[164] The Head of Citizenship and Development of the BYC stressed the importance of working through "organisations that focus on trying to improve life in society for hard to reach and socially excluded groups [who] have a better mechanism of reaching out to those people."[165] This message was echoed by Mr Wooley of Operation Black Vote who believed that "engaging with NGOs and grassroots organisations is probably the key route to engage with the 'hard to reach'".[166] In addition, he agreed with the suggestion, put forward by the Association of Electoral Administrators,[167] that it would be "a good idea" to employ canvassers belonging to the same community as the electors they are helping to register.[168]

74. When asked, witnesses were agreed that campaigns to educate and inform the public about individual registration should be run at national level by the Electoral Commission, although there is room for more locally-focused activities as well, with the proviso that these meet certain standards and are properly financed. Mr Monks of SOLACE, for example, argued that "either you have to have national campaigns or some sort of model that local authorities have to work off".[169] In the latter case, it would be the Electoral Commission which bore the responsibility for setting such standards. There was agreement that campaigns run with the help of more grassroots organisations could be more successful in reaching certain groups of society. Ministers in oral evidence to us were amenable to the concept of engaging such organisations in registration, provided that "the Electoral Commission should be in the lead on this because … there can always be a suspicion, if you have targeted campaigns focusing on one particular section of the community, that this may be motivated by a perception, whether right or wrong, that that particular group may be more likely to vote for one party or another."[170]

75. We stress the importance of effective educational strategies and promotional activities in raising awareness of the importance of registering. Whether in the specific context of trying to mitigate the depressing effect of individual registration upon the numbers on the register, as demonstrated in Northern Ireland, or in the general context of the seemingly long-term trend in declining numbers under the current system, it is vital to reengage the public with the electoral and political process. This is particularly true of the hard to reach groups. As Mr Wooley of Operation Black Vote told us in the context of using new technology to encourage registration, "it misses the point. We can tweak the system however much we like, but unless we are making the political case people will not register to vote or vote."[171]

76. Imaginative campaigns to promote registration are needed, run at national, local and community levels; they must be adequately funded; and they must draw upon all available expertise. We agree with witnesses that the Electoral Commission is the right body to oversee general and micro campaigns on registration and we note some of the more imaginative ways in which they are undertaking this role. At a local level, campaigns need to respond fully to local circumstances. Local authorities should act with some degree of latitude under best practice guidelines. These guidelines should include the recruitment and use of canvassers from the communities which they serve. We are particularly keen to see the Commission's work with grassroots organisations expanded. We note that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, indicated that "we will look with an open mind at any applications or proposals that the Electoral Commission come forward with" for financial resources for work with grassroots organisations.[172] We recommend that the Electoral Commission consult widely on ideas for work with grassroots organisations aimed at encouraging registration among hard to reach groups and use Government funding for the most promising proposals.

THE ROLE OF ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICERS IN PROMOTING REGISTRATION

77. The Electoral Commission raised with us both the importance of the role EROs can play in encouraging registration and the consequent concern created in this regard by the "divergence of views among Electoral Registration Officers as to how far they should go in promoting registration, especially in targeting traditionally under-represented groups".[173] Some EROs have reported to the Commission that targeted campaigning would be seen as political. This was reflected in the views expressed to us by SOLACE, representing the Chief Executives of local authorities, and by the Scottish Assessors Association.[174] Their fears are not entirely groundless, as demonstrated by the evidence given by the Labour party that, in order to "remove any concerns about political bias", it was necessary for the Electoral Commission to agree national standards for targeting under-represented groups by local authorities.[175]

78. As a solution to this impasse, the Electoral Commission has recommended that the Government clarify the legal position in relation to the powers of EROs to undertake promotional work and if necessary to put this on a clear footing.[176] The Government told us that they "do not currently believe legislation is the best way forward in this area, but will consider other mechanisms to encourage participation".[177] In any case, the practitioners were "not sure whether simply putting a duty upon us is the answer" (Mr Monks), and had further concerns that "the degree of proactivity equals greater cost".[178] Mr Monks of SOLACE thought that "perhaps this is a role for the Electoral Commission rather than identifying the one particular individual who is targeting a certain group or targeting a certain area to increase the registration".[179] We note that the Electoral Commission has already taken steps to recommend that EROs review their promotional strategies for electoral registration and adopt the best practice put forward by the Commission.[180] It is clearly undesirable for the legal position of EROs to be ambiguous in relation to such an important activity. This needs to be resolved. We recommend that the Government issue a clear statement of the legal position of EROs in relation to the promotion of registration. This would be necessary even if only to allow EROs to follow with confidence Electoral Commission guidelines. We support the Electoral Commission's recommendation that EROs adopt the best practice put forward in the Commission's report Making an Impact: the local promotion of electoral issues (2002). The two measures taken together should ensure that EROs may take a more direct role in encouraging registration in an effective way without imperilling their political neutrality.

Groups with special interests

79. There are identifiable groups which might have particular or special needs following a move to individual registration. These include the disabled, the elderly, those who are unable to fill in forms, those with language difficulties and residents of care homes or other institutions, including halls of residence. To a certain extent, some of these groups already experience difficulties under the current system. But a move from household registration, where it is acceptable for someone else to take responsibility for completing the form, to individual registration might impose an additional burden. These groups cannot be dismissed as minorities: there are an average 13,400 disabled voters in each parliamentary constituency, for example, and in 2002 there were 9.5 million people aged 65 and over in the UK.[181]

80. In general, those representing special interest groups were supportive of a move to individual registration, especially by enabling registration and voting by more accessible means,[182] but there was also strong agreement that an exceptions service would be needed to assist those who required extra help.[183] The RNIB argued that individual registration would help the provision and targeting of such a service because "it could register individual access needs and, hopefully, make sure that all the material, in terms of polling cards and things, come in acceptable formats".[184] This would be as important to those with language needs as to those with physical or mental disabilities. We are pleased that the Government has been consulting organisations representing the disabled community on changes to the electoral system. We recommend that the Electoral Commission in conjunction with groups representing those with disabilities draw up best practice guidelines for the registration of such people with special needs, including details of what should be offered through an exceptions service and the means by which electors may indicate on the registration form the type of assistance which they require.

81. There may be particular difficulties over enabling others to sign a form on behalf of those unable to do so. Under rolling registration, only the applicant is allowed to sign the declaration, although we are told that administrators currently use a variety of methods to overcome this problem and permit registration.[185] We recommend that, in the event of individual registration being adopted, the circumstances in which a representative should be permitted to sign a form on an elector's behalf be made clear. Mencap raised further concerns about the information made available in Northern Ireland where attestors are able to complete forms on behalf of those who cannot do so because of learning difficulties.[186] We recognise the need for clearer information to be provided to attestors on their responsibilities under electoral law and see also a requirement for specialised promotion campaigns aimed both at electors with special needs and their carers or representatives.

82. Care homes or other places where traditionally a warden or manager has completed one form for a large number of residents present a particular challenge to individual registration in terms not only of canvassing but of introducing a wholesale change in culture. As we have noted earlier, one of the arguments in favour of individual registration is the data protection concern that wardens of larger institutions may be unable to consult all inhabitants before completing the form as to their preferences with regard to opting out of the full register. Nevertheless, there are clearly logistical difficulties in treating each inhabitant as an individual for the purposes of registration, and numbers of those registering from such places are likely to fall unless some remedial action is taken. This is likely to be the case where young people in hostels or students in halls of residence are concerned. One solution would be for the ERO to "send multiple copies of the registration form to premises in multiple occupation", with display material provided reminding people of their obligation to register.[187] The Scottish Assessors Association proposed that the registration system remain as it is for residents in such types of institutions.[188] However, Help The Aged had no "strong objections to it being moved to an individual basis,"[189] and the Electoral Commission saw only the advantages for individual registration in such cases.[190] We recognise that careful consideration needs to be given to how registration from residential homes is managed in order to achieve the maximum possible levels. We recommend that the Electoral Commission produce best practice guidelines to be followed by local authorities and test promotional strategies to target residents and managers of residential accommodation to ensure registration levels do not fall.

SERVICE VOTERS

83. In its report on Postal Voting, the ODPM Committee raised the issue of the changes to the registration process followed by armed forces personnel since the introduction of the Representation of the People Act 2000. Prior to the implementation of the Act, service personnel were enrolled on the Service register for the entire period of their service. Since 2000 it has been the responsibility of the individual to register themselves. There are various ways in which they may do so which makes it difficult to assess how many personnel are now registered,[191] but it is generally accepted that the numbers have fallen significantly and there is growing concern on the issue, as shown in parliamentary debates and questions.

84. The Ministry of Defence submitted a memorandum to this inquiry, setting out how it intends to encourage registration.[192] The Electoral Commission is also playing a role in working with the MoD to reach this particular group of hard to reach electors. It is unlikely that electoral registration will be at the forefront of the minds of service personnel, especially those on active service. It is therefore essential that the MoD plays an active role in encouraging them to register. We are not impressed by the MoD's efforts so far. We expect the MoD to monitor the effectiveness of its revised Defence Council Instruction issued in late January 2005 on electoral registration and report the results to Parliament. It is already too late for service personnel to register for the local elections or any general election on 5 May 2005, but we recommend that the MoD adopt a policy of issuing annual individual registration forms to each service person to encourage them to register. We expect the MoD to look into the issue of electoral registration among service personnel as a matter of urgency and we urge the relevant select committees in the next parliament to follow it up.

OVERSEAS VOTERS

85. Whilst strictly outside our terms of reference, the issue of the registration of overseas voters was raised during our inquiry. Individual registration already applies to overseas voters and concern has been expressed that the numbers of those who opt to register are very small. The difference in circumstances and likely motivation make it impossible to read across from this experience to the impact of individual registration on participation rates in Great Britain as a whole. Nevertheless, overseas electors are entitled to register and vote and they should be given every opportunity to do so. The Chairman of the Electoral Commission told us that it was not satisfied with the present situation and outlined measures which the Commission was taking to address the issue.[193]

91 Q276 [Mr Leslie] Back

92 Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (1993), Electoral registration in 1991 Back

93 Ev 12, para 7.2 , HC243-II [Electoral Commission] Back

94 Ev 12-3, para 7.2 and 7.8 , HC243-II [Electoral Commission] Back

95 Electoral Commission, Ev 13, paragraph 7.6, , HC243-II quoting research from S. Saggar (1998a), The General Election 1997: Ethnic Minorities and Electoral Politics, Commission for Racial Equality, London Back

96 Ev 12, para 7.1 , HC243-II [Electoral Commission] Back

97 Ev 12, para 7.4 , HC243-II [Electoral Commission] Back

98 Ev 13, para 7.5, HC243-II [Electoral Commission] Back

99 Q304 [Mr Leslie] Back

100 Ev 79 , HC243-II [Electoral Commission] Back