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

7 ACCESS TO THE REGISTER

119. The electoral register has traditionally been open to public inspection. The Government described this as "an important safeguard against the potential for abuse of the electoral system" since it allows the public and political parties to "ensure that all eligible names have been included, and that names of ineligible people have not."[267] This position has been complicated since 2002 by the creation of two versions of the register: the full register which contains details of all registered electors and the edited register from which electors may choose to opt out. This move resulted from the ruling in the Robertson case of 2001 which was concerned with the data protection implications of providing the personal details on the register to anyone who wished to purchase a copy. The situation now is that the full register is open to inspection by anyone but copies are only supplied to specified bodies for certain purposes, such as elections and law enforcement. Credit reference agencies also have access to the full register to check an individual's name and address if they are applying for a loan or mortgage, for credit-scoring and to help prevent money laundering, whilst political parties are given copies under strict prohibitions on the passing on of information to third parties. The edited register is available for general sale and can be used for any purpose. To complicate matters still further, there is also the marked register of voters which is compiled by ERO staff at election time and which indicates which electors have voted. This is currently available for inspection on request by anyone in the period after an election.

Data protection and access to the register

120. That there are anomalies in the treatment of data on the three registers is immediately apparent. The data protection rules only apply to the edited register and yet personal data on all individuals is readily available to anyone who wishes to inspect the register personally (albeit that they are restricted to taking hand-written notes) and is also supplied free of charge to anyone who stands as a candidate in an election. Furthermore, the marked register, which includes all the details on the full register, can be purchased on the day after an election, which in the words of one witness, "undoes the legislation attached to the provision of the full register".[268]

121. There is some evidence that people are deterred from registering by data protection implications, particularly in relation to their details becoming known to commercial companies.[269] The Executive Director of Association of Electoral Administrators told us that canvassers found that "you get a reaction on a doorstep that certain individuals are not going to give the information because you will use it for other purposes".[270] He thought that "the introduction of the edited version was pretty much a sop to solve the Robinson case. Its worth is nil."[271] The Electoral Reform Society believed that "the perception of the other uses to which the register will be put is a significant factor in the level of under-registration in this country."[272]

122. One solution to this problem would be to declare that the electoral register was to be used for electoral purposes only. This is a widely-held view, shared among others by the Electoral Commission, the Electoral Reform Society and the Association of Electoral Administrators.[273] For his part, the Information Commissioner's general position is that "the electoral register exists to assist the electoral process and our democratic process. It should be used for that purpose and only for other purposes where strictly necessary and justifiably so".[274] The Government, however, disagrees with this point of view and in fact intend to broaden access to the full register. It plans to consult "later this year" on "a limited package of changes" which would "clarify that certain agencies and organisations, such as the Security Service, Environment Agency and Financial Services Authority may be supplied with the full register for specified purposes, and ... provide for the storage of old electoral registers in public libraries and local authority archives offices."[275] This proposal goes further to meet the call of the credit reference agencies for access to the register to be granted to agencies and commercial organisations that administer public services, such as the utilities and the BBC,[276] than it does to address the concerns expressed about data protection.

123. We note that the OSCE guidelines for observers of elections state that "the examiner should carefully review the legal framework and be satisfied that it does not allow for collection, use or dissemination of personal data or information in any manner for any purpose other than the exercise of suffrage rights".[277] Whilst these guidelines are in no way binding in the UK, albeit that the UK is a member of the Organisation, they are useful in acting as a measure of our compliance with international standards on electoral registration. We recommend that the Government include in its consultation on access to the electoral register the possibility of limiting the use of the register to electoral purposes. We also recommend that, pending the outcome of that consultation, the Government take steps to ensure that registration forms clearly state to what uses the data supplied by an individual or occupier may be put. We recognise that the electoral register is also used to prepare jury lists, as indicated clearly on Form A. We have no wish to see this changed. Individual registration would of course address many of the data protection concerns by making it the clear responsibility of each individual to give prior, informed consent to their name being on the edited register.

Access to the marked register

124. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, accepted in oral evidence that "there is a lacuna in the arrangements [for access to the marked register] which I think we do need to look at in a legislative context".[278] Shortly after we finished taking evidence for this inquiry, the Electoral Commission published a report on the marked register which recommended that this lacuna be removed.[279] The Commission called for primary legislation to bring the access regime for electoral registers marked at polling stations broadly into line with that currently applying to the full electoral register, that is that marked registers would be available for public inspection under supervision. Copies of marked registers should also be made available to political parties, candidates and agents for electoral purposes and to statutory agencies for law enforcement purposes only, such as the courts in the instance of election petitions and to other named organisations upon request. It should not be made available to other agencies, such as credit reference agencies, who have access to the full register. Other election documents to be made available for public inspection only should be the list of tendered votes;[280] the lists of voters with disabilities who voted with the assistance of a companion; the declarations made by the companions of voters with disabilities; and the list of votes marked by the Presiding Officer and related statements. Currently these documents are also available for purchase.[281] Other recommendations related to the creation of marked registers of returned postal votes and votes cast by remote electronic means which should be made available only after polling day and subject to the same terms and conditions as the polling station marked register. An elector should also be able to check with an ERO whether their postal vote has been received.[282]

125. Concerns over the marked register were raised by several witnesses during the inquiry, including the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Scottish Assessors Association, who both supported the restriction of the register to political parties only.[283] The Information Commissioner went further and was "not persuaded that it is right to treat the marked register as a fully public document", arguing that "public inspection to guard against fraud seems proper. Making copies available to profile the behaviour of individuals looks more doubtful."[284] His Deputy clarified in oral evidence that this meant that "Complete copies should not be published, although a member of the public, and in this respect probably political parties would be exercising the greatest interest, should be able to inspect marked copies of the register in order to ensure against impersonation and any other electoral fraud."[285] Unsurprisingly, this view was not shared by the political parties, with the Conservative party and Liberal Democrats agreeing with Mr Watt from the Labour party that "we should argue very strongly that the marked register should remain available to political parties."[286]

126. Given the significance of this issue in terms of human rights and data protection, and the apparent divergence of the views of the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner, this is a clear case where consultation with the narrow range of interested parties would be of value. We recommend that the Government publish its response to the Electoral Commission's report on the marked register in good time and allow limited consultation on its plan for action before moving to legislate in time for the next General Election but one. We believe that the marked register, including postal voters, should be available to political parties.

Anonymous registration

127. Given the tradition that the electoral register should be a public document, there is surprising consensus around the suggestion that anonymous registration should be allowed in certain circumstances. The Government is developing proposals for a system which would allow registration for those who believe that their appearance in the register may be the source of a threat to their safety.[287] The Government envisages that owing to stringent criteria the number of anonymous registration entries would be very low.[288] In evidence the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, stressed that it did "not want it to become like an ex-directory system where you get literally half the population going ex-directory",[289] picking up an analogy used by the Information Commissioner.[290]

128. In the absence of published proposals from the Government there is room for some disagreement around how and to whom anonymous registration should apply. The Deputy Information Commissioner preferred to talk of "pseudonymous registration", whereby people could register "under a code or something like that, but some means of keeping off the publicly available register the name linked to the address".[291] The Information Commissioner's memorandum indicated that he would "welcome" the possibility of such pseudonymous registration.[292] In oral evidence his deputy suggested that it should apply to "those who are perhaps the subject of a witness protection programme or battered wives or others who are trying to hide their address entirely legitimately".[293] Others would apply a more stringent test, with the facility only offered to those "at significant risk of physical harm".[294] The Labour party, which like the other major parties supports the principle of anonymous registration, believed that "such registration should be very much the exception and may require certification by an appropriate public authority, e.g. police, social services or a bona fide charity".[295] The Association of Electoral Administrators further suggested that those awarded anonymous registration should be allowed to vote by post or proxy only.[296]

129. We recognise that this is a serious issue: both in the dangers to people who are traced through the register and in the deterrent to register such a threat creates for some people. Not all who are deterred in this way would be considered as suitable cases for anonymous registration. SOLACE told us that at the moment this issue is "dealt with in various ways at many authorities".[297] We believe that there needs to be a standard policy on anonymous registration which should apply across the country. The Government's proposals will no doubt take some time to appear and may require legislation to implement. We recommend that they be produced for consultation as soon as possible. In the meantime, we recommend that either the Electoral Commission or the Government draw up clear guidelines for EROs to apply when considering requests for anonymous registration and that guidance be made available to them for dealing with particular cases.

130. A related issue is the editing out of the register of any reference to disabled people needing assistance with the ballot. Scope and Sense both argued that a facility for disabled people to indicate a desire for such assistance would be advantageous but that its inclusion in the published register could render them vulnerable and that a person's chosen format for election matters should remain confidential.[298] We agree that the registration process should allow disabled people to indicate a desire for assistance but that reference to this should not be included in the published register. We see no reason why this measure should not be implemented regardless of progress in the introduction of individual registration or other related matters.

267 Ev 3, para 29 , HC243-II [DCA/ODPM] Back

268 Q246 [Mr Dumper] Back

269 Eg Association of Electoral Administrators, Ev 34, Southampton City Council Liberal Democrat Group and Southampton City Council Labour Group, Ev 36, paragraph (f) , HC243-II Back

270 Q243 [Mr Dumper] Back

271 Ibid Back

272 Ev 82, para 33 , HC243-II [ERS] Back

273 Ev 15, para 10.1 [Electoral Commission]; Ev 32 [Association of Electoral Administrators]; Ev 82, para 33 [ERS] , HC243-II Back

274 Q72 [Mr Aldhouse] Back

275 Ev 81, HC243-III [DCA/ODPM] Back

276 Ev 41, HC243-II [Experian] Back

277 OSCE, Guidelines for Reviewing a Legal Framework for Elections (2001), page 14 Back

278 Q358 [Mr Leslie] Back