Memorandum by the Local Government Association
(LGA) (VOT 22)
INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
1. The Local Government Association (LGA)
represents local councils in England and Wales. We work with and
for our member authorities to realise a shared vision of local
government that aims to put local councils at the heart of the
drive to improve public services.
2. Voting is fundamental to our democracy
and the British constitution. We are therefore very concerned
about the continuing decline in turnout at elections—at
european, national and local level—in this country.
3. We believe that the reasons for low turnout
at elections are varied and complex. One of the key factors for
local people in determining whether or not to vote is the extent
to which their vote matters (to what extent does the institution
they are voting for have a direct impact on their lives) and whether
their vote has the potential to affect the result of the election.
However, the introduction of new processes making voting easier
and more accessible, may be an important factor in facilitating
voter engagement.
4. The LGA is committed to reinvigorating
the democratic process, encouraging greater participation by citizens
in democratic institutions. The Association therefore lobbied
for the introduction of the piloting arrangements in the Representation
of the People Act 2000 and has encouraged councils to pilot new
arrangements. We are pleased with the number, breadth and success
of the electoral pilots that have been undertaken since May 2000—which
reflects the importance councils attach to this issue and their
willingness to innovate.
VOTER REGISTRATION
5. We welcome this opportunity to make comments
to the Inquiry. The key points we would like to make are as follows:
6. Voter registration is the lynchpin of
the electoral system. Improvements to the registration process
could have wider benefits across the electoral system —particularly
in maintaining an updated and accurate register and supporting
the rolling registration process.
7. Individual registration. We are keen
to encourage greater participation in local elections and to make
the electoral process more convenient and accessible to voters.
At the same time we need to ensure that the potential for abuse
or fraud is minimised. In this context we have supported the proposal
for a move from household to individual registration. We agree
with the Electoral Commission that a system of individual registration
should be introduced as a key building block on which safe and
secure remote multi-channelled elections (which the LGA support)
can be delivered.
8. However we are concerned to ensure that
any changes to the electoral registration process should not have
an adverse impact on registration levels. We need to learn from
the experience of the introduction of individual registration
in Northern Ireland and the subsequent drop in electoral registration
levels there.
9. If individual registration were to be
introduced we think there are a number of practical steps that
could be taken to mitigate against any fall in registration, in
particular:
— It would be important to ensure that
appropriate time is given to local authorities in order to make
the necessary practical arrangements and that any move from household
to individual registration is introduced gradually. This will
be particularly important to those small District authorities
which may not have a dedicated Electoral Registration Officer.
— Returning Officers should be given
the necessary 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 the address. If individual
registration was to be introduced we suggest it might be done
gradually to mitigate the potential impact on registration levels.
This could be done by initially combining household registration
with individual members of the household signing the registration
form.
— If individual registration were to
be introduced then voters should be obliged to register to vote.
10. In addition any plans to introduce individual
identifiers (in association with Individual registration) would
need to be considered in the context of other government initiatives
— including the Identity Cards Bill and the work on authentication
of identity for electronic transactions being carried out by the
Home Office and E-government Unit of the Cabinet Office respectively.
11. National electronic register. We agree
with the principle of a locally maintained national electronic
register that will provide national access to registration data
— this is an essential part of the electoral modernisation
agenda, underpinning the goal of multi-channelled, e-enabled elections
which the LGA supports.
12. The Government has consulted on the
proposed arrangements for taking. forward a project to implement
a Co-ordinated On-Line Register of Electors (CORE). If a national
electronic register were to be introduced, the following issues
would need to be addressed:
— national standards will need to be
set on the way data is collected and held—to ensure compatibility,
security and privacy. It is vital that the standards are based
on work already being undertaken within local government, for
example on the National Land and Property Gazetter. Compatibility
with any other registers will need to be ensured, for instance
the proposed National Identity Register.
— adequate funding and IT support for
local authorities. It is essential that adequate funding and IT
support is made available to councils to make the necessary arrangements
for the introduction of a locally maintained national electronic
register. This is will be particular important for small District
authorities and councils which currently use in-house electoral
registration systems and those who may not have a dedicated Electoral
Registration Officer.
— Access to data—the Electoral
Register is one of the most complete lists of adults. The practical
and resource implications for local authorities of any requirement
to be placed on local authorities (for example in the compilation
of the national register to support ID cards) to provide information
from their databases will need to be addressed.
— Responsibility for compiling and
maintaining the register should remain a local function. However,
if a national electronic register were introduced there could
be merit in an independent organisation like the Electoral Commission
having a role in setting standards.
13. Improving current arrangements: EROs
should have discretion to decide how to compile the electoral
register and to decide whether to continue with an annual canvass
or move towards an audit process—including 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 the address.
14. We believe that there needs to be a
balance between facilitating a more accessible and user friendly
system with the need to maintain or Improve the security of the
poll and the prevention of fraud. We need to ensure that Electoral.
Registration Officers have the necessary took to maximise registration
levels—the are the ability to share data and effective enforcement
procedures against non registration. The Department of Constitutional
Affairs (DCA) has published guidance on the legal framework applying
data sharing in the public sector in November 2003. This guidance
is supported by a toolkit and data sharing library which are available
on the DCA website. The toolkit and library are limited in their
content and there needs to be publicity to bring their content
to the attention of all public sector bodies.
15. Lastly there may also be advantages
in reviewing the different categories of voting eligibility for
UK elections. For example, UK citizens are eligible to vote in
Parliamentary, European and local elections whilst European Union
citizens are entitled to vote in both European and local government
elections but not in Parliamentary elections.
| 
