Annex
FURTHER EVIDENCE
SOLACE is pleased to be able to supplement its
earlier written evidence with further comments on this Bill.
In particular, the following measures are identified
as being a welcome addition to the electoral process:
— Reducing the age of candidacy
from 21 to 18 should, hopefully, encourage greater interest from
young people in the political process. At the moment this age
group is particularly under-represented in all turnout statistics
for voting and it would be hoped that younger candidates would
attract more interest from their peer group. This is true at both
local and national levels.
— Establishing a system of anonymous
registration for people whose safety could be compromised if their
addresses were known is a helpful step forward. In recent years
local authorities have made great progress in establishing, for
instance, safe houses for those spouses threatened by domestic
violence and it simply defeats the point of those measures if
their location is made known publicly. Those people so threatened
are perfectly entitled to both vote and lead a secure life. In
the past, electoral registration officers have tried various methods
to achieve this with varying degrees of confidence about the legal
basis of their action—eg it is known that some London boroughs
have registered people with an address of the Town Hall.
— The proposed replacing of stamping
instruments with a security mark is again welcomed. Stamping instruments
are a feature of a system that is simply not suitable for the
21st Century and have a most unfortunate habit of breaking down
at the most inconvenient time. They are cumbersome to use, require
maintenance and are an unnecessary expense. Watermarks and bar
codes are certainly more in keeping with the contemporary world.
INDIVIDUAL REGISTRATION—TO
PILOT OR
NOT TO
PILOT?
SOLACE understands the disappointment of others
(eg the Electoral Commission) that there has been no single step
forward to introduce individual registration on a national basis.
Whilst we recognise the strong views held by some on this, we
are also aware of the Government's concerns regarding a substantial
change in process that could lead to very significant diminution
of names on the register. The Northern Ireland experience is a
very useful one to learn from but we are also aware that some
in Whitehall believe that its lessons are not simply totally transferable
to the rest of the country. The Society would wish to represent
the views of its members accurately and, whilst the majority might
favour universal introduction of individual registration, there
will be a number who understand the Government's viewpoint and
adopt the typically pragmatic approach of a chief executive.
Piloting will have some advantages in that it
will clearly identify the real costs of this scheme and the resources
needed to carry it out successfully. Also it will be clear, if
pilots are properly organised across the United Kingdom, how many
names actually come off the register.
SOLACE notes from Hansard that the Minister
has recognised the need for extra resources and has identified
the sum of £17 million for local authorities across two years
to carry out this work. The Society would like to see more details
of how this sum was both calculated and how it is intended to
administer it. It must be fairly said that the record of Central
Government in introducing new duties for Local Government and
then providing adequate resources for their introduction and implementation
is not good. There are many instances of local authorities having,
at the end of the day, to subsidise new duties because of insufficient
Government grant.
Another key point here is in connection with
the proper training of both electoral registration officers and
their staff for individual registration. It may be easier to achieve
this if there is an incremental introduction following pilot schemes.
There are many chief executives who find both the duties of returning
officer and electoral registration officer singularly demanding
and unattractive. The role of chief executives in a modern local
authority is both constantly changing and highly pressurised.
To add further responsibilities without proper training will simply
create more problems. The Society particularly finds this amongst
its newer members who feel that the system as a whole is totally
outdated and does not address problems of democratic engagement
across all members of society. SOLACE would wish to see, at a
very early stage, a proper training programme published for consultation
so that it may comment constructively and seek to secure the best
possible outcome for all.
POLLING PLACE
REVIEW
A final point worthy of note is the proposed
review of polling places. Such reviews are quite commonplace throughout
the country as buildings both fall into disuse and, for instance,
community centres are built. However, the issue is getting more
and more difficult because of access for disabled people. SOLACE
clearly wishes all polling stations to be easily accessible by
those with disabilities, but the reality is that in many places
this is simply not possible as buildings suitably modified do
not exist. We wish, for example, in rural areas to ensure that
people in villages are not inconvenienced by having to travel
many miles to a polling station (environmentally unsustainable
in any event) but many villages in rural areas do not have suitable
premises to meet the needs of the disabled. The rather na-ve
view that we can put ramps in above steps is simply unrealistic
for many buildings and can add to danger rather than increase
access. There is no easy answer to this problem but various lobby
groups pressurise returning officers and SOLACE would wish to
draw attention to this problem. The Society's members and the
AEA are trying to do their best under very difficult circumstances.
November 2005
| 
