Written evidence submitted by Chris Ruane
MP, Clive Betts MP, Andy Love MP and Russell Brown MP (PVSCB 18)
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute
to the pre legislative scrutiny on Government proposals for constitutional
change. As you know I have had a passionate interest in this issue
for the past nine years, having put down hundreds of PQs, spoken
many times in Parliament and had dozens of meetings with ministers
and the Electoral Commission.
The following are a few suggestions that we think
could improve the registration rates across the UK:
FUNDING
There is a huge disparity in the amount local
authorities spend from £4 per person in Orkney to nothing
in some local authorities. This should not be tolerated.
The resources to ensure the basic building block
of democracy—a full and accurate register—should not
be left to the whim of local authorities. When central government
has given additional resources for additional responsibilities
in the past there has been no way to find out if this money has
been spent correctly or just creamed off for another purpose.
There should be a central government funding
formula to recognise the difficulties of registering the under-registered
groups:
— black and ethnic groups (31% unregistered);
— young people (56% unregistered); and
— those in council and private rented accommodation
(56% unregistered).
This funding should be monitored to ensure that
it is spent on that purpose. The mechanisms are finally in place
to monitor this.
REGISTRATION FORMS
Standardise the registration form working with
the Plain English Society and those authorities that have the
best practice. There is no reason to have four hundred different
types of forms.
The whole thrust from ministers and the Electoral
Commission to date has been on inputs—is the ERO doing this
or that? There should, however, be greater focus on outcomes.
EROs may be using all the tools at their disposal and still not
achieving adequate registration rates. The bottom line is, are
registration rates improving within a local authority area or
nationally? There has been some success, especially over the election
period but it is not enough.
There are still over 3 million unregistered.
Where under registration remains there should be additional local
and national help, monitoring and focus until registrations rise.
There needs to be an ultimate sanction for those
who consistently fail. This may be the transfer of electoral registration
to a neighbouring authority who successfully carries out this
function. Should the Electoral Commission or the Department send
in a team of inspectors to put things right?
GREATER ACCESS
TO DATABASES
Currently EROs have access to databases within
their own local authority such as council tax and housing benefit.
These are valuable tools for cross referencing. EROs do not have
automatic access to university halls of residence, sixth form
and FE colleges or social landlords and housing associations databases.
Co-operation does exist between certain authorities and these
agencies but it is hit and miss. Stricter guidelines should be
put in place. Section 9A (3) allows the Secretary of State to
amend the list of the steps that must be taken by EROs to identify
people for registration.
Many of the unregistered are on benefits. Currently
central government databases are not allowed to be used for registration
purposes. I understand the sensitivity around access to databases,
especially after recent incidents such as the government data
discs found on roundabouts, but I think protocols should be developed
that would allow the use of these databases for the purpose of
registration.
THE PRIVATE
SECTOR
Can credit rating firms, like Experian, help
EROs identify the unregistered and encouraging them to register.
The biggest motivator for registration may not be the high minded
ideals of a participatory democracy but the need to be on the
electoral register to gain credit worthiness. The credit reference
companies are already being engaged by the current government
to help improve the national census. Experian and other such companies
have access to huge amounts of information that could help improve
registration.
ENFORCEMENT
It is an offence not to comply with a request
from an ERO for the information he requires in order to compile
the register- the penalty for not providing is a fine, currently
£1,000. However, there are very few prosecutions for not
completing the canvass form although EROs have a duty to ensure
that the register is as complete as possible (House of Commons
Research Paper Ref 2010/7/50PCC ).
Last year only two authorities (out of 404) prosecuted
non responders. EROs may feel it is not worth their time or effort
but some sanction is needed. A suggestion from a Welsh ERO is
that there should be a fixed penalty notice for not responding.
This would dispense with administrative cost. Repeat offending
could possibly be dealt with through the courts. Publicity about
non responders would help to reinforce the message that it is
illegal not to respond.
Section 9A (1.6) of the Electoral Admin Act
2006 states: "If the ERO fails to take steps where necessary,
they will be in breach of their official duty, which on summary
conviction can result in a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard
scale". If an ERO fails to take the necessary steps to
improve registration then this sanction should be fully implemented.
REPORTING BACK
TO ELECTED
MEMBERS
The issue of political interference in electoral
registration has never been addressed. There are no mechanisms
in place to deal with an authority that deliberately under funds
registration for political purposes.
When the Electoral Commission first published the
results of their survey of EROs performance (this was a self assessment),
they refused my request to circulate this information about the
performance of an individual MP's constituency/local authority
area saying: "the information was available on the web".
I had to cross reference information on council/constituency borders
to relay this information to MPs. This is not good enough. Each
MP and other elected representatives should have the information
concerning registration presented in a readable format on a yearly
basis.
The information on registration levels should
be accessible at ward level and members of devolved institutions
and local councillors should also have access to this information.
There is currently a democratic deficit with elected representatives
kept in the dark about registration.
IMPACT OF
INDIVIDUAL REGISTRATION
ON REGISTRATION
RATES
Many MPs were opposed to individual registration
because it would lead to even lower registration. This happened
in Northern Ireland with a 10% drop in registration when changes
were introduced. Northern Ireland continues to have the lowest
registration rates in the country.
Other MPs and I, who had reservations on this issue,
were persuaded by the previous Secretary of State, Jack Straw,
to drop our opposition to individual registration if there was
a twin track approach to improving registration before individual
registration was introduced. The time scale for this gave sufficient
time for this to be achieved.
It is my fear that this timescale will be considerably
shortened and registration will not be prioritised. There are
currently 3.5 million people missing off the electoral register.
If individual registration occurs without getting these missing
millions on the register then a further 10% drop would add another
4.5 million to those unregistered making a total of 8m missing
voters. These will be some of the most vulnerable people in society.
Can a modern democracy work with such huge numbers missing from
the democratic process
ANNUAL CANVAS
REPLACEMENT
Currently a substantial amount of the resources
available to electoral registration officers is spent on the annual
canvass. In reality what this means is that this resource is devoted
to identifying the fact that the vast majority of people who are
registered at an address in one year are still living, and want
to be registered, at the same address in the following year. However,
because of the fact that people do move between canvasses we effectively
have a system of overlapping methods of registration where the
annual canvass and returns are then complemented by a rolling
register which people can add their names to when they move.
In many other countries, and I use Australia as a
model, they spend all their resources dealing with people who
move, become 18, or die. Indeed when the ODPM select committee
visited Australia in 2004 to look at registration, their officials
were rather incredulous that, as they saw it, we should spend
most of our money dealing with households where nothing had changed.
If we abandoned the annual canvass we could
release all the resources for identifying those houses where no-one
was registered and tracking people who move or become eligible
to register through a whole variety of data. Sources such as council
tax, housing benefit, council and housing associations, tenancy
lists, schools, colleges and universities could be shared, as
well as those which we have not really looked closely at in this
country such as DWP, DVLA, Post Office and private utility companies.
From these sources we ought to be able to build a comprehensive
information base from which to identify anyone who moves property,
and these are the people we should than pursue to get them on
the register, or take them off the register, rather than the majority
of households who send back their canvass sheet each year filling
in the same information as last year.
22 July 2010
| 
