2 Principle
7. The principle of moving to individual electoral
registration is widely accepted. It was first recommended by the
Electoral Commission in 2003[5]
and subsequently by the Committee on Standards in Public Life
in 2007, which noted at the time that
"There appears to be a consensus among political
parties, the Electoral Commission and most electoral administrators
that individual registration, as opposed to registration completed
and signed by one named person in the household, is likely to
be a more accurate means of registering eligible voters. Individuals
would then be responsible for their own registration in order
to vote. There are however differences of view as to the pace
at which such an important change should be made".[6]
8. The three largest political parties all continue
to support the principle of individual registration.[7]
Their approach to its implementation is very different, however.
In 2005, the Labour Government brought forward an Electoral Administration
Bill, which provided for pilots to require personal identifiers
(such as date of birth and national insurance number [NINO]) at
registration before a general introduction of this measure. Although
enacted, these provisions have not been brought into force. The
current Coalition Government's draft clauses would replace them
on the statute book and would make individual registration compulsory
in 2014 for those who wish to vote by postal or proxy, and for
all following the general election in May 2015.
9. The Electoral Commission has summarised the benefits
and risks of moving to a system of individual registration. The
benefits are simple:
to improve the security of the system, making it
less vulnerable to fraud;
to recognise people's personal responsibility for
this important stake in our democracy; and
for a system that people recognise as up-to-date,
not rooted in Victorian ideas about households and 'heads of household'.[8]
10. The Commission also identifies potential areas
of concern that the new system must tackle:
any new system must deal especially with the issue
of home-movers, which means dealing with duplicate entries;
not losing the strengths of the current system in
terms of completeness—the current annual canvass approach
produces high levels of completeness;
designing a transition process that ensures that
eligible people who are currently on the register, but only because
someone else has entered them, do not drop off the register simply
because they are not used to, or have problems with, the registration
process; and
reassuring people that the personal data they will
be asked to provide, will be kept safe.[9]
11. The Government's proposals need to be judged
against the extent to which they achieve these benefits and minimise
these concerns.
12. In Northern Ireland the introduction of IER led
to improved accuracy of the register, as duplicate and ineligible
entries were identified and received, although the completeness
of the register did also drop. A new system of registration in
Great Britain will only be successful if it improves both the
accuracy and completeness of the electoral registers, with the
ultimate aim of re-building public trust in our electoral processes.
5 Electoral Commission, The electoral registration
process: Report and recommendations, May 2003, Chapter 2 Back
6
Committee on Standards in Public Life, Eleventh Report, Review
of the Electoral Commission, Cm 7006, para 6.4 Back
7
Ev w25 Back
8
Ev 100 Back
9
Ev 100 Back
| 
