Conclusions and recommendations
Introduction
1. We welcome the
fact that these proposals have been published for pre-legislative
scrutiny by us, as well as for wider consultation. (Paragraph
6)
Registration as personal choice
2. We welcome the
Government's acknowledgment that care needs to be taken not to
make it too easy for people to opt out from what is still regarded
as a public duty, even under the Government's current proposal
that failure to register to vote should not be a criminal offence.
We urge the Government to take the necessary steps in this direction
in the Bill. (Paragraph 23)
3. We recommend that
it should initially be an offence to fail to complete a voter
registration form when asked to do so by the relevant electoral
registration officer. This should be reviewed after five years
of operation of the new system of individual registration, by
which time registration levels may be high enough and a culture
of individual registration sufficiently embedded for compulsion
no longer to be necessary. (Paragraph 28)
Constituency boundaries
4. For the next parliamentary
constituency boundary reviews to be fair and representative, electoral
registers across the country need to be at least as complete—and
as consistently complete—as they are now. The Government
needs to ensure that its proposals will achieve this end. (Paragraph
32)
5. There is a risk
that the electoral registers in December 2015 will be particularly
varied in their levels of completeness: this matters because they
will be used under current legislation as the basis for the next
boundary review. We recommend using instead the registers as they
stood on or before general election day in May 2015. (Paragraph
33)
Groups at most risk of failing to register
6. We recommend that
the Electoral Commission's public information campaign around
the launch of individual registration include as an important
element strands aimed at encouraging those in groups currently
under-represented on the electoral rolls to register to vote.
(Paragraph 36)
7. There may be a
small number of people who neither have the required documentation
nor are able to travel to an office to attest to their identity.
We recommend that the Government ensure that people in this situation
are not deprived of their right to vote. (Paragraph 39)
Improving registration rates
8. We recommend that
the edited register should be abolished. (Paragraph 43)
Identifying duplicate entries
9. We recommend that
the Government explore ways of improving the sharing of information
between local authorities, especially where potential electors
move house. (Paragraph 49)
Canvass arrangements for 2014
10. We recommend that
the Government take steps to ensure that the electoral registers
used for identifying individuals in the initial round of invitations
to register under IER, as well as those used for the 2015 general
election, are as accurate and complete as possible. We have heard
serious concerns that the Government's current proposals will
miss an unacceptably large number of potential electors, and calls
from many of our witnesses for a full household canvass in 2014
to address this problem. We believe, given the unique circumstances
of the change to IER, that the Government should reconsider its
decision not to hold a full household canvass in 2014. (Paragraph
59)
11. One alternative
to holding a full annual household canvass in 2014 would be to
identify those parts of the country with a significant level of
annual turnover on the electoral register, and to provide for
something like the usual annual household canvass to take place
in 2014 just in those areas. For this to happen, some parts of
the country will need more funding than others. We recommend that
the Government confirm that this is its intention. (Paragraph
60)
Postal and proxy voting
12. We recommend that
the Government look closely at applying the same carry-forward
arrangements for the 2015 General Election to postal and proxy
registrations as to other registrations, to avoid inadvertently
disenfranchising vulnerable electors. (Paragraph 66)
13. We recommend that
the Government take the opportunity provided by the introduction
of individual registration to consider dropping the requirement
of a signature as a personal identifier to cast a postal vote
once IER is well-established. This is because of the unreliability
of the signature as a personal identifier, and because those electors
wishing to cast a postal vote under IER will already have had
their identity verified by other means. (Paragraph 69)
Resources
14. We recommend that
the Government publish the information, including draft secondary
legislation that electoral administrators need to deliver the
necessary infrastructure for individual registration, as soon
as possible after the Individual Electoral Registration Bill is
introduced. (Paragraph 75)
15. We conclude that
there is a strong case for the Electoral Commission to be given
powers to intervene where EROs consistently fail to meet agreed
performance standards. (Paragraph 77)
16. We recommend that
the Government ensure that the funding it provides to support
local authorities with the transition to IER is ring-fenced for
this purpose. (Paragraph 78)
Data matching
17. The evidence we
have received suggests that data matching will be of limited effectiveness,
especially in identifying potential electors. We recommend that
the Electoral Commission publish its evaluations of the pilots
before second reading of the Bill, in order to inform debate.
(Paragraph 83)
18. Data matching
can only be a success if local authorities are provided with the
information they need in a timely and helpful way. We regret that
the Ministry of Defence has taken so long to co-operate with at
least one of the data matching pilots. This suggests that there
may be a need for better central co-ordination and ministerial
oversight of the data matching programme. (Paragraph 84)
Treatment of personal data
19. The Government's
proposals for data collection, retention and disposal appear to
us to be proportionate. However, much of the detail is still unknown.
(Paragraph 89)
Draft electoral administrations provisions
20. The proposals
published in July have been widely supported. We have had only
a very limited opportunity to test the proposals published in
September. (Paragraph 92)
21. We recommend keeping
the deadline for postal vote applications at eleven days before
polling day. (Paragraph 93)
22. Unless strong
evidence should emerge to the contrary, we recommend that the
Recess Elections Act should be amended to allow writs to be issued
in recess for any vacancies that arise where a Member effectively
resigns their seat. (Paragraph 94)
23. The provisions
published in draft by the Government are largely technical, but
the Government needs to be able to explain why it is making the
package of proposals that it is, and why it is not taking forward
other proposals for change in electoral law, particularly those
put forward by the Electoral Commission. (Paragraph 96)
24. We recommend that
in its response to this Report, the Government set out its position
on each of the Electoral Commission's proposals for further reform
of electoral administration law. (Paragraph 100)
| 
