4 Recent developments
Individual
Electoral Registration
41. By far the most significant change that has been
made to electoral administration during the course of the 2010
Parliament is the move, in Great Britain, to Individual Electoral
Registration (IER), where each eligible elector will need to register
to vote individually, as compared to the previous system where
one member of a household completed an electoral registration
form on behalf of all members of the household. The main rationale
for introducing IER was to help to tackle electoral fraud and
improve confidence in the electoral register,[95]
although the Electoral Commission has also stated that it is right
that "people are able to take individual responsibility for
their own vote."[96]
IER went live in England and Wales on 10 June 2014, and
in Scotland on 19 September 2014 (it has been operating in Northern
Ireland since 2002). Under the new system, people need to provide
identifying information, such as their date of birth and national
insurance number, when applying to register, and applications
need to be verified before voters are added to the register. We
have previously reported on the Government's White Paper and draft
Bill for IER that was published in 2011, and found that there
was general agreement in principle that IER was the right move
for electoral registration in Great Britain, but raised some concerns
about the implementation of IER.[97]
We have since held a number of follow up sessions looking
at readiness for the implementation phase.[98]
REQUIREMENT TO REGISTER
42. Electoral registration in the UK is not compulsory,
but the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 does
provide for Electoral Registration Officers to "require [a]
person to make an application for registration by a specified
date", and impose a civil penalty on anyone failing to do
so.[99] The Government
stated in 2012:
This will provide appropriate encouragement for
people to do their civic duty and register to vote. However,
it is not our intention to see large numbers of people fined,
and so there will be safeguards in place to ensure that EROs
are required to take specific steps to encourage an application
and only those who refuse repeated invitations can be fined.[100]
It is also an offence under the Representation of
the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 to fail to comply
with a request for information from an ERO.[101]
43. We believe it is an inseparable part of the
UK's social contract that in a democracy every citizen should,
as a bare minimum, register to vote. We recommend that the
legal requirements to register to vote are clarified, and that
this basic civil duty be enforced.
CONFIRMATION PROCESS
44. As part of the transition to IER, the names and
addresses of electors currently on the electoral register are
being matched with records held on the Department for Work and
Pensions database. Electoral Registration Officers are also matching
electoral register records with local authority databases. Individuals
whose records can be matched are automatically "confirmed"
on to the new electoral register, while those who are not confirmed
will be contacted and told that they need to register individually.
Every person currently on the electoral register will be written
to by their Electoral Registration Officer stating either that
they have been confirmed and need to take no further action, or
that they have not been confirmed and need to register individually.
We were told by the Electoral Commission in September that around
12 local authorities had delayed the write-out due to IT issues,
but that this would not "significantly impact upon the overall
programme".[102]
45. When we spoke to Jenny Watson in September 2014,
she gave us some provisional data on the confirmation process,
telling us:
The national match rate with the DWP is running
at 79% so far and the national match rate following local data
matching is running at 86% so far, so you can see that the local
data matching is playing an important part. The variation in the
match rate across England and Wales with DWP
varies from 47% to 87%, so that gives you the scale of the variation
across the country. The variation after the local data matching
is added in is between 70% and 97%.[103]
Phil Thompson, Research and Evaluation Manager at
the Electoral Commission, also stated:
the local data matching does appear to be dealing
quite well with groups who we knew would not get matched through
DWP, people who are moving around a lot, private renters, young
people, that kind of thing. So it does look like local matching
with council tax and other data sources is picking up that kind
of group of people.[104]
46. The Electoral Commission published its report
on the confirmation process in England and Wales on 22 October
2014. The key findings were:
· Approximately
36.9 million electoral register entries were matched (corresponding
to 87% of the total number of records on the electoral registers
sent for matching).
· 5.5 million
electors could not be positively matched with the DWP database
or through local data matching (LDM) and could therefore not be
automatically transferred onto the new IER registers.
· The proportion
of electors matched at local authority and ward level varied considerably.
· The match rate
for attainerspeople aged 16 and 17 who will turn 18 during
the period the register is in forcehas declined significantly
since the test of confirmation. It is down to 52% from 86% in
2013.
· 329 EROs reported
undertaking local data matching while 19 did not. Some of these
19 are planning to carry out local data matching work later in
the transition period.[105]
Jenny Watson told us: "Despite this encouraging
progress, there is much work still to be done during the next
stage of the transition. EROs now need to focus their efforts
on targeting the existing electors whose entries could not be
matched, as well as those not currently on the registers at all."[106]
ONLINE REGISTRATION
47. Under IER, it is now possible to register to
vote online at https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote, although it
is still possible to register by post using a form. Several witnesses
told us that the option to register online could have substantial
positive effects for registration rates, particularly for young
people. Both Toni Pearce of the NUS and Michael Sani from Bite
the Ballot gave a warm welcome to the option to register to vote
online, with Toni Pearce saying it "would have a massive
impact on the number of young people registered to vote."[107]
Simon Woolley of Operation Black Vote also told us he was "encouraged
that the Electoral Commission and the Government will soon have
online voter registration."[108]
John Turner, Chief Executive of the AEA, told us "there
will be some benefit and improvement in what is largely going
to be the digital route into registration now, but it won't solve
all of the problems."[109]
Jenny Watson told us:
The move to individual electoral registration,
and in particular the new system of online registration that went
live successfully on 10 June, gives us some real opportunities
and there is enthusiasm both in the electoral community and beyond
about how we can explore new ways to engage with voters to get
them registered now we have a modern registration system.[110]
48. When we spoke to Jenny Watson most recently,
she told us that "feedback on the online system itself, from
those who have used it, has been positive so far, but there is
still a huge amount of work to do."[111]
The Minister told us on 9 September:
Since the launch of IER, the digital service
has processed 1.5 million applications. Over 80% of these were
made through online registration; over 90% of users have provided
feedback saying they are very satisfied.[112]
40% of new applications to register to vote were
from people under the age of 35.[113]
As of 16 October 2014, 1.8 million applications to register
to vote had been made online.[114]
MONITORING OF IMPLEMENTATION
49. As part of ongoing monitoring of the implementation
of IER, the Electoral Commission will be producing several reports
throughout the transition phase. These include:
· October
2014on the confirmation process;[115]
· February 2015on
the write-out and canvass, and
· June 2015on
the May 2015 elections.
Jenny Watson told us that "At every stage we
will also give an assessment on progress against our performance
standards." [116]
The Commission will not be able to report on the completeness
and accuracy of the first electoral register produced under IER
until after June 2015.[117]
RISKS OF INDIVIDUAL ELECTORAL REGISTRATION
50. Although several of our witnesses were positive
about the possible impact of IER, we also heard concerns that
the new system could have an adverse impact on registration levels
and voter turnout,[118]
and could have a particularly adverse impact on certain
groups. When Northern Ireland moved to individual electoral registration
in 2002, the first electoral register produced under the new system
had 10% fewer names than the final register produced under the
previous system.[119]
Dr Toby James stated that his research "suggests that
[IER] will have a negative effect on voter registration rates"
and that "These declines are likely to be especially significant
amongst young and mobile populations".[120]
IER will preclude "block registration" of students
in halls of residence, which the NUS stated "could have a
very negative impact on electoral participation amongst the student
population."[121]
The Electoral Commission's report on the confirmation process
in England and Wales identified one area where the transition
to IER has had a disproportionate impact, in relation to registration
rates for attainerspeople aged 16 and 17 who will turn
18 during the period the register is in force. The Commission's
report stated that the match rate for attainers has "declined
significantly since the test of confirmation", falling from
a match rate of 86% in 2013 to 52% during the live run in 2014.
51. The move to Individual Electoral Registration
has created both opportunities and challenges. Making it possible
to register online is an extremely welcome change, and one that
has been taken up by over 1.8 million people already. Moving registration
online will make registration more accessible to many people and
will also make it much easier for groups working to increase registration
rates to run more effective campaigns.
52. Implementation of IER also presents risks.
5.5 million registered voters have not yet been transferred to
the new electoral register following data matching. A disproportionate
number of these people are from particular groupsprivate
tenants, students and attainers. We recommend that every effort
is made by Electoral Registration Officers to reach all registered
voters who have not been automatically transferred to the new
register, to give them the opportunity to register under the new
system. The Electoral Commission must make it a priority to ensure
that this happens and we are asking the Commission to give a progress
report to us in the New Year. We understand that the Cabinet Office
is considering another canvass in the spring to improve the electoral
register before the election. The committee fully endorses this.
END OF TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
53. Under provisions of the Electoral Registration
and Administration Act 2013, if voters have not been added to
the new electoral registereither through the confirmation
process, or by applying under the new registration systemthey
will be removed from the register in December 2016.[122]
However, the administration in office after the 2015 election
will be able to bring forward the date at which transitional arrangements
end to December 2015.[123]
This would affect who was registered to vote ahead of elections
in May 2016 for the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, the Mayor
of London, and various local elections. The Electoral Commission
will provide advice to the Government in June 2015 on whether
it thinks such a decision would be appropriate. Jenny Watson told
us that before giving this advice the Commission would look not
only at the impact nationally, "but also the variation across
the country".[124]
54. The Commission will not have completed its research
on the completeness and accuracy of the new electoral registers
before giving this advice, and will therefore not have detailed
information about how particular groups would be affected by bringing
forward the date on which transitional arrangements end.[125]
Despite that, Phil Thompson, Research and Evaluation Manager
at the Electoral Commission, told us:
What we will be able to do is what we did for
the assessment of the confirmation process, which is look at the
variation across the country in rates of response to the write-out
and things like that in relation to known demographic things about different
local authorities. We may well be able to see that local authorities
that have a large number of private renters are the ones with
lower response rates, for example. It won't be quite as definitive
as one of our full registration studies but it should tell us
if there is a problem.[126]
Jenny Watson stated that: "we are focused on
those important elections in May 2016 and we would need to see
some compelling evidence that it was appropriate for the transition
date to be brought forward".[127]
When we asked Sam Gyimah MP about the IER programme, he told us:
we are confident that there should be no overall
reduction in the completeness of the register. That is the most
important issue, that we don't have an overall reduction.[128]
55. Under current arrangements, the next review of
Parliamentary constituency boundaries will be undertaken on the
basis of the December 2015 electoral registers, meaning that the
decision of whether to bring forward the end date for transitional
arrangements could have a substantial impact on the level of changes
proposed in the next review of constituency boundaries. This is
an issue we intend to consider as part of our current inquiry
into arrangements for redrawing of parliamentary constituency
boundaries.
56. It is essential that, before it advises the
Government on whether it is appropriate to bring forward the end
date for the transitional arrangements for IER, the Electoral
Commission consider not just the "headline" figures
of how many people would drop off the register if the end of the
transition period were brought forward, but pay particular attention
to the differential impact across the country, and different demographic
groups. We will be closely monitoring the Electoral Commission's
reports on the progress of the transition to IER, and we recommend
that the select committee with oversight of the process in the
2015 Parliament continue this monitoring. We recommend that, with
5.5 million voters not yet confirmed on to the new electoral register,
unless the electoral registers are substantially more complete
than at present by May 2015, the Government not bring forward
the end date for the transitional arrangements for IER.
57. As well as the direct impact on the quality
of the electoral registers, the Government and Parliament will
need to consideras we are currently doing in our inquiry
into the rules for redrawing parliamentary constituency boundarieshow
any bringing forward of the end of transitional arrangements will
affect the next review of parliamentary constituency boundaries.
Additional funding to maximise
registration
58. In light of the move to IER, in July 2013 the
Government announced that it was making £4.2 million available
to help maximise voter registration.[129]
£3.6 million will be distributed to local authorities,
and just over £200,000 will be spent on Innovation Fund grants
to organisations that try to reach groups that are "most
distant from the political process".[130]
We took evidence about two projects that had been funded
by such grantsthe Hansard Society's project with Homeless
Link,[131] and
the "Hear my voice" campaign being run my Mencapand
were told that these would focus on registering particularly hard-to-reach
groups.[132] We
also heard some criticism of how the funding had been made available.
Michael Sani, Executive Director of Bite the Ballot, told us "the
whole process has not been as well thought out as it could have
been" and that "it felt as though the Cabinet Office
had not thought through the tender with the organisations that
were best placed to deliver."[133]
Simon Woolley, Director of Operation Black Vote, criticised
the level of funding that had been made available, stating:
You will be aware that the Cabinet Office announced
a voter registration campaign before Christmas. I think the budget
was some £4 million over three months to solve a problem
that has been going on for decades.[134]
The Electoral Commission's report on the confirmation
stated that the Commission was in discussion with the Cabinet
Office about "potential for additional funding being provided
to EROs to support them with their work to maximise registration
between the publication of the revised registers and the May 2015
polls."
59. Evenor especiallyin a time of
austerity it is vital that funding for elections is protected.
While we welcome the £4.2 million the Government has made
available to maximise registration during the transition to IER,
it is likely that further funding will be necessary to ensure
that levels of voter registration are not adversely affected by
the implementation of IER. We recommend that in order to safeguard
levels of voter participation, the Government commit in its response
to us to look favourably on requests for additional funding to
be made available to EROs to support their work in maintaining
and enhancing the levels of electoral registration, and to
other bodies and organisations that have a proven track record
of increasing voter registration in the most economical and effective
way possible. We also recommend that the Electoral Commission
look into service level agreements with agencies, bodies and organisations
such as Bite the Ballot and Operation Black Vote who have a proven
track record in increasing electoral registration and can do it
a fraction of the cost of the Electoral Commission or Government
Departments.
Electoral Commission work on
electoral fraud
60. The Electoral Commission has issued several reports
focusing on electoral fraud in the UK. The foreword to their latest
report looking at electoral fraud, published in January 2014,
stated:
Electoral fraud is a serious issue. One of the
Electoral Commission's priorities is to ensure both that fraud
is prevented from happening and that it is swiftly detected in
the relatively rare circumstances that it is committed.
Despite some high-profile cases in recent years
when fraud has been detected and punished, there is no evidence
to suggest that there have been widespread, systematic attempts
to undermine or interfere with recent elections through electoral
fraud.[135]
When we asked Jenny Watson about the scale of electoral
fraud, she told us:
You will know from the report that we said it
is relatively rare. There are 16 local authorities out of around
380 that are at greater risk. In those local authorities it is
not the whole local authority area. It is usually a few wards
and it is much more likely to happen at local government elections.[136]
Despite the very low number of convictions for electoral
fraud, Jenny Watson told us:
There certainly is a perception [of electoral
fraud], and we look at this after every election, and it is pretty
stubborn perception. Around 30% of people believe that fraud is
taking place.[137]
ELECTORAL COMMISSION PROPOSALS
61. The Electoral Commission's most recent report
on electoral fraud included a number of proposals that it has
suggested in order "to tighten our electoral system against
fraud." The proposals are:
· Renewing
efforts in targeted areas to ensure that voters can be confident
that their vote is safe;
· Preventing
campaigners from handling postal votes, and
· Moving to a
system where voters are required to produce identification at
polling stations.[138]
The report explains the rationale for these measures,
stating:
In making our recommendations for change, we
have been conscious of the need to strike the right balance between
making the system accessible, and making it secure. Getting this
right will mean that voters and candidates can participate in
elections, but corrupt campaigners cannot win votes through fraud.
62. When asked about the proposals, Jenny Watson
told us that, although IER created a "secure registration
system", there was a still "a vulnerability around in-person
voting", which led the Commission to "recommend some
kind of ID for polling stations by 2019".[139]
Several of our witnesses raised concerns with the Electoral
Commission's proposals around requiring photo ID at polling stations.
Comments included:
· "We
would be very worried that introducing any document check at the
polls would have serious adverse effects on turnout."[140]
· "We have
some concerns about that [
] because we think it is putting
up barriers to voting."[141]
· "how do
you ensure that everybody has a photo ID so they can turn up to
vote and their vote will be counted?"[142]
Dr Maria Sobolewska also told us she believed the
proposals would have a particular effect on BME voters.[143]
Jenny Watson did acknowledge the possible adverse impact of requiring
ID at polling stations, stating:
One of the things that we will need to be mindful
of is whether that would impose any unnecessary barriers for people.
We do need to get the balance right between accessibility and
security, and that is one of the things that we will be looking
at very carefully as we do this work.[144]
63. However, others supported the proposals. John
Turner, Chief Executive of the AEA, told us "there is too
much of an opportunity for impersonation to take place in certain
areas", and that introducing the requirement would not necessarily
have an adverse impact on turnout.[145]
Yet some thought it would have little impact. Alasdair Buckle,
President of the University of Sheffield Students' Union, doubted
it would reduce participation for students, as "Most students
will carry some form of identification on them at most times."[146]
When we asked the Minister about these proposals, he told us:
Any measures to change the electoral system obviously
have to strike a balance between safeguarding the integrity of
the election but also ensuring voters are able to participate
in elections. In terms of verifying identity at polling stations
that you mentioned, allegations are not widespread and are more
likely to be recorded in areas at high risk of electoral fraud,
so it is not clear that we need a nationwide ID scheme as a proportionate
solution.
Requiring ID at polling station could disenfranchise
legitimate voters who forget to take their ID with them or who
are put off going because they do not have appropriate ID.[147]
64. Any fraud committed in elections undermines
our democratic system and must be dealt with severely. That said,
with only three convictions for electoral fraud in 2013all
of candidates and not voterscompared with 7.5 million people
not being correctly registered to vote, and almost 16 million
not voting in the last general election, it is clear where the
biggest issue lies in respect of electoral administration in the
UK. It is essential that any changes to electoral registration
and voting procedures intended to combat fraud are proportionate
to the scale of the problem. The benefits of measures that could
create barriers for legitimate voters wishing to participate in
elections need to be carefully weighed against the potential risk
of voter suppression. Any new measures likely to have a disproportionate
negative impact on groups that are already less likely to participate
at elections must be assessed with the utmost care.
65. Several of our witnesses raised particular
concerns about the Electoral Commission's proposal that voters
be required to present photographic ID at polling stations. We
believe that such a requirement cannot be justified at present,
and we recommend against its adoption.
95 Individual Electoral Registration, Gov.uk Back
96
Electoral Registration, Electoral Commission Back
97
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Tenth Report of
Session 2010-12, Individual Electoral Registration and Administration,
HC 1463, November 2011 Back
98
Readiness for Individual Electoral Registration, HC 796, 7 November
2013, and Individual Electoral Registration - April 2014, HC 1188,
10 April 2014 Back
99
Section 5, Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 Back
100
Government introduces legislation for individual electoral registration,
Cabinet Office, May 2012 Back
101
Regulation 23, The Representation of the People (England and Wales)
Regulations 2001 Back
102
Q696 [Jenny Watson and Phil Thompson] Back
103
Q693 [Jenny Watson] Back
104
Q693 [Phil Thompson] Back
105
Analysis of the confirmation live run in England and Wales, Electoral
Commission, October 2014 Back
106
Written evidence from the Electoral Commission [VUK 164] Back
107
Q190 [Toni Pearce], Q214 [Michael Sani] Back
108
Q372 [Simon Woolley] Back
109
Q267 [John Turner] Back
110
Q517 [Jenny Watson] Back
111
Q692 [Jenny Watson] Back
112
Q812 [Sam Gyimah MP] Back
113
Q712 [Jenny Watson] Back
114
Analysis of the confirmation live run in England and Wales, Electoral
Commission, October 2014 Back
115
This report was published on 21 October 2014, and is available
on the Electoral Commission's website. Back
116
Q692 [Jenny Watson] Back
117
Q709 [Jenny Watson] Back
118
Written evidence from Charles Pattie, University of Sheffield,
Ron Johnston, University of Bristol, David Cutts, Bath University,
and Laura Palfreyman, Peaks College [VUK 19], Democratic Audit
[VUK 20], Dr Maria Sobolewska, University of Manchester, and Professor
Anthony Heath, Universities of Manchester and Oxford [VUK 30],
Smartmatic Limited [VUK 41] Back
119
Continuous electoral registration in Northern Ireland, Electoral
Commission, November 2012 Back
120
Written evidence from Dr Toby James [VUK 26] Back
121
Written evidence from the NUS [VUK 34] Back
122
Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013,
Part 2, Schedule 5, Para 5 Back
123
Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013,
Part 7, Schedule 5, Para 28 Back
124
Q698 [Jenny Watson] Back
125
Q709 [Jenny Watson] Back
126
Q709 [Phil Thompson] Back
127
Q733 [Jenny Watson] Back
128
Q808 [Sam Gyimah MP] Back
129
New government campaign to get people on the electoral register,
Gov.uk, 4 July 2013 Back
130
Funding for new ways to encourage voter registration, Gov.uk,
5 February 2014 Back
131
Q101 [Dr Ruth Fox] Back
132
Q316 [Rob Holland] Back
133
Q218 [Michael Sani] Back
134
Q355 [Simon Woolley] Back
135
Electoral Fraud in the UK, Electoral Commission, January 2014 Back
136
Q557 [Jenny Watson] Back
137
Q555 [Jenny Watson] Back
138
Electoral Fraud in the UK, Electoral Commission, January 2014 Back
139
Q557 [Jenny Watson] Back
140
Q73 [Professor Dunleavy] Back
141
Q130 [Will Brett] Back
142
Q44 [Glenn Gottfried] Back
143
Q339 [Dr Maria Sobolewska] Back
144
Q559 [Jenny Watson] Back
145
Qq 293, 297 [John Turner] Back
146
Q409 [Alasdair Buckle] Back
147
Qs 826-7 [Sam Gyimah MP] Back
|