6 Improving levels of electoral registration
96. The evidence we have received on levels of electoral
registration was unanimous that the ideal situation is a complete
and accurate electoral register. Jenny Watson, Chair of the Electoral
Commission, told us:
We would all like to see a more complete register
and a more accurate register. There is no question about that.[218]
Similarly, when we took evidence from officials from
the Cabinet Office on IER, we were told:
Everyone wants the electoral register to be 100%
complete and 100% accurate—and then let the best candidate
win.[219]
And John Turner, Chief Executive of the AEA, stated:
clearly we would be in the game of wanting every
ERO to get as many people on the register as is legally and humanly
possible.[220]
Similar sentiments were expressed by Rt Hon Greg
Clark MP, Minister of State for Universities, Science and Cities,
who told us:
I think we should leave no stone unturned at
getting every one of those people who is not there on there. I
cannot give you a number for a target, because I think we should
be looking for every one of them, but I have always taken the
advice of this Committee and its members to keep the scrutiny
and indeed the pressure on everyone involved in the electoral
registration system to keep their sights high.[221]
97. We have identified several changes that could
not only increase the number of people registered to vote, but
also improve the administration of electoral registration more
broadly. We have also looked at the roles of Electoral Registration
Officers and the Electoral Commission.
98. However, we have been told that improvements
to electoral registration are not a 'silver bullet' to improve
levels of voter engagement. Glenn Gottfried told us that "although
the electoral registration question is an important one and we
should do all we can to ensure that people are registered, it
is still not necessarily going to stop the declining turnout levels."[222]
Dr Toby James shared this view, telling us that improving electoral
administration "takes us so far but of course, ultimately,
it is also about politicians and parties."[223]
Jenny Watson also told us that in the context of the "disengagement
of people with politics in this country, […] electoral registration
officers are having to work harder than ever before simply to
keep up".[224]
Electoral Registration Officers
99. Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) are responsible
for maintaining the electoral registers for their area, and play
a vital role in the electoral registration process. Their legal
powers and obligations are set out in the Representation of the
People Act 1983.[225]
EROs have a key role in the implementation phase of IER, in terms
of contacting local electors and completing data matching with
local authority data. We have heard from several EROs as part
of our inquiry, and a number of them told us how they saw their
role. When we spoke to the ERO for Sheffield, he told us:
My responsibility and roles are to get people
registered, to inform them, to provide the administration that
enables them to be registered and to proactively look for those
people who are not there.[226]
Dr Dave Smith, ERO for Sunderland, told us:
I think we have a huge role to play [in getting
people registered to vote]. From my perspective, while there are
general national initiatives that can be taken to effect and improve
registration, there are some very local issues that make a big
difference to the impact on the number of people registered. […]
At a very local level it matters most to us to get as many people
registered as possible. It matters for all sorts of reasons, but
obviously principally from a principle of democracy and eligibility.[227]
PERFORMANCE
100. Since 2006 the Electoral Commission has set
and monitored performance standards for electoral officers. The
Electoral Commission first published standards for EROs in July
2008,[228] and developed
a new performance standards framework in light of the changes
brought in by IER, which was published in September 2013.[229]
Jenny Watson told us that these standards had made performance
"more transparent", stating:
You can see whether EROs are meeting the performance
standards or are not, and when they fail them we say so. […]
We are always developing our performance standards and we have
tried to make them, certainly for this year, much more dependent
on outcomes rather than on inputs and that is a change.[230]
Dr Toby James also told us he thought the introduction
of performance standards had been an "enormously positive
development", stating:
It has meant that EROs have learned and shared
good practice from each other. I think the scheme has been very
effective through a kind of system of naming and shaming and has
brought down the number of EROs who don't meet the various criteria
over time.[231]
He noted that the current performance standards focused
on processes, rather than outputs, such as registration rates.
He told us that an alternative approach would be to include outputs
in the performance standards, although such an approach was untested.[232]
101. The Electoral Commission has no power to compel
EROs to act if they fail to fulfil their duties set out in the
Representation of the People Act 1983, but they can recommend
that the Secretary of State issue a direction to an ERO.[233]
Jenny Watson told us that the Electoral Commission had not
advised the Secretary of State to issue a direction to an ERO
in relation to a failure to meet the Commission's performance
standards, but that it was a possible further action would be
taken should a local authority failed to conduct house to house
enquiries during the current canvass.[234]
102. We have heard evidence questioning whether there
were sufficient mechanisms in place to deal with EROs who do not
fulfil their legal duties or meet the performance standards produced
by the Electoral Commission. John Turner, Chief Executive of the
AEA, told us that "until you have some means of ensuring
that the will of Parliament can be enforced, [special measures]
may be the only answer that would work."[235]
Jenny Watson told us that if there was going to be a special measures
regime, it would be helpful to identify "the purpose of it"
and also "how it would be sustainable in the longer term".[236]
Dr Toby James stated that there "is a case for targeting
support for authorities that are continuously not meeting the
standards", and that "MPs could do more […] to
put pressure on local authorities that do not meet the standards".[237]
Paul Lankester, ERO for Stratford-on-Avon, told us:
we are trying very much to improve performance
within the sector by the sector and I think there is a role for
us to try to get colleagues to act in a way that ensures we get
it through changes in behaviour in those registration officers
[…]. I would prefer to say give it to us as local government
to sort out our colleagues who are not doing that. That is the
right way forward and we will certainly try to help and promote
good practice in ensuring it is there. But in terms of sanctions,
sanctions need to be used very carefully and need to be used in
a way that befits the situation.[238]
A subsequent written submission from Dr Dave Smith
outlined a proposal which the Society of Local Authority Chief
Executives (SOLACE)'s Elections and Democracy Board was putting
forward to the Electoral Commission and Cabinet Officer for a
set of regional pilots to form Electoral Boards, with the intention
of promoting greater levels of consistency in the electoral community
across each region, and of providing a support forum for EROs.[239]
103. In addition to looking at how underperforming
EROs could be dealt with, we have also looked at the possibilities
for recognising and sharing good practice. Dr Toby James told
us that performance standards could be revised on the basis of
"excellent work" by certain EROs, and that the Electoral
Commission should also "draw 'best practices' from
the 'best in the class' local authorities", which might allow
other local authorities to replicate their success.[240]
John Turner also highlighted the possibility of having exemplars
of best practice for electoral services.[241]
Jenny Watson said that "we think that is a very good
idea" to recognise best practice and that the Commission
"would be very happy to play any part that is appropriate
in running that."[242]
She also told us that the Commission was in the process
of setting up a new mechanism to share good practice, and that
"we could probably do more to share that with MPs and we
are thinking about how we might put that in place." The written
evidence from Sam Gyimah MP, the Minister for the Constitution,
stated:
Greg Clark and I have given some thought to the
proposal for a scheme to recognise good practice by EROs. We believe this
may have merit-particularly as a mechanism to promote the sharing
of good practice. But I know the Electoral Commission would want
to ensure that any scheme complements rather than competes with
the important work of the Electoral Commission's existing performance
standards regime. The Government may not be best placed to operate
or adjudicate on such a scheme, but there are a range of other
potential bodies which could play a useful role. I have asked
officials to consider options.[243]
104. The Electoral Commission's performance standards
have had a positive impact on the performance of Electoral Registration
Officers, and these should be maintained. We recommend that
in future targets for registration should be included in performance
standards for EROs. The Electoral Commission will need to consider
how such output targets should be set, and the steps which would
be most effective in securing attainment of such targets should
they not initially be achieved. Best practice, as identified by
EROs and the Commission, should also be incorporated in the performance
standards. We believe that the outcomes on the number and percentage
of those registered to vote should also be a key performance indicator
for the Electoral Commission.
105. We recommend that proposals for annually
recognising notable successes and best practice in electoral registration
be presented in the Government's response to this Report.
We also believe that MPs should be more closely engaged with
the monitoring of electoral registration in their constituencies
and that the Electoral Commission should provide them with specific
data on the outcomes of the number and percentage rates of registration
in each ward within their constituency. We recommend that the
Government commit to finding parliamentary time for an annual
debate in Parliament to allow registration issues to be discussed.
This could be held on National Voter Registration Day or on a
"Democracy Day".
House to house canvassing
106. One of the specific duties of EROs that we have
considered is the requirement to conduct house-to-house enquiries,
as stipulated by the Electoral Administration Act 2006, and set
out in the Electoral Commission's performance standards.[244]
The Electoral Administration Act 2006 states that EROs must
"must take all steps that are necessary for the purpose of
complying with his duty to maintain the registers", including
"making on one or more occasions house to house inquiries".
Both John Turner, Chief Executive of the AEA, and Dr Dave Smith,
ERO for Sunderland and lead on the Elections and Democracy Board
at the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, told us about
the importance of house-to-house canvassing in relation to electoral
registration.[245]
However, in 2013 there were 22 EROs (6% of all EROs) that
did not meet the house-to-house enquiry standard.[246]
When we questioned Jenny Watson about the failure of these
EROs to meet the performance standard relating to house-to-house
enquiries, she told us:
There are 22 EROs who have not met the house-to-house
standard, so that is 6% of the total. We are confident that their
plans for the implementation of IER show that they have plans
to meet that. If we find that they aren't—that could happen
at any point—then we will be talking to the Minister. We
are already talking to the Cabinet Office. We have a process in
place to ask for a direction quickly if we need it. I think had
we not seen the transition to IER being funded in the way that
it is, you might well have seen directions being asked for at
this point. Since it has been funded in the way that it is and
we are confident that EROs have the resources to do what needs
to be done, we haven't therefore yet sought to ask for a direction,
but I would not rule that out at all.[247]
107. As part of our inquiries, we took evidence from
two of the 22 local authorities that had failed to conduct house-to-house
enquiries during the 2013 canvass. Mark Williams, Chief Executive
and Electoral Registration Officer for East Devon District Council,
told us that "over the years we have developed a system whereby
through internal data matching, e-mailing and telephoning people
who were not on the register, we managed to do the same—if
not better—than just sending out people cold calling by
door knocking",[248]
and Kevin Finan, Chief Executive for Mid Devon District Council,
told us that he had "made the judgment that that was not
a good use of our money".[249]
Mr Williams also told us that "if the objective is
to get the voter to vote, you can do it through more amenable
ways for the voter, which is dealing with them through the phone
and through other means that they find more comfortable than necessarily
appearing on the doorstep".[250]
108. We have also received written evidence from
the Government on this point, which stated:
Greg Clark wrote to all EROs that failed to meet
performance standard 3 on the day the report was published. He
made clear that Parliament expects EROs to meet these obligations.
The law places an important duty on EROs to maintain a complete
and accurate electoral register; this responsibility is further
clarified under IER. The Cabinet Office has provided additional
funding in the current financial year for this work.
EROs were advised that the Cabinet Office and
the Electoral Commission will be working closely with them to
ensure that they are implementing their public engagement and
implementation plans to transition successfully to IER. This
will include ensuring that they carry out full house-to-house
enquiries as part of their statutory obligations. Greg made it
clear that if an authority is identified as not implementing its
plans for carrying out house-to-house enquiries Ministers are
fully prepared to issue a Secretary of State direction under section
52 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, to ensure
the ERO complies with his statutory obligations. This was made
clear to all EROs.[251]
When we asked Sam Gyimah MP about this, he informed
us:
We expect [EROs] to meet their full obligations
and Ministers are fully prepared to issue a formal direction to
EROs if necessary to ensure that they comply with their statutory
obligation.[252]
109. Jenny Watson told us in September 2014 that
for the 2014/15 canvass, "house-to-house inquiries, whether
that is for the purposes of following up with individual electors
to remind them to register or to get information about residents
in the household who need to be invited to register, are at a
very early stage." [253]
She told us that the Electoral Commission would be "monitoring
[house-to-house enquiries] on an ongoing basis", and would
inform the Committee if there was a need to take any action outside
of their reporting cycle.[254]
110. Under the Representation of the People Act
1983, as amended, there is a statutory requirement that Electoral
Registration Officers conduct house-to-house enquiries as part
of the canvass. The Government should communicate this much more
strongly to the public and put the legal requirements of EROs
on the public record. We welcome the news that every ERO has plans
to conduct house-to-house enquiries as part of the 2014/15 canvass,
but this legal duty has in some cases not been taken seriously
enough until now. Twenty-two EROs failed to fulfil this statutory
requirement in the previous canvass, some for a number of successive
years. We particularly welcome the explicit statements from Ministers
that they are prepared to issue a formal direction to any EROs
not complying with their statutory obligations, and we would support
the issue of any such direction which had the objective of increasing
levels of voter registration. We recommend that if any ERO
repeatedly fails to fulfil their statutory duties in a way which
has an adverse effect on the quality of voter registration in
their area, the Government should take enforcement action against
them. This could include consideration that this function should
be taken from the local authority and handed to a neighbouring
local authority which has had greater success. We also recommend
that the Government set out the circumstances in which it is prepared
to seek a prosecution of any electoral official considered to
be in breach of an official duty under the provisions of the 1983
Act and bring forward proposals to amend the law if it is not
sufficiently clear. We recognise that the Electoral Commission,
Government Departments and EROs have allocated more effort, time
and money to ensuring a more complete electoral register for the
purpose of IER, to prevent the 5.5 million voters who have not
yet been confirmed on to the new electoral registers from dropping
off the register. We believe that such rigour should have been
shown in the past, and should be shown in future, in order to
get the 7.5 million who are not correctly registered to vote at
present.
111. We will monitor how the canvass proceeds
in the coming months and hope that increased scrutiny of performance
standards will lead to improvements in the completeness and accuracy
of the next electoral register. We will report again in the New
Year on the 2014/15 canvass.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS
112. Only public authorities listed in the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 are subject to requests for information
under that Act. Although both the Electoral Commission and local
authorities are included, Electoral Registration Officers and
Returning Officers are separate legal entities and are not covered—though
information they have passed to the Electoral Commission or a
local authority would be disclosable by those bodies. In March
2010, the then Minister of Justice stated that "In order
to come within the scope of the FOI Act, EROs would need to be
designated by a section 5 Order under that Act or through an amendment
to the primary legislation."[255]
113. When we asked John Turner, Chief Executive of
the Association of Electoral Administrators, whether EROs should
be subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act,
he said:
Our policy is quite plain on this. We advise
our members to do exactly the latter thing that you have suggested,
writing back and pointing out that, "By law we are not obliged
to, but in the spirit of transparency and so on, here is the information".
It is basically public and it is publicly funded, so I do not
see any reason why not. The simple answer to your question is,
yes, I do believe that EROs and returning officers should be on
the FOI list.[256]
Jenny Watson, Chair of the Electoral Commission,
took a similar view, stating:
We would say exactly the same thing—that
they should respond as if they were subject to the Freedom of
Information Act. I confess I don't really understand why they
are not and whether it is a kind of glitch in the legislation,
but we just advise them to act as if they were.[257]
She went on to say that she thought it would "make
things clearer" if EROs were brought formally under the FOI
Act.[258] John
Tomlinson, ERO for Sheffield, told us:
I think that when the Freedom of Information
Act was passed it was never in Parliament's intention that EROs
and returning officers would be exempt from Freedom of Information,
so perhaps that ought to be addressed so they are included in
it. From our own personal perspective, the line that we take when
we get Freedom of Information is to first of all point out that
we are not subject to that but if we can give the information,
we will give it. If we can't give the information, if there is
a legal barrier or we just don't have it, then we explain why.[259]
114. When we questioned Sam Gyimah MP, he told
us he agreed that the exclusion of EROs from the FOI Act "does
seem like an anomaly" and that it was something he was happy
to look at. He said:
In terms of how we move forward, officials have
discussed bringing EROs under FOI with their counterparts in the
Ministry of Justice who have responsibility for Freedom of Information.
It appears likely that EROs could be included through an order
[…] and it is something that I am going to look into.[260]
115. It appears to be an oversight that Electoral
Registration Officers, and Returning Officers, are not subject
to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. EROs
and ROs clearly exercise functions of a public nature and it is
in the public interest for them to be required to respond to requests
for information in the same way as other public authorities. The
Committee notes that despite evidence from the Electoral Commission
that they would advise EROs to respond to FOI requests as though
they were subject to the Act, East Devon District Council has
been refusing to respond to requests for information under the
FOI Act from members of the public in respect of electoral registration
activity.[261]
We recommend that the Government issue a section 5 Order designating
EROs and ROs public authorities for the purpose of the Act. In
the meantime, the Electoral Commission should make it clear that
it is best practice for EROs to respond to requests for information
as though they were subject to the Act.
The Electoral Commission
116. The Electoral Commission was established in
2001 by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
The main duties established by the Act include preparing and publishing
a report after each major election on the administration of the
election, keeping under review, and reporting to the Secretary
of State, on matters including the registration of political parties
and the regulation of their income and expenditure, and political
advertising in the broadcast and other electronic media, and educating
the public about the UK's electoral and democratic systems.[262]
The Commission lists its main roles and responsibilities
on its website as:
· supporting
well-run elections and referendums in the UK, offering support
and guidance to those involved, and ensuring voters know everything
they need to know;
· making sure
people understand the rules around political party finance, taking
action when the rules are broken and publishing information on
political finance.
· maintaining
and publishing the registers of political parties in Great Britain
and Northern Ireland;
· conducting
a wide range of research around elections and referendums, electoral
registration and party and election finance;
· running campaigns
before elections and referendums to make sure people are aware
of when and how to register to vote and anything else they need
to know, and
· carrying out
policy work across a range of areas to ensure that the rules around
all aspects of elections are as clear and simple as possible and
that the interests of voters are always put first.[263]
117. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums
Act 2000 included duties relating to "Education about electoral
and democratic systems", which were intended to provide for
the Commission to have a role in encouraging voters' participation
in the democratic process.[264]
However, in 2006 the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended
that "The Electoral Commission should no longer have the
wider statutory duty to encourage participation in the democratic
process."[265]
The rationale for this was that promoting democratic participation
was neither within nor supportive of the Commission's core tasks,
and was more properly a responsibility of political parties. The
recommendation was supported by both the Government and Opposition,
and as a result the Government stated that the Commission's duties
relating to education about electoral and democratic systems could
"be interpreted more narrowly to reflect the restricted remit
of the Commission."[266]
118. We received a significant amount of evidence
on the role the Electoral Commission plays in relation to voter
engagement. Several witnesses argued that the Commission could
be spending more time looking at how to have "a full, healthy
democracy" and "the promotion and encouragement of voting
itself".[267]
On the Electoral Commission's role, Jenny Watson told us:
Our efforts focus on providing information about
registration and how to vote rather than seeking to drive voter
turnout or broader civic engagement […].I would argue, though,
that the work we carry out now plays an important role in engagement
by ensuring that voters know how they can play their part and
in raising registration levels in advance of elections. More broadly,
when it comes to the way elections are run, we are already
discussing with our Electoral Advisory Board—that is a group
of senior returning officers who advise the Commission—a
vision for 21st century electoral administration and that work
will continue after the next general election.[268]
She also told us:
We think it is important that people can participate
if they want to do so and that they are not prohibited from participating
by a lack of information or by not being on the electoral register.[269]
SUPPORTING OTHERS
119. The Electoral Commission also told us about
the role it plans to play in supporting other organisations that
take an interest in encouraging democratic participation. The
written evidence from the Electoral Commission stated: "The
Commission is […] committed to supporting all those who have
a role to play in changing people's engagement with politics,
and to doing what we can ourselves to increase participate in
elections".[270]
Jenny Watson told us:
we will continue to take seriously the implications
of declining and low turnout at elections or referendums and to
increase the work we do to support organisations and individuals
best placed to tackle public disengagement. We do that through
a range of routes, some of which is working in partnership with
others, some of which might be brokering conversations between
civic society groups and electoral registration officers, for
example.[271]
Expanding on the issue in a subsequent hearing, she
said:
One of the things we are doing from now until
the general election around IER and also around the general election
campaign is working more closely with a range of different partners.
For example, it may be that being told by Citizens Advice that
it is important you are registered to vote will have more of an
impact. We have a range of partners that we are working with.
They have the audiences, we have the voter knowledge, and we are
putting that together.[272]
MAXIMISING REGISTRATION
120. The Electoral Commission runs regular public
awareness campaigns in the run up to elections encouraging people
to register to vote. Details of the campaigns run in recent years
have been published in the Official Report in response to parliamentary
questions,[273]
and the Electoral Commission also submitted written evidence
to us in relation to the cost-effectiveness of their public awareness
work.[274] Ahead
of the 2015 general election, the Electoral Commission has a target
of 1 million registrations. This is a substantial increase on
targets for their previous registration campaigns.
121. Although one of the activities the Electoral
Commission plans to undertake in the coming years is to maximise
registration—through public awareness campaigns and the
provision of guidance, templates and tools to EROs—one of
the "key success measures" of their current corporate
plan is that "Accuracy of the electoral registers improves,
and completeness of the registers does not deteriorate".[275]
Asked whether this was an ambitious target, Jenny Watson
told us:
For this stage of the transition in IER, given
that we have consistently said the register should be more accurate
and should not be less complete after IER, that is the key success
measure for the purposes of this transition. I would expect to
see this develop as we go through the life of this corporate plan,
which effectively takes us through to 2018-19. For this stage
I think it is right, but it is not, on its own, the only thing
we are doing and you cannot see that in isolation without seeing
that we are also focusing on service voters, overseas electors,
maximising registration and individual electoral registration.[276]
When this point was raised with Rt Hon Greg Clark
MP, he told us: "I think that one of the aims of the Commission
should be to get people who are not registered to be on the register."[277]
Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP, Deputy Prime Minister, also told us: "my
opinion and all of our opinions is to be ambitious for the fullest
scale of registration possible, and clearly every voter who is
unregistered, we should be seeking to make efforts to register
them."[278]
122. The Electoral Commission's goal should be
that every person eligible to be registered to vote is on the
electoral register. Given there are an estimated 7.5 million people
not correctly registered to vote, and also millions of British
citizens living overseas that are not registered to vote, we welcome
the news that the Electoral Commission aims to have one million
more voters registered ahead of the 2015 general election. This
is a substantial increase on previous targets for registration
campaigns.
123. It is disappointing to note that one of the
Electoral Commission's key measures of success for the next five
years is that "completeness of the registers does not deteriorate".
Since the level of completeness for the electoral registers is
not currently satisfactory, we do not consider it to be a success
simply for them to deteriorate no further. We recommend that
the Electoral Commission review its success measures in respect
of voter registration and set itself much more challenging measures
for the completeness of the electoral register.
PLANS FOR THE FUTURE
124. Jenny Watson told us she thought there was a
role for the Electoral Commission in "stimulating wider debate"
around issues such as making voting more accessible. Following
our oral evidence sessions with the Electoral Commission, we received
supplementary written evidence outlining some of the areas the
Commission and Electoral Advisory Board (EAB) would be looking
at in the future. These included two main strands of possible
reform:
· Useful
changes to electoral administration processes that could improve
efficiency and which could be achieved over the short to medium
term. Such changes might include "back-office" and "candidate-facing"
processes-for example, the nomination process, the use of electoral
management software; training for electoral administration staff.
· More strategic,
medium to long term, "voter-facing" changes that could
form part of a wider debate about voter participation. This could
include consideration of different voting methods, including e-voting
and advance voting; improving the electoral registration process;
and the counting of votes.[279]
The Commission stated that "The EAB agreed that
prioritisation of issues was necessary and the Commission is now
in the process of developing a more specific work plan to be finalised
by the end of the year, following further discussion." The
Commission noted that that the EAB had expressed the view that
"any potential changes should be considered carefully before
being implemented and should ideally be based on sound evidence
and proper evaluation."[280]
Registration campaigns
125. A number of independent organisations run their
own campaigns encouraging people to register to vote and participate
at elections, often aimed at particular sections of society. Bite
the Ballot focuses on young people, for example, and Operation
Black Vote works with Black and Minority Ethnic groups. Alex Robertson,
Director of Communications for the Electoral Commission, praised
the registration campaigns run by other organisations, stating:
I think the work that Bite the Ballot are doing—and
not just them but many other organisations working with young
people and other groups—is very effective and very innovative.
What they are able to do, by focusing on a very specific audience,
is build up a relationship with them and understand what is effective
for them.[281]
126. One specific organisation we heard a great deal
of praise for was Bite the Ballot. Several of our witnesses spoke
enthusiastically about the National Voter Registration Day campaign
they ran on 5 February 2014,[282]
which led to approximately 25,000 young people being added
to the electoral register on a budget of £9,000.[283]
Representatives of Bite the Ballot told us that the key
to their success had been "inspiration" and "the
call to action to the individuals".[284]
They also said that with online registration National Voter
Registration Day in 2015 should be even more successful, as every
tweet or promotional video from the campaign could end with a
link to the new online registration page.[285]
127. Several witnesses highlighted the influence
social media could have in registration campaigns and in encouraging
people to actually vote.[286]
Fran O'Leary told us that politicians should look to both Facebook
and Twitter to engage with younger voters in particular,[287]
a view shared by Patrick Brione, from Survation, who told us:
the role of Facebook in campaigning should not
be underestimated or underused as a tool. Facebook and the family
were important to them whereas traditional newspapers less so.[288]
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council told us that
they have already "developed a greater usage of social media
to make sure that people are aware of the importance to register
and also get involved in the process."[289]
128. Registration campaigns run by independent
organisations such as Bite the Ballot, Operation Black Vote and
Mencap are extremely important in supplementing the efforts of
electoral officials, and can also be highly cost effective. We
welcome the Electoral Commission's stated intention to work closely
with such organisations, and call on the Commission and the Government
to support all organisations genuinely concerned with increasing
the number of people who are registered to vote.
129. We recommend that, while every day should
be a voter registration day, in its response to this Report the
Government should set out how it plans to support Bite the Ballot's
National Voter Registration Day 2015, on 5 February 2015. The
Electoral Commission, electoral officials, and all public sector
organisations should put specific plans in place to take advantage
of National Voter Registration Day to make a significant difference
to the number of people who are registered to vote ahead of the
2015 general election, and future elections.
Changes to electoral registration
130. We have taken evidence on a number of specific
proposals that could make registering to vote more accessible,
or otherwise increase registration rates. The specific proposals
we have considered most closely are:
· Prompting
people to register to vote when they access other public services
· Registering
students to vote at schools and colleges
· Letting people
register to vote closer to the date of an election
We examine each of these proposals below.
PROMPTING PEOPLE TO REGISTER TO
VOTE
131. A number of witnesses argued that there was
scope to encourage people to register to vote when they access
a wide range of public services—such as registering to pay
council tax, or applying for a passport.[290]
Jessica Garland, Research Officer at the Electoral Reform
Society, told us that their research had found that "at least
38% of people felt they would be more likely to register with
that sort of encouragement",[291]
and Fran O'Leary told us that "Lodestone recommends that
at every point when voters engage with the council they should
be invited to register to vote."[292]
Jenny Watson, Chair of the Electoral Commission, agreed
that prompting people to register to vote could be effective,
telling us there was scope "to think about how the technology
that supports individual electoral registration could be
used to deliver benefits for voters in the longer term through
making it easier for them to register to vote and to be prompted
more often to register to vote."[293]
She had previously told us:
when individual electoral registration is running
in steady state, it might be possible to use […] transactions
with Government in different ways to encourage people to register,
and a wider range of records to identify people who are not on
the register and invite them to register.[294]
She did qualify these statements by saying that "it
would be very difficult to see transactions with Government being
able to make it easier for voters unless there was a better integrated
system." Most recently, she told us "One of the things
that we know needs to change in the system is to have a better
ability to interact with people who are moving around more frequently
than they used to do."[295]
A similar view was expressed by Paul Lankester, ERO for Stratford-on-Avon,
who told us there needed to be "a continuing emphasis on
trying to ensure people, when they move into an area, part of
their pack in moving in is, 'Here is about electoral registration'."[296]
132. Toni Pearce told us that the NUS were doing
lots of work with EROs and local institutions to "try to
integrate the process of enrolment at college or university with
the process of registering to vote". Other occasions when
people could be prompted to register to vote include:
· When
people receive a National Insurance card;
· When people
register to pay council tax, and
· When people
register with a doctor or dentist.
Private sector companies could also be encouraged
to prompt their customers to register to vote, something that
would be particularly effective if people could be prompted to
register to vote when they register with a utility company, apply
for home insurance or become tenants of a property, as this could
be effective in reaching people when they are moving home, a point
at which people often cease to be correctly registered to vote.
133. We recommend that in its response to our
Report the Government make specific proposals about how people
could be prompted to register to vote when they access other public
services, particularly those services associated with a change
in address, such as registering to pay council tax. The Electoral
Commission and EROs should also seek to work with private companies
who interact with the public so they can, as part of their corporate
responsibilities, prompt those people who are currently not registered
to vote to register.
REGISTRATION AT SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES
134. In light of the particularly low registration
and participation rates amongst students and young people, several
witnesses highlighted the possibility of registering people while
they were still in school or college.[297]
Michael Sani, Managing Director of Bite the Ballot, told us:
We think the Northern Ireland initiative
of allowing the local authorities to liaise with schools and public
bodies to share information and, where necessary, pre-populate
forms is fantastic, and it localises this effort of engagement.[298]
The written evidence from Bite the Ballot elaborated
on this proposal.[299]
Similarly, Eleanor Thompson, Student Voice Manager at the
University of Sheffield Students' Union, told us about plans to
invite students to indicate if they wished to register to vote
when they enrolled at University.[300]
When we mentioned this work to Sam Gyimah MP, he told
us: "It is a good idea. We are working with the NUS along
the same lines as well, but it is a good idea."[301]
Professor Jonathan Tonge and Dr Andrew Mycock stated that
compulsory registration of 16 and 17 year olds in school or college
would help address the particular issue of electoral participation
for young people, and would also be a cost-effective way of registering
young people.[302]
Another suggestion was that "EROs should investigate
using students' unions, universities and colleges as venues for
polling stations as they are already a central hub for the community."[303]
135. Given the low registration rates amongst
young people, there is a strong case for making greater efforts
to register 16 to 18 year olds at school and in college—particularly
as registration now takes place on an individual basis and can
be done, easily, on-line, from school. We particularly ask the
Secretary of State for Education to promote this to schools and
colleges. EROs also should now be working with schools and colleges
to register students, and we recommend that the Electoral Commission
explicitly include this action in its performance standards for
EROs. This could be integrated with broader citizenship education,
and include a discussion about how to register to vote when moving
to university or away from home. Successful initiatives developed
by EROs and Universities—such as those we heard about in
Sheffield—should also be replicated across the country.
REGISTERING CLOSER TO THE ELECTION
AND ELECTION-DAY REGISTRATION
136. Currently voters must register at least 11 working
days before the date of an election. We examined the possibility
of letting people register to vote on the day of an election,
an idea which received significant support from those addressing
it in their written evidence.[304]
Professor Dunleavy and Richard Berry, of Democratic Audit,
told us they thought election-day registration should be introduced,[305]
and Jessica Garland, of the Electoral Reform Society, told us:
"that is the one reform that has been shown to improve equality
of voting most."[306]
Dr Toby James told us that in some US states up to 17% of
voters registered on the day, although he thought in the UK the
figure was likely to be "somewhere in the region of three
to six percentage points", saying that this "is still
quite a substantial increase".[307]
He also noted that with the introduction of IER, election-day
registration might be able to be implemented more easily. The
Wales Governance Centre argued that allowing registration on the
day of the election would in particular facilitate turnout for
young people, stating: "Young people are more likely to wait
until the last minute to vote, and may not even decide to do so
until the day in question, and as a result, often find themselves unable
to participate."[308]
137. On the other hand, John Turner, Chief Executive
of the Association of Electoral Administrators, said that, although
there was "potentially scope" for letting people register
closer to an election than at present, "If you get to the
point of registering on the day, you open up a completely different
can of worms", which he set out in written evidence.[309]
A written submission from Professor RA Watt also highlighted
difficulties around election-day registration, referring to both
the risk of fraud, as well as the logistical challenges of processing
registrations on election day and then checking them.[310]
Dr Toby James, who considered that there was "a very
strong case for making election-day registration a long term policy
goal", also noted implementation challenges that would be
involved: that the change would "require funding and carefully
managed implementation".[311]
Others, including the Local Government Association, also highlighted
the challenges that could be presented by election day registration.[312]
138. There is persuasive evidence that enabling
people to register closer to the date of an election, or on an
election day itself, would lead to increased registration rates
and turnout at elections. We recommend that in its response
to this Report, the Government set out proposals for reducing
the number of days between the cut-off date for registration and
the election day, with a view to implementing them as soon as
possible. We also recommend that the Government set out the steps
to achieving by 2020 the objective of allowing eligible electors
to register and then vote at the Town Hall or equivalent up to
and on the day of an election. We acknowledge the need to consider
how to accurately verify registrations made on the day, and to
provide any additional resources required by local authorities
to implement such a system.
The "open register"
139. There are two electoral registers, one an unedited
version—used for electoral purposes by political parties
and candidates, and also for other limited purposes specified
in law—and an edited, "open" register, that is
available to anyone who wants to buy a copy. We have previously
recommended that the "open register" be abolished, on
the basis that personal details gathered for electoral purposes
should not be sold to commercial organisations.[313]
The evidence we have received more recently has provided
further support for the abolition of the open register. The Electoral
Commission, and a number of the Electoral Registration Officers
we heard from, raised with us the dissatisfaction they considered
the public felt with the open register. In order for their details
not to be included on the open register, individuals must opt
out when they register to vote, or contact their ERO requesting
to be removed. Jenny Watson told us that the wording explaining
the open register to voters had been made much clearer following
the implementation of IER,[314]
and also told us that "during the passage of the legislation
[for IER] we said that we thought the open register should be
abolished or, if not abolished, that we should move to a system
where people were asked to opt in rather than opt out."[315]
Paul Lankester, ERO for Stratford-on-Avon, told us that the open
register "has probably caused the biggest exercise in complaints
I have received in my time of 13 years as an electoral registration
officer, 3,000 complaints in the last month from the current canvass,
and that is fairly universal from my talking to other electoral
registration officers. People do not want to be on that sold register."[316]
Dr Dave Smith, ERO for Sunderland, also highlighted public dissatisfaction
with the open register, stating: "I also think that for the
first time people are clear what an open register is and the fact
that people are on it rather than electing to go on it or come
off it. That is what people are objecting to, that they have not
had control of the decision in the first place, and that has been
at the front of this."[317]
140. When the Government responded to our earlier
recommendation to abolish the open register, it stated that the
issue was "currently under consideration in the context of
the wider access regime for the electoral registers", but
has since taken no action.[318]
When we heard from the Minister for the Constitution as
part of this inquiry, he told us that he too had received complaints
about the open register.[319]
141. We have previously recommended that the edited
electoral register—now called the "open register"—should
be abolished. We reaffirm this call in the light of the clear
and significant public dissatisfaction—which has reached
the ears of the Minister for the Constitution—with the sale
to private companies of data that electors provide to electoral
registration officers to enable them to register to vote. We recommend
that the Government take immediate action to abolish the open
electoral register before new registers are published. We believe
that the full electoral register should continue to be available
to political parties and candidates, as it is at present.
218 Q536 [Jenny Watson] Back
219
Q49 [Mark Sweeny], Oral evidence on Individual Electoral Registration,
10 April 2014 Back
220
Qq 259, 280 [John Turner] Back
221
Q50 [Rt Hon Greg Clark MP], The work of the Deputy Prime Minister 2014,
9 September 2014 Back
222
Q19 [Glenn Gottfried] Back
223
Q244 [Dr Toby James] Back
224
Q537 [Jenny Watson] Back
225
Registration of parliamentary and local government electors, Representation of the People Act 1983 Back
226
Q415 [John Tomlinson] Back
227
Q775 [Dr Dave Smith] Back
228
Performance standards for Electoral Registration Officers in Great Britain,
Electoral Commission, July 2008 Back
229
Performance standards for Electoral Registration Officers, Electoral
Commission, September 2013 Back
230
Q547 [Jenny Watson] Back
231
Q253 [Dr Toby James] Back
232
Written evidence from Dr Toby James [VUK 141] Back
233
Section 52, Representation of the People Act 1983 Back
234
Qq 751-2 [Jenny Watson] Back
235
Q281 [John Turner] Back
236
Q551 [Jenny Watson] Back
237
Written evidence from Dr Toby James [VUK 141] Back
238
Q780 [Paul Lankester] Back
239
Written evidence from Dr Dave Smith [VUK 157] Back
240
Written evidence from Dr Toby James [VUK 141], Q255 [Dr Toby James] Back
241
Q263 [John Turner] Back
242
Q548 [Jenny Watson] Back
243
Written evidence from the Government [VUK 148] Back
244
Section 9, Electoral Administration Act 2006, and Performance standards for Electoral Registration Officers in Great Britain,
Electoral Commission, July 2008 Back
245
Q261 [John Turner], Q777 [Dr Dave Smith] Back
246
Analysis of electoral registration data for Great Britain, Electoral
Commission, June 2014, written evidence from the Electoral Commission
[VUK 104] Back
247
Q549 [Jenny Watson] Back
248
Q844 [Mark Williams] Back
249
Q847 [Kevin Finan] Back
250
Q845 [Mark Williams] Back
251
Written evidence from the Government [VUK 148] Back
252
Q840 [Sam Gyimah MP] Back
253
Q692 [Jenny Watson] Back
254
Qq 739-50 [Jenny Watson] Back
255
Hansard, col 654W, 29 March 2010 Back
256
Q276 [John Turner] Back
257
Q553 [Jenny Watson] Back
258
Q554 [Jenny Watson] Back
259
Q429 [John Tomlinson] Back
260
Q823 [Sam Gyimah MP] Back
261
Letter from an Information and Complaints Officer, East Devon District Council, to Mr Tony Green,
4 November 2014 Back
262
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 Back
263
Roles and responsibilities, Electoral Commission Back
264
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, Section 13
(and Explanatory notes) Back
265
Review of The Electoral Commission, Committee in Standards in
Public Life, January 2007 Back
266
The Government Response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life's Eleventh Report: Review of the Electoral Commission,
Cm 7272, November 2007 Back
267
Q43 [Glenn Gottfried], Q73 [Professor Dunleavy], Q76 [Jessica
Garland] Back
268
Q517 [Jenny Watson] Back
269
Q545 [Jenny Watson] Back
270
Written evidence from the Electoral Commission [VUK 40] Back
271
Q523 [Jenny Watson] Back
272
Q725 [Jenny Watson] Back
273
Electoral Register, Col 390W, 17 March 2014 Back
274
Written evidence from the Electoral Commission [VUK 88] Back
275
Corporate plan 2014-15 to 2018-19, Electoral Commission Back
276
Q721 [Jenny Watson] Back
277
Q52 [Rt Hon Greg Clark MP], The work of the Deputy Prime Minister 2014,
9 September 2014 Back
278
Q54 [Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP], The work of the Deputy Prime Minister 2014,
9 September 2014 Back
279
Written evidence from the Electoral Commission [VUK 156] Back
280
Written evidence from the Electoral Commission [VUK 156] Back
281
Q568 [Alex Robertson] Back
282
Q47 [Glenn Gottfried], Q138 [Jessica Garland], Q191 [Toni Pearce],
Q568 [Jenny Watson], Q619 [Dr Rebecca Rumbul] Back
283
National Voter Registration Day, Bite the Ballot Back
284
Q208 [Michael Sani] Back
285
Q209 [Oliver Sidorczuk] Back
286
Written evidence from the International Foundation for Electoral
Systems [VUK 47], Lodestone [VUK 101], Professor Susan Banducci
and Dr Daniel Stevens [VUK 120] Back
287
Q496 [Fran O'Leary] Back
288
Q495 [Patrick Brione] Back
289
Written evidence from Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council [VUK 49] Back
290
Written evidence from the Electoral Reform Society [VUK 17], Dr
Toby James [VUK 26], Bite the Ballot [VUK 65], Lodestone [VUK 101],
Bite the Ballot [VUK 153] Back
291
Q134 [Jessica Garland] Back
292
Q491 [Fran O'Leary] Back
293
Q602 [Jenny Watson] Back
294
Q586 [Jenny Watson] Back
295
Q724 [Jenny Watson] Back
296
Q775 [Paul Lankester] Back
297
Written evidence from the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform
[VUK 152], Bite the Ballot [VUK 153] Back
298
Q221 [Michael Sani] Back
299
Written evidence from Bite the Ballot [VUK 65] Back
300
Q407 [Eleanor Thompson] Back
301
Q833 [Sam Gyimah MP] Back
302
Written evidence from Professor Jonathan Tonge and Dr
Andrew Mycock [VUK 05] Back
303
Written evidence from the NUS [VUK 34] Back
304
Q264 [Paul Lankester], written evidence from Dr Elin Weston and
LLB Advanced Constitutional Law students, King's College London
[VUK 33], NUS [VUK 34], Birmingham 'Success' Group [VUK 37], Smartmatic
Limited [VUK 41], Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council [VUK 49],
Bite the Ballot [VUK 65], Lynne Armstrong [VUK 106] Back
305
Q74 [Professor Dunleavy and Richard Berry] Back
306
Q132 [Jessica Garland] Back
307
Q242 [Dr Toby James] Back
308
Written evidence from the Wales Governance Centre [VUK 15] Back
309
Qs 298-9 [John Turner], written evidence from the Association
of Electoral Administrators [VUK 32] Back
310
Written evidence from Professor RA Watt [VUK 24] Back
311
Written evidence from Dr Toby James [VUK 26] Back
312
Written evidence from the Local Government Association [VUK 70],
I Miller [VUK 119], Andy Tye [VUK 84] Back
313
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Tenth Report of
Session 2010-12, Individual Electoral Registration and Administration,
HC 1463, November 2011 Back
314
Q696 [Jenny Watson] Back
315
Q696 [Jenny Watson] Back
316
Q775 [Paul Lankester] Back
317
Q788 [Dr Dave Smith] Back
318
Government Response to pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation on Individual Electoral Registration and amendments to Electoral Administration law,
HM Government, February 2012 Back
319
Q801 [Sam Gyimah MP] Back
| 
