Conclusions and recommendations
A chance to engage
1. We
believe that improving voter engagement is crucial to the long
term well-being of democracy in the UK. Unusually, therefore,
the following Report is an interim report—a draft—for
public consideration, rather than the Committee's final word on
the issue of voter engagement. Appropriately, we publish it in
the annual Parliament Week since we wish it to be subject to wider
discussion involving all those who care about the UK's democracy,
including all those who submitted evidence to the Committee. All
of our draft recommendations are open to possible change following
public consultation. (Paragraph 1)
2. As part of this
process, we have been in discussion with the independent and impartial
Hansard Society, which we understand may be looking at some of
the issues considered in this report as part of its regular Audit
of Political Engagement. We hope that the Hansard Society's findings
in this area will inform our final judgment about the reforms
which can be achieved in practice. We plan to issue a final report
before National Voter Registration Day on 5 February 2015, to
frame debate on these issues ahead of the 2015 general election.
We hope that citizens feel we are being open and inclusive about
the improvements which must be made. In that spirit we hope that
everyone reading this Report plays their part by engaging and
responding to it. We also propose to write to the political parties
and their leaders requesting a preliminary response to our interim
proposals. It is appropriate that as 2015 dawns the UK's history
on the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta is celebrated by stepping
up to meet the enormous challenges that face the UK in renewing
its democracy for the future. (Paragraph 2)
Introduction
3. Democracy
is working less well than it used to and we need to move swiftly
to pre-empt a crisis. The scale of the response must be equal
to the task. Millions of people are missing from the UK's electoral
registers. Many of those who are registered—and in many
cases the majority—choose not to participate at elections,
be they for the UK Parliament, local government, or the European
Parliament. In a modern democracy, it is unacceptable that millions
of people who are eligible to vote are missing from electoral
registers. We believe it should be made clearer in law that any
person who is eligible to vote in a UK election should be on the
electoral register. We also believe that it is desirable in a
representative democracy for turnout at elections of all kinds
to be higher—and ideally far higher—than has been
the case in recent years. (Paragraph 9)
Reasons for low voter engagement
4. There
are broad negative stereotypes about Parliament and Government—two
separate institutions—which go beyond healthy and necessary
scepticism and into a cynicism which if unaddressed could undermine
the very basis of our representative democracy. (Paragraph 15)
5. Centralisation
of political party activity, not least to aid party discipline
and the demands of the media and messaging, is a recurrent theme
in the decline in the local strength and activity of political
parties. The unitary system in the UK, where all roads lead to
Whitehall, means that political parties focus more and more on
power at the centre and less on effective engagement not only
with their membership but also with the public. This "hollowing
out" must have a clear adverse impact on how people engage
with elections, as well as politics more broadly. Political parties
have become leader-centric. We recommend that party leaders
consider how party structures could be reformed and localised
to better engage with the public. We will write to each party
leader and request that they engage with the Committee directly
in respect of this recommendation. We look forward to their responses
and to taking proposals forward. (Paragraph 21)
6. We have previously
called for progress to be made on broadening the base of party
funding: this is an area where reform could strengthen local party
structures, increase confidence in the independence of political
parties and therefore strengthen politics more broadly. Cross-party
talks on party funding will be most successful if no pre-conditions
are set, but some members of the Committee believe that increased
taxpayer funding of political parties is not likely to be part
of the solution. We recommend that all-party talks on party
funding are resumed urgently with a view to reaching a swift,
agreed settlement before the general election. (Paragraph
22)
7. The media plays
an essential role in informing the public about political news,
in relation both to elections and politics more broadly. While
it should be understood that public education and increasing levels
of voter engagement is not necessarily a priority for news media,
we note that the BBC does have a clear duty, through its Charter,
to sustain citizenship and civil society. Innovations such as
televised debates ahead of general elections have proved to be
popular as television events but have not resulted in sustainable
engagement with the political process. We have also received evidence
that relentless and disproportionate focus of the media on negative
news stories and "the very worst of party politics"
can have a negative impact on how the public perceives politicians
and the political system, reinforcing a cynicism that makes people
less likely to vote. It is our view that politicians and media
outlets could both do more to move the media focus away from denigration
and trivialisation and more towards analysis and reporting, with
the hope of better engaging the public with issues that concern
them to make politics and elections more relevant. This is a sensitive
area with strong default positions on all sides but, again, the
future of democracy in the UK demands that business as usual is
not an option. We intend to hold a summit with willing participants
in the New Year to start a discussion on whether, and how, the
media and politics can interact for the greater good of a healthy
democracy. (Paragraph 31)
8. Overcentralisation
of power in Whitehall has had a clear adverse impact on how people
engage with and perceive politics and elections for the localities
and nations of the UK. Measures that appropriately devolve decision-making
and power from Whitehall to a lower level might have been thought
to be likely to have a positive impact on engagement with non-Westminster
politics and elections, although this failed to happen in respect
of elected police and crime commissioners. This sentiment is not
just evidenced in Scotland but is also prevalent in England, Wales,
Northern Ireland and the localities within. While devolving power
to the localities would be an improvement most political parties
believe it should not stop there but also go deeper to neighbourhoods
and communities, so-called "double devolution". (Paragraph
35)
9. This Committee
has produced a number of reports over the course of the Parliament
looking at the relationship between local and central government
and urging much greater devolution; we are consulting, through
"A New Magna Carta?" on several options for a
new structure and constitutional framework for the UK, and we
are currently undertaking an inquiry looking at how devolution
should take place across the United Kingdom. In a time of political
volatility, clarity about a future democratic settlement is vital.
It is clear that engagement with politics and elections at a local
level suffers from overcentralisation, and the rhetorical commitment
of all parties needs to find concrete form in substantial changes
to the devolution settlement across the UK to reinvigorate local
politics. We recommend that, at a time when manifestos are
being written, party leaderships make real, not least in England,
the undertakings given to ending overcentralisation and to extending
devolution, not least as a means of engaging the electorate much
more in deciding their own affairs. (Paragraph 36)
10. A number of factors
have contributed to low levels of voter engagement in recent years.
The evidence we have received indicates that the most significant
of these is political disengagement and dissatisfaction with politicians,
political parties and UK politics more broadly. Issues such as
the perception that voting does not make a difference and dissatisfaction
with where power lies in the UK system have also been cited as
reasons for low levels of participation at elections. These are
all legitimate reasons for people to disengage from the electoral
process, and it cannot be said that low turnout levels and registration
rates are the result of apathy on the part of the public. Just
as the exposure of abuse of parliamentary allowances and the subsequent
establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
has purged the expenses scandal, so an equally serious and perhaps
uncomfortable set of reforms are needed to renew democratic participation.
In a consumer society, there is a danger that the enormous demands
placed on democratic institutions to gratify expectations can
lead to short-termism and a lack of substantive engagement. However,
the decline in voter engagement is a result of failures by the
governing political and administrative elite, and responsibility
for initiating the re-engagement of the electorate with existing
and future political processes lies with politicians. We recommend
that political parties come forward with a package of measures
to renew democratic participation which are based squarely upon
those in this Report. (Paragraph 39)
11. There is a strong
perception that elections themselves are hidebound by process,
bureaucracy, rules and restrictions and that the electoral process
in the UK needs to be part of rediscovering a sense of excitement
and engagement, to celebrate democratic values and to cherish
the history of extending the vote to both sexes and all classes.
This should not only occur on National Voter Registration Day
but be a part of culture and education. It must also be supported
by reinvigoration of the UK's electoral administration, and we
propose measures to achieve this in the remainder of this Report.
We are conscious that we are placing a heavy burden on the Electoral
Commission and Electoral Registration Officers both now and for
the future. In this context of constant improvement we also draw
attention, for consideration by the public, to the proposal for
a standing Commission for Democracy, akin to the Electoral Commission,
but as a permanent mechanism for broader democratic reform and
renewal which is floated in our report A new Magna Carta?,
currently out for public consultation. (Paragraph 40)
Recent developments
12. 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.
(Paragraph 43)
13. 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. (Paragraph 51)
14. 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 groups—private 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. (Paragraph 52)
15. 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. (Paragraph 55)
16. As well as the
direct impact on the quality of the electoral registers, the Government
and Parliament will need to consider—as we are currently
doing in our inquiry into the rules for redrawing parliamentary
constituency boundaries—how any bringing forward of the
end of transitional arrangements will affect the next review of
parliamentary constituency boundaries. (Paragraph 57)
17. Even—or
especially—in 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. (Paragraph
59)
18. 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 2013—all of candidates and not voters—compared
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. (Paragraph 64)
19. 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.
(Paragraph 65)
Unequal registration and participation
20. Low
levels of registration and turnout amongst students and young
people are a serious problem now and could get worse. If a generation
of young people choose not to vote, and then continue not to participate
at elections as they grow older, there will be severe and long-lasting
effects for turnout at UK elections, with consequent implications
for the health of democracy in the UK. We propose later a series
of recommendations, not least on registration and voting, which
if implemented will help halt and reverse the disengagement of
young people. (Paragraph 74)
21. Registration rates
for certain BME groups are substantially lower than for White
British residents, but turnout for people from BME groups once
they are registered to vote does not differ significantly from
turnout for White British residents who are registered to vote.
It is not acceptable that registration rates and turnout levels
vary so significantly in relation to ethnicity, although it should
also be understood that registration rates and turnout levels
vary significantly within both the White British and BME groups,
so the question requires more careful consideration than simply
comparing these two figures. The relevant recommendations set
out in this report should be implemented in full in order to redress
the current imbalance. (Paragraph 78)
22. It is clear there
is a particular problem with the accessibility of registration
and voting for a large number of people with specific needs resulting
from a disability. It is unacceptable that people face barriers
registering to vote or participating at elections because of a
disability. We have heard several practical suggestions that could
make elections more accessible—including making information
available in British Sign Language and "easy read" format,
large print, audio and braille. (Paragraph 83)
23. We recommend
that within three months of the publication of this Report, the
Government consult with the Electoral Commission, EROs and disability
groups and publish clear and stretching proposals setting out
how registration and voting will be made more accessible to people
with disabilities. We also recommend that political parties work
with disability groups to make manifestos and other election material
accessible in formats which people with disabilities find easier
to use. (Paragraph 84)
24. Although British
citizens are only entitled to register to vote for UK elections
if they were resident in the UK in the previous 15 years, it is
clear that only a very small percentage of those who are likely
to be eligible to register to vote are actually on the electoral
register. It is not acceptable that such a small proportion of
this franchise is registered to vote, and we welcome the fact
the Minister for the Constitution has asked officials to look
into this issue. We expect to see a comprehensive plan from
the Government in response to our Report, setting out how it plans
to increase registration rates for overseas voters. We recommend
that, at a minimum, this include using UK embassies to promote
registration to British citizens living abroad, working with the
BBC to put out information through BBC World and the World Service,
and making changes to voting to make it more convenient to overseas
voters. (Paragraph 90)
25. EU and Commonwealth
citizens resident in the UK are amongst the most under-represented
groups on the electoral register. We recommend that the Electoral
Commission should run a specific campaign aimed at Commonwealth
citizens and citizens of other EU member states resident in the
UK, focussing on eligibility to participate in elections, and
how to register to vote. The Electoral Commission should also
bring forward proposals for simplifying the process for EU citizens
living in the UK to register to vote at European Parliament elections
promptly so that the necessary changes can be made before the
next European Parliament elections in 2019. (Paragraph 94)
26. It is deeply concerning
that certain groups of people—including young people, certain
Black and Minority Ethnic groups, disabled people, and British
citizens living overseas—are far less likely to be registered
to vote and turn out at elections than others. Given current inequalities
in the completeness of the electoral register, there is a strong
case for focusing efforts to increase registration rates on those
groups that are currently underrepresented. We recommend that
the Government produce a plan well before May 2015—working
with all parties, the Electoral Commission and EROs—for
targeting those groups that are least likely to be registered
to vote. There is also scope for politicians and political parties
to have a continuous dialogue with these groups and convince them
of the value of participating in all the elections for which they
are eligible. (Paragraph 95)
Improving levels of electoral registration
27. 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. (Paragraph 104)
28. 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". (Paragraph
105)
29. 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. (Paragraph 110)
30. 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. (Paragraph
111)
31. 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. 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. (Paragraph 115)
32. The Electoral
Commission's goal should be that every person eligible to be registered
to vote is on the electoral register. Given there are 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. (Paragraph 122)
33. 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. (Paragraph 123)
34. 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.
(Paragraph 128)
35. 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.
(Paragraph 129)
36. 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.
(Paragraph 133)
37. 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. (Paragraph
135)
38. 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. (Paragraph 138)
39. 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. (Paragraph 141)
Proposals to improve voter turnout
40. We
reaffirm our view that voters should ideally be registered to
vote automatically. The fact that the latest parliamentary electoral
registers were only 85.9% complete and 86% accurate makes a strong
case for a system of automatic registration, which could include
the use of the National Insurance number. We recommend that
in its response to this Report the Government clearly set out
its view on moving to a system of automatic registration. Such
a system could operate alongside Individual Electoral Registration.
(Paragraph 144)
41. The idea of a
"Democracy Day" fits closely with our view that greater
esteem and excitement should return to the electoral process.
We recommend that the Government explore further proposals
for weekend voting, extending voting and designating election
days as public holidays. We acknowledge the resource implications
of some of these proposals, particularly for rural communities.
(Paragraph 149)
42. Online voting
is a proposal for increasing levels of participation that has
received strongest support from our witnesses, although support
has not been unanimous. Enabling electors to cast their vote online
if they choose to do so would make voting significantly more accessible.
In light of the move to IER, and the already high take up of postal
voting, there is scope for giving online voting further consideration,
although this would need to be balanced with concerns about electoral
fraud and secrecy of the ballot. We believe that online voting
could lead to a substantial increase in the level of participation
at UK elections, and we recommend that the Government should come
forward with an assessment of the challenges and likely impact
on turnout, and run pilots in the next Parliament with a view
to all electors having the choice of voting online at the 2020
general election. (Paragraph 156)
43. The extension
of the postal vote has been a success and those who choose to
vote by post should be facilitated to do so. The Committee recognises
the importance of postal voting in increasing democratic participation
and calls upon political parties, Electoral Registration Officers,
the Electoral Commission and the Government to make postal voting
more accessible. We note with concern that under the transitional
arrangements for IER, almost half a million postal voters who
were not confirmed automatically will lose their entitlement to
a postal vote if they do not register under the new system.
(Paragraph 159)
44. We recommend
that further trials of all-postal voting in elections should be
held. (Paragraph 161)
45. Given its importance
to our democracy we feel that there is a need to revisit electoral
administration on the basis of convenience for electors and no
other interest. Several changes, which have in the past been of
academic interest, including online voting, holding elections
on weekends or over several days, having a "Democracy Day"
public holiday for voting, letting voters cast their vote anywhere
in their constituency and having all-postal votes, are now measures
which need to be considered in the context of improving voter
participation. There is compelling evidence that some of these
changes could have a substantial, positive impact on the levels
of voter participation. Particularly if taken together, these
changes could demonstrate that "the powers that be"
are serious about voter engagement. We recommend that the Government,
working with the Electoral Commission and EROs, bring forward
a package of reforms to electoral arrangements to increase accessibility
and turnout, and establish a series of pilots early in the next
Parliament to test the various proposals that we have considered,
with a view to making permanent changes to electoral arrangements
by 2020. (Paragraph 162)
46. There is demand
for an improvement in the level and quality of information available
to voters, and scope to improve delivery, particularly through
new technology such as apps and social media. New technology could
also be used to promote public awareness of elections. Some ideas—such
as voting advice applications designed to tell voters which parties
most closely represent their views—would need to be taken
forward by independent organisations, but others could be pursued
by the Government or the Electoral Commission. (Paragraph 165)
47. We recommend
that the Government discuss with the Electoral Commission and
include in its response to this Report details of arrangements
that are currently in place to provide information to the public
about elections and registering to vote, and bring forward proposals
for the effective use of new technology to better inform the public
and increase awareness of elections. This could include having
a central source of information about election results, and better
advertising of elections on the day. The Government and Electoral
Commission should also examine the changes which can be made to
provide more and better information to voters, and should actively
support the work of outside organisations working to similar goals.
(Paragraph 166)
48. Both the Government
and Parliament, and not least select committees, can be even more
innovative about the way they engage with the public, enhancing
not superseding our representative democracy. We note that the
Speaker's Commission on Digital Democracy is looking at proposals
in these areas. (Paragraph 167)
49. Effective citizenship
education is an important part of the process of becoming an engaged
voter, and should continue to be a part of the national curriculum.
We recommend that the Department for Education ensure that
schools' citizenship education courses specifically include discussion
of the political and governmental structures of the UK and the
electoral systems that operate in the UK, and also the practicalities
of registering to vote and actually participating at an election.
We expect that Department to respond to this report to indicate
progress in this area. (Paragraph 172)
50. International
experience demonstrates conclusively that making voting a mandatory
civic duty ensures that the vast majority of eligible voters participate
in elections. Making voting compulsory is not the sole solution
to voter engagement or to political engagement more broadly. Some
members of the Committee believe there is now a strong case for
including it in a package of measures to meet the threat of disengagement,
though provision for those who wish not to take part should be
respected by including an abstention provision on the ballot.
However, other members believe that voting should not, as a matter
of principle, be made compulsory, and that people should be free
not to participate at elections if they so choose. We recommend
that the Government report to the House setting out how a system
of compulsory voting could operate in the UK, including an assessment
of international experience, and an assessment of whether voting
should only be compulsory for certain types of election. This
would mark the start of a public debate. If the 2015 Parliament
were to agree, compulsory voting could operate at the following
general election. If Parliament did not agree the current system
would continue. (Paragraph 177)
51. We recommend
that, in the event that voting in certain elections is made compulsory,
an option to vote "none of the above" or to "abstain"
should be one of the options set out. These options could also
be included even if voting were not compulsory.
(Paragraph 178)
52. Westminster has
a settled view on First Past the Post. The more that centralisation
gives way to devolution, the more that electors at the level of
the nations, regions or localities will wish to exercise choice
over their electoral systems. We accept that democratic institutions
outside Whitehall, be they Parliaments, Assemblies or institutions
in localities, will increasingly be the place where the debate
about their own electoral systems should take place and be decided
and that this will have a positive impact on engagement and
participation (Paragraph 181)
53. We have received
a significant amount of evidence that extending the franchise
to 16 and 17 year olds could have a positive impact not just on
voter engagement for young people, but also on voter engagement
overall in the medium to long term. We as a Committee take
no view on whether the franchise should be extended, but recommend
that Parliament leads a national discussion on this matter and
that a motion on the issue is brought forward in 2015 to allow
the House of Commons a free vote on its view, with a view to the
introduction of legislation if appropriate. (Paragraph 186)
Conclusion
54. We
have outlined a number of proposals that we believe could have
a positive effect on voter engagement, in terms of both registration
rates and turnout at elections, but there is no single change
that will suddenly re-engage the electorate. The problem of low
voter engagement is to a large extent a manifestation of broader
political disengagement and dissatisfaction with politics in the
UK. The recent referendum on independence for Scotland, where
84.5% of the registered electorate turned out, shows that people
will vote if they are engaged and believe their vote will contribute
to making a difference, but substantial cultural and structural
changes are necessary to convince the public that registering
to vote and participating at other elections is worthwhile. This
work must go hand in hand with renewing the public's faith in
the UK's political institutions. This is a task that requires
the support of political parties, individual politicians, electoral
administrators and the Government. On the broader issues there
may also be scope for the establishment of a new forum—such
as a Commission for Democracy—specifically to address these
issues over the long term. (Paragraph 190)
55. Political parties,
individual politicians and the Government must take action to
re-engage the electorate. We call on each political party to include
plans in its manifesto for the 2015 general election for improving
voter engagement—in terms of voter registration and turnout—as
well as how they will work to rebuild the trust of the public
in politics more broadly. Specific proposals that should be considered
for inclusion in party manifestos include:
· The
civic and legal duty of all citizens to register to vote
· Registering
to vote closer up to or on the day of an election
· Online
voting
· Extended
or weekend voting, or a public holiday for voting
· Compulsory
voting
· All-postal
voting
· Extending
the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds (Paragraph
191)
56. With the date
of the next, and future elections, set out in the Fixed-term Parliaments
Act 2011, it is possible for the Government and other political
parties to consider what plans they wish to make in this area
and consult with the Civil Service on them so they are ready for
implementation immediately after the general election. (Paragraph
192)
57. Throughout this
inquiry we have made a particular effort to take into account
the views of the public, and the evidence we have received from
individual members of the public. It is now for the public to
dictate to the parties what changes they expect to be implemented
after the next general election. This should be done throughout
the election period and—crucially—at the ballot box.
(Paragraph 193)
| 
