Conclusions and recommendations
Introduction
1. Democracy
in the UK is working less well than it used to and we need to
move swiftly to pre-empt a crisis. Millions of people are missing
from the UK's electoral registers; at the most recent estimate,
7.5 million people are not correctly registered to vote. Many
of those who are registered to vote—and in many elections
the majority—choose not to participate at elections, be
they for the UK Parliament, local government, or the European
Parliament. At the last general election almost 16 million registered
voters, 34.9% of the electorate, chose not to participate, more
than voted for candidates of any one major party. Include the
number of people who are not correctly registered to vote in this
figure, and the number of people who did not participate was greater
than the number of votes cast for candidates of the two largest
parties, or of both of the Coalition parties. That was the election
which recorded the highest proportion of registered voters—65.1%—turning
out at any UK election to take place in the 21st century—although
turnout for the recent Scottish independence referendum was 84.6%.
(Paragraph 1)
2. This
is not a new problem, but it is one that has gone unaddressed
for too long. In a modern democracy, it is unacceptable that millions
of people who are eligible to vote are missing from electoral
registers. 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. It is essential that the scale
of the response is equal to the task. Aside from these purely
arithmetic measures of voter engagement, there is clearly also
a serious problem around disengagement from, and dissatisfaction
with, politics more broadly. (Paragraph 2)
3. Many
thousands of people have given us their views on voter engagement.
These responses are particularly important to our deliberations
on this subject, because the views of the public must be central
to any discussion around electoral arrangements. It was for this
reason we produced an interim report in November 2014, with a
view to consulting the public before bringing forward our final
report. We are extremely grateful for all of the responses we
received, whether by e-mail, letter, social media, formal written
submission or survey response. These have been invaluable to informing
our deliberations and helping us refine the conclusions and recommendations
presented here. (Paragraph 6)
4. As
part of our consultation we wrote to the leader of each party
represented at the House of Commons asking for their views on
our interim report. We received responses from the Conservatives,
Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party. These responses
are extremely welcome, and we hope demonstrate a commitment on
the part of those parties to take improving voter engagement seriously.
(Paragraph 7)
Reasons for low levels of voter engagement
5. It
is disappointing that the Government has decided the issue of
party funding will not be considered further until after the General
Election. This is an issue which has gone unresolved for too long,
and further delay is not acceptable. We look to an early resolution
to this issue in the next Parliament. (Paragraph 12)
6. A
large number of respondents to our consultation felt that the
First Past the Post electoral system disenfranchised them, and
meant that for them it was not worth voting. It is hard to dispute
that in safe seats, where the incumbent has a large majority and
the party of the elected representative is unlikely to change
at a general election, there is a reduced incentive to participate
at elections. This can only have a negative impact on voter engagement.
We note that a wide range of electoral systems are already in
use for various elections that take place across the UK, and the
supremacy of one particular electoral system should therefore
not be presumed. (Paragraph 16)
7. With
respect to the reasons for current low levels of voter engagement,
the conclusions and recommendations in paragraphs 15 to 40 of
our interim report stand, although we have expanded above on the
concerns that have been expressed about the value of voting. We
hope the additional evidence we have received on these points,
as set out above, will inform progress on these issues. (Paragraph
19)
Recent developments
8. In
a time of austerity it is vital that funding for elections is
protected. We welcome the additional £9.8 million the Government
has made available to maximise registration during the transition
to IER, particularly in light of our recommendation that the Government
should look favourably on requests for additional funding. Now
this funding has been made available, it is important that it
is distributed to those organisations which can most effectively
maximise registration ahead of the general election. We recommend
that the Government move with speed to make these new funds for
maximising electoral registration available, and report back to
Parliament before Dissolution with further details of how those
funds which are not being allocated to local authorities are to
be distributed. We also recommend that the Government should recognise
the possibility that further funding will be necessary to support
the implementation of IER and to ensure that electoral registers
are maintained and enhanced in the future, and that it should
be prepared to allocate further funds if a proven need is demonstrated.
(Paragraph 29)
9. We
reaffirm the conclusions and recommendations, made in paragraphs
51 to 59 of our interim report, concerning the transition to IER
and the Electoral Commission's proposals for combatting electoral
fraud. (Paragraph 31)
Unequal registration and participation
10. We
welcome the actions that the Government has undertaken to identify
options for making registration and voting easier for people with
disabilities, but we note that these fall short of meeting the
recommendation we made that the Government publish clear and stretching
proposals setting out how registration and voting will be made
more accessible to people with disabilities. (Paragraph 36)
11. The
proposal for removing the current 15-year limit on British citizens
living overseas from participating in UK elections should be considered
as part of a wider package of measures aimed at increasing engagement
by this group, as this change would simplify the eligibility criteria
and make it easier to promote registration to British citizens
no longer resident in the UK.
(Paragraph 41)
12. EU
and Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK are amongst the most
under-represented groups on the electoral register. We welcome
the statements from the Electoral Commission that information
specifically for non-UK citizens will be available online, and
that they are one of the groups its public awareness campaigns
will target. We recommend that the Electoral Commission take
active steps to communicate this information directly to those
groups to whom it is relevant. (Paragraph 44)
13. We
welcome the progress that is being made on considering how arrangements
for non-British EU citizens participating at European Parliament
elections can be simplified, and trust this will be resolved well
before the 2019 elections. (Paragraph 45)
14. We
reaffirm the conclusions and recommendations from chapter 5 of
our interim report concerning combatting unequal levels of voter
registration and participation at elections. We hope the additional
evidence we have received and the further recommendations we have
made on these points, as set out above, can inform progress on
these issues. (Paragraph 46)
Improving electoral registration
15. We
believe it is an inviolable part of the obligations of UK citizenship
that every citizen should, as a bare minimum, register to vote.
The majority of respondents to our consultation agreed with our
view that registration should be compulsory, and action must therefore
be taken. We recommend that the legal requirements to register
to vote are clarified, and that this basic civil duty should be
enforced. Given the views expressed to us by the Association of
Electoral Administrators about the time and costs involved in
directing individuals to register to vote, we recommend that this
process be rethought with a view to increasing the use of this
power, and thereby increasing rates of electoral registration.
(Paragraph 50)
16. We
reaffirm our view that voters should, ideally, be registered to
vote automatically, using data already held by the Government.
We are pleased that the Electoral Commission would welcome the
opportunity to explore direct registration with the Government.
The Government feels that automatic registration is incompatible
with the idea that registering to vote is a civic duty and that
people should take responsibility for their own vote. Automatic
registration would supplement the efforts of citizens who register
themselves, and Electoral Registration Officers who invite them
to do so. Having such a system run alongside IER would certainly
increase levels of registration, and thereby the number of people
who could then take responsibility for their vote—having
been registered and enabled to do so. We recommend that the
Government take this offer up, and clearly set out its view on
moving to a system of automatic registration early in the next
Parliament, so that changes can be implemented as soon as practicable.
Such a system could operate alongside Individual Electoral Registration.
(Paragraph 52)
17. 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 evidence of clear and significant
public dissatisfaction. We welcome the Electoral Commission's
offer to work with the UK Government to make the necessary changes
to discontinue the open register, and recommend that the Government
take immediate action to abolish the open electoral register before
new registers are published.
(Paragraph 54)
18. We
welcome the Electoral Commission's statement that it will be supporting
Bite the Ballot's National Voter Registration Day on 5 February
2015, and also the fact the Government is considering how best
to support activities which fall on National Voter Registration
Day and beyond. We reaffirm the conclusions and recommendations
on this subject we made in paragraphs 128 and 129 of our interim
report. (Paragraph 56)
19. We
reaffirm our previous recommendation, made in paragraph 133 of
our interim report, concerning prompting people to register to
vote when they access other services, and trust that the additional
evidence we have received on this subject will inform future discussions
in this area. (Paragraph 59)
20. 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 and
on-line, from school. We have received several sensible suggestions
for how this could be done, including e-mailing students with
a link to online registration, holding registration drives at
the beginning of classes, and displaying posters in educational
buildings. We recommend that the Secretary of State for Education
promote electoral registration to schools and colleges, along
the lines set out by the Electoral Commission. 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. The Electoral
Commission should also report on the implications of duplicating
in Great Britain the "schools initiative" that operates
in Northern Ireland. All of these proposals 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 between EROs and universities—such
as those in Sheffield and Lancaster—should be replicated
across the country. (Paragraph 62)
21. We
welcome Bite the Ballot's recommendation that the Government should
explain the remit and role of Electoral Registration Officers.
Such an explanation would increase the transparency of the role,
and help to ensure that members of the public know what to expect
from their local ERO. We recommend that the Government publish
online an explanation of the role of EROs, their duties and how
members of the public can contact their local ERO. (Paragraph
64)
22. Although
we welcome the fact the Electoral Commission has launched a project
identifying, recognising and sharing 'what works' in relation
to elections, we believe it is a priority to establish what works
in relation to electoral registration, particularly given the
current transition to Individual Electoral Registration. We
recommend that this work begin as soon as possible, and certainly
before the 2015 canvass. (Paragraph 67)
23. We
reaffirm the conclusions and recommendations, made in paragraphs
104 to 115 of our interim report, concerning Electoral Registration
Officers. We trust the additional evidence we have received on
these points, as set out above, can inform progress being made
on the areas we have considered. (Paragraph 70)
24. The
Electoral Commission's goal should be that every person eligible
to be registered to vote is on the electoral register, and we
welcome the Commission's statement that the electoral community
has a shared aim to see 100% accurate and complete electoral registers.
The Commission's aim to have one million more voters registered
ahead of the 2015 general election is encouraging, and is a substantial
increase on previous targets for registration campaigns, although
this is only one step in resolving the fact that 7.5 million people
are not correctly registered to vote, and that there are also
millions of British citizens living overseas that are not registered
to vote. (Paragraph 72)
25. We
remain disappointed 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". As we stated in our
interim report, 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 Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission
review the Electoral Commission's success measures in respect
of voter registration and set much more challenging measures for
the completeness of the electoral register. (Paragraph 73)
26. We
reaffirm the conclusions and recommendations, made in paragraphs
122 and 123 of our interim report, concerning maximising registration
and registration campaigns. (Paragraph 74)
Improving voter turnout
27. We
have previously received persuasive evidence to indicate that
enabling people to register to vote closer to the date of an election,
or on an Election Day itself, would lead to increased registration
rates and turnout at elections, and our consultation has shown
there is some public support for the proposal, although the response
to our consultation was mixed. We reaffirm our recommendation
that 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. Assuming these practical challenges can be overcome,
there is no good reason for retaining administrative procedures
that create barriers to participating at elections. (Paragraph
81)
28. Our
public consultation has demonstrated significant public demand
for holding elections on the weekend, and there is evidence that
shows this could have a positive impact on levels of turnout.
We recommend that the Government explore proposals for weekend
voting—with possible alternatives being extended voting
and the designation of Election Days as public holidays. We acknowledge
the resource implications of these proposals, particularly for
rural communities. (Paragraph 84)
29. Online
voting received significant support from those who responded to
our consultation, with almost 60% of the more than 16,000 survey
responses we received favouring the proposal. That said, many
highlighted the need for an online voting system to be completely
secure. The acceptance of postal voting and the move to online
voter registration makes online voting the next logical step in
making the election process more accessible from start to finish.
In developing a system of online voting, serious consideration
needs to be given to 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,
particularly for groups such as young people and British citizens
living overseas, who are currently under-represented in electoral
participation. We recommend that the Government come forward with
an assessment of the challenges and the likely impact on turnout
of online voting by the end of 2015. The Government should then
run pilots in the next Parliament with a view to all electors
having the choice of voting online at the 2020 general election,
assuming the pilots are successful and it has been possible to
develop a system for online voting which is secure and has the
public's confidence in its integrity. (Paragraph 88)
30. The
extension of the postal vote has been a success. 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 on 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 people
who were previously registered to vote by postal ballot and were
not confirmed automatically will lose their entitlement to a postal
vote if they do not register under the new system. (Paragraph
91)
31. We
received mixed views on the possibility of holding further trials
of all-postal voting, with the majority of respondents opposing
the proposal. That said, we believe that in the future local authorities
could pursue such trials in circumstances where they commanded
community support. (Paragraph 92)
32. We
reaffirm the conclusions and recommendations, from paragraphs
165 to 167, of our interim report concerning public awareness
of and the provision of information. We trust the additional evidence
we have received on these points, as set out above, can inform
future debate on these issues, and we welcome the fact that Bite
the Ballot are producing a voter advice app to help inform voters.
We particularly welcome the work of the Speaker's Commission on
Digital Democracy, which has looked in detail at how Parliament
can become more accessible and better inform the public about
its work. Such changes can only be beneficial to voter engagement.
(Paragraph 96)
33. The
response to our consultation on whether the franchise should be
extended to 16 and 17 year olds has been mixed, with strong views
on both sides of the debate. We previously received some significant
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. Committee members hold a variety of views about
the desirability of extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year
olds, but we recommend that Parliament leads a national discussion
on this matter and that a motion on the issue is brought forward
in the 2015 Parliament to allow the House of Commons a free vote
on the principle, with a view to the introduction of legislation
if appropriate. It would be valuable for the Electoral Commission
to explore the practical implications of any change to the franchise,
so as to inform the decision of Parliament and any subsequent
legislative changes made by the Government. (Paragraph 102)
34. We
reaffirm the conclusion and recommendation, made in paragraph
172 of our interim report, concerning citizenship education, and
trust that the additional evidence we have received on this subject
will inform future discussions about this issue. (Paragraph 104)
35. International
experience demonstrates conclusively that making voting compulsory
ensures that the vast majority of eligible voters participate
at elections. Some members of the Committee believe there is a
strong case for including compulsory voting in a package of measures
to meet the threat of disengagement. 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 note the Government's view that voting is
a civic responsibility and that the importance of political participation
should be reinforced without the need for a sanction for non-compliance.
The response to our consultation was mixed, with similar numbers
in favour and against. In light of the mixed views we received
with regards to compulsory voting, we recommend that the Government
consult early in the next Parliament on the possibility of making
voting compulsory for certain types of election, and report to
the House by May 2016 to set out its view. This would encourage
debate about voting, as a right and civic duty, which we believe
could only be beneficial to voter engagement. (Paragraph 107)
36. Having
the option to vote for "none of the above" on the ballot
paper is the proposal which has had the largest support among
those who have given their views to the surveys we have drawn
upon. This change would enable people to participate at elections
even if they did not wish to vote for any of the candidates presented.
If large numbers of people did choose to cast their vote in this
way it would serve as a wakeup call for candidates and parties
that they needed to do more to gain the support of the electorate.
We recommend that the Government consult on including, on ballot
papers for national elections, an option for voters who wish to
participate but not vote for any of the candidates presented,
and report to the House on this proposal by May 2016. (Paragraph
110)
37. A
significant number of those who responded to our consultation
have highlighted the adverse impact on voter engagement of the
electoral system used for certain elections, and have called for
a variety of different electoral arrangements. Some Members of
this Committee believe that there is a case for reforming the
electoral system used for parliamentary and other elections, but
others believe we should retain the current First Past the Post
system. We believe that there is a need to respond to the concerns
about current electoral arrangements and have a public debate
about the way forward. We recommend that, early in the next
Parliament, the Government commission research on alternatives
to the First Past the Post voting system for general elections—and
experience of these both in the UK and abroad—with a view
to consulting the public on whether there is a need to change
the electoral system used for certain elections. Parliament may
also wish to take this debate forward, either by establishing
a Commission to consider the matter in detail, or possibly by
working with a research partner—much as we have with King's
College London on our work into the prospects for codifying the
UK constitution. We would welcome any such proposals. (Paragraph
113)
38. Given
its importance to the UK's democracy we feel that there is a need
to revisit the issue of electoral administration on the sole basis
of the convenience of electors. There is clear demand from the
public for changes to current electoral arrangements, as demonstrated
by the volume of responses we received to our consultation. If
taken together, changes to electoral arrangements would demonstrate
that "the powers that be" are serious about voter engagement.
That is not to say that the solution to improving voter engagement
lies solely in making the process more convenient, or providing
more information to voters, but we believe there is benefit to
making improvements in this area, as well as addressing broader
political issues. 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 made with
a view to making permanent changes to electoral arrangements by
2020. (Paragraph 115)
Conclusion
39. The
experience of the Scottish independence referendum, and in particular
the extraordinarily high turnout, demonstrates that the public
will participate in a poll when the circumstances are right. We
note that the high turnout in this case was not due to any technical
innovation, but because the vote was one of significance, the
public was engaged with the question being asked, and every vote
was seen to matter. If we are truly to see the electorate re-engaged
by UK elections, action needs to be taken to ensure that the same
things can be said about every election held in the United Kingdom.
(Paragraph 118)
40. At
the conclusion of our interim report, we noted the need for serious
changes to both the electoral arrangements in the UK, and its
political culture, if the fall in voter engagement was to be halted
and reversed. This finding stands, and we have received a significant
degree of support from members of the public for many changes
to electoral arrangements that could increase levels of engagement.
It is now for the Government, political parties and individual
politicians to take forward our work and re-engage the electorate.
(Paragraph 120)
41. We
reaffirm our call for political parties, individual politicians
and the Government to take action to re-engage the electorate.
We call again 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 details
of how they will work to rebuild the trust of the public in politics
more broadly. It is encouraging that the responses from a number
of political parties embrace the need for reforms in this area,
but it is crucial that in the next Parliament the Government rises
to the challenge presented by current low levels of engagement.
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;
· Weekend
voting, extended voting or designating Election Day a public holiday;
· Extending
the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds; and
· Compulsory
voting. (Paragraph 121)
42. 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 Opposition
parties to consider what plans they wish to make in this area
and discuss them with the Electoral Commission and Civil Service
so they are ready for implementation immediately after the general
election. We recommend that each party take up the Electoral
Commission's offer to discuss policy changes that might be relevant
to the Commission's work, to inform the parties' manifestos and
speed implementation of any changes to be made after the general
election. (Paragraph 123)
| 
