Individual Electoral Registration and Electoral Administration

Written evidence submitted by The Electoral Commission (EA 10)

1. The Electoral Commis sion is an independent body set up by the UK Parliament. Our aim is to instil integrity and public confidence in the democratic process. Our key objectives are to ensure:

· Transparency in party and election finance, with high levels of compliance

· Well-run elections, referendums and electoral registration

2. This submission sets out our initial views on the Government’s White Paper and draft legislation on individual electoral registration (IER). The Commission supports changing the way we register to vote to IER because it is important to give individuals responsibility for their own right to vote (rather than leaving this to a ‘head of household’). IER should also make the electoral register more secure. We welcome the pre-legislative scrutiny of IER and the opportunity to give evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and are pleased that the Government’s plans for a fundamental change to the way we register to vote are being carefully scrutinised by Parliament.

3. We have a number of recommendations regarding the Government’s proposals that are set out below. In addition to this we have outlined our current, detailed views on the Government’s White Paper which the Committee may wish to consider as part of its enquiry.

4. The Commission will be responding directly to the Government’s White Paper by 14 October and therefore our views may have developed further by this time.

Summary of recommendations

The electoral register in context

5. The Government and Parliament must consider the impact of how changes to the electoral registration process are made, not just on the registers’ role in establishing people’s right to vote, but also their role in other public procedures-most importantly, their use as the basis for drawing constituency boundaries and selecting juries.

6. The edited register should be abolished, as we argued in response to the Government’s consultation in 2010. [1]

7. The system must be implemented consistently across Great Britain. Electors should receive a consistently high quality of service, wherever they live. The Commission stands ready to support consistent, high quality implementation through expert advice on how the processes should work (including for example how registration forms can be designed to be as accessible as possible), and by setting performance standards for, and offering advice and guidance to, Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).

8. However, given the significance of this change, the Government should consider ensuring that the Commission is able – as a last resort – to require EROs to implement the change to IER consistently with their colleagues across Great Britain.

9. People are concerned about the uses to which any personal data they supply, may be put. When the Government introduces the primary legislation on which it is now consulting, it should also outline in detail the safeguards for personal data that will be in place under IER.

Improving accuracy

10. The Government should confirm, based on consultation with the relevant experts, that not including a person’s signature among the personal identifiers they must provide as part of their application to register will not compromise the security of the system, or the ability to investigate and deal with potentially fraudulent registrations.

11. The system must ensure that duplicate entries can be detected and ineligible duplicate entries, removed. The Government should begin consulting on potential solutions (including their implementation timescales, and costs) by the end of 2011 at the latest.

Maintaining completeness

12. The Government should amend the approach to building electoral registers for the first time under IER in 2014 - to ensure that the risks of ‘missing’ people who are not already on an electoral register, or those who have moved since the previous canvass, are minimised.

13. The Government should re-consider its proposal that people who do not wish to join an electoral register should be given a simple ‘tick-box’ option to avoid being ‘chased up’ during the following 12 months. Great Britain currently has a relatively high rate of electoral registration, and this supports other roles of electoral registers alongside establishing people’s right to vote (see above); allowing people to opt out of electoral registration so easily brings significant risks in this wider context, and should not be introduced as part of the transition to IER, when there is already a significant challenge in ensuring that the completeness of electoral registers is maintained.

14. Both the transition to IER, and the IER system itself, must be designed – on the basis of thorough testing - to be as accessible as possible, particularly for those people who may find the system more difficult. No one should lose their right to vote because the system is too complicated.

15. The first round of invitations to people to register under the IER system should be timed to take place during a designated time period across Great Britain, to enable maximum impact for supporting nationwide public awareness campaigns.

Implementation

16. This is a very significant change. It will need significant planning and resources, during a period when local electoral registration teams are expecting significant reductions in their resources. The Government should publish a detailed implementation plan alongside the introduction of legislation for IER to Parliament, so that EROs, suppliers and the Electoral Commission can provide more detailed scrutiny and advice to Parliament about the feasibility of the Government’s proposals.

17. As well as the changes to primary legislation set out in draft alongside the White Paper, a significant amount of detail will need to be set out in secondary legislation. Without this detail, it will not be possible for the EROs who will be responsible for implementing the change to make a proper assessment of its feasibility, and whether the resources to be provided are adequate. The Government should therefore publish this secondary legislation in draft, at the same time as it publishes the primary legislation on which it is now consulting.

18. The Government must ensure that adequate resources and other support reach EROs when they are needed to ensure effective implementation.

Background, context and principles

The electoral registration process

19. The electoral registration process underpins the right to vote in elections. Our electoral registers are a record of the names and addresses of everyone eligible to vote in elections held in Great Britain: to vote at an election, an individual must be listed on the electoral register at the address where they are currently resident. People who are not on the electoral register cannot vote. The last date for applying to be included on the register for a particular election is 11 working days before polling day.

Accuracy and completeness

20. In the early 2000s the Commission estimated completeness of the registers in England and Wales at 91%. Although not directly comparable, this figure was broadly in line with reported estimates for Canada, New Zealand and France, and significantly above that for the USA. [1]

21. As of 1 December 2010 there were approximately 46 million entries on electoral registers in Great Britain. [2] Based on data supplied by EROs, we estimate that approximately 5 million entries in electoral registers are changed (including new electors and home movers, for example) each year.

22. In the period between the ‘annual canvass’ that refreshes electoral registers each year, their accuracy tends to decline. Research by the Commission in 2010 indicated that the accuracy and completeness of an average electoral register will decline by around one per cent each month after it is published in December each year-although this will vary depending on the characteristics of the area. [3]

Estimated cost of electoral registration process

23. We estimate that approximately £83m per year is spent on the registration process in Great Britain. [4]

The annual canvass

24. The annual canvass of households, held each autumn across Great Britain, is intended to help ensure that the registers remain as accurate and complete as possible. The annual canvass is responsible for the vast majority of the approximately 5 million changes to entries on the electoral registers each year.

25. No evidence (e.g. of age, nationality or residence) is currently required to support the information included on the electoral register-although the ERO may request further information-including evidence about age and nationality-if they have any doubts about a person’s eligibility to be on the electoral register.

26. According to our public opinion survey findings, only 56% are confident the system prevents people who should not be on the register from registering. [5]

‘Rolling registration’

27. If an eligible elector has not been included on the register following the annual canvass, or if someone changes address after the canvass has taken place, they can complete a ‘rolling registration’ form and submit it to the ERO for the local authority area in which they live. Changes made through this route appear on the next monthly update of the electoral register.

28. Based on data provided by EROs in Great Britain, we estimate that between 2% and 3% of entries in electoral registers are changed (either through addition or deletion) as a result of applications made through the rolling registration process between December and August each year.

Inspecting other records

29. EROs are also able to update their electoral registers based on their inspection of other records. They have a power to inspect any records-including Council Tax records-kept by the local authority which appointed them (or its service providers); and records (for example, notices of deaths) held by the local registrar. EROs can also require any person or organisation-including housing associations, private landlords, universities and colleges, among others-to give information needed for the purposes of their duty to maintain their electoral registers. Any inspection should comply with the Data Protection Act 1998.

30. We are aware from our performance standards monitoring that EROs do not necessarily use these powers consistently, and that some EROs do not make full use of the power to inspect all relevant records.

Uses of the electoral register

31. As well as providing a list of people who are eligible to vote at elections, electoral registers are used for other public purposes. Candidates and political parties are entitled to copies, to assist in campaigning, completing nomination papers and checking the permissibility of donations (the Electoral Commission is also entitled to receive copies of electoral registers to assist with its compliance role in checking donations).

32. Electoral registers are also used as the basis for ensuring representative democracy. Numbers of registered electors are used by the various boundary commissions to calculate electoral quotas when they review Parliamentary and local government boundaries.

33. Electoral registers are used as the basis for selecting people to undertake jury service.

34. Electoral registers may also be used for certain specified law enforcement and crime prevention purposes.

35. Credit reference agencies may purchase complete copies of electoral registers, which they use to confirm addresses supplied by applicants for bank accounts, credit cards, personal loans and mortgages.

36. ‘Edited’ electoral registers are available for purchase for any use-such as direct mailing or the construction of sampling frames for large-scale surveys-but any elector may choose to ‘opt out’ of inclusion on the edited register.

37. Complete electoral registers that are more than 10 years old may be supplied for research purposes under certain circumstances.

Northern Ireland

38. Northern Ireland moved from a system of ‘household registration’ (similar to the system still used in Great Britain) to a system of IER in 2002, following widespread concerns about the vulnerability of the electoral registration system to fraud.

39. Electors in Northern Ireland are required to register on an individual basis and provide certain personal identifiers in the form of their date of birth, National Insurance Number and signature.

40. Voters in Northern Ireland are also-unlike voters in Great Britain-required to produce a specified form of photographic identification at polling stations before being issued with a ballot paper. They may also have their date of birth checked against the record on the electoral register.

41. When the first electoral register complied under IER was published in Northern Ireland in December 2002, it contained approximately 120,000 (10%) fewer names than the final register compiled under household registration in August 2002. An analysis of the drop in numbers concluded that it was largely explained by the removal of duplicate names that had been contained in the household register. Other factors that may help explain the reduction include the impact on particular socio-economic groups, disengagement from the political process and a lack of awareness of the new arrangements.

42. However, another feature of the move to IER in Northern Ireland was the removal of a provision which existed before December 2002, for the names of those who did not complete an annual household canvass form to be ‘carried forward’ on the electoral register for one year. Analysis suggested that the removal of the ‘carry forward’, while usefully removing ineligible names from the electoral register, also meant that some eligible people were lost from the register (although research carried out at the time was unable to quantify the proportion of ineligible to eligible entries removed).

43. Following concerns in Northern Ireland that, having moved to IER, people were reluctant to re-confirm their details every year, the requirement to hold a household canvass every year in Northern Ireland was removed in 2006, in favour of an approach known as ‘continuous registration’. This means that, once an individual elector has provided the identification information required to be registered, they are not asked to re-supply that information again unless they have changed address. It also means that the Chief Electoral Officer must use other mechanisms-data matching and local outreach programmes, for example-to identify new electors and those who have changed address.

   

Why change is needed

44. The Electoral Commission has been recommending since 2003 that a system of IER be introduced in Great Britain, principally because the current household registration system is vulnerable to fraud as there is no requirement to provide any evidence of an individual’s identity to register to vote. [1]

45. Great Britain’s system of electoral registration has remained largely the same since the Victorian period, and is one of the only systems in the world not based on registration by individuals. Instead, one person in each household is responsible for registering everyone else living at that address-they may fill the form in accurately for the whole house, they might miss off someone who should be registered or add an entry which may not be valid. The system is out-dated, not reflecting today’s reality.

46. But there is another reason to change the system. ‘Household’ registration system means there is no personal ownership by citizens of a fundamental aspect of their participation in our democracy-their right to vote. This is too important to be left for anybody other than the individual citizen to register.

47. Others, including the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission), the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL), the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, the Association of Electoral Administrators (AEA) and the Society for Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) and the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) have expressed support for the introduction of IER and/or an requirement for identification as part of the registration process in Great Britain.

48. Research shows that there are real problems with the accuracy of our electoral registers. The Commission’s 2010 case study research showed that the overwhelming cause of inaccurate entries on registers was where electors had moved home and not informed the relevant ERO. [2]

49. Although data for the early 2000s suggested that overall levels of completeness for electoral registers in Great Britain were broadly similar to those of other comparable democracies, our 2005 report Understanding electoral registration showed that 8-9 per cent of the eligible population in England and Wales were not registered in 2000. This would have been equivalent to 3.5 million people at that time. Comparable data was not available for Scotland.

50. The Electoral Commission, funded by the Cabinet Office, is currently working on a project designed to provide an updated, nationally-representative estimate of the accuracy and completeness of the electoral registers in Great Britain. The findings from this study are due in December 2011.

51. The consequences of inaccurate and incomplete electoral registers are that:

· People cannot vote (or are wrongly registered at a polling station perhaps miles from their new home)

· People are not contacted by candidates and political parties campaigning during an election; or, campaigners find themselves writing to, or visiting, people who are no longer there

· People are not counted in setting boundaries

· People are not summoned for jury service

· There are opportunities for people’s votes to be ‘stolen’ if someone uses an old entry on the register to vote in the name of someone who has moved away

52. And people who, though eligible, are not on electoral registers, are not spread evenly across society and across Great Britain. Under-registration and inaccuracy are closely associated with the social groups most likely to move home. Particular groups are more likely not to be on the register and include:

· Young people (17-24 year olds)

· Private sector tenants

· Black and minority ethnic British residents. [3]

53. The Electoral Commission is clear that introducing IER is the right thing to do, because of the need:

· to improve the security of the system, making it less vulnerable to fraud

· to recognise people’s personal responsibility for this important stake in our democracy

· for a system that people recognise as up-to-date, not rooted in Victorian ideas about households and ‘heads of household’

54. But this means that:

· We must ensure that IER really does ensure much greater accuracy-any new system must deal especially with the issue of home-movers, which means dealing with duplicate entries.

· We must not lose the strengths of the current system in terms of completeness-the current annual canvass approach produces high levels of completeness.

· We must be especially careful to design a transition process that ensures that eligible people who are currently on the register, but only because someone else has entered them, do not drop off the register simply because they are not used to, or have problems with, the registration process.

· We agree with the Government that we should take opportunities to find new ways to reach people who are not currently on the register, and give them the chance to register.

· We must reassure people that the personal data they will be asked to provide, will be kept safe.

55. Moving to IER is absolutely right. But we have stressed all along that this is a significant change to the system of registering to vote. It carries significant risks and so it needs to be carefully managed.

Principles

56. In June 2010 the Electoral Commission published principles which we believe should underpin the changes to the registration system. These principles – outlined below-are informed by the need to ensure that the move to IER is managed carefully and implemented in a way which recognises the fundamental importance of voters participating in electoral and democratic processes, and being able to trust the way our elections work.

· The system should not prevent anyone who is eligible to take part in elections in Great Britain from registering to vote

· The system should ensure that anyone who is not eligible to vote is not included in an electoral register

· These changes to the system should be easily explained to, and understood by, electors

· The system should ensure that all personal data is properly managed and protected

· The system should be capable of being implemented efficiently and without a detrimental impact on the existing duties and responsibilities of EROs

Registration as personal choice

57. In the White Paper proposals for 2014 there is an important suggestion (paragraph 74) that the legislation will allow a person to indicate to the ERO in response to the invitation to register that they do not wish to be chased-this will enable the ERO not to ask that individual to register again during that canvass period. The White Paper states that this ‘will ensue that …. EROs direct their resources to finding eligible electors who want to be registered’. Although this proposal is set in the context of the White Paper section about 2014, we understand the intention is that this would apply every year under IER; the White Paper makes clear that ‘it will not be possible for an elector to declare that they do not wish to be registered on a permanent basis’. However, under these proposals there is in practice nothing really to prevent people from opting out of the registration process on a permanent basis, simply by ‘opting out’ every year - in effect, that is a permanent opt-out.

58. The Commission has significant concerns about this proposal. We would not want to see a move away from the current approach-where electoral registration though not compulsory is regarded as an important civic duty-without further debate. The electoral register is not just a record of an individual’s private choice about whether or not they intend to cast a vote at elections, but is also used for important wider public purposes. Not being on the electoral register leads to a range of consequences, not just being unable to cast a vote, including:

· People not being contacted by candidates and political parties campaigning during an election

· People not being counted in setting boundaries

· People not being summoned for jury service

59. The current approach to maintaining electoral registers is conducted in the context of a strong expectation that the ERO will produce as complete (and accurate) a register as possible, and that citizens will cooperate by providing information for that. Whether or not they then vote is up to them.

60. The risk of the easy ‘opt-out’ proposed in the White Paper is that registration levels (currently 90%+) could drop to around election turnout levels (65% at the last election to the UK Parliament in 2010, much lower at other elections). There could be serious (unintended) consequences for our wider democratic processes if the numbers of people on electoral registers dropped significantly. The Commission could not support this outcome in the context of the overall objective of maintaining the completeness of our electoral registers.

61. Whatever the arguments for and against using electoral registers as the basis for drawing constituency boundaries, or summoning juries, the fact is that they are used for these wider public purposes at present. It is not sensible to jeopardise the completeness of our registers by introducing an easy ‘opt-out’ without much more debate and consideration of the wider consequences.

62. We are particularly concerned about the potential impact of this proposal if it is implemented at the same time as electors are asked to make the transition to individual electoral registration. Irrespective of the conclusions of any wider debate about the principle of allowing people to choose not to register, t he Government should not pursue this proposal as part of the implementation of IER .

Accuracy

Detecting duplicate entries

63. Improving the accuracy of our electoral registers is a key aim of the change to IER. The ability to identify ineligible duplicate entries must therefore be an essential feature of the new system; without it, there is a considerable risk that the accuracy of our registers will be compromised-and public confidence with it.

64. The Government is clear in the White Paper that there will be ‘no new national database’, but it will be important for the various electoral registers across the country to be cross-checked against each other to identify and where necessary eliminate duplicate entries. The White Paper does not make clear how this key outcome will be achieved, and the Government should begin consulting on potential solutions (including their implementation timescales, and costs) by the end of 2011 at the latest.

Verifying identity

65. The Government proposes that in order to be included on an electoral register, people will be asked to provide their National Insurance Number (NINO) and Date of Birth (DOB), which will then be checked against DWP or HMRC databases-but that there will be no requirement for a signature. The White Paper explains that a signature ‘does not add any significant security to an application nor is there the facility to verify the authenticity of the signature’ and that removing the requirement for a signature ‘will also enable registrations to be made through new channels such as online or by telephone’.

66. We would welcome an approach which simplifies the range of information people are asked to provide for checking, but the Government should confirm with the police and prosecutors that removing signatures from the proposed personal identifiers would not compromise the security of the electoral registration system, or the ability to investigate potentially fraudulent registration.

67. The Government has not proposed removing the requirement to provide a signature when applying for and returning postal and proxy votes.

68. Any system of verification must include accessible and robust alternatives for people who are unable to provide a NINO and/or DOB, or in circumstances where attempts to verify the identifiers prove unsuccessful.

69. The White Paper (paragraph 51) suggests an exceptions process that would be available for those who are unable or unwilling to provide the specified identifying information.

70. We would not support giving people the option of not supplying the required identifiers simply because they are ‘unwilling’. Such an approach risks undermining public confidence in the integrity of the IER system; and could also lead to inconsistent practices across local authorities. The Commission considers that any exception to the general requirement for the NINO and DOB should be available only to those who are unable to provide the information.

71. However, we question the need for a separate process for those unable to provide the NINO and DOB. The Commission’s view is that instead, people should be required to provide two forms of identification from a specified list – similar to the approach in Northern Ireland-where electors are required to provide evidence as proof of residency, but may sign a declaration if they are unable to supply any of their identifying information.

72. We note that the legislation will allow digital identity assurance should these services become available in the future. We agree that it makes sense to provide flexibility in the legislation in the event that improved methods of verification become available.

Completeness

The transition to IER

73. The process of moving from a system based on household registration to one in which individuals take personal responsibility for registering is challenging and needs careful planning.

74. The starting point for the transition must be a list of electors that is, as far as is possible, accurate, up-to-date and complete. Based on that list, there then needs to be a process of collecting identifying information from those electors to re-build the electoral register on the basis of IER.

75. The Government has proposed the following approach:

· The starting-point will be the electoral registers published on 1 December 2013 (as updated monthly from 1 January 2014)

· From 1 July 2014, EROs will send IER forms to each person on their electoral register at that date (and to everyone who wants to join the electoral register from then on). IER forms will ask for an individual’s:

o Name

o Address (and previous address within the last 12 months-which will enable EROs to notify their counterpart in another local authority area that a registered elector has moved)

o Nationality

o Personal identifiers (see paragraph 65 above)

· The form will also offer the individual a chance to say they do not want their name to appear on the ‘edited register’ (see paragraphs 85-87 below).

· (IER forms will also offer individuals a chance to indicate that they do not wish to register, and do not wish to be ‘chased’ further for the next 12 months. The Commission does not believe that the Government should pursue this proposal as part of the implementation of IER-see paragraphs 57-62 above).

· IER forms will include an insert which asks people to give the details of anyone else who lives at their address and has not received an IER form

· In addition to the individually-addressed IER forms, Household Enquiry Forms (HEFs) will be sent in 2014 to properties where no electors are registered, including new homes.

· EROs will continue to be subject to their existing duties – that is, if they do not receive a response to the IER forms, they should send reminders and make doorstep enquiries where necessary.

· Entries for people who do not respond to the IER form will not be removed from registers unless the ERO has evidence that they are no longer eligible to be registered. This means that most non-responders will be ‘carried forward’ to the register published in December 2014 and will still be able to vote at elections in 2015.

76. The Commission supports the Government’s proposal to use a ‘carry forward’ provision during the transition to IER. A clear lesson from the introduction of IER in Northern Ireland is that, however well-designed the process and however clear the accompanying public information messages, by no means all eligible electors will respond to the change in the first transition year. To deal with the risk that these electors will be disenfranchised, it is therefore sensible to allow a limited ‘carry forward’ provision, which effectively spreads the transition over a two-year period.

77. However, the Commission nevertheless sees the following risks with the Government’s approach to the transition:

· We know that significant numbers of registered electors move during each year, [1] and we estimate that approximately 5 million entries in electoral registers are changed (including new electors and home movers, for example) each year.

· The vast majority of changes each year are identified by the annual canvass process, rather than monthly rolling registration updates, and our research suggests that by July 2014, the December 2013 electoral registers will be, on average, 5-6% less accurate than when they were first published.

· This means that by July 2014, as many as 2-3 million people across Great Britain could be no longer resident at the address recorded on the December 2013 electoral registers-and would therefore not receive an IER form in July 2014.

· Without a full canvass of households during autumn 2014, any other changes due to electors moving which would previously have been identified by the canvass process may not be identified.

· Under the Government’s ‘carry forward’ proposal (which the Commission supports in principle), if individuals who have moved do not complete an IER form, their names will remain on the electoral register until after the proposed UK General Election in 2015, but at the wrong address. This is unlikely to help those electors to participate in the 2015 elections, and carries an increased risk of fraud from poll cards and postal ballot packs being sent to addresses where electors are no longer resident.

78.While the Commission recognises that there is no easy solution to the challenges of making the transition from the current household system to the IER system, we are concerned about these risks. We think that the Government should carefully examine the case for running a full household canvass in mid-2014, and sending IER forms immediately to everyone listed on the household canvass return. While we note that the Government appears to have taken the view that this approach would have an unacceptable cost, and could confuse electors, the Commission questions whether the potential savings are justified by the risks that we have set out above to the accuracy and completeness of the electoral registers to be used at the 2015 UK General Election. We believe that it should be possible to explain to electors that the approach to the household canvass in 2014 would be different, and tell them to expect to receive IER forms as a result of completing the canvass form.

Public awareness

79. Whichever process is followed, it is important that during the transition period, IER forms are sent out during the same reasonably short period across Great Britain. This will allow maximum impact for accompanying public information messages to remind people to look out for the forms, tell them what to do if they have not received one, and why it is important for them to complete them and send them back to their ERO. The scale of the challenge is significant, with around 46 million people needing to act in order to secure their vote.

80. A public information campaign designed to reach such a large number of people will need to be carefully planned in order to maximise its effectiveness and coverage, especially given the need to make the most efficient use of available resources. The Commission will continue to develop its plans in this area in conjunction with Government and other relevant stakeholders, paying particular attention to how public information can best be delivered, and the balance between the Commission’s GB-wide campaigns, local campaigns by EROs, and harnessing opportunities to reinforce the message about IER through a wide range of other interested groups across society-including political parties at national and local levels. The Commission will also need to ensure that public information about the transition is fully accessible to all groups in society, especially those who are most likely to need additional explanation and support.

Data matching pilots and other initiatives

81. The White Paper explains that the Government is exploring, through a series of pilot schemes, ‘whether EROs can use public databases to identify people eligible to vote but missing from the register so they can invite them to register’. There are 22 data matching pilot areas (19 in England and three in Scotland). If these schemes prove successful then the White Paper states that the Government will look at how data matching can be extended across the country. The Commission supports these trials and will be conducting a statutory evaluation of them, which will be completed by March 2012. We will report on:

· how far the schemes achieved the purpose of assisting the local registration officer to meet their objectives (ie, that people entitled to be on their register are on it; people not entitled are not on it; and that information about people who are on the register is correct). whether (and if so, how much) people objected to the scheme.

· how easy the scheme was to administer.

· whether and how far the scheme resulted in time/cost savings.

82. Data matching allows EROs to match names and addresses on their local electoral register with names and addresses on existing national databases (in addition to the local information they can already use-see paragraphs 15-16 above), so that ineligible entries can be removed and people who are missing from the register have the opportunity to be added.

83. We do not yet know how effective data matching will be. Whatever the outcome of the trials, however, the Commission believes that in order to mitigate the significant risks of eligible people being lost from electoral registers during the transition to IER, the Government should give further detailed consideration to wider options that will help ensure the completeness of the electoral register throughout the implementation process. Further options are needed not only in the event that data matching is less successful than we hope, but also to deal with ‘at risk’ groups who are less easily picked up through the data matching approach.

84. The Commission also believes that where risk-mitigation approaches including data-matching are proved to be effective, EROs should be required to use them.

The ‘edited’ register

85. The Commission has previously recommended that the ‘edited’ register should no longer be compiled or made available for sale. [1] The previous Government consulted on this issue in 2009/10 but no decision has been announced either by the previous Government, or this Government.

86. Our reasons for recommending abolition of the edited register are as follows:

· It is wrong in principle to combine a request for information for the purposes of electoral registration, with the issue of direct marketing. The Commission is concerned that, in some cases, combining these issues may act as a deterrent to people registering. A survey carried out in 2008 by the Local Government Association and Association of Electoral Administrators found that almost nine in ten electoral officers surveyed believed that the practice of selling the electoral register discouraged people from registering to vote. [2]

· The Commission shares the concerns of the Data Sharing Review-which Richard Thomas and Mark Walport (then Information Commissioner and Director of the Wellcome Trust respectively) undertook at the request of the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary in 2008-that asking electors whether they wish to opt out, rather than opt in, may be confusing, and that many people may not realise that the ‘edited’ register can be sold to anyone.

87. The introduction of IER in Great Britain strengthens the case for abolishing the ‘edited’ register - especially if the Government were to persist with the idea of offering an ‘opt out’ choice for electors who ‘do not wish to be chased’ by their ERO (see para graphs 57-62 above) - which risks further confusing people about what they are opting into and out of. We are also concerned that the proposal to ask people for personal information such as their DOB and NI NO - which we support in the interests of accurate electoral registers - will be more difficult to deliver if people are concerned about the possibility that this information may be made available to third parties. Abolishing the ‘edited’ electoral register will provide additional reassurance to people and reduce their concerns about what may happen to their personal data.

Implementation

Ensuring consistent implementation and a high quality service for electors

88. Since July 2008, the Electoral Commission has set performance standards for EROs in Great Britain, covering planning, maintaining completeness and accuracy, ensuring electoral integrity and promoting public awareness. The Commission has reported annually on how well EROs are performing against these standards. Our assessments show that there has been a continuing improvement in EROs’ performance since 2008. However, there remain 45 EROs who, in some aspects of their performance, have shown no improvement over the three years in which we have been reporting. And the overall figures contain evidence of patchy performance. In particular, our performance standards reports show that there is still work to be done by EROs in relation to their plans for participation activities; that is, their plans to encourage local people to register to vote. These activities will be crucial during the implementation of IER and subsequently.

89. The Commission will be looking at how we use performance standards to monitor the preparedness of EROs for the introduction of IER, and to provide early-warning signs where EROs may not have the capacity or capability to deliver. Our approach to supporting and monitoring the performance of EROs will need to be adapted to reflect the new legislative and practical requirements of IER. We have already begun the process of reviewing the current standards for EROs and will undertake public consultation on proposed revisions once the legislative framework is clear. We intend to publish our revised standards and supporting guidance well in advance of the implementation of any new processes, and will monitor and report on EROs’ performance against these revised standards during 2014 and 2015.

90. However, there is no formal mechanism in place to ensure that EROs take steps or put in place plans to meet the agreed standards. We think that poses a significant risk to the achievement of the outcomes of IER, one of which should be a consistently high quality of service for all electors.

91. Section 52 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 gives the Secretary of State a power of direction over EROs following a recommendation by the Commission, requiring them to comply with any general or special directions in relation to the discharge of their functions. But this power is seldom used, not well understood and not conducive to timely interventions of the kind that might be necessary during the implementation of IER. We do not believe it will ensure consistently high-quality service to electors.

92. There needs to be an effective, straightforward and timely method for ensuring individual EROs deliver the transition to IER effectively, and manage the risks that it involves. Much of this can be done through developing our approach to monitoring performance against the Commission’s standards. But we recommend that instead of the Secretary of State retaining such a wide power of direction, the Commission’s existing powers to set and monitor performance standards for EROs should be strengthened with appropriate sanctions to enable us to direct EROs to take steps to meet the agreed standards. Such a power should be used as a last resort, in cases where there is an unacceptable risk that electors may not receive a consistent high quality service.

93. The draft legislation published with the White Paper includes a provision [1] requiring EROs to ‘have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State about the determination of applications under this section’. The Commission produces comprehensive guidance for EROs. We would expect to issue revised guidance to EROs on the determination of registration applications under IER. It therefore seems unnecessary for an additional guidance function to be given to the Secretary of State; the Commission should take on this role.

94. We would welcome further discussions with the UK and Scottish Governments and EROs to explore the most effective way of implementing this proposed new model for ensuring effective delivery of these new registration processes.

Consistent access to electoral registration

95. It is an important principle of participation that the process for registering voters is effective, impartial and non-discriminatory, with clear criteria for registration and equal access to the registration process for all who are eligible.

96. We support the goal of an electoral registration system that can adapt to future developments-including different channels for registration. However, new channels should be universally available, rather than being limited to areas that can afford or choose to implement them. There is already inconsistency in the provision by EROs of registration channels-for example, some, but not all, EROs, offer electors the option of confirming their registration details by telephone. The introduction of IER provides the opportunity to ensure that electors get a consistent service across Great Britain, and in particular that all electors have a consistent choice of channels to access the electoral registration service.

97. We welcome the Government’s proposal that the Commission should be given the role of designing electoral registration forms under the new system, and that EROs should be required to use these forms. This will help ensure that forms are of a consistent standard, have been tested for usability and that essential information is provided in a format that is easy for voters to understand. A similar role was undertaken by the Commission at the recent Wales and UK-wide referendums, which proved successful.

A clear planning trajectory

98. The change to IER will mean significant changes for EROs and it is essential that sufficient time, resources and support is given to them as they prepare for this change.

99. While the Government has indicated that it intends to introduce legislation to Parliament in early 2012, much of the essential detail required to properly plan and prepare for implementation cannot be provided until secondary legislation has been confirmed. The scale and complexity of the changes required to be implemented before July 2014 are illustrated below.

· EROs will need to be ready to issue IER forms on 1 July 2014, and to receive completed forms and verify identifiers almost immediately. This means that all forms will have been printed and the required IT systems are in place by the end of June 2014.

· For EROs to have properly planned and produced contracts for the production and distribution of IER forms in July 2014, they will need confirmation of individual funding assumptions and also confirmed printing specifications and requirements.

· The Electoral Commission will need to carry out development, design and user research on proposed IER forms before specifying them for EROs to print and issue to electors.

· EROs will also need to have regard to advice and performance standards issued by the Electoral Commission as they plan for the implementation of IER. Our guidance and standards will need to reflect the detailed regulations contained in secondary legislation.

· For electoral management software suppliers to ensure that EROs can process returned forms in July 2014, they will need to have developed, tested and issued any new or revised software. Software suppliers and EROs will need confirmation of the technical specification of the communication systems and processes required to verify identifiers provided on IER forms before they can begin development of their own systems.

· Electoral management software suppliers will also need confirmation of the funding and payment process for changes to electoral management systems before they are able to commit to implementing required changes.

100. We recognise that the Government will need to reflect on the views expressed during pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposals set out in the White Paper before setting out its final policy for IER in legislation. It should not, however, delay producing a clear plan and budget for implementation, including the details of all associated IT development and procurement processes, for consultation with EROs. This plan should be published when the Government introduces legislation for IER to Parliament, so that EROs, suppliers and the Electoral Commission can provide more detailed scrutiny and advice to Parliament about the feasibility of the Government’s proposals.

Funding the change

101. Expenditure for electoral registration falls into two main categories: funding the annual canvass; and funding the year-round registration process, known as ‘rolling registration’. The expenses of registration must be properly accounted for by the ERO and then paid by the council (Section 54, RPA 1983). The amount of finance allocated to this service will, however, be determined by the council which will need to balance it against provision of finance across all services. This is in contrast to the provision of adequate staffing resource in order to assist the ERO, which is a direct duty of the council and should not be subject to wider constraints (Section 52(4), RPA 1983).

102. Currently, the budget for electoral registration must be provided to the ERO by the council that appointed them, and must be sufficient to allow the ERO to fulfil their duty to maintain the register. Each local authority is required to provide its ERO with adequate funds to carry out house-to-house, postal or other enquiries as are necessary in order to produce and maintain the register of electors.

103. It will clearly be essential to ensure that EROs are properly resourced to deliver their responsibilities under IER. There will inevitably be varying capacities across local authorities and among EROs to resource and implement IER and, as noted, although local authorities are required to fund electoral registration, it is not as a service subject to ring fencing or other restrictions as to how resources must be allocated. Without mechanisms to ensure that any additional funding directly reaches EROs, there is a risk that IER will not be implemented consistently across Great Britain. We would therefore recommend that the Government identifies effective ways of ensuring that any funding allocated to the implementation of IER is only used to support the implementation of IER and any related electoral registration activity.

104. The Government also needs to ensure that sufficient funding is available for the activities listed in the White Paper-for example, data matching, other initiatives to encourage registration, online registration, canvassers.

105. The Commission will fund public awareness activity and our research programme.

The Electoral Commission’s role in the electoral registration process

106. The Commission’s key responsibilities during the transition from household to individual registration will be:

· Providing the UK Parliament with robust evidence about the implementation of IER. As the independent expert body for elections and electoral registration, we will develop and deliver a programme of research to support scrutiny and assessment of the impact of these changes. For example, we will report on the completeness and accuracy of the electoral registers before and after the transition to IER. Our next report on the completeness and accuracy of the registers in Great Britain will be published in December 2011. We will also be closely monitoring the public response to the new registration system.

· Supporting government, EROs and others to ensure that a clear and robust plan is developed for implementing individual registration.

· Providing guidance and support to help EROs collect personal identifiers, and monitoring delivery across Great Britain via our performance standards framework. Guidance and standards issued by the Commission to EROs will be updated to reflect the revised statutory requirements for IER.

· Developing and coordinating a programme of public awareness activity to ensure electors understand what they need to do under the new registration system.

September 2011