Electoral Registration and Administration Bill - Electoral Commission

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill House of Commons Second Reading Wednesday 23 May 2012 On 10 May 2012 the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill had its First Reading. Second Reading is on 23 May 2012. The Bill provides for the introduction of individual electoral registration (IER) in Great Britain, and a number of changes relating to electoral administration and the conduct of elections. This briefing sets out the Electoral Commission’s view on key issues arising from the Bill. It covers the following:  



Background Part 1: Individual Electoral Registration in Great Britain o Accuracy  Confirming identity  Duplicate entries o Completeness  Registration as a civic duty  Data matching o Implementation and delivery  Implementation plan  Consistent implementation  Funding o Drafting of the legislation and order–making powers Part 2: Administration and conduct of elections etc. o Inadequate performance of returning officer: reduction of charges o Voters at the close of poll

For further information, please contact Kate Brightwell, Senior Public Affairs Officer on 020 7271 0671 or [email protected]

Background Since June 2011, the Government has been consulting on its proposals for IER. The Commission is pleased that there has been so much scrutiny of the Government’s White Paper, published in June last year, including the enquiry of the Political and Constitutional Reform (PCR) Committee. We support the introduction of IER because we believe it will address vulnerabilities in the current electoral registration process. It is also right that

people are able to take individual responsibility for their own vote. The Commission first recommended in 2003 that a system of IER with verifiable personal identifiers should be introduced in Great Britain. The introduction of IER in Great Britain will be the biggest change to the voter registration process since the universal franchise was introduced. It requires careful planning and implementation and needs to be done in a way that puts the voter first. We want to be sure that the system maximises the accuracy and completeness of the electoral registers. IER will also be a significant change for Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) who will need time to prepare for its introduction; in particular, updating their systems to ensure security of personal data and to enable them to check the information provided. As part of the pre-legislative process, we have given oral and written evidence to the PCR Committee and submitted a response to the Government’s White Paper. In all of these we have set out our views on the Government’s current plans and made a number of recommendations concerning the implementation of IER. The Government responded to pre-legislative scrutiny in February 2012 and we published our initial reaction to its response. We have continued to have constructive engagement with the Government on its proposals and now look towards the Bill being debated by Parliament to ensure this policy is legislated and implemented effectively.

PART 1 - INDIVIDUAL ELECTORAL REGISTRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN

Accuracy Improving the accuracy of electoral registers in Great Britain is a key aim of the change to IER. The new system must ensure that only those who have been verified as eligible electors who are resident at a particular address are included on the electoral register. The system must also enable the comparison of electoral registers held by different EROs to ensure that duplicate entries can be identified, and redundant duplicate entries removed. We are confident that improved accuracy of electoral registers can be achieved through careful introduction of a system of IER.

Confirming identity In its response to the PCR Committee Report, the Government said it would explore whether matching current electoral register entries against other data sources (including data held by the DWP and local data sources) could be used to confirm the majority of entries on the electoral register during the transition period

2

(2014–15).1 Under this proposal, only those citizens whose information could not be matched in this way would be required to apply individually. We note that Schedule 2 of the Bill includes provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling this approach to be implemented. Any opportunity to make the new registration process easier for voters, without losing the key benefits of improving the accuracy and completeness of registers, should be fully explored. It is important to be clear, however, that the use of data matching to confirm the identity of individuals has not yet been subject to thorough testing and evaluation. Specifically, the pilot schemes undertaken to date have not evaluated the reliability of matches with other data sources: it is possible that a proportion of apparent matches may be ‘false positives’, where both data sources are equally out of date or where two electors with the same names at the same address are matched by a single record. The use of data matching to confirm the validity of entries in electoral registers must be tested and evaluated before any final decision is taken on its use during the transition period and over the longer term. Without further robust testing and evaluation of this proposed approach, there is a risk that the names of people who are not in fact eligible electors will continue to be included in electoral registers even after the introduction of IER. The Government has laid an Order which will provide for the piloting of this process later this year. The Commission will evaluate those pilots and we expect to publish our conclusions on the effectiveness of data matching by early 2013. Until that evaluation has been concluded, it will not be possible to say whether or not the proposed confirmation process will protect the accuracy of electoral registers during the transition to IER.

Duplicate entries We note that Clause 21 of the Bill repeals powers to establish a co-ordinated online record of electors (CORE). Although we understand that the Government does not wish to create a central database of electors, this would mean there will – for example – be no ability to deal with the issue of home-movement, with the consequence that out-of-date entries remain on the electoral register, or the same person registering to vote in multiple local authority areas. The system would therefore still potentially be vulnerable to fraud, undermining one of the key reasons for introducing IER, that is to improve the security of and public confidence in electoral registration. The Government must continue to explore other ways to enable the detection and removal of redundant duplicate entries from electoral registers, thereby improving accuracy.

1

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/ier-command-paper

3

Completeness As well as enabling people to vote in elections, accurate and complete electoral registers provide the basis for other important civic procedures, including drawing electoral boundaries and selecting juries. The Commission’s recent research into the completeness and accuracy of electoral registers in Great Britain2 estimated that the December 2010 registers were between 85–87% complete, with at least 6 million eligible people missing from the register. Ensuring the completeness of our electoral registers will be essential during the transition to IER and over the longer term. We therefore welcome the fact that the Government has listened to concerns about the ‘opt-out’ and dropped the proposal, and that its also intends to move the autumn 2013 canvass to spring 2014. However, because the accuracy of registers deteriorates by 1% each month following a canvass (owing to the effect of home movement), the Government needs to ensure that the gap between the canvass and the write out to electors, to explain that the system is changing, is as short as possible. We therefore recommend that the write out starts on 1 July 2014, rather than being delayed until September 2014. The Government has still not made a clear decision on this timing.

Registration as a civic duty We are pleased that the Government has recognised the importance of electoral registration as a key civic duty by retaining a penalty for individuals who fail to respond to a request from an ERO. The ability for an ERO to impose a civil penalty will be important in circumstances where an individual has been particularly obstructive or uncooperative in responding to an invitation to register.

Data matching Schedule 2 of the Bill includes provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling EROs to use data matching as a way of identifying people eligible to vote but currently missing from the electoral register. Improved data matching will also allow EROs to identify those people included in registers who are not in fact entitled to be registered. The effectiveness of data matching is still being tested through further pilot schemes, which are expected to take place later this year. Our March 2012 evaluation of the first set of data matching pilots noted that the absence of a clear, common methodological framework for the schemes had a significant impact on the ability to draw clear conclusions about the effectiveness of data matching as a

2

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/145366/Great-Britainselectoral-registers-2011.pdf

4

tool for maintaining the accuracy and completeness of the electoral registers.3 It is therefore essential that the second round of pilots has a clear framework to encourage consistent delivery across the pilot areas. If they are set up correctly, we expect the pilots to allow the Commission to assess whether giving EROs access to data held in national public databases is an efficient (and cost-effective) way of improving levels of accuracy and completeness. And specifically, whether it is more efficient than the good use of data already held at a local-level. Notwithstanding the outcome of the data matching trials, the Government should continue to explore a wider range of options to help ensure the completeness of electoral registers during and beyond the implementation of IER. Parliamentarians may wish to seek reassurances from the Minister on further activities to support this.

Postal or proxy voters The Bill provides that people who fail to register under the new system in 2014 will have their registration carried forward to 2015 - ensuring that they will be registered to vote at the 2015 UK general election. From 2104, however, people who currently vote by post or have appointed a proxy will not be able to use this method of voting until they have registered under the new system. The Government must ensure that the right level of resources and funding are put in place to minimise the risk that large numbers of proxy or postal voters (for whatever reason) fail to register under the new system, potentially having an adverse impact on levels of participation at elections after the introduction of IER, including the next UK Parliamentary general election.

Implementation and delivery of IER Implementation plan It is essential that the Government publishes a detailed implementation plan as soon as possible to show EROs and others what needs to be done, and when, to deliver the change to IER. We recommended in our White Paper response that this should be published by December 2011. We remain concerned that the Government has not yet been able to set out for EROs, the Commission, political parties and others involved in the process of registration the detail of how and when the steps towards implementing these significant changes will need to be achieved.

3

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/146836/Data-matchingpilot-evaluation.pdf

5

For the transition to IER to begin by early 2014 (as current Government plans indicate) a detailed implementation plan needs to be published as soon as possible so that Parliamentarians scrutinising this Bill can assess the feasibility of the delivery of these proposals. This is something the Government can and should be doing. The detailed planning for the introduction of IER must also take account of any elections or referendums taking place around the same time, including the proposed Scottish referendum.

Consistent implementation IER must be delivered in a consistent and effective way across Great Britain, and it must put the interests of the voter first. The Commission recommended in its response to the White Paper that it should be given powers to intervene to ensure consistent delivery of IER, although the Secretary of State’s power to issue directions to EROs, following a recommendation from the Commission, remains available. The PCR Committee recommended in its report that there is a strong case for the Commission to be given powers to intervene where EROs consistently fail to meet agreed performance standards. The Government has not supported either of these recommendations and therefore the Government will need to be clear as to how it will ensure consistent, high quality implementation across Great Britain.

Funding It will also be important that funding gets to those who need it, to ensure implementation is consistent and effective. The Government has not yet explained how funding will be allocated: we remain of the view that this funding should be ring-fenced.

Drafting of the legislation and order-making powers We are disappointed that the opportunity has not been taken to simplify this area of legislation – inserting new provisions into what is already a heavily amended and complex Act (The Representation of the People Act 1983) means the law will become harder to interpret and follow. Simplifying the legislative framework would reduce the risk of inadvertent errors and omissions and would improve overall intelligibility of electoral law for those who have to deliver electoral registration functions. We therefore look forward to the proposed Law Commission review of electoral law as a further opportunity to simplify electoral law. The Bill gives very broad order making powers to the Secretary of State in a range of areas, including the power to modify any other Act or secondary legislation. Before legislating for new powers, the Government should ensure that it is satisfied that its scope to use existing powers and directions, together with those of the Commission, have been fully explored in the context of what will be needed to deliver IER 6

PART 2 – ADMINISTRATION AND CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS ETC. Part 2 of the Bill includes clauses relating to the administration and conduct of elections. We welcome the provisions in this part of the Bill, the majority of which reflect long-standing recommendations previously made by the Commission. These include extending the electoral timetable for UK Parliamentary elections; enabling candidates jointly nominated by two or more political parties to use an emblem on ballot papers; enabling regulations to be made to place EROs under a duty to give notifications to electors about rejected postal votes; and allowing Police Community Support Officers to enter polling stations. The Commission will provide more detailed commentary on these provisions during Committee Stage of the Bill.

Inadequate performance of returning officer: reduction of charges Clause 17 provides that the Secretary of State may, following a recommendation by the Commission, withhold or reduce a Returning Officer’s fees for reasons of poor performance. These provisions should enhance the accountability of Returning Officers and we believe that they are a step in the right direction. We will, however, continue to press for a wider debate about how to ensure the effective management and funding of elections in the UK, and these provisions should be considered as part of that wider debate.

Voters at the close of poll The Government should take this opportunity to change the law to make clear that eligible electors who are entitled to vote at a polling station and who are in the queue to enter the polling station at the close of poll will be allowed to vote. We recommended this important change following the high-profile problems of queues at some polling stations at the 2010 General Election which prevented more than 1,000 people from casting their votes. The Scottish Government changed legislation for the May 2012 Scottish local government elections to implement our recommendation, and we are disappointed that the UK Government has not yet accepted the need for a change to similarly protect voters at other elections, including future UK Parliamentary elections. Despite support from the House of Lords Constitution Committee, the Government has so far indicated that it believes this to be solely an issue of planning. Though careful planning is essential, no degree of planning can entirely mitigate the potential for queues at the close of poll.

7