Submission to Individual Electoral Registration (IER) consultation from the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Policy Committee on Constitutional and

Political Reform
Context 1. Liberal Democrats welcome the spirit of openness with which this consultation has taken place, and the clear commitment from the Deputy Prime Minister to take responses seriously. In particular, we welcome his statement in the House of Commons on 11th October that, The Electoral Commission and others have raised concerns about the possible effect of an opt-out andI consider that concern sympathetically. That is the whole point of a consultation and we will wait to see the final outcome of the consultation, which ends at the end of this week, but I am minded to change the final legislation to reflect those concerns. 2. This flexibility shows that the Government has the mettle to see through important changes to the electoral registration system, but also the flexibility to recognise where its proposals can be improved. 3. We believe there is further room for movement on the other issues we raise in this response to the consultation.

Introduction 4. To improve the integrity of the Electoral Register does NOT involve a false choice between preventing fraud and losing potential electors: integrity means that all those who should not be registered are not registered and that all those who should be registered are registered. The implied dilemma, reiterated by political commentators and practitioners, is non-existent. If accurateness and completeness are two sides, integrity is the coin. 5. Inaccuracy and incompleteness are inherent in the existing system, since it relies solely on heads of households to expunge the names of their predecessors from the register, and to register their children, partners, lodgers and housemates. In short, not everyone who is registered, has registered. Meanwhile, people who would like to register never see their form. The system therefore lacks integrity. 6. As former Labour Minister Michael Wills has said, a shift to individual registration will enrich our democracy, by ensuring that everyone who is registered has signed a form themselves. 7. We agree with the Governments proposal to scrap the voluntary individual registration phase since it would have proved costly, without providing the benefits of a full IER scheme. 8. There are, however, significant weaknesses in the Governments plans, principally in their proposals to: a. scrap the legal requirement to register (see paragraphs 10-15) b. remove the need for an annual canvass in 2014 (see paragraphs 16-19) c. omit from the legislation any requirement for EROs to maintain a record of voters signatures, and for those records to be checked as part of the process of issuing ballot papers (see paragraphs 20-23) d. end the transitional phase in 2015 rather than 2016 (see paragraphs 24-26)

Submission to Individual Electoral Registration (IER) consultation from the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Policy Committee on Constitutional and Political Reform

9. We also believe that the proposals could go further by: a. introducing additional powers to direct for the Electoral Commission (see paragraphs 27-28) b. enabling students to be registered through the University enrolment process (see paragraph 29) c. enabling members of the armed forces to be registered through their units (see paragraph 29) d. enabling schools to register 16 year olds, prior to their eligibility to vote at 18 (see paragraph 29) e. developing plans for data-matching, already piloted under the Political Parties and Elections Act, to allow benefit records to assist in ensuring that eligible voters are on the Register (see paragraph 29) f. introducing weekend voting and improving access to polling stations (see paragraphs 30-37)

Removing the legal requirement to register 10. This proposal would mark a significant shift in the principle of electoral registration, which benefits neither from cross-party support nor from extensive prior debate. In so doing, the proposal undermines the merit of IER itself, which has benefitted from both. 11. We believe that the duty to enrol on the Electoral Register is one which places greater (legitimate) burdens on the state than it does on the individual. The principal relief, in removing this duty, would be for local authorities, which would no longer be required to pursue those who did not return a form at the first time of asking. This might save local authorities money but would not make for a more accurate and complete register. 12. By removing the need to make persistent contact with those who do not register when the first forms are sent out, local authorities will have no impetus to pursue hard to reach groups. These are disproportionately the most disadvantaged and transient people, who already face serious problems in getting access to mainstream credit. The propensity for them to fall off the electoral register under a voluntary registration regime would compound this problem still further, hampering even the little social mobility such groups have today. 13. Further, by making registration voluntary, jury service would also become voluntary without discussion, or any specific intention to that end in the legislation. The Governments Impact Assessment makes no mention of jury service at all, which suggests the matter has not been considered. In that light alone, this proposal should surely be dropped. 14. The Impact Assessment does refer to the advantages of an accurate and complete electoral register when it comes to fighting crime. Voluntary registration is, then, by the Governments own admission, an impediment to fighting crime, if they accept that removing the legal requirement to register, will make for a less complete list.

Submission to Individual Electoral Registration (IER) consultation from the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Policy Committee on Constitutional and Political Reform 15. Crucially, removing the legal requirement to register is by no means an essential part of moving to IER. Since the latter is itself going to cause significant challenges in maintaining as full an electoral roll as possible, this is not the time also to remove the legal requirement to register. Scrapping the annual canvass in 2014 16. In 2014 such a canvass will be more important than ever, since there will be two jobs to do. First, the usual task of finding as many potential voters as possibly, but also the task of communicating the changes being introduced to the process of registration. 17. Given the impact the size of the 2015 electoral register will have on the parliamentary boundary review following the General Election that year, there is a strong case for a full annual canvass in 2015 too. 18. The full annual canvass is vital in ensuring that the hardest-to-reach citizens are enfranchised. This is an important objective not just to facilitate their participation in civic life (by voting) but in its capacity to confer social benefits, like access to credit. (See paragraph 12) 19. The Government should also use 2014/15 to trial other methods of finding voters, through job centres, student hostels, the military, and so on. (See paragraph 29.)

A missed opportunity to maintain a record of voters signatures 20. Section 14 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 introduced a requirement for a signature to be recorded by Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) if a voter requests a postal vote. This enables Returning Officers to be certain (or more certain) that a ballot paper has been used by the person to whom it is issued, since voters have to sign a declaration form, which is returned with their vote, and checked against the records. 21. We believe that IER provides an opportunity for similar security to be introduced when electors vote in person. Though it may be costly to introduce scanning technology at every polling station, signatures could be checked against a printed copy, or simply retained for verification in the event of an extremely close result, or in the event of fraud being alleged. Without that extra layer of security, we will remain peculiar as a country in allowing people to be issued with ballot paper on the strength of a simple assertion that they are a particular person, living at a particular address. 22. Meanwhile, proposals for recalling MPs will not be able to be introduced unless there is a secure way for EROs to verify signatories to a petition as bonafide electors in a given constituency. 23. We recommend that signatures be retained as part of the IER process.

Submission to Individual Electoral Registration (IER) consultation from the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Policy Committee on Constitutional and Political Reform Ending the transitional phase in 2015 24. It is extremely welcome that there is to be carryover of electors who were on the household register in 2014 to the general election of 2015. However, the new register published in December 2015 will be predicated solely on IER and will form the basis of the next parliamentary constituency boundary review. This could cause some underrepresentation of more disadvantaged areas, if the Governments efforts to mitigate the likelihood of people falling off the register post-IER are not as successful as Ministers hope. 25. At that same point, census data will reveal the true extent of existing under-registration, so a still smaller register would lack public confidence and could be embarrassing to the Government. 26. We recommend an extension of the transitional period to two years, covering the 2015 general election, the 2015 boundary review and the 2016 elections to local government and the devolved assemblies.

Powers to direct for the Electoral Commission 27. Specific powers to direct, as enjoyed by the Electoral Commission during the AV referendum, would mean that the Commission could force Returning Officers to issue poll cards at an early stage during an election campaign. This could alert those not yet on the register to enrol before the deadline. 28. Such powers would also allow the EC to ensure that promotional material about the process (registration, voting, etc) is in a clear, well-designed, and properly-tested form.

Additional avenues of registration 29. We believe it is incumbent on the Government, at the same time as introducing IER, to ensure there are as many avenues of registration as possible. We suggest that: a. students could and should be registered through the University enrolment process, particularly where they are in Halls of Residence b. Members of the Armed Forces should be able to register through their units c. Schools should encourage and facilitate the registration of sixteen year olds though they are not eligible to vote until 18, they can already register at 16 d. Benefit claimants could be offered the opportunity to register via DWP. There may be technological and data-privacy implications to this, though the Government has already moved through orders under the Political Parties and Elections Act to encourage some data sharing. At the very least, claimants could be alerted to the process for registration when they sign up for benefits. This work could be piloted through job centres in areas with particularly transient populations

Submission to Individual Electoral Registration (IER) consultation from the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Policy Committee on Constitutional and Political Reform Weekend voting and access to polling stations 30. Though changes to the point in the week at which people go to the polls, and to the rules on accessing polling stations when they do, are not strictly part of the registration process, both are clearly inextricably linked to the wider objective of full participation. 31. We believe that weekend voting is right in principle, since it means that the rich and retired would not continue to have a disproportionately large timeframe in which to get to the polls compared to the working population. 32. This could and should be piloted for the European elections in 2014 (which will be combined with local elections). This would have the merit of producing hard evidence on turnout, complexity and cost for all such elections. 33. Voting would take place during Saturday until Sunday early afternoon. Counting could then take place to declare European Parliament results along with the rest of Europe. If the pilot were successful (and there is no reason why it shouldnt be), it could be adopted as a model for the 2015 general election. 34. Scope for progress in this area should be included (subject to orders approved later by Statutory Instrument) in the legislation on IER. 35. The legislation should also be used to improve and secure access to polling stations for any voter in the queue to vote by 10pm. 36. It is unreasonable to penalise and disenfranchise voters who arrive at the polling station within the advertised hours simply because turnout is higher than had been anticipated by local EROs. 37. Polling station staff should have a duty to issue a ballot paper to anyone who has arrived to vote by 10pm, and electors should then be able to cast their votes within a reasonable timeframe after ballot papers have ceased to be issued.

Conclusions 38. We support the Governments move to Individual Electoral Registration. We reject wholeheartedly the assertion that introducing IER is partisan, since there is a clear principled case for doing so. Indeed, not introducing IER for years after Electoral Commission highlighted its necessity was far more partisan on the part of the Labour Party since there is no principled case for not doing so. 39. IER is right in principle and can be delivered well in practice, providing that the consultation is used effectively to remove key weaknesses in the present proposals and to foster greater ambition about achieving a complete register under the new system. 40. To do that, the Government must retain the duty for eligible electors to register (and thereby the duty on local authorities to ensure that people do register), and should take the further steps we have set out to ensure as many eligible voters register through IER as possible. 41. If it does this, the Coalition Government will bring integrity to a register that has long lacked it, and bring our own electoral administration into line with the basic expectations of developed democracies the world over.