1.The Home Office Working Party on Electoral Procedures met for the first time, under my chairmanship, on 21 January 1998. As required by the terms of reference which you set for us, we have commissioned papers on a range of electoral procedures and related issues and have met on 9 occasions to examine proposals for changes which will lead to more open and up to date electoral procedures.
2. Throughout our consideration of these issues we have been conscious of the importance of our electoral arrangements to the democratic process - the foundation of our democratic forms of government is that the people provide a mandate through the ballot box to those they elect to govern. The strength of our electoral law and procedures is that they have developed with the consent of the electorate over a lengthy period. But in many ways their longevity is also their weakness. We have seen no evidence from the work we have undertaken that we should be seriously concerned about the legitimacy or fairness of elections. That is a view which the Home Affairs Committee also reached in the report on their inquiry into electoral law and practice, issued in October last year. Our work has however led us firmly to conclude that practices which were largely laid down at the end of the 19th century are in need of urgent reform if they are to retain credibility as we move into the 21st century.
3. Our terms of reference required us to consider recommendations for changes to electoral practice which will contribute to democratic renewal in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has over a long period been suffering a steady decline in levels of voter participation in elections. Modernising our electoral arrangements will not of itself resolve the problems of apparent voter apathy and disinterest, but we believe that the proposals we have developed will go a long way to providing electoral arrangements which reflect modern lifestyles and behaviour. Simplifying procedures, introducing flexibility into the registration process and encouraging more accessible voting arrangements will all contribute to a more open and responsive electoral system which encourages electors to exercise their democratic right to elect representatives to government.
4. In reaching our conclusions we have been conscious that the present high regard for the fairness of our electoral systems has been hard won. Wherever we have been inclined to make a recommendation for change, we have looked closely at the possible implications for the integrity of the vote.
5. Our conclusions and recommendations are as follows
Current levels of registration are higher than in many comparable jurisdictions, but large numbers of electors continue to be effectively disenfranchised because the register is only updated once a year.
While there is considerable evidence of good registration practice being developed and adopted, there remains considerable scope for the consolidation of advice and guidance on what is effective in maximising registration.
(1) We recommend that the Home Office should issue revised and enhanced guidance on good registration practice, having particular regard to maximising the registration of young people, who are amongst the groups with traditionally poor registration levels.
(2) We recommend that the present annual register should be replaced with a system which would allow continuous or "rolling" registration.
(3) We recommend that registration under a rolling register should for the present continue to include provision for an annual audit (including a canvass) but electors should be able to make a claim for their details to be transferred between registers on satisfactory proof of a change of address. Registration officers should be able to make deletions from the register where, for example, they are satisfied that an elector has made a claim to transfer registration out of the registration area or has died.
(4) We recommend that registration officers should be entitled to request information from local authority data sources and other public agencies in order to allow them properly to carry out their duty of maintaining an accurate and up to date register.
(5) We recommend that the register should continue to be a public document and open to scrutiny and challenge as at present, but the new register should no longer be published in a draft.
The present statutory provisions on residence make it difficult if not impossible for certain groups of otherwise eligible people to register.
(6) We recommend that individuals who are unable to establish a settled address should in future be able to register by reference to a declaration of locality, that is a statement that they have a significant link with a locality.
(7) We do not consider that there are any grounds for extending the franchise to convicted prisoners serving a custodial sentence, who have in our view forfeited their rights in this respect by their actions.
The position in respect of unconvicted prisoners on remand is however different.
Unconvicted remand prisoners are at present able in law to register but may have forfeited their claim to residence at a civil address because of their detention.
(8) We recommend that unconvicted remand prisoners should be allowed to continue to be registered on their original register until such time as they are released from remand, or sentenced to a custodial sentence, but should be included as an "other elector"
Patients detained at a mental hospital are currently prevented from using the hospital address as an address for registration purposes and the fact of their detention will normally mean that they are unable to establish an alternative acceptable place of residence.
(9) We recommend that the restrictions on using psychiatric hospitals as residences for the purposes of electoral registration should be removed.
(10) We do not consider however that it would be appropriate to allow patients detained as a result of criminal activity to be treated in this way. We do not recommend a change in the law in respect of such detainees.
The statutory requirement that voluntary patients resident in a psychiatric hospital must additionally and without assistance complete a patient's declaration before being registered introduces an additional eligibility test which is not required of persons with mental illness living in the community.
(11) We recommend that the requirement should be removed.
The commercial sale of the register provides a comprehensive demographic database which business, particularly the credit reference and direct marketing sectors, have come to consider an integral and vital part of their marketing armoury. It is also widely consulted for law enforcement purposes, most notably as a common reference point in the fight against money laundering. New interactive search software however means that more and more people are becoming vulnerable to the unwanted publication of their data, at a time when new data protection requirements are stressing the case for control of personal information and customer choice.
In our view, although the economic arguments for retaining a commercially available register are strong electors should be given a say in what information should be made available commercially
(12) We recommend that electors should be allowed to decide whether or not their personal details as provided for registration purposes should be included in the register made commercially available. We consider that this requires that the registration form, Form A should be amended to include information about the purposes to which such information may be put and to allow an opt out box for each person included on the form and for all commercial activities.
(13) We recommend that the full register, including those names excluded from the commercial register, should continue to be available to electoral users as at present, but a licensing arrangement should be introduced to ensure that its use is restricted to the electoral purposes for which it is made available.
(14) We recommend that the full electoral users register should also be available for consultation for law enforcement purposes, including controls on money laundering, subject to licensing arrangements.
(15) We recommend that the full electoral users register should continue to be available for local scrutiny as at present.
(16) We recommend that the existing entitlement to be registered on more than one register should remain. People with a legitimate entitlement to register more than once may not vote twice in the same elections and we propose no changes to this necessary restriction.
(17) We do not consider that it is practical or desirable to require electors with a dual registration to specify in advance the constituency or electoral area in which they intend to vote.
Some people are concerned that the new and powerful electronic database search vehicles may allow them to be identified through the electoral register and that they may then be at risk of violence. We have considered the arguments for introducing some form of registration without publication of names or addresses, but have concluded that this requires further study to identify the scope of the problem. In the meantime, our recommendations for restrictions on the commercially available register will go some way to removing or reducing individual electors' fears.
We recognise the consensus which is developing for new approaches to voting which will more clearly reflect modern patterns of behaviour and which can assist in reinvigorating the public's interest and participation in the democratic process. Local authorities and electoral administrators in particular are very keen to test out the effectiveness of allowing electors to vote in more flexible ways.
We think that the time is now right to test alternatives to the present voting arrangements in pilot schemes at local elections.
Examples of innovative approaches which might be included in pilots include
Polling hours: variations in polling hours to allow different start or finish times
Polling days: moving polling to an alternative weekday or a day at the weekend or allowing voting over more than one day
Early voting: opening a limited number of polling stations in the period before polling day at accessible locations to allow any eligible elector to vote
Mobile polling: providing a mobile polling station which could take the ballot box to groups of voters, for example, by visiting residential and convalescent homes
Out of area voting: allowing electors to vote at any polling station in the electoral area, or even outside it
All postal ballots: allowing an election to be held on the basis of postal voting only
Electronic voting: supplementing polling booths and polling stations with automated voting equipment, telephone voting or on-line remote voting via the internet.
(18) We recommend that the Secretary of State should be authorised to amend electoral legislation to approve pilot schemes involving one or more of the above proposals. Pilot schemes would encourage innovation and diversity and offer a real opportunity to see exactly how different approaches can be effective in re-engaging the electorate. Evaluation of such schemes will allow informed judgements to be made as to the effectiveness and security of each new process before a decision is taken to roll it out more widely.
Absent voting remains a valuable additional flexible method of voting for those who are unable to be in the constituency or electoral area on polling day. There is growing concern about abuse of absent proxy voting, but we are satisfied from our enquiries that simplification of the application and voting procedures can be achieved without any reduction in the level of control of abuse.
(19) We recommend that applications received by fax or on other than the standard form should be acceptable providing the information provided is complete.
(20) We recommend that an application for an absent vote for a particular election or a particular period should be treated as an application for an absent vote at all elections held in the same electoral area unless a contrary intention appears
(21) We recommend removing the restrictions on counting postal votes which are received without witness details but with a witness signature and address, in unofficial envelopes; or where the postal ballot paper and declaration of identity are not received together.
(22) We recommend that postal ballot papers properly sealed should be accepted if they are returned to any polling station in the electoral area on polling day.
(23) We recommend that to prevent disenfranchising electors who mislay or spoil postal ballot papers, replacements should be allowed for lost or defaced papers without all of the original postal voting documents being first returned
(24) We recommend that in special circumstances which might be left to his discretion a returning officer should be enabled to issue a postal vote other than by post
(25) We recommend that the current requirements limiting the availability of an absent postal vote should be removed to allow absent postal votes on demand
Organisations representing the views of the disabled have made clear to us that disabled electors wish to have access to electoral services, particularly voting, in the same way as other citizens. Many of the recommendations we make to provide access to voting by all electors will have particular benefits for disabled voters. Rolling registration and more flexible registration procedures will, we believe, also be welcomed by the disabled. Some additional assistance is however required to allow some electors to vote more easily in person.
(26) We recommend changes to the election rules governing the provision of posters and equipment in polling stations to allow large print posters of the ballot paper to be displayed and for ballot paper templates or polling aids to be provided in polling stations.
(27) We recommend extending the existing provisions allowing blind voters to be assisted to cast their vote by a companion to those electors who would not otherwise be able to cast a vote.
(28) We recommend that national minimum access standards are introduced to assist local authorities, returning officers and presiding officers in identifying and setting up accessible polling stations. We do not consider however, that the national standards should be mandatory: councils and returning officers continue to be under a statutory duty to have regard to the needs of disabled voters, but also have a wider duty and must have proper regard to securing as polling places sites which provide acceptable facilities for voting for all of the electors within the polling district.
(29) We recommend that the Home Office should issue new and consolidated guidance to electoral administrators on all aspects of disabled access to electoral services.
We have considered Papers on the issues of the establishment of an electoral commission and the case for introducing programmes of voter education. In both cases, our work has been overtaken by the Government's announcement that the draft Bill in response to the Neill Committee's report on its inquiry into the funding of political parties, will provide for the establishment of an Electoral Commission with responsibility, among other things, for voter education.
The Committee supports the principle of the electoral commission