Northern Ireland Forum

for

Political Dialogue

~~~~~~~~~

REPORT

by

COMMITTEE

ON ELECTORAL REFORM

~~~~~~~~~

Presented to the Northern Ireland Forum for Political

Dialogue

on 31 October 1997

This report has been prepared by the Committee on

Electoral Reform for the consideration of the

Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue.

Until adopted by the Forum in accordance with its

Rules, this report may not be reproduced in whole

or in part or used for broadcast purposes.

Note

DRAFT REPORTS

ELECTORAL REFORM

CONTENTS

Chapter Page

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. BACKGROUND 5

3. REMOVING MULTIPLE ENTRIES FROM THE

ELECTORAL REGISTER 10

4. ENSURING THAT THOSE WHO ARE ENTITLED

TO VOTE ARE REGISTERED 17

5. PROVIDING SUITABLE AND CONVENIENT

POLLING STATIONS 19

6. OVERCOMING POSTAL AND PROXY VOTE

ABUSE 24

7. PREVENTING VOTING PERSONATION BY

INTRODUCING PROPER AND EFFECTIVE

IDENTITY CHECKS 32

8. OTHER RELEVANT ISSUES 38

- Difficulties experienced by those with learning

difficulties

- Difficulties experienced by those with sensory

disabilities

- Difficulties experienced by security forces

regarding registration and voting

- Non-delivery of polling cards

- Registration of homeless people

9. SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE'S CONCLUSIONS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS 44

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Record of Debate - 13 June 1997

Appendix B - Membership of Committee

Appendix C - Groups and Organisations invited to make

submissions to the Committee

Appendix D - Household registration form and registration

form for institutions, hospitals, etc

Appendix E - Application Forms for Absent Voting

Appendix F - Extract from Chief Electoral Officer's

Annual Report 1993-94

Appendix G - Statistics in respect of postal and proxy votes

Appendix H - Summary of procedures in other countries

for postal and proxy voting

Appendix I - Summary of procedures in other countries

for the prevention of personation

Appendix J - Bibliography

Appendix K - Oral Evidence

- Disability Action

- Mr Harry Barnes MP

- Mr William Ross MP, UUP

- Association of Electoral Administrators

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Following the general election on 1 May and the local government election

on 21 May there was concern expressed from a wide spectrum of political,

public and business opinion throughout Northern Ireland of ‘irregularities’

having occurred during these elections. At the plenary meeting of the Forum

held on Friday 13 June 1997 the Forum debated this issue and the following

motion was consequently resolved:

Given the concerns expressed by a wide spectrum of political,

public and business opinion throughout Northern Ireland and

the possibility of "irregularities" having occurred in the recent

parliamentary and local government elections, this Forum calls

on the Government to instigate an early review of voting

procedures for all future elections in Northern Ireland and

resolves to refer this matter to a Committee which shall prepare

a report to recommend methods of countering electoral

irregularities - in particular,

(i) removing multiple entries from the electoral register;

(ii) ensuring that those who are entitled to vote are registered;

(iii) providing suitable and convenient polling stations;

(iv) overcoming postal and proxy vote abuse;

(v) preventing voting personation by introducing proper and

effective identity checks;

(vi) considering other relevant issues -

2

and that a Committee shall report to the Forum with a view to

submitting such evidence to the Secretary of State for

Northern Ireland for consideration within the Government's

review procedure.

A record of the Forum debate is attached at Appendix A.

1.2 The first meeting of the Committee was held on Monday 23 June 1997 at

which Mr Sean Neeson was elected Chairman. The membership of the

Committee is listed at Appendix B.

1.3 Advertisements seeking written submissions from interested groups and

individuals were placed in the Northern Ireland morning and evening papers.

The Committee also wrote to specific groups and organisations listed at

Appendix C inviting written and/or oral submissions.

1.4 The Committee was keen to ensure cross-community involvement in the

review and letters were sent to SDLP Headquarters, Mr Hume, Party Leader

and two SDLP members who had spoken publicly about election

irregularities, namely Dr Hendron and Councillor Attwood, inviting them to

meet with the Committee. However the Committee is disappointed that no

reply has been received from any of the aforementioned parties.

1.5 In addition, the Committee decided to invite Mr Bradley, Chief Electoral

Officer, to give evidence to the Committee as it was considered that he and

his staff would be extremely important in providing information for the

Committee’s review. However Mr Bradley refused to meet with the

3

Committee claiming that he was an independent officer and as a rule did not

meet with bodies of elected representatives such as District Councils or the

Forum.

1.6 The Committee made representations to the Secretary of State and the

Minister of State, Mr Paul Murphy, to urge them to ask Mr Bradley to meet

with the Committee. However they both indicated that Mr Bradley is an

independent officer whose duties are clearly established by statute and that

it would not be appropriate for either of them to ask him to do anything

outwith those duties.

1.7 The Chief Electoral Officer did indicate that he was always prepared to see

elected representatives at his office to discuss those matters within his

responsibility. However the Committee is deeply disappointed with

Mr Bradley’s decision and criticises his refusal to meet with a cross-party

Committee of democratically elected representatives who were making a

serious effort to address the irregularities and anomalies in the electoral

system.

1.8 Furthermore the position taken by Mr Bradley in refusing to meet with the

Committee was, understandably, also taken by his Deputy Returning

Officers and Chief Executives of District Councils who act as Returning

Officers for Local Government Elections.

1.9 However the Committee notes that Mr Bradley has been invited to appear

before the Northern Ireland Select Committee and awaits the outcome of

this meeting with interest.

4

1.10 As a result of the concerns expressed following the recent elections the

Government, on 31 July 1997, announced a review of the electoral system

in Northern Ireland with a view to announcing a final package of

recommendations early 1998. However the Committee notes that the

Secretary of State has said that she expects to announce provisional

recommendations in November regarding ‘vote-stealing’.

1.11 The Committee welcomes the prompt action by the Government and has

attempted to meet the deadline for the announcement of the provisional

recommendations. This report contains the conclusions and

recommendations of the Committee based on issues raised during the debate

in the Forum and the personal knowledge and experiences of the members

of the Committee. Where possible, the Committee's conclusions and

recommendations have been substantiated by published material and oral

and written evidence which has been provided to the Committee. The use

of such material has been detailed where appropriate.

1.12 The Committee however reserves the right to make further comments or

recommendations following Mr Bradley’s appearance before the Northern

Ireland Select Committee in November.

1.13 The Committee wishes to thank those groups and individuals who provided

evidence for this report and who so willingly gave of their time and

expertise to assist the Committee in this review.

5

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The concept “Vote early, Vote often” has often been quoted with a degree

of mirth but vote stealing has been part of the history of Northern Ireland

Elections for some time.

2.2 Certain changes have been made to the electoral system in recent years in

an attempt to eradicate this problem, such as

- the introduction of identification checks at polling stations before ballot

papers are handed over;

- the introduction of a new household canvass system for the collection of

completed registration forms by Registration Assistants who would

make repeat visits in order to obtain the necessary information. This

system replaced the old system which was mainly postal based with an

addressed registration form being posted out to known households

together with a prepaid addressed envelope for the return, by post, of the

completed forms;

- the introduction of a database within the Electoral Office which was

property based and allowed the Electoral Office to maintain better

control of the number and status of the houses canvassed.

2.3 In order to understand the concerns expressed regarding the electoral

system it may be useful at this stage to set out a brief summary of the

electoral process.

6

Electoral Process

Registration

2.4 An Electoral register is compiled annually, based on a qualifying date of

15 September and information provided on registration forms completed by

householders throughout Northern Ireland. A household registration form is

attached at Appendix D of this report. The register is published on

15 February each year, and comes into force on 16 February.

2.5 The household registration forms are delivered by the Post Office to each

household throughout Northern Ireland and are collected by Registration

Assistants who will also assist in the completion of the form if necessary.

Householders are required to provide the name, address and previous

address for all British Citizens, other Commonwealth citizens, citizens of the

Republic of Ireland and other European citizens resident in their household

who will be 18 years or over by the qualifying date. Repeat visits are made

at the addresses where the Registration Assistants obtained no answer

previously and if the repeat visits are unsuccessful the householder is asked

to return the form by post to the Electoral Office.

Publication of Register

2.6 Registration forms must be with the Electoral Office to enable the

publication of a draft register on or before 28 November each year. After

the publication of the draft register any person may, within the period

7

specified by the Electoral Office, make a claim to the Chief Electoral Officer

to have any incorrect details on the register corrected or to have their name

included if it is not listed on the register. In addition any person can object

to the inclusion of any name listed on the register.

2.7 Procedures are in place for the consideration of all claims and objections by

the Chief Electoral Officer who will, if he cannot reach a decision, pass the

claim or objection to the revising officer who will arrange places and times

for sittings for the consideration of claims and objections which will allow

ample opportunity for all interested parties to appear and be heard.

Application for an Absent Vote

2.8 Any elector who does not reasonably expect to be able to vote in person at

their polling station because of, for example, physical incapacity, absence

from Northern Ireland or because of their occupation can apply to vote by

post or to get someone else to vote on their behalf for an indefinite period.

A copy of the Application forms are attached at Appendix E.

2.9 Applications which are made on grounds of physical incapacity have to be

attested by a medical practitioner, a registered nurse within the meaning of

Section 10(7) of The Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979 or a

Christian Science practitioner. Those applications made on grounds of

occupation or employment have to be attested by an employer or someone

else in the case of those who are self-employed.

8

2.10 If the Electoral Office is satisfied with the authenticity of the application the

elector's name will be added to the permanent standing list of absent voters.

This means that these electors do not need to apply for an absent vote at

each election. The standing list is reviewed within 3 years of the granting

of the individual applications but enquiries can be made at such other times

as the Chief Electoral Officer thinks fit.

2.11 In addition any elector who is listed on the electoral register who finds that

when an election is called, he/she will not be able to vote in person on the

day of the election may apply to vote by post or to get someone else to vote

on their behalf. Applications must provide a detailed reason for the need for

an absent vote. If the Electoral Office is satisfied with the authenticity of

such an application the necessary vote will be sent to the applicant or the

proxy.

2.12 If an elector moves house, he/she must wait until 15 September next to be

registered at the new address and the subsequent 16 February before voting

from that address. Electors can therefore only vote at elections in the area

where they used to live provided they are registered as electors there but

can apply for a postal or proxy vote until such times as they can become

registered at their new address. A copy of the application form is included

at Appendix E.

Voting

2.13 Polling cards are sent out to each individual on the electoral register a few

days before polling day. This card gives the date of the election and the

9

polling station to which the elector has been allocated. The elector is not

required to produce a polling card to vote. When the elector arrives at the

polling station they are directed to a Presiding Officer/Polling Clerk where

the elector will be required to produce one of the identity documents listed

on the reverse of the household registration form before they are given a

ballot paper. When handed a ballot paper the elector's name is marked on

the register.

2.14 There are many aspects of the electoral system which cause widespread

concern. This report addresses, in the following chapters, the concerns

raised during the debate in the Forum on 13 June 1997 and the subsequent

deliberations of the Committee.

10

3. REMOVING MULTIPLE ENTRIES FROM THE ELECTORAL

REGISTER

3.1 Under the current electoral process multiple registration is possible in two

forms - firstly where people are registered at more than one address within

a Parliamentary constituency or District Council area and secondly where

people are registered in more than one Parliamentary constituency or

District Council area.

3.2 Concern has also been expressed that there are cases where discrepancies

occur between the house type and the number of entries on the register for

that particular address.

3.3 Evidence of all of the aforementioned cases was highlighted in a BBC

Spotlight programme which was shown in February of this year. The

reporters found that in the same block of flats in West Belfast

- 6 people claimed to be tenants at a 1 bedroom flat, none were;

- 5 residents registered at another 1 bedroom flat could not be traced;

- 6 people shared another 1 bedroom flat, 3 could not be found; and

- 2 of 5 people registered at another flat were registered at other addresses

within the same constituency as well as at 2 further addresses in a

different constituency.

11

3.4 In addition, the same programme reported that at an electoral hearing in

December 1996, the SDLP challenged 200 entries on the West Belfast

register with the result that 102 names were removed. The Committee asks

what the outcome would be if a similar exercise had been carried out in

other constituencies.

3.5 The Committee considers that registering fictitious names or including on

the registration form the names of those who are not actually resident at

that particular address is made easier under the current system because not

all the registration forms are collected from households by Electoral staff

but end up being posted to the Electoral Office in a pre-paid envelope. There

is nothing therefore to stop anyone from adding fictitious names to the

registration form. The Committee believes that the Chief Electoral

Officer has a duty to compile an accurate electoral register by

ensuring the collection of forms from every house and to fully

investigate all cases where the house type and number of entries for

that residence do not match.

3.6 Furthermore the Committee is of the opinion that random checks

should be carried out by each local Electoral Office to confirm that

information provided on the registration form is correct.

3.7 Additionally, the Committee recommends that a meaningful penalty

for not supplying all the required information or for supplying false

information should be prominently displayed on the household

registration form and that the penalty should be enforced.

12

3.8 While questions need to be asked when the number of entries for a

particular residence do not match the house type the Committee

recognises that some such cases will be legitimate as is the case with

student accommodation, hostels or Old People’s Homes. However the

Committee believes that such genuine cases would be known to the

Election Registration Officers.

3.9 Evidence from the Association of Electoral Administrators confirmed that

multiple registration does not appear to be a problem in Great Britain. This

may partially be as a result of the close working relationship that local

Electoral Offices in GB have with other related agencies such as the council

tax department and the housing and planning departments which enable the

Electoral Offices to reconcile information which has been given on the

registration forms.

3.10 The Association of Electoral Administrators informed the Committee that it

believes that Electoral Returning Officers should have the right to access the

records of public utilities, the Social Security Agency and the Inland

Revenue to check eligibility for registration and that it should be a

requirement for the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages to supply

details of deaths to the Electoral Returning Officer. The Committee is

persuaded that a duty should be placed on the Registrar of Births,

Deaths and Marriages to provide details of deaths to the Chief

Electoral Officer. Similarly, because of the reasons detailed in

paragraph 4.1 of this report, a duty should be placed on the relevant

13

planning and housing authorities to keep the Electoral Office

informed of all new developments throughout the Province. The

Committee also believes that the Chief Electoral Officer should

consider what further interfaces could be set up with related agencies,

for example with the Court Service in respect of prisoners who do not

have a right to vote, to ensure that an accurate register is

maintained.

3.11 Multiple registrations are not illegal - a person only acts illegally if he/she

votes in more than one place. However the Committee believes that

multiple registrations provide the scope for electoral abuse.

3.12 The Committee recognises that under the present registration system

there can be an admissible reason for some people to register at more

than one address. Students studying away from home are a prime

example of this where they might choose to be registered at home and there

is also an obligation on accommodation authorities to register them at their

term-time address. Evidence provided to the Committee also recognised

this but suggested that registration forms should be amended to seek

additional details regarding the length of the course and possibly the

term-time address.

3.13 The Committee however believes that it should be illegal to register

at more than one address in a Parliamentary constituency or district

council area.

14

3.14 One problem identified by the Committee is that the present electoral

computer system is unable to accurately identify multiple entries because of

the limited information requested on the registration form. The present

registration form requires householders to list the surname and full

forenames of those residents eligible to be registered together with the

previous address(es) for anyone who was not resident at that address

before the qualifying date. Therefore entries on the electoral computer

system can only be compared on this information. The Committee is

convinced that the limited information requested under the current

registration process provides the scope for personation and cause for

concern under the postal and proxy vote system, both of which are

addressed later in this report.

3.15 It is the Committee's considered view that Electoral Officers will only be

able to detect multiple entries if each elector has a personal identifier(s)

attached to his/her name. All who provided evidence and indeed, all who

spoke during the debate in the Forum, agreed that this was the only

safeguard against multiple registration. Such a personal identifier(s) should

not necessarily be printed in the published electoral register. It was

suggested to the Committee that the household registration form should be

revised to request personal identifiers, for example, Date of Birth, National

Insurance Number or each person's signature. It was also suggested that

the registration form should in future ask if the elector has registered

elsewhere.

3.16 The Committee strongly recommends that all registration forms

should be revised to request 3 personal identifiers for each elector,

15

namely the elector's Date of Birth, National Insurance Number and

Signature.

3.17 The Committee further recommends that a requirement should be

placed on the Chief Electoral Officer to follow-up and take any

necessary action regarding previous address details provided on the

registration form.

3.18 Identity cards were also suggested by the Association of Electoral

Administrators and by Mr Harry Barnes MP. Identity cards are used in

various countries, with some countries having an established scheme

(Belgium, Germany, Spain) while other countries have a voluntary scheme

(Austria, Denmark, Norway) where the cards are useful for proof of

identity. However identity cards are currently not in use in the UK.

3.19 The Association of Electoral Administrators informed the Committee that

the Home Office had issued in 1995 a Green Paper on whether there should

be a national identity card. The Association advised the Home Office that if

it was decided that identity cards should be introduced, then provision

should be made for them to be used as a means of identification for

registering as an elector, applying for an absent vote and for voting

purposes. The Committee notes that the present Government is currently

actively examining the recommendations made by the Home Affairs Select

Committee to introduce a voluntary identity card scheme linked to plans for

a photo-driving licence and that under the recommended scheme it will not

be an absolute requirement to possess such an identity card.

16

3.20 The Committee's conclusions regarding the introduction and use of identity

cards has been addressed in Chapter 7 of this report.

3.21 Evidence provided to the Committee by Mr Harry Barnes MP and the

Association of Electoral Administrators advocated a rolling electoral register

as a way of combating some of the problems caused by multiple

registrations. This rolling register would allow records to be updated more

easily when people move from place to place and would achieve a more

accurate register as there would be no reason for an elector to register at

two addresses.

3.22 While there are certain attractions in a rolling register the

Committee recognises that this would require further investigation.

The Committee believes that this issue could be more appropriately

addressed after an accurate electoral register has been compiled.

3.23 The Committee notes that the working group set up by the Home Office in

1994 to consider the scope for changes to the registration system

considered the idea of a rolling-register. Unfortunately the working group

considered the suggestion from the angle of non-registration by those

avoiding appearing on the register and their conclusions are therefore of no

benefit to the Committee in this review.

3.24 The Association of Electoral Administration also suggested that electors

could be issued with a registration card confirming that they had been

included on the register. At election it could be a requirement that the

17

registration card and polling card should be produced in order to vote. The

Committee does not wish to take this suggestion on board.

3.25 The Committee recommends that the Secretary of State should

initiate an investigation to fully check the electoral registers for both

the General and Local Elections which were held in May 1997 for

"irregularities" including multiple registrations.

3.26 The Committee recommends that the Chief Electoral Officer should

be given the resources ie finance, staff and equipment to enable him

to carry out the recommendations cited in this chapter and to

maintain an accurate electoral register.

18

4. ENSURING THAT THOSE WHO ARE ENTITLED TO VOTE ARE

REGISTERED

4.1 The Committee was concerned that a number of people had been left off

the electoral register for the last two elections and in certain streets three

and four houses were completely eliminated even though they were included

on the register for previous elections. Concern was also expressed about

people who had moved into new housing developments not having been

added to the register. The Committee is convinced that a duty should

be placed on the Chief Electoral Officer to ensure that everyone who

is entitled to vote is included on the register. The Committee is also

convinced that a requirement should be placed on the Chief Electoral

Officer to have up-to-date and accurate registers and that the

legislation should be amended accordingly.

4.2 The Committee is further of the opinion that the non-collection of

forms by the Electoral Office staff as mentioned in paragraph 3.5 of

this report is part of this problem.

4.3 The Committee notes the installation in 1992 of a property-based computer

system within the Electoral Office. The Committee recommends that

the Chief Electoral Officer should fully investigate any gaps in house

numbering which appear on the electoral register, attempt to find out

why unreturned forms have not been returned and take action as

necessary.

19

4.4 During the debate in the Forum the issue of under-registration was raised. It

was suggested that there should be more public information regarding

registration and that consideration should be given to the introduction of a

registration system at public places such as banks, Post Offices etc. The

Committee believes that the failure of the Electoral Office to be

proactive on the issue of under-registration is failing the democratic

process. The Committee believes that public information regarding

registration should be made more widely available in banks, Post

Offices and public places.

4.5 The Committee recommends that the Chief Electoral Officer should

organise publicity campaigns by way of electronic and printed media to

encourage and promote awareness of registration and other aspects of

the electoral process.

20

5. PROVIDING SUITABLE AND CONVENIENT POLLING STATIONS

5.1 During the debate in the Forum reference was made to the unsuitability and

location of some polling stations.

5.2 Concern was firstly expressed about the inaccessibility of polling stations

and polling booths for people with disabilities.

5.3 Evidence provided by Mr Harry Barnes referred to the publication by

SCOPE called Polls Apart which reported on the findings of a survey

regarding the accessibility of polling stations to people with disabilities when

they wished to vote on election day. Unfortunately the survey was only

conducted throughout Great Britain and did not cover Northern Ireland.

However one of the principles within the report indicates that while many

people with disabilities have been told that the postal vote is their alternative

to accessible voting, people with disabilities continue to reject the idea that

voting by post is an adequate or acceptable substitute to voting alongside

their neighbours on the day. This finding is borne out by examples cited

during the Forum debate:-

'As we go into the next century it is a disgrace that there are still

people who have to be lifted out of wheelchairs and carried into

polling booths. The indignity for the disabled is beyond belief. I

witnessed such a case myself. It shows how seriously some people

take their civic duty that they are prepared to put themselves through

such indignity.'

21

'. . . . Polling stations in many parts of England Scotland and Wales,

unlike those in Northern Ireland, have a much wider booth for

people in wheel chairs and that ramps are provided in most cases.'

'. . . . It is not just polling stations but also voting booths that are

inaccessible . . . . .'

(13 June 1997, Page 12)

'. . . . There were ugly scenes at polling stations when disabled people

who came to vote, at considerable difficulty, were not able to gain

access to the polling stations, either because of steps or because

of blocks at the entrance that would not allow the wheelchair

through. That is very embarrassing for a disabled person. When

such a voter was unable to get into Elmgrove polling station in

East Belfast the people inside showed no willingness to come out

and allow that person to vote in the car. Polling stations must be

accessible to all those who want to vote.'

(13 June 1997, Page 15)

5.4 Evidence provided to the Committee by Disability Action showed that they

receive a lot of complaints regarding the accessibility of some polling

stations. Complaints include

- not being able to get up and down steps;

- no car parking close to the polling booths;

- inaccessibility of polling booths for people in wheelchairs.

22

5.5 During deliberations the Committee also heard how many accessible

entrances were locked or unsuitable for people with disabilities and some

people voted in the street and in cars.

5.6 One of the working groups set up by the Home Office in 1994 looked at the

difficulties experienced by voters with disabilities in entering polling stations

or booths. The Home Office report acknowledges that it is not easy to find

suitable premises for polling places, and in a number of places buildings

which do not provide easy access may have to be used. However the

report further indicates that where it is necessary to use a building to which

the only means of access is by steps, the Home Departments provide grants

towards the purchase of temporary ramps and that additionally grants are

also available towards the cost of polling compartments which can be used

by people in wheelchairs. The Association of Electoral Administrators

confirmed that the Home Office currently makes grants of 50% towards the

cost of providing temporary access ramps and 80% for polling screens for

voters with disabilities. The Committee recommends that the Chief

Electoral Officer satisfies himself that every polling place is used in

such a way as to make it accessible to people with disabilities.

5.7 The location of polling stations was another issue which concerned the

Committee. During the debate examples were given of people having to

travel some distance to their allocated polling station while passing some

other polling stations on the way.

23

‘. . . . During a recent election in the Upper Bann constituency some

people had to travel seven miles, passing two polling stations on

the way, to get to one where they were going to vote. . . . . . . . .'

(13 June 1997, Page 10)

‘. . . . I too have heard of people who, because there is no bus route

from one polling station to another, had to walk past two stations

and vote at a third. . . .

(13 June 1997, Page 15)

5.8 Concern was also expressed about the location of polling stations in areas

where there were deep divisions within the community.

‘In North Antrim one section of a strongly Loyalist area had to

vote in a school in a completely Nationalist area........... The police

told me that they could not guarantee the security of workers in

that school yet people are being asked to go there to vote. . . . . .

'I had the same problem in the Short Strand. On that occasion the

electoral office managed to overcome the difficulty. That should

be done where possible.'

(13 June 1997, Page 15)

5.9 The Committee notes that this problem is encountered throughout Northern

Ireland by all sections of the community.

24

5.10 The Committee is of the opinion that all of these issues are

discouraging to those who want to vote and that the Chief Electoral

Officer should look at where polling stations are sited. The Committee

is aware that the Chief Electoral Office publishes every four years a list of

polling stations which he intends to use for elections. Objections to any of

the stations listed can be made to the Chief Electoral Officer for

consideration. However this scheme does not allow for appeals against the

allocation of electors to certain polling stations. The Committee

recommends that the published lists of polling stations should be

printed in the printed media and that an appeals procedure should be

put in place for appeals from the public regarding either the siting of

polling stations or the elector's allocation to a certain polling station.

5.11 During their deliberations the Committee also considered the difficulties

experienced by those with learning difficulties or sensory disabilities

regarding the electoral process. This issue has been addressed in Chapter 8

of this report.

25

6. OVERCOMING POSTAL AND PROXY VOTE ABUSE

6.1 Abuse of the postal or proxy voting system can take a number of forms

ranging from individuals being registered or left on the register, who have

long since gone elsewhere, and their ballot papers being filled in by others,

to vote stealing involving regular non-voters having applications for a postal

vote being sent in without their knowledge.

6.2 The Committee gives due recognition to the genuine need for absent

voting arrangements for those sections of the community who would

otherwise be in effect disenfranchised. The Committee believes that

a proper balance must be maintained in a system where people can

easily apply for such votes when necessary but where sufficient

safeguards prevail to prevent fraudulent applications. The Committee

considers that this balance is not present under the current absent

voting system

6.3 The Chief Electoral Officer in his Annual Report for 1993-94 details

occurrences of serious absent voting abuse in local general elections in 1985

and 1989 and then in the May 1993 local elections. The appropriate extract

from the report is attached at Appendix F. In his report Mr Bradley has

indicated that under the present regulations relating to absent voting the

potential for abuse is considerable and that such abuse can have

considerable impact on electoral results. While the Chief Electoral Officer

points out that such abuse does take place elsewhere in the United Kingdom

he stresses that in Northern Ireland such abuse has far greater potential to

26

influence results as may especially be the case should elections or referenda

result from the ongoing political talks.

27

6.4 One of the concerns expressed during the debate in the Forum was that the

actual elector can be unaware of a postal or proxy voting application having

been made on his/her behalf. In his 1993-94 report the Chief Electoral

Officer states

‘Substantive evidence has built up to indicate that some parents

are applying for postal or proxy voting facilities in the names of

their sons or daughters who are either permanently or

temporarily away from home. It is apparent that a number of

such applications have been submitted without the knowledge,

let alone the consent, of the family member named. It appears

that such parents are much more anxious for their children's

votes to be cast than the electors themselves. So much so that

in fact they utter false applications. It is not always the case

that sons and daughters share the same identical political

affiliations as their parents.’

(Page 21)

The Chief Electoral Officer continues

‘My Office has contacted a number of electors for whom

absent voting facilities have been requested. The replies

received stated that the electors did not request any such

facility and certainly had not signed any application.

Comparisons between the signatures on the replies and on the

application forms certainly have borne that out. When the

police have investigated the matter the electors invariably

28

decline to repeat their original statement.'

(Page 22)

6.5 Other concerns expressed during the Forum debate regarding the

postal voting arrangements included the increase in the number of

applications for postal and proxy votes and the significant variance in

the number and percentage of postal ballot papers issued in the

different constituencies throughout Northern Ireland. Statistics

regarding postal and proxy votes which are attached at Appendix G

show the reason for the concern in these areas. The Chief Electoral

Officer in his 1988-89 Annual Report acknowledges the differences

in the level of postal voting from area to area.

'There are significant differences in the level of postal voting from

area to area. Some of the differences may be accounted for in the

varying level of physically handicapped persons or the differing age

profile of the population from district to district. The major factor,

however, appears to be the level of political interest. Indeed, the

various polling agents and candidates play the major role in the

procurement of such postal voting applications whilst a much smaller

number of applications is obtained directly from electors.'

(1988-89 Report, Pages 6 and 7)

6.6 The Committee is of the opinion that the postal and proxy vote

system is susceptible to abuse by those applying for fraudulent votes

in that the specified documents which are required to be produced at a

polling station before a ballot paper is handed over do not have to be

produced before an absentee ballot is issued.

29

6.7 The Committee is disappointed to note that while the Chief Electoral Officer

acknowledges in his 1993-94 report that there is serious absent voting abuse

he does not unfortunately provide any suggestions for the improvement of

the current system. However in a newspaper article in the Daily Mail on

24 May 1997 Mr Bradley is reported to have suggested that identity cards

should be used to stop future abuse and in a further article in the Financial

Times on 7 August 1997 Mr Bradley is reported to have said that further

steps should be taken to pre-empt abuse by keeping a digital profile of

voters’ signatures and an historical record of postal voters as well as

monitoring the doctors’ attestations provided on postal applications.

6.8 The Committee noted the concern registered during the Forum debate that

some doctors attest many more forms than some others. However, the

Minister, Mr Paul Murphy MP in answer to a Parliamentary Question

regarding the number of applications signed by individual doctors stated

‘Records of absent voting applications are not currently stored

in a way which would readily provide information on reasons

for applications and individual doctors attestations.’

6.9 The Committee is pleased to note that Mr Bradley acknowledges the

concern expressed about doctors’ attestations and therefore

particularly welcomes all of Mr Bradley’s proposals suggested in the

article on 7 August to pre-empt abuse. The Committee is disturbed

that such steps had not been taken at an earlier date given that Mr

Bradley has identified serious absent voting abuse over many years.

30

6.10 In his 1993-94 report the Chief Electoral Officer confirms that he has

already referred to the police investigations carried out on suspected

electoral abuse. However he goes on to say

'The police have particular difficulties in carrying out

their investigations including the following:

- where the alleged applicants are outside of Northern

Ireland it is particularly difficult to obtain an interview

even with the assistance of the other police forces;

- even when it was clearly established that applicants

did not even know the proxy or assentor the

investigation was thwarted when the proxy or

assentor denied signing the form and refused

handwriting samples;

- in some instances involving absent or severely

infirmed voters, and where all the signatures on the

forms were suspected to be false, the investigation

could not proceed as specimen signatures were not

available.'

(Page 22)

6.11 The Committee notes that Mr Bradley opened a postal vote centre for

two and half months before the elections this year in an effort to

allow people to get their postal and proxy votes sorted out. However,

31

the Committee is of the opinion that those who seek to abuse the

postal and proxy vote system will not make an early application which

would permit the Chief Electoral Officer to carry out the necessary

checks. The Committee further considers that such a centre should

be tied to each local Electoral Office as local knowledge is absolutely

essential in investigating postal or proxy votes. Furthermore, the

Committee is of the opinion that each local Electoral Office should be

staffed to enable the necessary work to be effectively completed.

6.12 The Committee also considers that fraudulent applications for postal

and proxy votes are made easier by the ability to see the marked

register which is available for purchase following an election. Political

parties acknowledge the usefulness of the marked registers in identifying

people who have not voted and in finding out why a party has lost favour

with that particular group of electors. However the availability of the

marked register also makes it easier for perpetrators to apply for fraudulent

proxy or postal votes on behalf of those who do not vote. Suggestions to

avoid this sort of fraud included written confirmation to the applicant that

the proxy or postal application had been granted. The elector would then

have an opportunity to object if a fraudulent application was made in his/her

name and the Chief Electoral Officer could take action to ensure that the

false ballot paper was not cast. The Committee has reservations about

the availability of marked registers following elections given the scope

that they provide for abuse.

32

6.13 The Association of Electoral Administrators suggested to the Committee

that 'early voting' ie voting on specified days in advance of polling day, at a

single location in each constituency or Council area would give electors

who are unable to vote in person on polling day, the opportunity to cast a

vote in person before polling day and would therefore cut down on the need

for many of the postal and proxy votes.

6.14 The Association also suggested that voters who are unable to vote due to

illness or infirmity could receive a visit from polling officers with a mobile

ballot box and ballot papers so that the elector could vote in person at

his/her home. The Association confirmed that this is what happens in

South Africa and points out that such a system gives the elector the

opportunity to be directly involved, is better than sending complicated

instructions through the post, is also far more flexible in terms of

unforeseen illness and reduces the risk of fraud.

6.15 The Committee, as part of its deliberations, looked at how proxy and postal

votes are dealt with in other countries. A summary of the information

which was provided to the Committee is attached at Appendix H.

6.16 The Committee is of the opinion that consideration should be given to

allow the long-term sick to vote at home by way of an electoral officer

calling on them at home.

6.17 Following lengthy deliberations the Committee recommends that

application forms for postal and proxy votes should be revised to

request the Date of Birth and National Insurance Number of the

33

applicant and that when applications for postal or proxy votes are

received, the Chief Electoral Officer should be required to make

checks on identity before registration is accepted.

6.18 The Committee also recommends that an earlier deadline for the

receipt of applications for postal and proxy votes has to be set to allow

the local Electoral Office time to carry out the necessary checks and

that late applications should only be accepted if the elector has a due

reason why an application could not have been made earlier.

6.19 The Committee also concludes that the household registration form

should be revised to ask each elector to indicate whether they have

any disabilities, physical incapacities, or if his/her work regularly

takes him/her away from home etc and as a result may therefore

require a postal or proxy vote. This registration form should also

warn the elector that if he/she does not apply for a postal or proxy

vote in sufficient time he/she may not get such a vote. The

Committee believes that there is no reason why applications for an

absent vote for an indefinite period should not be made before 31

December.

34

7. PREVENTING VOTING PERSONATION BY INTRODUCING PROPER

AND EFFECTIVE IDENTITY CHECKS

7.1 Personation is another area of concern with regard to vote-stealing and one

which was repeatedly raised during the debate in the Forum.

7.2 Under the present system an elector is required to provide one of the

following specified documents before he/she is handed a ballot paper:

(a) a current Northern Ireland or Great Britain full driving licence or a

Northern Ireland provisional licence (in each case both parts of the

licence have to be produced);

(b) a current United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland passport (including a

UK Visitor’s Passport) or other current European Union State

Passport;

(c) a current book for the payment of allowances, benefits or pensions

issued by the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern

Ireland;

(d) a medical card issued by the Northern Ireland Central Services

Agency (no other medical card is acceptable);

(e) a current British Seaman’s card;

35

(f) a card made of plastic issued by the Department of Health and Social

Security or the Department of Social Security with a name and

national insurance number embossed on it;

(g) in the case of a woman married within 2 years of polling day, a

certified copy or extract of an entry of marriage issued by a

Registrar General in the UK.

7.3 Widespread concern has been expressed about the inclusion of the

non-photographic documents in the list of specified documents such as

Medical cards, allowance or benefit books or plastic card with National

Insurance Number.

7.4 Evidence provided to the Committee by a few who had officiated at

elections indicated that misuse of these documents does indeed happen.

'In my position I could personally identify voters

impersonating using allowance books etc but needless to say it

is not my duty as Presiding Officer to refuse.'

(Presiding Officer)

'I have observed blatant impersonation on a large scale.

Introduction of an election identity card is essential. Passports

and Driving Licences are OK but benefit books and Plastic

National Insurance Cards are a sham.'

(Poll Clerk & Presiding Officer)

36

7.5 An example quoted in the Forum debate indicated that on one

constituency about 70% of electors use medical cards or benefit

books. Throughout the debate other examples were given regarding

the misuse of non-photographic identification.

‘.......we have evidence that medical cards too have been

reproduced.'

(13 June 1997, Page 10)

‘One Presiding Officer said to me that he had never seen so

many brand new medical cards. There is also a problem with

regard to social-security benefit books.'

(13 June 1997, Page 12)

'I know of a Roman Catholic polling officer who was so

embarrassed by what he saw in his local station that when it

came to the council election he requested to be moved to

another station. He could not allow it to go on. He himself

could not object to people coming in eight or nine times to

vote, but he was so embarrassed that he asked to be moved to

another station’.

(13 June 1997, Page 19)

7.6 The Chief Electoral Officer in his 1993-94 report acknowledges that

concern has been expressed about the appropriateness of the inclusion of

medical cards in the list of prescribed documents as those cards are

relatively easy to forge. However the Chief Electoral Officer points out that

37

there is nevertheless the additional safeguard of the right of a polling agent

to challenge an elector at the polling station including the right to have an

arrest effected on grounds of alleged personation.

7.7 The Committee however recognises that it is difficult to identify the

perpetrators as they will in most cases cast the fraudulent vote first

and then return later to cast the legal vote - any challenges would

therefore be on the legal vote!

7.8 However the Committee is of the opinion that the list of specified

documents which an elector is required to provide before he/she is

handed a ballot paper is open to abuse and strongly believes that the

list is being abused.

7.9 One other area of the electoral procedure which has been used for

vote-stealing and personation is where information regarding who has and

has not voted is being taken out of the polling stations. The Committee

recommends that the Presiding Officer should be empowered to stop

information being removed from the polling station.

7.10 All of those who provided evidence to the Committee, in addition to all of

those who expressed concern during the Forum debate, advocated that

photographic identification was the only way to identify an elector.

However documents that do not have a photograph cannot simply be

disallowed unless there is an alternative that people can use. Evidence

provided to the Committee recognised that not all electors possess a driving

38

licence or passport but stated they probably do possess some photographic

document which would confirm proof of identity such as bus passes,

security passes etc.

7.11 There was also support for a national identity card which could also assist

with matters such as state benefits and driver licensing.

7.12 The Association of Electoral Administrators suggested that if electors were

issued with a registration card confirming they had been included on the

register, at an election it could be a requirement that the registration card

and the poll card should be produced in order to vote.

7.13 The Committee, as part of its deliberations, looked at procedures used by

other countries for the prevention of personation. A summary of the

information which was provided to the Commitee is attached at Appendix I.

7.14 The Committee strongly recommends that in the first instance the

legislation should be amended to require photographic identification

to be produced before a voting paper is handed over.

7.15 In addition, the Committee believes that consideration should also be

given to implementing procedures whereby each elector would be

required to sign the electoral register and a comparison of the

signature on the register and the one which was provided on the

registration form, made by polling station officials before a voting

paper is handed over.

39

7.16 However the Committee believes that the Government should also

consider the introduction of one of the three options for identity cards

listed below as a requirement for identification before a voting paper

is handed over:

- a National Identity Card which could be used in association with

other matters;

- a Voting Identity Card which all electors would have to produce

before a voting paper is handed over;

- a Voting Identity Card for those electors who do not have the

appropriate photographic identification.

7.17 The Committee is also of the opinion that consideration should be

given to putting invisible, indelible, fluorescent dye on a specified

thumb or finger of each elector which would be checked by polling

station officials under an ultra-violet lamp before issuing a ballot

paper. While this process may seem undignified for the voter the

Committee believes that it would certainly add to the integrity of the

voting process. The Committee notes that this process was introduced

without controversy in recent elections in Bosnia, South Africa,

Cambodia and Albania.

40

7.18 The Committee believes that it should be the clear duty of the

Presiding Officer to refuse to issue a ballot paper if there is doubt

about a voter's identity and that an objection from a candidate's

polling agent should not be required. However, there should be

provision for the issue of a 'tendered' ballot paper in the case of a

dispute about identity documentation.

41

OTHER RELEVANT ISSUES

8. Difficulties experienced by those with learning difficulties

8.1 During the Committee's deliberations concerns were expressed on various

issues additional to those which were specifically identified in the motion

passed by the Forum.

8.2 One such concern was regarding the difficulties experienced by those with

learning difficulties. Evidence provided to the Committee by Mencap

informed the Committee that a research project was carried out by Mencap

in 1996 to look at the barriers faced by people with a learning disability.

Although the research project did not include Northern Ireland, Mencap

confirmed that contact with carers and organisations working with people

with a learning disability in Northern Ireland suggests that the experiences in

Northern Ireland are very similar. Amongst the barriers highlighted are the

following:

lack of knowledge that people with a learning disability can vote;

the absence of information in an accessible format to explain the

electoral procedures, voting papers or the manifestos of each candidate

or party;

the absence of accessible polling stations - not only in terms of physical

access, but accessible by the use of signs, pictures, independent support

etc;

42

the lack of facilities available at the polling stations to allow staff or

carers to explain the voting form and procedures to the individual with a

learning disability and for the person with a learning disability to be

comfortable and confident in unfamiliar surroundings;

the lack of experience of voting by individuals with a learning disability,

coupled with the infrequent nature of elections;

the absence of transport to get to the polling station;

the absence of an independent advocate, known to the person with a

learning disability, who would assist him or her in marking their ballot

paper. Whilst acknowledging the need to prevent fraudulent use of the

voting procedures, it is important to recognise that the offer of help from

the Presiding Officer - a stranger to the potential voter - can result in a

person with a learning disability not exercising their right to vote.

8.3 Mencap believe that a number of individuals and organisations have a role to

play in encouraging people with a learning disability to vote but that in the

absence of clear policies or guidelines issued by Government at central or

Northern Ireland levels on this matter, coupled with the lack of training for

Electoral Office staff about the needs of people with a learning disability,

mean that many do not exercise their right to vote.

8.4 The Committee recommends that the Chief Electoral Officer should

liaise with organisations such as Mencap to discuss training for his

43

staff and how the registration and voting procedures could be revised

to encourage people with learning difficulties to vote.

Difficulties experienced by those with sensory difficulties

8.5 The Committee also wrote to the RNID, RNIB and SENSE regarding

difficulties encountered by people with sensory difficulties. However, at the

time of writing this report no replies have been received.

8.6 The Committee acknowledges that there are general problems regarding the

electoral system faced by people with sensory disabilities and recommends

that the Chief Electoral Officer should liaise with organisations such

as RNID, RNIB and SENSE to discuss how these difficulties might be

overcome.

Difficulties experienced by security forces regarding registration and

voting

8.7 Two other issues which the Committee was asked to consider were

- the difficulties experienced by security personnel working on the day of

the election; and

- the security risk of names and addresses of security personnel appearing

on the electoral register.

8.8 Representations made to the Committee stated that authorities had promised

to arrange postal votes for security personnel who had to work on the day

44

of the election but that the postal votes had not materialised. Existing

provisions within the electoral procedures allows for security personnel

who are unable to vote at their allocated polling station because they are

working on polling day to be, on presentation of a prescribed certificate,

permitted to vote at any polling station within the same Parliamentary

constituency or District Council electoral area as their allocated polling

station. However, frequently security personnel are posted to work in areas

outside the Parliamentary constituency or District Council electoral area of

their allocated polling station and they are therefore unable to cast their vote.

The Committee believes that the existing provisions for such cases

are not satisfactory and recommends that a duty should be placed on

senior members of the security forces to apply for postal votes for

those members of the security forces for whom they are responsible.

8.9 Representations were also made to the Committee regarding the security

risk which arises when the names and addresses of security personnel

appear on the electoral register.

8.10 The Committee notes that in Australia, for example 'silent enrolment' is

offered. Electors who consider that the publication of their address on the

publicly available electoral roll would endanger the personal safety of

themselves or their families, may make a request to the Divisional Returning

Officer that their addresses not appear, or be deleted from, the roll. A

request must give details of the relevant risk and be verified by statutory

declaration.

45

8.11 The Committee recommends that the Chief Electoral Officer should

put in place procedures to allow members of the security forces to

apply for the non-inclusion of their addresses on the published

electoral register and to set up procedures to enable him to approve

and take the necessary action on such applications. The Committee is

of the opinion that there may be circumstances in which others (for

example, those at risk from an ex-spouse) should have the

opportunity to avail of this procedure.

Non-delivery of polling cards

8.12 One of the other issues raised during the debate in the Forum was the

non-delivery of polling cards and personal literature of some candidates.

The Committee is aware that there appears to have been problems in recent

elections concerning late printing of polling cards. The Committee

recommends that the Chief Electoral Officer should take action to

ensure early delivery of poll cards. Evidence provided to the Committee

by Royal Mail indicates that difficulties have been experienced by their

organisation in ensuring unaddressed literature is delivered within the

correct constituency and that this situation would be improved if they could

access constituency details held by the Chief Electoral Officer.

8.13 The Royal Mail also indicated in their evidence that the registration form as

currently designed does not include any space for postcode details.

Consequently poll cards and other addressed items do not have postcodes

included as part of the address format.

46

8.14 The Committee recommends that the registration form should be

revised to ask for postcode and that the Chief Electoral Officer should

liaise with the Royal Mail to discuss what other procedures could be

put in place to help establish an effective system for sending out

election literature and polling cards.

47

Registration of homeless people

8.15 Mr Harry Barnes MP, informed the Committee that he has campaigned for

the registration of homeless people which is not possible under the current

registration system which requires electors to be 'a resident' in order to be

registered. Mr Barnes pointed out that as a resident is normally somebody

who is expected to have a residence by definition that almost always

excludes homeless people. Mr Barnes stated that he would like to see the

definition changed to allow homeless people to be added or, in the

meantime, the appropriate Government office putting out circulars to

encourage a more liberal interpretation of the present arrangement.

8.16 The Committee notes the case made by Mr Barnes but has

reservations about his desired change which the Committee believe

would give rise to potential abuse. The Committee believes however

that provision should be made for those who are resident in

recognised accommodation for example, Salvation Army, Simon

Community, Women's Aid Refuge.

48

9. SUMMARY OF THE COMMITTEE'S CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 This chapter provides a summary of the conclusions and recommendations

identified in this report. The recommendations are presented as a package

and as such are dependent on each other to provide an effective and fair

electoral system.

9.2 The Committee recommends that the Chief Electoral Officer should

be provided with the necessary finance, staff and equipment to enable

the recommendations in this report to be carried out satisfactorily.

9.3 Where recommendations are not already provided for under current

legislation the Committee recommends that the legislation should be

amended accordingly or that appropriate procedures are established to

ensure that recommendations are carried out.

REMOVING MULTIPLE ENTRIES FROM THE ELECTORAL

REGISTER

The Committee believes that the Chief Electoral Officer has a duty

to compile an accurate electoral register by ensuring the collection

of forms from every house and to fully investigate all cases where

the house type and number of entries for that residence do not

match. (Para 3.5)

49

Furthermore the Committee is of the opinion that random checks

should be carried out by each local Electoral Office to confirm that

information provided on the registration form is correct. (Para 3.6)

Additionally, the Committee recommends that a meaningful

penalty for not supplying all the required information or for

supplying false information should be prominently displayed on the

household registration form and that the penalty should be

enforced. (Para 3.7)

The Committee recognises that some cases where the house type

and number of entries for that residence do not match will be

legitimate as is the case with student accommodation, hostels or

Old People’s Homes. However the Committee believes that such

genuine cases would be known to the Election Registration

Officers. (Para 3.8)

The Committee is persuaded that a duty should be placed on the

Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages to provide details of

deaths to the Chief Electoral Officer. Similarly, a duty should be

placed on the relevant planning and housing authorities to keep

the Electoral Office informed of all new developments throughout

the Province. The Committee also believes that the Chief Electoral

Officer should consider what further interfaces could be set up

with related agencies, for example with the Court Service in

50

respect of prisoners who do not have the right to vote, to ensure

that an accurate register is maintained. (Para 3.10)

The Committee believes that multiple registrations provide the

scope for electoral abuse. (Para 3.11)

The Committee recognises that under the present registration

system there can be an admissible reason for some people to

register at more than one address. (Para 3.12)

The Committee however believes that it should be illegal to

register at more than one address in a Parliamentary constituency

or district council area. (Para 3.13)

The Committee is convinced that the limited information

requested under the current registration process provides the

scope for personation and cause for concern under the postal and

proxy vote system. (Para 3.14)

The Committee strongly recommends that all registration forms

should be revised to request 3 personal identifiers for each elector,

namely the elector's Date of Birth, National Insurance Number and

Signature. (Para 3.16)

The Committee further recommends that a requirement should be

placed on the Chief Electoral Officer to follow-up and take any

51

necessary action regarding previous address details provided on the

registration form. (Para 3.17)

While there are certain attractions in a rolling register the

Committee recognises that this would require further

investigation. The Committee believes that this issue could be

more appropriately addressed after an accurate electoral register

has been compiled. (Para 3.22)

The Committee recommends that the Secretary of State should

initiate an investigation to fully check the electoral registers for

both the General and Local Elections which were held in May 1997

for "irregularities" including multiple registrations. (Para 3.25)

The Committee recommends that the Chief Electoral Officer

should be given the resources ie finance, staff and equipment to

enable him to carry out the recommendations cited in this chapter

and to maintain an accurate electoral register. (Para 3.26)

ENSURING THAT THOSE WHO ARE ENTITLED TO VOTE ARE

REGISTERED

The Committee is convinced that a duty should be placed on the

Chief Electoral Officer to ensure that everyone who is entitled to

vote is included on the register. The Committee is also convinced

that a requirement should be placed on the Chief Electoral Officer

52

to have up-to-date and accurate registers and that the legislation

should be amended accordingly. (Para 4.1)

The Committee is further of the opinion that the non-collection of

forms by the Electoral Office staff as mentioned in paragraph 3.5

of this report is part of the problem whereby people are being left

off the register. (Para 4.2)

The Committee recommends that the Chief Electoral Officer

should fully investigate any gaps in house numbering which appear

on the electoral register, attempt to find out why unreturned forms

have not been returned and take action as necessary. (Para 4.3)

The Committee believes that the failure of the Electoral Office to

be proactive on the issue of under-registration is failing the

democratic process. The Committee believes that public

information regarding registration should be made more widely

available in banks, Post Offices and public places. (Para 4.4)

The Committee recommends that the Chief Electoral Officer

should organise publicity campaigns by way of electronic and

printed media to encourage and promote awareness of registration

and other aspects of the electoral process. (Para 4.5)

PROVIDING SUITABLE AND CONVENIENT POLLING STATIONS

53

The Committee recommends that the Chief Electoral Officer

satisfies himself that every polling place is used in such a way as to

make it accessible to people with disabilities. (Para 5.6)

The Committee is of the opinion that all of these issues (paras 5.7

to 5.9) are discouraging to those who want to vote and that the

Chief Electoral Officer should look at where polling stations are

sited. (Para 5.10)

The Committee recommends that the published lists of polling

stations should be printed in the printed media and that an appeals

procedure should be put in place for appeals from the public

regarding the siting of polling stations or the elector's allocation to

a certain polling station. (Para 5.10)

OVERCOMING POSTAL AND PROXY VOTE ABUSE

The Committee gives due recognition to the genuine need for

absent voting arrangements for those sections of the community

who would otherwise be in effect disenfranchised. The Committee

believes that a proper balance must be maintained in a system

where people can easily apply for such votes when necessary but

where sufficient safeguards prevail to prevent fraudulent

applications. The Committee considers that this balance is not

present under the current absent voting system. (Para 6.2)

54

The Committee is of the opinion that the postal and proxy vote

system is susceptible to abuse by those applying for fraudulent

votes in that the specified documents which are required to be

produced at a polling station before a ballot paper is handed over do

not have to be produced before an absentee ballot is issued. (Para

6.6)

The Committee is pleased to note that Mr Bradley acknowledges

the concern expressed about doctors’ attestations and therefore

particularly welcomes all of Mr Bradley’s proposals suggested in

the article in the Financial Times on 7 August 1997 to pre-empt

abuse. The Committee is disturbed that such steps had not been

taken at an earlier date given that Mr Bradley has identified

serious absent voting abuse over many years. (Para 6.9)

The Committee notes that Mr Bradley opened a postal vote centre

for two and half months before the elections this year in an effort

to allow people to get their postal and proxy votes sorted out.

However, the Committee is of the opinion that those who seek to

abuse the postal and proxy vote system will not make an early

application which would permit the Chief Electoral Officer to carry

out the necessary checks. The Committee further considers that

such a centre should be tied to each local electoral office as local

knowledge is absolutely essential in investigating postal or proxy

votes. Furthermore, the Committee is of the opinion that each

55

local electoral office should be staffed to enable the necessary work

to be effectively completed. (Para 6.11)

The Committee also considers that fraudulent applications for

postal and proxy votes are made easier by the ability to see the

marked register which is available for purchase following an

election. (Para 6.12)

The Committee has reservations about the availability of marked

registers following elections given the scope that they provide for

abuse. (Para 6.12)

The Committee is of the opinion that consideration should be given

to allow the long-term sick to vote at home by way of an electoral

officer calling on them at home. (Para 6.16)

The Committee recommends that application forms for postal and

proxy votes should be revised to request the Date of Birth and

National Insurance Number of the applicant and that when

applications for postal or proxy votes are received, the Chief

Electoral Officer should be required to make checks on identity

before registration is accepted. (Para 6.17)

The Committee also recommends that an earlier deadline for the

receipt of applications for postal and proxy votes has to be set to

allow the local Electoral Office time to carry out the necessary

56

checks and that late applications should only be accepted if the

elector has a due reason why an application could not have been

made earlier. (Para 6.18)

The Committee also concludes that the household registration

form should be revised to ask each elector to indicate whether they

have any disabilities, physical incapacities, or if his/her work

regularly takes him/her away from home etc and as a result may

therefore require a postal or proxy vote. This registration form

should also warn the elector that if he/she does not apply for a

postal or proxy vote in sufficient time he/she may not get such a

vote. The Committee believes that there is no reason why

applications for an absent vote for an indefinite period should not

be made before 31 December. (Para 6.19)

PREVENTING VOTING PERSONATION BY INTRODUCING PROPER

AND EFFECTIVE IDENTITY CHECKS

The Committee recognises that it is difficult to identify the

perpetrators as they will in most cases cast the fraudulent vote

first and then return later to cast the legal vote - any challenges

would therefore be on the legal vote! (Para 7.7)

57

The Committee is of the opinion that the list of specified

documents which an elector is required to provide before he/she is

handed a ballot paper is open to abuse and strongly believes that

the list is being abused. (Para 7.8)

The Committee recommends that the Presiding Officer should be

empowered to stop information being removed from the polling

station. (Para 7.9)

The Committee strongly recommends that in the first instance the

legislation should be amended to require photographic

identification to be produced before a voting paper is handed over.

(Para 7.14)

In addition, the Committee believes that consideration should also

be given to implementing procedures whereby each elector would

be required to sign the electoral register and a comparison of the

signature on the register and the one which was provided on the

registration form, made by polling station officials before a voting

paper is handed over. (Para 7.15)

However the Committee believes that the Government should also

consider the introduction of one of the three options for identity

cards listed below as a requirement for identification before a

voting paper is handed over:

58

- a National Identity Card which could be used in association with

other matters;

- a Voting Identity Card which all electors would have to produce

before a voting paper is handed over;

- a Voting Identity Card for those electors who do not have the

appropriate photographic identification. (Para 7.16)

The Committee is also of the opinion that consideration should be

given to putting invisible, indelible, fluorescent dye on a specified

thumb or finger of each elector which would be checked by polling

station officials under an ultra-violet lamp before issuing a ballot

paper. While this process may seem undignified for the voter the

Committee believes that it would certainly add to the integrity of

the voting process. The Committee notes that this process was

introduced without controversy in recent elections in Bosnia, South

Africa, Cambodia and Albania. (Para 7.17)

The Committee believes that it should be the clear duty of the

Presiding Officer to refuse to issue a ballot paper if there is doubt

about a voter's identity and that an objection from a candidate's

polling agent should not be required. However, there should be

provision for the issue of a 'tendered' ballot paper in the case of a

dispute about identity documentation. (Para 7.18)

59

OTHER RELEVANT ISSUES

Difficulties experienced by those with learning difficulties

The Committee recommends that the Chief Electoral Officer

should liaise with organisations such as Mencap to discuss training

for his staff and how the registration and voting procedures could

be revised to encourage people with learning difficulties to vote.

(Para 8.4)

Difficulties experienced by those with sensory difficulties

The Committee recommends that the Chief Electoral Officer

should liaise with organisations such as RNID, RNIB and SENSE to

discuss how the difficulties faced by people with sensory difficulties

might be overcome. (Para 8.6)

Difficulties experienced by security forces regarding registration and

voting

The Committee believes that the existing provisions for security

personnel who have to work on the day of the election are not

satisfactory and recommends that a duty should be placed on

senior members of the security forces to apply for postal votes for

those members of the security forces for whom they are

responsible. (Para 8.8)

60

The Committee recommends that the Chief Electoral Officer

should put in place procedures to allow members of the security

forces to apply for the non-inclusion of their addresses on the

published electoral register and to set up procedures to enable him

to approve and take the necessary action on such applications. The

Committee is of the opinion that there may be circumstances in

which others (for example, those at risk from an ex-spouse) should

have the opportunity to avail of this procedure. (Para 8.11)

Non-delivery of polling cards

The Committee recommends that the Chief Electoral Officer

should take action to ensure early delivery of poll cards. (Para

8.12)

The Committee recommends that the registration form should be

revised to ask for postcode and that the Chief Electoral Officer

should liaise with the Royal Mail to discuss what other procedures

could be put in place to help establish an effective system for

sending out election literature and polling cards. (Para 8.14)

Registration of homeless people

The Committee notes the case made by Mr Barnes but has

reservations about his desired change which the Committee

believes would give rise to potential abuse. The Committee

61

believes however that provision should be made for those who are

resident in recognised accommodation for example, Salvation

Army, Simon Community, Women's Aid Refuge. (Para 8.16)

62

• Report by the Committee on Electoral Reform (introduced on 1997-10-31 10:00:00 - CREATE_FROM - e833801) [This document] [view current proposal at this moment]
  • Adopt the report on electoral reform (introduced on 1997-10-31 10:00:00 - PROCEDURE - e833802) [view current proposal at this moment]
    • None (introduced on 1997-10-31 10:00:00 - ADOPT_PROPOSAL - e833809) [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1997-10-31 10:00:00 - DEBATE_PROPOSAL - e833803) [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1997-10-31 10:00:00 - DEBATE_PROPOSAL - e833804) [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1997-10-31 10:00:00 - DEBATE_PROPOSAL - e833805) [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1997-10-31 10:00:00 - DEBATE_PROPOSAL - e833807) [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1997-10-31 10:00:00 - DEBATE_PROPOSAL - e833808) [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1997-10-31 10:00:00 - ADOPT_PROPOSAL - e833810) [view current proposal at this moment]