Agenda item
Update: Annual Electoral Canvass, Cabinet Office Pilot and Local Government and Parliamentary Boundary Reviews
To receive an oral report and presentation.
Minutes:
The Chair informed the OSC that the presentation would not in fact encompass the Local Government and Parliamentary Boundary Reviews.
Louise Stamp, Electoral Services Manager, gave a detailed Powerpoint presentation providing the OSC with a progress update on the Annual Electoral Registration (ER) Canvass 2012 and the Individual Electoral Registration (IER) Pilot. The slides were also Tabled, a copy of which would be interleaved with the minutes. Isabella Freeman, Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services), was also in attendance to answer questions from the OSC.
A discussion followed which focused on the following points:-
· Noting that:
Ø The introduction of IER in 2014 would require data matching with Department of Work & Pensions (DWP) records.
Ø That currently with the IER Pilot relating to the 2012 ER Canvass 35% of applications to register to vote remained unmatched, and therefore the electors could not be placed on the Register of Electors (the Register).
Ø That the Cabinet Office and DWP had not agreed to a two way process of data flow, and officers considered DWP records to be out of date given the transient nature of the population in Tower Hamlets. This required much more work at the LBTH end by the ERO to resolve the mismatches (only if the Council were satisfied a mismatch had been resolved by other means could electors be added to the Register).
Ø Officers anticipated that there would be 20% reduction in registered electors in Tower Hamlets as a consequence of IER.
Ø The opt out from the published Register box could no longer be pre ticked automatically on the ER form by the Council, and so 75% of information was currently confidential would not be so in 2014.
Clarification was sought and given as to:
Ø Whether there were any set criteria/ rules or appeal process which could be used to challenge the data mismatches arising from the DWP data and the resulting consequence that many electors could not be placed on the Register.
Ø Whether any analysis had been undertaken to identify the proportion of electors that might legitimately be deleted from the Register because they were registered in error. Also the proportion that might be unfairly deleted.
Ø The administrative process that would be followed to inform applicants/ electors of the data mismatch, warn them of potential deletion from the Register and advise of steps to avoid this.
Ø Provision for alternative methods of verification eg another family member, given that many residents would struggle to provide information required to verify their application to register to vote, such as driving licence/ passport.
Ø The strength of the case made for additional resources, given that 65% of the population in LBTH lived in rented accommodation with major implications for the electoral registration process under IER, in contrast to other boroughs.
Ø Action planned to support those residents wanting to return an electoral registration form/ provide the necessary information, in particular outreach initiatives for those with mental health issues.
Ø Planned partnership working eg information sharing with RSLs to assist with tenancy changes and data matching.
Ø Whether 10,000 electors had been deleted from the Register following the 2012 ER Canvass, and whether the numbers of electors placed on the register had risen steadily since then.
Ø How the 85.22% response rate to the 2012 ER Canvass compared to the London average.
Ø With reference to the IER Pilot and matching of data pre and post 2012 ER Canvass to ascertain how many matched electors changed address: what the anticipated final match rate would be.
Ø Whether postal and proxy votes could still be applied for under IER.
The Chair summarised that the main concern of the OSC was that a large proportion of local residents may be disenfranchised if there was not a way to resolve data matching problems arising from out of date DWP information, due primarily to population churn and the proportion of rented accommodation in LBTH. The Council should give consideration to further action to address this issue. The Chair the Moved and it was:-
Resolved
That the progress update made in the presentation be noted.