Welsh Government Consultation Document: Electoral Reform in Local Government in Wales

The Commission believes it is for the Welsh Government and, ultimately, the National Assembly for Wales to decide on the franchise for local government elections in Wales. We have therefore limited our response to highlighting the practical implications which will need to be considered in the event that the franchise is amended.

Should the Welsh Government develop such proposals then we would welcome the opportunity to provide detailed comment on those proposals.

The Commission’s view is that any legislation for any changes to the franchise for a referendum should be clear at least six months before EROs are due to begin any scheduled annual canvass activities. This would give EROs sufficient time to plan and effectively implement the changes and ensure that all those who are newly eligible to vote can take the steps they need to successfully register and participate
in the elections.

Votes for 16 and 17-year-olds

Question 1: Do you agree that the qualifying age for voting in Welsh local government elections should be lowered to 16?

The Commission does not take a view on extending the franchise. However, any changes to the franchise should be clear six months before EROs are due to begin any scheduled annual canvass activities to enable all those who are newly eligible to vote to take the steps they need to successfully register and participate in the elections.

Sixteen and seventeen year olds in Scotland were able to vote at the Scottish Independence Referendum in 2014, and have been able to vote in local government and Scottish Parliament elections since May 2016. The Electoral Commission has worked closely with the Scottish Government and other partners in Scotland, such as the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, the Scottish Assessors Association, the Electoral Management Board for Scotland (EMB), Education Scotland, School Leaders Scotland and the Association of Directors of Education Scotland, to undertake specific public awareness activities to target 16 and 17 year olds. These activities were to inform 16 and 17 year olds that they could vote and to tell them that what they had to do to enable them to vote.

Our #ReadytoVote campaigns ran throughout March in both 2016 and 2017 in advance of the Scottish Parliamentary and Scottish Council elections. Part of this work involved inviting schools, colleges and youth organisations to run registration sessions where they would encourage young 16 and 17 year olds to apply to register online. We produced a toolkit providing them with everything they needed to get
involved, details of which are on our website here - Scottish Parliament#ReadyToVote toolkit. In total, 282 high schools signed up to hold
registration drives in March 2016 and 294 in 2017, representing more than 80% of all high schools in Scotland.

We would want to build upon this approach in Wales if the franchise was lowered. Our experience in Scotland makes clear that it is important that 16 and 17 year olds are engaged and that specific public awareness activity is undertaken. We would therefore want to work with educational partners and councils in Wales to identify opportunities for supporting ongoing political literacy in schools and encouraging
young people to register when they attain the age to do so.

Question 2: Should EU citizens who move to Wales once the UK has left the EU continue to acquire the right to vote?

Question 3: Should voting rights be extended to all legal residents in Wales, irrespective of their nationality or citizenry? 

We take no view on whether all residents in Wales, irrespective of their nationality or citizenship, should be entitled to vote. The focus for the Commission would be that any agreed changes are implemented and resourced effectively and that people understand whether they are able to vote and what they need to do in order to vote.

Should the Welsh Government decide to implement these suggestions, we would expect to carry out work to ensure effective public awareness among these groups so that they are aware they are able to register to vote and vote and of how to do so.

Question 4: EU and Commonwealth citizens can stand for election to local government in Wales, should this continue and be extended to all nationalities made eligible to vote?

The Commission takes no view on whether any particular nationalities should be eligible to stand for election to local government in Wales. Whichever decision is made, all information and guidance provided to candidates will need to be updated and clearly communicated to them. 

Data-sharing and Automatic Registration 

Question 5: Should Electoral Registration Officers have a greater range of sources available to them to assist citizens to be added to the register? 

Question 6: Which data sources do you think should be used by Electoral Registration Officers?

Data sharing

In our Electoral registration report of July 2017, we discussed the potential for making more use of public data. EROs can currently access data held locally by local authorities and others. Chapter 5 of Part 4: ‘Maintaining the register throughout the year’ of our guidance for Electoral Registration Officers provides guidance about how to identify appropriate data sources and how to manage and use that data.
We want to see further steps taken by all of the UK’s governments to explore the potential benefits for voters and EROs of enabling access to non-local public data.

We would welcome the opportunity to work with the Welsh Government to improve opportunities for EROs to access data from other public service providers - particularly where that data is held by national rather than local providers – to enable them to target their activity at new electors or those who have recently moved. Better use of public data will help EROs identify potential electors and improve the accuracy and completeness of the electoral register.

Earlier this year, the Digital Economy Act received Royal Assent following approval by the UK Parliament. The Act includes provisions which are intended to make it easier for public bodies to share data they hold in order to improve the delivery of public services to citizens. We will be exploring further with the Cabinet Office’s Modernising Electoral Registration Programme what opportunities there are for using these provisions to improve the compilation and maintenance of electoral registers, in particular, using appropriately reliable data so that EROs can better identify people who are not accurately registered. We would be happy to work with Welsh Government in a similar way.

Automatic registration 

As stated in our response to the Welsh Government’s consultation in April, our March 2017 report on the December 2016 electoral registers made clear our position that it is now time to move away from a system which relies on electors taking steps to register themselves, and instead develop automatic or direct enrolment processes which have the potential to deliver more accurate and complete electoral registers more efficiently than current resource intensive canvass processes. Several countries have already implemented forms of direct or automatic electoral registration to help meet challenges similar to those now facing EROs in Wales, including Australia, Canada and various US states. These systems enable those with responsibility for maintaining the electoral register to register electors automatically using reliable and trusted information from other public sources, or to update their details when they move without the elector having to “re-register” at their new address.

We recognise that introducing more direct or automatic registration processes would be a significant change to electoral registration policy in Wales, and also that there may be concerns about the implications of moving away from requiring individual citizens to take direct personal responsibility for their own electoral registration. Consideration will also need to be given to how automatic registration would work in practice given the potential differences that could arise in relation to the compilation of the local government register and parliamentary register.

As outlined in our July 2017 report on electoral registration at the UK general election, we believe it is important to continue to explore the implications, possible benefits and costs of more fundamental changes to the UK’s electoral registration framework.

Enabling a wider range of Council Officers to assist people to register

Question 7: Should a wider range of local authority staff be empowered to assist citizens to obtain registration through access to the local government register and have the ability to amend it?

Question 8: What controls should be put in place to ensure the Electoral Registration Officer maintains overall control of the register? 

The current legislative framework provides that the ERO is legally responsible for the electoral register. The ERO is an independent statutory officer appointed by the council, whose duties are separate from their duties as a local government officer. Access and supply of the electoral register is limited to those specified in legislation. The council is required to provide the necessary support and resources to the ERO in order to produce a complete and accurate register of electors and meet their duties under section 9A of the RPA 1983. The council must provide officers to assist the ERO in carrying out their statutory functions.

While the ERO should retain legal responsibility for the register, consideration could be given to helping EROs maximise voter registration and promote participation in the electoral process, providing that the robustness of the system is maintained.

Relaxing rules on individual registration

Question 9: Should the individual registration rules be relaxed to allow for block registrations in certain circumstances, protecting the right to vote for populations otherwise at risk of exclusion?

The removal of the ability for block registration of electors, when IER was introduced, brought new challenges to the registration process for some groups, as electors now need to be contacted individually and invited to apply to register. In our report on electoral registration in July (2017) we said that the availability of online channels to access an increasingly wide range of public services presents opportunities to make electoral registration even simpler for the public and more efficient for EROs. Specifically relating to student registration, some EROs have already worked with local higher education providers to integrate electoral registration applications into their student enrolment processes.

During the passage through the UK Parliament of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 earlier this year, the UK Government was able to include powers which will enable the new Office for Students (OfS) to decide whether to make student electoral registration a condition of Higher Education providers' registration with them in England. We would welcome equivalent provisions being introduced for
Wales.

In Wales, we are aware that both Ceredigion and Cardiff have successfully set up data sharing agreements with universities to encourage applications to register from all students. We suggest that the Welsh Government contacts the EROs at both Ceredigion and Cardiff to obtain further information about their data sharing arrangements. 

Any consideration to relax the rules to allow for block registration in certain circumstances would need to acknowledge the protection of sensitive personal information of individuals as well as making sure that any changes would continue to provide assurance for EROs that an individual exists, which, for example, is currently achieved by requiring national insurance numbers to be provided and verified. 

Targeted registration campaigns 

Question 10: Should we place a duty on Electoral Registration Officers to consider whether any individual groups within their electoral area should be specifically targeted in registration campaigns?

EROs already have a duty under Section 9A of the Representation People Act 1983 (as amended by the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013) to take all necessary steps to comply with their duty to maintain the electoral register, and to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that all those eligible (and no others) are registered.

All EROs have in place a local public engagement strategy which recognises the specific challenges of their local area, and whether any individual groups within their electoral area should be specifically targeted in their registration campaigns. Public engagement covers all aspects of the ERO’s interaction with their local residents, including contact with organisations such as schools, universities, landlords, housing associations, hostels and homelessness organisations. We do not therefore believe that an additional duty is necessary.

Identifying people moving into and out of an area

Question 11: Should we introduce arrangements so that agencies that are aware of people moving have a duty to inform the Electoral Registration Officers?

We would support and encourage new options to encourage registration through working in partnership with others including, for example, social services and housing departments and universities.

We are already aware of a great deal of work underway by EROs to encourage registration, such as working with estate agents to provide information about people moving into the area who may be eligible to register to vote. We will continue to work with EROs to ensure that this good work is built upon. 

Developing an all-Wales electronic register

Question 12: What are your views on the development of a single electronic register for Wales? 

Introducing IER and online registration has transformed electoral registration in Great Britain during the last three years. The various governments of the UK, including the Welsh Government, now need to build on this, and continue to modernise electoral registration to make it simpler and more accessible for voters.

In our Electoral Registration report, which we published in July 2017, and in previous reports on the implementation of Individual Electoral Registration, we have recommended that it is time for the UK to develop the current system to ensure that electoral registration is connected with other public services. That could mean direct or automatic enrolment processes which have the potential to deliver more accurate and complete electoral registers more efficiently than current resource intensive canvass processes.

After the local government elections in May 2017 electoral administrators reported that a significant number of the applications they received were duplicate applications, where voters had submitted new registrations, not realising that they were already registered to vote. We have previously recommended that an online ‘look up’ facility should be provided on a UK-wide basis for electors to check whether they are already registered and we are keen to explore options for enhancing the existing online registration service.

Following on from this, a single or joined up register could make it easier for EROs to share information on their electoral registers. This could also help ensure that duplicate entries could be identified, thus improving the accuracy of the electoral register. The introduction of a single electronic register in Wales register would, however, require considerable resources to implement and have a significant impact
on electoral administration staff. We recommend careful consideration of the lessons learnt by UK Government through the previous CORE project1 and that a comprehensive analysis of potential cyber security risks is carried out

Offering a choice: First Past the Post or Single Transferable Vote

Question 13: Do you agree that individual principal councils should be able to choose their voting system? 

Decisions about which voting system should be used for different elections are significant constitutional issues, and are matters for Governments and Parliaments. Our role is to ensure that appropriate administrative planning is undertaken by the relevant RO, and that voters understand the systems used at the range of elections which take place in the UK, to ensure that they can cast their vote in the way they intended.

However, in this instance we feel that allowing councils to decide which electoral system to use in their own area could create significant risks and challenges which would be unique to Wales.

The potential impact on electors of having two electoral systems in place for one set of local elections in Wales could be significant and there could be a real risk of voter confusion, particularly in relation to voter understanding of how to cast their vote. The provision of an effective public awareness campaign in Wales ahead of one set of local government elections which implements two different electoral systems is likely to be a major challenge.

Alongside this type of complex campaign, additional voter information may be required for other changes being introduced, such as the lowering of the voting age to 16. Careful consideration is therefore required as to the risks of introducing a number of major changes at one set of elections.

Welsh Government should also consider how Returning Officers and their staff will be able to effectively plan for and resource major electoral change at their local elections. The Commission is committed to working with the electoral community in Wales in implementing a new consistent approach to the arrangements and management of elections in Wales through the Wales Electoral Coordination Board.

This Board should be the vehicle that is entrusted to effectively plan and manage major electoral change across Wales.

In addition to this, the Commission would need to consider how it supports the election and the resource required for this. For example:

• The provision of advice and guidance to Returning Officers and their staff
• The provision of advice and training political parties, candidates and agents
• How any national public awareness campaign would be organised and resourced ahead of any election.

Question 14: Do you agree that a constitutional change such as this should be subject to a two-thirds majority? 

The Commission does not take a view on whether a constitutional change should be subject to a two-thirds majority. 

Five year term for local government elections

Question 15: Do you agree that the term of local government in Wales should be set at five years?

The Commission takes no view on whether the term of local government in Wales should be set at five years.

Question 16: Do you agree in principle with the desirability of reforming the voting system to encourage greater participation? 

We agree with the principle of encouraging greater participation. Any changes to the voting process would need to ensure that people find it easy to participate and that they know everything that they need to know about the process of casting their vote. Voters should also be confident that their vote is counted, that there are safeguards in the system to ensure it is secure, and that fraud is deterred or prevented.

Our post-election public opinion research shows that there are high levels of public confidence and satisfaction with the current system. As we stated in our report on the recent Welsh local government elections:

• 95% thought that the ballot paper was easy to complete
• 96% of polling station voters were satisfied with the process of voting at a polling station
• 100% of postal voters were satisfied with their experience

Any introduction of new voting channels would need to be based on robust evidence and justification before any changes were implemented.

Voters at statutory elections and referendums in Wales currently have a choice of voting methods: they can vote in person at a polling station, or apply to vote by post or proxy. Extending or changing the ways in which people can vote (for example, by allow electronic voting (e-voting), advance voting or weekend voting) is often cited as offering the potential to increase levels of political participation, particularly among under-represented groups.

Our evaluation of e-voting pilot schemes carried out at local elections in England between 2002 and 2007 found that the majority of those who voted electronically were likely to have voted anyway via another channel. Political science research also suggests that “internet voting does not generally cause non-voters to vote. Instead, internet voting is mostly used as a tool of convenience for individuals who have already decided to vote”2 .

Our evaluation of advance voting pilot schemes (traditional paper-based voting at polling stations in advance of polling day) reached similar conclusions: use of the facility was limited, and mainly confined to those already predisposed to vote. In addition, we are not aware of any evidence which suggests that voting on a Thursday is a significant reason why people do not currently vote at elections in the UK, or that moving to weekend voting would remove a significant barrier to voting. Our post-election public opinion research undertaken after the 2015 UK Parliamentary general election found no strong evidence to suggest that weekend or advance voting would cause a change in behaviour; the case for online voting was improved, but far from conclusive. 

Question 17: Are there other initiatives not covered which might be taken to enable greater participation in elections in Wales? 

In 2016 the Commission undertook a strategic review which involved asking external stakeholders for their views on a range of areas, including engagement with elections. Of the 120 responses to our consultation, several mentioned declining engagement as a particular challenge, especially among young people, and that education programmes (to help people understand how politics affects their lives and learn what elected representatives do) would help to meet this challenge.

The Commission has therefore started a project to scope and define the landscape of public democratic engagement in the UK. This project will explore what different organisations are already doing, identify where there are overlaps or gaps, and enable consideration of what more the sector could do to improve democratic engagement. We aim to complete this project by early 2019.

All-postal voting

Question 18: Should councils be able to choose to use all-postal voting at council elections? 

In our 2004 report Delivering Democracy, we recommended that all-postal voting should not be pursued for use at future statutory elections or referendums in the UK. 

Voters expressed a strong preference for having a choice of voting methods. We concluded that they should continue to have a choice about what method of voting to use, whether polling station, postal voting or other electronic voting methods which might be available in future should technology allow. This remains our position.

More generally, it must be accepted that once voting takes place away from a supervised polling place – whether by post or electronically – there can be no absolute guarantee that voters will be able to protect the secrecy of their vote in the same way as if they had voted at a polling station. Similarly, there can be no absolute assurance that a voter will be able to vote without improper pressure or
influence from another person. 

Question 19: Should it be subject to pilot exercises first?

Question 20: Should councils be able to operate all-postal voting in an individual ward or a number of wards within a council area? 

As noted above, the Commission believes that voters should have a choice about how they cast their vote and for this reason we would not support all-postal voting. 

Electronic and remote voting

Question 21: Should electronic voting be enabled at local elections?

Question 22: Should remote voting be enabled at local elections? 

The fact that we already have secure and accessible electoral systems that inspire voter confidence should not be underestimated and must be key factors to consider when looking at any changes to the current system of voting.

The introduction of any new voting channels would need to be based on robust evidence and justification before any changes were implemented.

Between 2002 and 2007, we evaluated a number of electronic voting (e-voting) pilot schemes at local government elections. The e-voting pilots involved testing a number of solutions, including remote Internet voting, remote telephone voting, kiosk voting and networked “vote anywhere” polling stations. We have based our comments principally on our evaluation findings regarding the electronic and remote internet voting solutions piloted at local government elections during this period.

While we appreciate that there has been a significant shift towards digital use through mobile devices in recent years our evaluation of these pilot schemes enabled the identification and analysis of important issues relating to remote internet voting, including risk management, security and confidence, accreditation and certification, procurement, project management, quality assurance and cost. We also concluded that while the schemes facilitated voting (although they did not have a significant impact on turnout), the level of implementation and security risk involved at the time was significant and unacceptable.

The Welsh Government should also take account of the broader context within which the debate on the use of internet voting is currently being conducted, including the potential for cyber-attacks targeting key websites. In the UK, the National Cyber Security Centre and Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure issued guidance for local authorities ahead of the UK Parliamentary general election on 8 June 2017. This contained reminders about good cyber security practices for the systems that support the delivery of elections across the UK.

We believe that voter choice is important, and recognise that remote internet voting may have the potential to increase participation in the democratic process. We feel these issues would need to be properly assessed before any decision was taken about their potential future use at statutory elections or referendums in the UK. Central to any decision is that voters must have trust in the electoral system. We would be happy to work with Welsh Government to further explore these new digital opportunities.

Electronic counting

Question 23: Should electronic counting be introduced for local elections in Wales?  

We recognise that electronic counting (e-counting) has the potential to increase the speed of counting compared with manual counting, particularly where more complex voting and counting systems are used. E-counting does, however, make it harder to ensure the transparency of count processes and has the potential to reduce the ability of candidates, agents and observers to scrutinise the process.

Currently the London Mayoral, London Assembly and Scottish council elections are counted electronically. We have made assessments of the use of e-counting at these elections in our most recent election reports: Report on the Scottish local council elections 2017; The May 2016 Mayor of London and London Assembly elections.

Since 2007, electronic counting has been used at all three sets of all-out council elections in Scotland, and at many local by-elections. In our recent report on the Scottish local council elections we recommended that:

• a detailed cost benefit analysis is undertaken and published prior to any decision being taken to support the continued use of e-counting.
• the use of e-counting machines should be kept under review by the Scottish Government and the EMB, including assessing the effectiveness, value for money and risks associated with this approach, including those related to the transparency of the process and confidence in the results.

We also recommended in our report on the Scottish council elections in May 2017 that the EMB leads a review, in consultation with political parties and other stakeholders, of the transparency of the e-count processes within the count centre, including the use and content of information screens to ensure the highest levels of transparency and confidence in the count.

We have also recently responded to London Elects consultation: Counting Options for the 2020 Mayor of London and London Assembly Elections. This refers to the Commission’s key principles for an effective verification and count as set out in our guidance issued ahead of the June 2017 UK Parliamentary general election.

• All processes are transparent, with a clear and unambiguous audit trail.
• The verification produces an accurate result. This means that the number of ballot papers in each box either matches the number of ballot papers issued as stated on the ballot paper account or, if it does not:
  • the source of the variance has been identified and can be explained; and/or
  • the box has been recounted at least twice, until the same number of ballot papers is counted on two consecutive occasions.
• The count produces an accurate result:
  • where the total number of votes cast for each candidate and rejected votes matches the total number of ballot papers given on the verification statement for the constituency.
• The verification and count are timely.
• The secrecy of the vote is maintained at all times.
• The security of ballot papers and other stationery is maintained at all times.
• The communication of information at the verification and count is clear and timely.

We would recommend that the Welsh Government undertake a detailed cost benefit analysis of electronic counting prior to introducing it for local elections in Wales. We would also want any electronic counting system to have taken on board lessons learned from the experience of e-counting in both Scotland and London, and to demonstrate how each of our key principles as set out above can be met. 

Mobile polling stations 

Question 24: Should mobile polling stations be enabled at local elections? 

Mobile polling stations were not included in the UK Government’s 2000-2007 pilot scheme programme and so there is no direct evidence as to the extent to which they could benefit voters or increase participation.

However, we are aware that mobile polling stations are used internationally. For example in Canada, eligible electors who live in hospitals and facilities that provide long-term care have the option of voting at a mobile polling station in their residence. In Australia, the Australian Electoral Commission mobile polling teams visit many electors who are not able to get to a polling place. Mobile polling facilities are set up in some hospitals, nursing homes, prisons and remote areas of Australia. Mobile polling is carried out around Australia prior to and on polling day.

The Welsh Government may wish to explore the practical and logistical implications of implementing mobile polling station facilities with Elections Canada and the Australian Electoral Commission, including assessing the links between the management of electoral registers and the mechanics of voting. We would be happy to work with Welsh Government in taking any potential proposals forward. 

Voting at places other than polling places

Question 25: Should we enable Returning Officers to make use of polling places in addition to fixed polling stations?

In 2003 Windsor & Maidenhead piloted a scheme to enable voters to vote at a number of different locations including railway stations and supermarkets. We concluded that it was difficult to assess the extent to which those who used the facilities were existing voters or people who would otherwise not have voted. No similar pilots have been conducted in the UK since then and therefore the current
evidence base is limited.

We are therefore unable to provide a definitive view on whether ROs should make use of polling places in addition to fixed polling stations. As for mobile polling stations, consideration would also need to be given to how such a system could be implemented in practical and logistical terms, including an assessment of the links between the management of electoral registers and the mechanics of voting in different locations.

Voting on different days and on more than one day

Question 26: Should we enable local elections to be held on more than one day and on days other than a Thursday? 

Voting on different days is already permitted in some circumstances – for example, a by-election can be held on any day, other than a dies non. In Scotland there have been a few occasions recently where local government by-elections have been held on different days due to local public holidays. In these instances the Electoral Commission urged ROs to make sure they did additional local awareness to inform the electorate of polling day rather than relying solely on the poll card to provide this. We would expect similar additional public awareness to be undertaken if local government elections in Wales were to be held on a day other than a Thursday.

Holding elections on different days was piloted in the form of advance voting at the May 2007 local elections in England. Our evaluation of these pilots included feedback from elections staff and other local stakeholders, together with evidence from local survey research, all of which suggested that the majority (74%) of users of advance voting would have voted even without the facility. Turnout across the areas with advance voting pilot schemes was broadly consistent with the last comparable elections in those areas.

In addition, repeat piloting of advance voting did not necessarily lead to higher levels of usage, which remained low. We concluded that it was unlikely that the advance voting pilot schemes had anything more than a very limited effect on turnout, although it was likely that it did provide greater convenience for some voters.

The UK Government undertook a consultation on weekend voting in 2008. We are not in principle opposed to weekend voting, although any change should only be made if there is clear evidence that it would be of significant benefit to electors. We appreciate that we are now 10 years on but at present, the available evidence on this issue provides an insufficient basis on which to reach a definitive conclusion and we therefore believe that further work is necessary, for example, to establish the practical implications of any change including the degree to which it could impact differently on people, turnout and resources. Until all these issues have been properly examined and assessed, we recommend that polling day should continue to fall on a weekday, though we would be pleased to work with Welsh Government to explore this area in further detail.

Simpler postal voting procedures 

Question 27: Should consideration be given to simplifying postal voting procedures and literature?

At the most recent Welsh local government elections in May 2017, the number of postal votes rejected was 8,695 or 3.2% of all returned postal votes, down from 4.4% in 2012. This compares to 2.4% which were rejected at the UK general election held on 8 June 2017 across the UK. 

Evidence collected to inform our post-election reporting after each election has shown the most common reasons why returned postal votes were not included in the count were because voters did not return either the postal ballot paper or the postal voting statement, or because either or both the signature or date of birth provided by the voter did not match the records held by the ERO.

After the European Parliamentary elections in May 2014, the legislation was amended. We were pleased that for the first time EROs in England, Scotland and Wales were required to inform electors where the signature and/or date of birth they supplied on the postal voting statement had failed to match those held on the ERO’s record or had simply been left blank.

There is no evidence to suggest that large numbers of voters find it difficult to complete their postal ballot packs. Based on this and the evidence above we do not feel that postal voting procedures and literature need changing. 

Question 28: How do you think the process could be simplified? 

As mentioned above feedback from EROs suggests that people often give the date that the postal vote was completed rather than their date of birth.

A possible change to reduce this happening could be to include a space for the date of completion of the postal vote so that people could include that as well as their date of birth.

Any changes to simplify the postal voting procedures should be subject to comprehensive user-testing with voters.

Presenting ID at a polling station 

Question 29: Should electors attending a polling station be required to produce ID before they are allowed to vote? If so, what types of identification should be accepted?

Question 30: Do the advantages of requiring ID outweigh the risk of deterring voters? 

In January 2014, following our own review of electoral fraud vulnerabilities, we recommended that electors should be required to show photographic proof of their identity before they can be issued with a ballot paper at polling stations for elections and referendums in Great Britain. This is already a requirement in Northern Ireland, as well as other comparable countries such as Canada.

In December 2015 we published a further report setting out in more detail how such a scheme could work in practice. We recommended a proof of identify scheme for voters at polling stations which is based on the approach which has been used successfully in Northern Ireland since 2003, where:

• Voters are required to show a specified form of existing photographic ID and;
• Voters who do not hold one of the specified forms of ID can be issued with a free ‘Electoral Identity Card’ which they can use to prove their identity.

Our view is that this would be the most effective and proportionate way to address the current vulnerability of polling station voting in Great Britain to the risk of personation. Our research found that only 1% of people who did not vote in the 2016 Northern Ireland Assembly elections said it was because they had no identification. Documents which do not provide photographic proof of identity, such as utility bills, do not provide the same level of security, and could still enable personation to be committed relatively easily.

The challenge in any democracy is achieving the appropriate balance between the accessibility and security of the electoral system. Security means ensuring everyone can be confident that their vote gets counted and that no one can steal or interfere with their vote. Accessibility means ensuring that everyone who is eligible to vote gets the chance to vote without facing unnecessary or disproportionate barriers.

This balance requires serious consideration in relation to any voter identification requirements at polling stations, which must take account of the likely impact on the accessibility of the voting process, either for all electors or particular groups of electors, and should include measures to minimise any adverse impact.

The Commission believes that any voter identification scheme must be accessible to all; for this reason we recommend that any scheme must be backed up by a freely available photographic identification card, which electors can obtain easily should they lack any other acceptable form of photo ID. As well as this documentation being free of charge, the application process must be as accessible as possible, offering online as well as in-person and postal applications.

The Welsh Government will also be aware that the UK Government recently announced that five local authorities in England will pilot requiring voters to show ID at the polling station at next May’s local elections. The Commission is responsible for carrying out an independent, statutory evaluation of the pilot schemes and we will publish our findings following the May elections, in the summer of 2018 We would welcome the opportunity to work with the Welsh Government to explore the practical implications of any voter ID scheme in Wales.

Removing need to publish candidate’s postal address

Question 31: Do you agree that it should no longer be necessary to publish a candidate’s home address in election literature, including anything published electronically?

During the Welsh local elections in May, a number of candidates contacted the Commission to express their concern that their home address would be included on the ballot paper for the upcoming elections. Many felt that this posed a significant risk to their personal safety and we referenced this issue in our report on the 2017 local government elections in Wales.

We received similar feedback during the nomination period by a small number of agents and political parties at the Scottish council elections and the UK Parliamentary general election.

The safety of candidates is an important and a very current issue that was highlighted in 2016 by the death of Jo Cox and, more recently, by an increase in personal threats to candidates standing for election. However, transparency of information for voters, many of whom wish to know where their candidates live, is also a significant consideration. 

In proposing any changes, the Welsh Government needs to consider what options are available which ensure that the system is transparent but also promotes candidate safety. For example, a home address could be required on relevant nomination forms (which could be viewed at specific times) but not included in full on the ballot paper itself, as is already the case at PCC and UK Parliamentary elections.

Online publication of candidate’s statement 

Question 32: Do you agree that each candidate should be required to provide a personal statement for inclusion on a website provided by the authority to whom they are seeking election?

We agree that publishing candidate statements on-line would be of benefit to voters in Wales and could increase the visibility of candidates to voters. However, given the number of candidates at local elections, this could represent a practical challenge for
Returning Officers that would need careful consideration.

In January 2015 we published our report on Standing for Election. This made a number of recommendations to update the rules around standing for election and make them clearer and fairer.

As part of our consultation, in thinking about more modern communication techniques we asked for views about making greater use of online candidate addresses at elections rather than each elector being sent separate communications from a large number of candidates3 .

While there was some support for online candidate addresses, concerns were raised that not everyone had access to the internet and there may be reluctance, on the part of some electors, to source candidate information online. Any move to online candidate communications should take account of internet use and the likelihood of candidate information being accessed online.

Our experience from the Police and Crime Commission (PCC) elections in 2012 and 2016 is that if a candidate’s statement is only published on-line then this is not accessible to all voters. At the last PCC election in May 2016, 28% of respondents to our post-election survey that they had access to enough information about the candidates standing in the PCC elections to make an informed decision on how to vote. This compared to 76% who agreed in London where a booklet including candidate addresses were sent to all households across London for the Mayor of London election.

As stated in our election report on the PCC elections these findings suggest that a candidate information booklet could have a significant impact on helping voters to access information about the candidates standing, and ensuring that they have enough information to make an informed decision. 

Prohibition of Assembly member standing as council candidate 

Question 33: Do you agree that it should not be permissible to serve both as an Assembly Member and councillor? 

As stated in our election report on the PCC elections these findings suggest that a candidate information booklet could have a significant impact on helping voters to access information about the candidates standing, and ensuring that they have enough information to make an informed decision. 

Prohibition of Assembly member standing as council candidate 

Question 33: Do you agree that it should not be permissible to serve both as an Assembly Member and councillor? 

Whilst the Commission does not have a specific view on the question of multiple mandates, we would consider that any decision relating to this question should place the interest of the voter or voters first. For example, what is the voters expectation in terms of their elected representatives and can this be achieved by representing voters at a variety of different levels, or does this additional work place the voter at a disadvantage.

Requirement to declare party affiliation 

Question 34: Do you agree that candidates should be required to disclose a party affiliation if they have one?

Question 35: What sort of evidence should be required to suggest there is an undisclosed party affiliation?

We consider it acceptable for a member of a political party to stand as an Independent candidate in any election, but feel that any relevant information relating to party membership should be disclosed to voters as part of this process in good time. This ensures transparency in the electoral system and that voters are clear as to how they are casting their vote.

The Welsh Government would need, however, to carefully consider exactly how voters would be informed of this prior to any election. The sheer number of candidates would make it difficult to include any additional information on the ballot paper but an additional notice could be introduced, or a disclosure worked into the existing nomination pack materials.

If a disclosure were included as part of the nomination process then consideration would need to be given to how this was achieved and enforced. 

Allowing council staff to stand for their own council 

Question 36: Should any council staff below senior level be able to stand for election to their own authority?

Question 37: Is there still justification for councils to keep a list of those other than senior officers who should be politically restricted? 

In our report Standing for Election, published in January 2015 we recommended that the law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland be changed to make a clear distinction between offices or employment which would prevent someone standing for election, and those which would prevent someone from holding office if elected. In this report we also set out a framework of questions which Welsh Government may find useful as a reference if it decides to review its own rules on disqualification.

In Scotland the rules preventing those employed or holding a paid post at a local authority from standing for election to that authority were changed in 2005 so that an employee of a local authority could stand for election to that authority, and would only have to resign their employment if they were elected.

We believe that there is a strong case for Welsh Government, (as well as other governments) to review the legislation governing disqualifications to determine if it is still appropriate, justifiable and well understood. This should include consideration of the risks that any change could cause. Some of the rules including those relating to employees or office holders at local authorities appear outdated and do not reflect the current structure of local government administration which often includes relationships with arms-length bodies.

Ending right to personal fee for Returning Officers

Question 38: Do you agree that the statutory chief executive role should include that of returning officer? 

We do not agree that the statutory chief executive role should include that of RO. We continue to support the principle that ROs should be independent from both local and national governments when delivering their statutory electoral administration duties.

In November 2016, we provided evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Local Government and Communities Committee. Their inquiry looked into the purpose and appropriateness of providing payments or fees to Returning Officers in Scotland in relation to local government, Scottish Parliament, UK Parliament and European Parliament elections, and Counting Officers (COs) in relation to referendums. We recognised the central role ROs play in the democratic process and that they are critical to delivering well-run elections and referendums which produce results in which voters can have confidence.

ROs are not employed by councils when they deliver official election or referendum duties. They are independent statutory office-holders and they are accountable to the courts for the delivery of their official duties.

We believe it is important that electoral administration should be solely in the hands of the RO and their staff, rather than local authorities. This is necessary to ensure that elections are effectively administered and in voters’ best interests, to secure the impartial administration of elections and avoid any perception of bias and to promote public confidence and trust in the process.

In our response to the White Paper in April, we recommended that any changes to the current management framework for the delivery of elections and referendums in Wales, including any changes to the funding of ROs, would need to be considered carefully to ensure that the independence and accountability of those responsible for delivering polls is maintained and not weakened.

Question 39: Do you agree that any addition to salary in recognition of returning officer duties should be a matter for the local authority to determine? 

While not being a matter for the Electoral Commission it is important, that an appropriate person with the right skill set should carry out the role of Returning Officer and should be remunerated accordingly. 

Simplifying fees and charges system

Question 40: Should Welsh Government move to a system of calculating Assembly election costs on an agreed formula, based on the size of electorate?

If a formula arrangement for calculating election costs is introduced, it is essential that the funding available is sufficient to administer elections effectively without compromising statutory requirements and recognised best practice. The system will also need to ensure that the costs and funding of elections are fully transparent.

Prisoners 

Question 41: Should Welsh prisoners be allowed to register to vote and participate in Welsh local government elections? If so, should it be limited to those sentenced to less than twelve months, four years, or any sentence length? 

We take no view on whether prisoners should be entitled to vote or not, nor whether the franchise should be limited to certain prisoners with a specific sentence length. You may wish to refer to our views on prisoner voting which were recently set out in the evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Equalities and Human Rights Committee.

Prisoners on remand are already entitled to register and vote and therefore our comments relate only to sentenced prisoners. 

Question 42: By what method should prisoners cast a vote?

Question 43: At what address should prisoners be registered to vote?

If the Welsh Government decides to allow Welsh prisoners to vote then we would expect to be consulted further on how this would be implemented. Some of the issues that would need to be considered are:

• the eligibility criteria for prisoners to register, bearing in mind that residence is one of the main criteria for registration. For example if prisoners register to vote at the prison address, then this would result in registered prisoners having a disproportionate impact on the electorate in the ward in which the prison is located. Given that prisoners are only present at the prison address as a result of their sentence, an alternative option would be for prisoners to register in respect of a previous or intended address.
• how Welsh voters imprisoned in English prisons would be registered.
• the method by which prisoners would cast their vote. Setting up polling stations in prisons would be logistically very difficult and it may be easier to restrict prisoners to a system of absent voting.
• the right to a secret ballot for all prisoners regardless of how they cast their vote.
• the entitlement to a proxy vote without the need for their application to be attested (as is already the case for overseas and service voters). By nature of being in prison, the voter has a sufficient reason for not being able to attend their polling station. 
• an awareness programme to highlight the process in order to enable prisoners to register to vote and cast their vote.
• how prisoners could access information about the policies of candidates, parties and other campaigners.

Question 44: We would like to know your views on the effects that electoral reform would have on the Welsh language, specifically on opportunities for people to use Welsh and on treating the Welsh language no less favourably than English. What effects do you think there would be? How could positive effects be increased, or negative effects be mitigated?

As the Commission has recommended previously, any legislation or documentation should be available in Welsh and English at the same time. This is especially true of electoral event legislation. This ensures that all ROs have the same bilingual documentation to work from and ensures consistency in both languages. Any further consultation on these issues should also be done bilingually, ensuring that Welsh speakers can respond.

In our report on the elections to the National Assembly for Wales in 2016, we recommended that Governments with legislative competence should amend the definitions of political party and candidate spending so that costs associated with the translation of English to Welsh (and vice-versa) are exempted from relevant campaign spending rules (as is the case with PPERA non-party campaigner rules). We therefore recommend that the Welsh Government include legal provisions that would reference the exemption of translation costs for future local government election spending.

We provide advice and guidance to ROs and their staff throughout the year. All of our documents for ROs and EROs in Wales are available bilingually, as is our advice service over the phone or via e-mail.

We also provide guidance and advice to candidates and agents before, during and after an electoral event. These documents are provided in English and Welsh, and advice is available in both languages over the phone when a candidate or agent requires it.

Question 45: Please also explain how you believe the proposed options could be formulated or changed so as to have positive effects or increased positive effects on opportunities for people to use the Welsh language and on treating the Welsh language no less favourably than the English language, and no adverse effects on opportunities for people to use the Welsh language and on treating the Welsh language no less favourably than the English language.

As recommended in our report on the National Assembly for Wales elections 2016, we set up and provide the secretariat for the Welsh Language Legislation Advisory Group to discuss and advise on Welsh language legislation matters related to elections. The group, which includes a member representing the Welsh Government, has met twice has already provided a response to a draft forms order for the local and community council elections in May 2017 and set the agenda for the upcoming work for the group. Its next steps are to look at voter facing documentation in Welsh Assembly election legislation and to assess the standard and availability of these documents in Welsh. In the long term the group aims to look at similar documentation in legislation for other elections and referendums. 

Other related issues for consideration

Question 46: We have asked a number of specific questions. If you have any related issues which we have not specifically addressed, please use this space to report them:

The Wales Electoral Coordination Board (WECB), met for the first time in February 2017 to begin its work ahead of the local government elections. The membership includes Regional Returning Officers, Welsh Government, the National Assembly for Wales, officials from the Cabinet Office and Wales Office, the Association of Electoral Administrators (Wales), and the Electoral Commission.

In preparation for the 2017 local government elections, the Board discussed various issues including project planning , risk management, nominations, timing of the count, public awareness and partnerships, electoral integrity, and dealing with complaints.

While the Board is not a statutory group, we believe that it has an important role to play in bringing together various stakeholders, and offering coordinated and coherent views on electoral matters in Wales. We believe that the development of this group is vitally important to ensuring consistency in electoral management across the country, in a similar way to the operation of the Electoral Management Board for
Scotland.

The Commission recommends that the Welsh Government should continue to participate in the Wales Electoral Coordination Board. It should also consider how the role of the Board could be developed in the medium to long term to support Welsh Government’s overarching electoral modernisation programme. This might include, for example, considering if the Board should become a statutory group, as is the case in Scotland.