Electoral registration in Great Britain in 2022

Table 1 below shows the percentage change in the number of entries on the parliamentary registers in each nation of Great Britain between 2021 and 2022.

Table 1. Change in the number of parliamentary entries 2021-22

In the West Midlands, the East of England, the South East, Scotland and Wales the number of local government register entries increased slightly between 2021 and 2022 (see Table 2). In the other English regions, the number of local government entries fell slightly. 

Table 2. Change in the number of local government entries 2021-22

Variations in levels of registration can be driven by changes in the size of the eligible population or by policy changes, such as extensions to the franchise. Changes can also be driven by reforms to the canvassing approaches used by EROs, as well as national and local voter registration campaigns. Our analysis below explores what the available data tells us about the effectiveness of the canvass.

Attainers

People who will reach voting age and become eligible to vote during the lifetime of the register are known as attainers. Attainers can be included on the electoral registers.

The number of attainers has been falling for several years. The number of attainers on the parliamentary registers in Great Britain fell by -0.23% between 2021 and 2022 (see Table 3 below). This marked a dramatic reduction in the rate of decline relative to 2020 and 2021.

The introduction of individual registration in 2014 meant that attainers had to make their own application to register (rather than being added through a single household form) and this change coincided with a decline in numbers. The number of registered attainers in Great Britain has fallen every year since 2017, albeit by varying degrees (see Figure 1).

In 2020 and 2021, the overall decrease across Great Britain as a whole was driven by large drops in the number of registered attainers in England (-25.9% and -40.6%, respectively). This trend was broken in 2022, when the number of attainers rose slightly (1.17%). Similarly, whereas Scotland saw a modest increase in registered attainers in both 2020 (0.9%) and 2021 (6.1%), this number fell in 2022 (-4.52%). In Wales, the number of registered attainers increased significantly in 2020 (11.6%) and 2021 (34.2%) and this upward trend continued in 2022, but the increase was much smaller (0.74%).
 

The reformed annual canvass may be exacerbating the decline seen from 2014 onwards, as the need to add an attainer to the register will not be identified through the data matching process. For example, many households in Route 1 will have potential attainers but now receive fewer communications from EROs to encourage them to become registered. The different pattern in Scotland and Wales is likely to be connected to the extension of the devolved elections’ franchise to 16 and 17 year olds (and associated increased registration activity). This seems to be offsetting a systematic problem with the registration of attainers evident in England.

Our next accuracy and completeness research will give us an updated assessment of the registration rate for attainers, which was 25% in our 2018 study.

Our engagement with EROs indicates that they recognise that their attainer numbers are falling, despite efforts to engage widely with education institutions and use education data to support this work. South Norfolk and Peterborough have had some success engaging with schools around school elections, to help build relationships with them. North Hertfordshire also carried out targeted work to promote registration in schools during UK Parliament Week. However, overall, a lack of staff capacity to support this work and issues with the accuracy of education data were common reasons given for not being able to do more in this area.

Despite numbers stabilising somewhat in 2022, attainer registration is unlikely to significantly increase through the existing registration and canvass processes alone. This is an area where a more automated registration process could be beneficial. Data from the education sector could help EROs identify and target attainers and other young people. Also, data from the Department for Work and Pensions could potentially be used by EROs to register young people to vote automatically when they are allocated their National Insurance number ahead of their 16th birthday.

Table 3. Number of attainers on the parliamentary registers in Great Britain 2013-22

Route allocations

At the beginning of the canvass, all registers are matched against Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) data. The results are used by EROs to allocate properties to ‘routes’ which determine how many times they will contact a household to attempt to get a response (see Background section below for more detail).

EROs can also carry out further matching using local data, such as council tax records. The majority of EROs carried out local data matching and, as in 2021, council tax records were the most popular datasets used.

The local data matching step had a significant impact on the number of households allocated to each route, as shown in Table 7. As in 2021, when asked whether their approach to local data matching was the same as or different to last year’s, a majority (87%) of those EROs who responded said that their approach was the same. For those that decided to take a different approach, the responses suggest that this predominantly involved using a wider range of data sources. In a small handful of cases, EROs used fewer datasets in 2022 relative to 2021. These EROs cited concerns around the quality of local data, the challenge of matching registers to council tax data where the latter does not contain unique property reference numbers (UPRNs), difficulty using the data matching function within their electoral management software (EMS) system, and resource shortages as reasons for using fewer datasets this year. Other changes that EROs made to the data matching process in 2022 included allowing more time to complete the data matching step and making better use of EMS systems to reduce the level of manual matching.

In some cases, EROs opted to skip the local data matching step. For example, the London Borough of Barnet chose not to conduct local data matching so as to limit the number of properties allocated to Route 1. They cited some concerns over the accuracy of local data but also noted that this approach did lead to higher costs as a higher proportion of properties needed to be more frequently contacted via the Route 2 process. Across the board, those local authorities who did not conduct local data matching allocated fewer properties to Route 1 (68% vs 76%), and more properties to Route 2 (31% vs 23%).

Table 7. Number of properties allocated to each route after national and local data matching

The percentage of properties allocated to Route 2 was 24.6% (see Table 8). This is in line with the expectations set out in the statement of policy for canvass reform published by the UK, Scottish and Welsh governments in 2019, which predicted that approximately one quarter of properties would need to be allocated to Route 2 nationally.3

The percentage of households allocated to Routes 1, 2 and 3 continues to be fairly consistent across Great Britain, with the exception of London (Table 8). As in previous years, the proportion of households allocated to Route 1 was lower (66.2%) in London than in other regions, while the proportion allocated to Route 2 was higher (32.8%). This reflects the higher rate of population movement in London: as the rate of change in household composition is higher in London, fewer properties are successfully matched against existing DWP and local data.

Table 8. Percentage of properties allocated to each route by nation and English region

The changes to the annual canvass were designed to allow EROs to direct their resources at households whose composition was most likely to have changed. The effectiveness of the new canvass, based on this targeting of activity, will therefore be strongly determined by two things: the accuracy of the data matching and the level of response achieved. We can draw some conclusions about both from an analysis of household response rates within the two allocated routes. 

Household response rates per route

As expected, the response rate is significantly higher among Route 2 households, where changes are expected, than Route 1 households, where they are not (67.1% vs 22.9%) (see Table 9).

In 2019, before the canvass process was reformed, 23.8 million household responses were received during the canvass. In 2022, only 10 million responses were received, which is higher than the level of responses received in 2020 and 2021 (~9 million). This drop in the number of household responses since the implementation of canvass reform can be partly explained by the lower response rate among Route 1 households, which comprise the vast majority of all households but which are not required to respond unless a change to the register is needed.

However, as in 2021, almost a third of Route 2 households did not respond. These are households where the data suggests a change to the register may be needed. It is important for the accuracy and completeness of the registers that the response rate for Route 2 households is as high as possible.

Several EROs suggested that funding pressures made it difficult to achieve a higher Route 2 response rate, in part because these pressures made it harder to recruit canvassers. Others were unable to run public awareness campaigns or were impacted by the increase in the cost of postage. A growing number of EROs are using e-communications and telephone canvassing as this represents better value for money. However, this does present some limitations as telephone data is not always complete and some respondents are wary of e-communications from the ERO and mistake them for spam.

It continues to be a challenge to reach communities who have historically been reluctant to engage with canvassers. Densely populated urban areas with high rates of population movement appear to be the most challenging areas. Some EROs are choosing to target their door-knocking efforts only in these locations. However, data from previous years demonstrates that even that is not universally successful. Some EROs are using different methods in specific areas. For example, the team in Chelmsford have supported their canvassers in building relationships with their gated communities and caravan sites. This has involved the communications team developing resources to support canvassers in those areas. Their initial experience suggests this approach is working well.

We will focus our analysis of the Route 2 data over the coming years to further develop our understanding of the challenges faced by EROs and to support the identification of actions to help mitigate against the risks to the accuracy and completeness of their electoral registers. We will also undertake work with smaller groups of EROs to facilitate the sharing of good practice between those facing similar challenges.

Variations in response rate

As in 2020 and 2021, the response rate among Route 2 households varied significantly in 2022. For the third year, Scotland reported the lowest response rate among Route 2 properties (50.7%) (see Table 10).

It may be that the year-round registration activity in Scotland, supported by elections in May 2021 and 2022, will have mitigated any negative impact of this lower response rate on the registers. The results of our next accuracy and completeness study should allow us to draw clearer conclusions.

Table 9. Response rate for Routes 1 and 2 by nation and English region 2022

Table 10. Route 2 response rates 2020-22

Major and minor changes per route

The nature of the responses received can also give an indication of the efficacy of the reformed canvass process. Responding households can record a major change (e.g. reporting that a potential new elector is resident), a minor change (e.g. amending the name of an existing elector) or no change (i.e. confirming the existing details of household members). Understanding the distribution of these changes can tell us about the accuracy of the data matching process.

Of the 10 million responses received across all routes, 2.8 million households reported a major change. Table 11 describes how these major changes were distributed across the three routes. The pattern is broadly in line with 2020 and 2021.

Table 11. Distribution of major changes across routes

Approximately two thirds of major changes were reported by Route 2 households – i.e., those identified during the data matching step as the households most likely to report changes to residents’ registration details. However, as in both 2020 and 2021, nearly a third (32.8%) of the major changes reported relate to Route 1 households, where the DWP and/or local data had indicated no change should be needed.

As in the previous two years, of the 22.2 million households allocated to Route 1, the percentage reporting a major change (4.2%) is small. However, as Figure 3 below shows, almost a fifth of those Route 1 households who responded to the canvass reported a major change. Importantly for the quality of the registers, it is also unlikely that all the Route 1 households that needed to report a major change have done so – particularly as they would have received limited contact from the ERO.

We do not have comparative data on the number of major changes reported by households during the canvasses preceding the reforms. It is therefore not clear to what extent the 2020-22 canvasses are out of line with historic figures. However, it is clear that either the data matching process does not accurately identify all properties where changes will be needed and/or there is an impact from the lag time between the matching and the canvassing taking place.

Additions and deletions

Canvassing households does not directly result in new registrations. When a household reports that a potential new elector is resident, that individual still needs to submit an application to be added to the register. Where a household reports that electors need to be removed from the registers, a second piece of evidence (e.g. locally held data) is needed before the ERO can confirm the deletion.

Entries need to be added to, and deleted from, the registers for several reasons including migration, home movement and deaths. The level of these additions and deletions provides insight into whether registration activity is keeping pace with population change. As population mobility varies across the country, so does the scale of the challenge faced by EROs.

As in 2020 and 2021, the distribution of additions and deletions across the routes is largely as expected, with Route 2 households accounting for the highest proportion of changes (see Table 12). However, approximately 40% of both additions and deletions came from households whose composition was presumed to be unchanged following the data matching. Again, this suggests either a degree of inaccuracy in the allocation of households to routes or an impact from population movement between matching and canvassing.

Table 12. Percentage of additions and deletions per route

This data suggests that at least some population change is not being picked up on the registers. We cannot draw clear conclusions on the overall impact from this data alone – partly because of the variable impact of electoral events outside the canvass. However, our accuracy and completeness research will provide evidence on whether the quality of the registers has declined since 2018, before the introduction of the reformed canvass.

Table 13 below shows the levels of additions and deletions in recent years (for the full year, not just the canvass period). In 2020, 2021 and 2022, additions and deletions have been slightly lower than in some previous years (e.g. 2013 and 2015). However, it is usual to see more change – and higher additions, in particular – in years with significant UK-wide electoral events, such as UK general elections and the EU referendum).

Table 13. Annual percentage of additions and deletions 2010-22

As Table 14 sets out, we also expect to see a higher proportion of changes being picked up during the canvass period, compared to the rest of the year, in years without UK-wide elections (e.g. 2018). This trend continued in 2022.

Table 14. Percentage of additions during and outside of canvass period 2015-22

The 2022 data on the proportion of additions and deletions recorded during the canvass period also supports this point (see Table 15). The proportion of additions during the canvass was lowest in Wales (51.6%), followed by Scotland (52.4%) and then by England (62.2%). The proportion of deletions during the canvass was lowest in Scotland (58.9%), followed by Wales (61.4%), and then by England (66.2%). The fact that the proportion of both additions and deletions during the canvass were highest in England aligns with the fact that turnout in England at the May 2022 elections was lower than in both Scotland and Wales.

Table 15. Additions and deletions during full year and canvass period, per nation

Further reform of the annual canvass

An effective canvass process is an important tool to provide for a high-quality register at all times and to minimise the need for significant updates ahead of major polls. However, evidence from our analysis of canvass data in recent years suggests that the reformed canvass process is still not fully picking up ongoing population movement.

This means that EROs will continue to face the challenge of processing large numbers of registration applications in the period immediately before major electoral events, from new electors or people who have changed address that were not picked up by the canvass. This continues to increase risks to the resilience of electoral administration teams in the pre-election period, when they are under significant resource pressures and have critical election deadlines to meet.

We have highlighted significant concerns in successive reports on electoral registration that the registration system, including the annual canvass, is unlikely to be sustainable in the longer term. We continue to recommend that governments should further reform electoral registration so that registering and updating address details is as easy as possible for people who aren’t correctly registered to vote, and managing electoral registration is more efficient for EROs. We have highlighted how these reforms could be delivered in practice, including:

• Introducing more automated or automatic electoral registration options through other public service transactions that people already frequently use, for example applications for passports or changes to driving licence address details, or when new National Insurance numbers are issued to people turning 16.
• Giving EROs access to data from a wide range of public service organisations so that they can identify new electors who are not correctly registered.

There is some evidence that canvass reform has addressed one aspect of sustainability, by reducing the resource consumed by unnecessarily chasing households where there has been no change. However, our analysis has highlighted some signs that it has not had a positive impact on the other key aspect, the system’s ability to pick up population changes away from major electoral events. The results from our next accuracy and completeness study, in autumn 2023, will allow us to assess the overall impact on the registers of the reformed canvass in Great Britain.