Annual canvass reform proposals: consultation paper

Section 4 - Data discernment step

4.1 The data discernment step process

At the start of the canvass process, each ERO will be required to upload their electoral register to the Individual Electoral Registration Digital Service ( IER DS) (which is the system used to verify the identity of applicants to register to vote). A data matching exercise will be undertaken, comparing each electoral register against national data set/s. The data matching process will occur at an individual elector level, matching name, date of birth (where held) and UPRN ^[7] . We are currently exploring the potential to use the Department for Work and Pensions’ Customer Information System (DWP CIS). This dataset is already used in the electoral registration process to verify an applicant's identity. Other national datasets may also be used in the future. The ERO will then download the results of the data matching into their system from the IER Digital Service.

In addition to the national match, EROs will have the discretion to match their electoral register against locally held datasets, such as council tax and housing benefit data. For some EROs, matching against local data will be an essential step, because national datasets could be less complete or up to date in some areas, for example, if there is a high level of population movement. Unlike the national data matching exercise though, the ERO will have to complete this matching process themselves using their own IT systems.

The data matching, both national and local, will be conducted at an individual elector level. If an elector matches a record held on either of the national or local data sets, they will be deemed as ‘matched’ and will be marked as a green match. If an elector does not appear on the national or local data sets, they will be deemed as ‘not matched’ and will be marked as a red match. The ERO will have the discretion to override an individual’s result if they have a valid reason to do so. As the canvass process functions at a property level rather than an individual level, the ERO will then need to determine the overall match rate of the property. Again, the property match status will be either green or red. We believe that for any property with one or more red electors, the property as a whole should be deemed red. A property should only be deemed green if all electors currently registered there are green at an individual level.

There will be some exceptions to the process as described. These are detailed later.

The pilots have shown that the key to a successful data discernment step is that the data used must be of high accuracy. ^[8] We know from a study completed in 2012 by the Cabinet Office, in preparation for the transition to IER, that the DWP CIS dataset was on average 95.4% accurate where a green match was reported against the electoral register ^[9] . It is also acknowledged as one of the most comprehensive datasets in the country, covering virtually all those aged 16 years and above. Following discussions with DWP there is no reason to believe this accuracy rate has decreased, indeed it is more likely that the accuracy has probably increased. Where local data is used, this too, will need to be of high accuracy to ensure that the correct matching is taking place. The dataset/s do not have to have particularly wide coverage but do need to be of the highest accuracy. If low quality datasets are used this will lead to occupiers at properties not receiving the most appropriate canvass process. We are looking at ways to enable the ERO to evaluate the quality of the available data sources.

A successful data discernment step is one where:

• a property where the composition remains stable and consistent with the electoral register, receives a green match and is sent down Route 1.
• a property where the composition has changed, and is different to the details held on the electoral register, receives a red match and is sent down Route 2.

Whilst working with national data suppliers and the IER Digital Service in the development of the technical processes, we will ensure that data will be processed in compliance with data protection requirements. We also work closely with the Electoral Commission and others to ensure electoral administrators have the required knowledge and skills to process local data in compliance with data protection requirements.

We invite responses to the following questions relating specifically to the proposed process in Section 4 - Data Discernment Step:

Question 1

We are proposing that the national data matching process is mandatory to complete, with local data matching being conducted at the ERO’s discretion.

Do you agree that this is the right approach? YES/NO

Please explain your reasoning.

Question 2

We are proposing that any property with a red elector should be converted into a red property. A property will only be green if all of the electors in the property are individually green.

Do you agree this is the right approach? YES/NO

Please explain your reasoning.

Question 3

Do you think a minimum standard for the accuracy of locally held datasets should be mandatory? YES/NO

Please explain your reasoning.

4.2 Exemptions from the standard data discernment step

Void property matching

For the purpose of this document the following definition has been used:

Void property - a property with no current registered electors. A void property could have no registered electors for a variety of reasons including: legitimately empty; only individuals who are not entitled to register to vote are resident; second home premises; where a change in composition has recently taken place and new occupiers have not registered to vote; where the occupiers have previously refused to register to vote.

It is proposed that an ERO will be able to complete a void property data match as part of the local data matching process within the data discernment step. For properties where an ERO has sufficient data to confirm that it is currently empty or should remain void, then the property can be marked as a green match. If the ERO does not have any other data to support that it should be void then the property will be marked as red and follow Route 2. These properties will then receive either the Route 1 or Route 2 process, as per the other properties that go through the standard data discernment step.

We invite responses to the following question relating specifically to the proposed process detailed above:

Question 4

Do you agree that Empty and Void properties should be sent through a data matching process? YES/NO

Please explain your reasoning.

Recent applications

We know that the ERO can hold more up to date information than other data sources if the citizen has only recently moved and completed an application to register to vote. Where this is the case, we propose that before the data step, any elector who has recently completed a successful application to register will be exempt from the data step and will automatically be marked green. Options for this time period might be for example 1 month, 2 months, or linked to the last monthly update. This exemption time period will probably be defined in legislation. Two major factors in defining the exemption time period are the interaction of electoral registration and election events (usually held in May/June) and the fact an ERO can start their canvass whenever they see fit with many choosing to start between the beginning of July and beginning of September.

We invite responses to the following questions relating specifically to the proposed process detailed above:

Question 5

Do you agree that recent applications to register should be exempted from the data step and automatically marked as green? YES/NO

If Yes, what time period do you think should be defined as “recent” (1 month, 2 months, linked to the last monthly update? etc). Please explain.

If No, please explain your reasoning.

Single occupancy tick box

It has been suggested that we should not have the single occupancy tick box on individual electoral registration applications. This was introduced in 2015 as a cost saving measure to enable EROs not to follow the standard canvass process if the single occupancy tick box was checked. However, we understand that applicants are often confused by what is being asked of them here, and either wrongly tick this box, or leave it blank. Because of the risk of incorrect use, we understand that many EROs do not rely on the single occupancy tick box to suppress the HEF in the next canvass (if the application is made between 1 December and start of the next canvass) or the reminder HEFs (if the application is made during a canvass period).

It also would appear somewhat illogical under the reformed canvass for a property that had one green elector to be sent no communication, whereas a property with two green electors would be sent a communication.

We invite responses to the following question relating specifically to the proposed process detailed in above:

Question 6

Do you agree with no longer including a single occupancy tick box on registration application forms? YES/NO

Please explain your reasoning.