Agenda item

The Committee received a report which provided an update to Members on a number of key work streams being undertaken by the Electoral Services Team in relation to the Register of Electors and Annual Canvass.

The Electoral Services Manager updated the Committee on the latest figures in relation to the responses received from properties in this year’s canvass, broken down according to the three routes followed for each property, i.e. Route 1 (matched properties), Route 2 (unmatched properties) and Route 3 (Care Homes and Homes of Multiple Occupancy (HMO)).  The Committee was reminded that as a result of the canvass reforms in 2020, only properties where all the electors could not be matched against national and/or local data were required to respond.  The aim of the canvass reform was to deliver a more efficient system by which Electoral Registration Officers could maintain their electoral registers with no negative effect on citizens, or on the accuracy and completeness of the registers.

In answer to a question regarding the number of attempts made by canvassers when door knocking to make contact with residents, the Electoral Services Manager explained that canvassers were asked to make several attempts to make contact with residents.  If they failed to obtain a response, canvass forms (open and not enveloped) were posted through the letter box in the hope that the resident would read it and respond knowing that the form had been hand delivered.  This method had resulted in a number of responses being received.

The Electoral Services Manager explained, with regard to accessing HMOs, that these were often moved from Route 3 to Route 2, and that attempts were made to find out who the building key holders or supervisors were, especially for those HMOs that could only be accessed via a gated entrance, in order that canvassers could gain access.  The local Royal Mail staff were also approached in some cases for advice on gaining access to HMOs. 

In response to a question as to whether statistics were available on the response rates from HMOs, the Electoral Services Manager stated that it was not possible to separate out the statistics for HMOs from other properties, due to the fact that it was not always apparent from records that these properties were in fact HMOs until canvassers visited the property and they were also large in number.  More accurate statistics on response rates were available for care homes because these were smaller in number (60) so it was possible to keep these on a separate spreadsheet from which reports could be generated.

With regard to communication, it was noted that the Electoral Commission ran national campaigns encouraging people to register online.  The Commission also provided media pictures and posters which the corporate communications team used on the Council’s various web and social media platforms to raise public awareness.  The Council also sent out communications when the foot canvass was underway, so that residents were aware that canvassers might be visiting properties in the area.

            RESOLVED to note the contents of the report.