SPEECH TO IPPR, LONDON, ON VOTER ENGAGEMENT - MONDAY 4 JULY 2005.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak to you today. It has been some time since I have spoken on an IPPR platform.  Various events have somehow tended to keep me otherwise engaged during my five and a half years at the Ministry of Defence.

But I am very happy in this new role to have swapped touring battlefields in Challenger Tanks for the more comfortable and cerebral environs of London's Think Tanks.  I hope that they are rather less dangerous.  Although as I glance around the room today I can't help thinking that I was probably better protected from hostile action on the battlefield!

Being appointed as Leader of the House of Commons is certainly a great privilege for me. I believe that my previous experience - as a Minister, as a Whip, as a Member of the European Parliament - and before that as a Constitutional lawyer will stand me in good stead to address the issues I now have to deal with.

There is a lot more to the role than simply being the "works manager" of the House of Commons - although taking through the manifesto commitments on which we were elected remains our highest priority.  The job offers a much wider brief.

In particular analysing those aspects of the Legislative machine that need to be streamlined to make them more effective.  Taking forward our plans to further modernise the House of Commons.  Looking at ways to improve the Second Chamber.  Improving the scrutiny of European legislation.  And perhaps most enjoyable of all, facing an hour of questions in the House of Commons every single week when Members of Parliament can ask me questions on virtually every conceivable topic.

A key part of the role is to examine new ways to improve public engagement in the political process - and that is what I would like to discuss with you today.

During the recent election campaign I travelled the length and breadth of the country - visiting very many constituencies, as well as my own - and often I came home more concerned about our democracy than ever before.  Concerned by the number of voters who told me they would not be voting.  Concerned by the level of cynicism about politics and about politicians.  Concerned by the number of people who clearly do believe what they read in the Daily Mail!  Turnout is highest amongst our older people.  People who vote not only habitually - but out of a sense of obligation and duty.  People who cherish their vote as one of the cornerstones of our free society.

But now we are seeing, not just twenty somethings, but people in their thirties and forties who have never voted and who actually seem proud to say so. This is something that greatly concerns me.  This deliberate non-voting seems to be spreading up through our voting population, threatening the long term legitimacy of our political system.

Turnout in the recent General Election was 61.5%, slightly up on the 59% figure in 2001.  But way down on the 78% turnout in 1992.  And well below the turnouts, often over and above 75%, that we have been used to seeing in the post war period.  The recent modest increase in turnout was probably due to measures taken to make voting easier. My fear is that as the older, more regular voters pass away, we will be left with a significant number of people for whom voting is neither a habit, nor a duty.

The turnout in our General Election was embarrassingly below the 77% turnout in Afghanistan and not much higher than the 58% turnout recently in Iraq - where men and women queued in their thousands - risking their lives in defiance of fanatical terrorists - to cast a vote for their future.

There is therefore potentially a fundamental problem for this country which we need to address.  Let me set out my real concerns for you.  What I witnessed during the campaign among some sections of our society was not apathy.  It was not sloth - as I heard suggested recently.  It was not always about the politics of contentment, much as it might suit me to think so.  No, it was - what seems today to be an old fashioned word - alienation.  The feeling among many people that their vote will simply not change anything.  The perception that decisions taken in Parliament make no difference to their lives.

This is not apathy. I found that when I talked to non-voters they often raised a whole set of issues and grievances. But they did not see how voting would affect them one way or the other.

My experience from the campaign suggests that alienation was not spread evenly across society.  I found that those most disengaged - most alienated - from the political process live in our most deprived areas.  Those blighted with the highest crime rates.  With the worst provision of public services.  With the highest unemployment rates.

Ironically, the very people who have most to gain from decisions taken by his Government and in Parliament.  The people I came into politics to help.  I accept that the turnout in such areas has always been low - but it seems that it is getting worse.

According to polling, turnout among AB voters at the last election was 70%, compared to 54% in the DE category. A larger gap than was recorded in 2001 or in 1997.  And the other significant point from this evidence is that 30% of our AB voters did not actually vote.  People who perhaps went to university.  People who work in the professions.  The opinion-formers of our society.

When 30% of these people do not see the point in casting a vote it does show the real seriousness of the problem we face.  I know that the IPPR have launched a research project to analyse this further and I very much welcome this initiative.

But my fear is that as time goes on, as all political parties become more sophisticated at targeting actual voters we could fail to pay attention to the serial non-voters.  This will alter our democratic debate.  Risking encouraging a greater focus on issues of concern to the chattering classes.  Neglecting issues of wider and more general concern.  It is profoundly dangerous for our political life.  And I do sometimes wonder frankly whether those in certain other political parties show a sufficient concern about falling turnouts.

Our attempts to improve turnout, which have been opposed on occasion by opposition parties  - through improved access to postal voting and other adjustments to the electoral process - have had some positive impact on turnout, something I very much welcome.  But these changes have not delivered the fundamental return to generally higher levels of voting that was desired.

Today, therefore, I want to try and give my personal perspective on the challenges of engagement. To set out what I believe needs to be done to bring back the necessary respect - for Parliament and for our political life.

First, we need to challenge the stereotypes about politicians in this country.  It is easy to denigrate those who are elected to serve the public.  To run them down.  To question their probity.  To doubt their motives.

In my experience, the vast majority of those who are elected to public office, whatever their political views, do so for the very best of reasons.  It is obviously important that all of us in public life maintain the highest standards.  Being a Member of Parliament is important, it is a privilege but equally it deserves respect.

I have, for example, been particularly impressed by the calibre and talent of the intake of new MPs on all sides. They are already making a huge contribution to proceedings in Parliament.

Second, politicians need to show the public that decisions in Parliament make a difference to their lives.  In their local newspapers. At constituency events. In their surgeries.  We need to remind our constituents that when a new ward is added to their hospital, or a new school is built - that does not happen by chance.  It happens because voters voted for a Government - and where necessary Parliament legislated to allow the improvements to happen.

Third, we need to enhance and foster a sense of citizenship in our country.  There has been a welcome decline of deference in our society.  A breakdown of privilege.  The rise of meritocracy.  Creating better opportunities for all.  But I know that many of my constituents feel that we have lost something important as a society as it has changed in the modern era.  Especially when they witness drunken and loutish behaviour on our streets.  Teachers failing to get support from parents when they impose discipline in our schools.  Doctors and nurses abused in their place of work.  As they see the units of society breaking down into smaller and smaller fragments.  The family - itself often fragmented by divorce or separation.  Smaller workplaces - sometimes no more than a shared desk or a car or a van.  New estates on the edge of towns or cities chosen for their proximity to the motorway rather than to any community.

This seems linked in to the decline in participation in civic and community life.  As we try to rebuild our sense of community we need to look to the role that education plays.  For example, through citizenship classes.

The recent report by Lord Puttnam and his colleagues had some very helpful suggestions in this area.   As well as on the role of the media, which brings me to my fourth point.

There is a wide recognition that the media has an important role in improving electoral participation.  Politicians recognise it.  Academics recognise it.  Even the Archbishop of Canterbury recently spoke out about it. I have started to raise these issues with the editors of some of our national newspapers.   They clearly recognise the scale of the problem.  But many of them have said to me that we, the politicians, must take our share of the blame for the downgrading of Parliamentary coverage.

I accept that, despite the fact that this Government has made far more statements to Parliament than any of its predecessors, there have been times when members of the Government have first made announcements to the media when they should have been made to the legislature - leading to the perception that we somehow do not take Parliament seriously.

As Leader of the House, I represent all sides of the House to the Government and I have emphasised the need to change this perception to my colleagues in Government.

Respect has to be a two way process.  But is there more that can be done?

In our democratic processes, although we have made very good progress in recent years, I do not believe the reforms we have made to electoral procedures have yet delivered the fundamental breakthrough in voter engagement and participation that is required today.

We should not therefore rule out any options. There are a number of ideas around at present as to how to improve electoral turnout.  That, logically, must begin by improving voter registration.

In the recent General Election it is estimated that two point seven million of the potential voting population were not registered.  And there is anecdotal evidence that many voters were not registered because of bureaucratic problems.

As a Government we are taking steps, principally through the Electoral
Administration Bill, to improve the registration system.  Increasing registration rates, without compromising security.  Spreading best practise from the most effective Local Authorities nationwide.  And there are plenty of other ideas around.  Changing the location of polling stations to make voting more convenient - perhaps using railway stations or supermarkets?  Changing or increasing the number of days on which we vote.  Providing more education for voters in the actual procedures for voting.

It may seem strange to us - all of us so well versed in the political process - but I have met people who are intimidated at the prospect of entering a polling station because they are not sure how to vote - in the same way that that some people do not know how to place a bet at the bookmakers.

New technology will certainly have a part to play.  There have been proposals for a modern e-voting system that would include :

An online electoral register.  Online registration and online application for postal votes.  Online and text message voting.  And electronic counting and collating of election results.

Millions vote using text messages in the reality TV shows that sometimes seem  to dominate our television screens.  Would it really be such a huge step to extend this option to voting in General Elections?  Pilots have already shown that these measures can have a positive impact on turnout.

In 2003, a scheme in Swindon for local elections allowed early polling via mobile electronic voting kiosks in residential care facilities and community centres.

It distributed locally held, non-networked electronic registers in polling stations and employed e-counting technology to count paper ballots.

The pilot provided seven day multi channel voting via the internet, telephone, interactive digital TV, and access information kiosks as well as standard postal and traditional ballot box voting.

The pilot resulted in an increase in turnout, albeit only up to 30%!

A survey in Swindon found that 92% felt it was more convenient to vote electronically as against going to a polling station.

This is of course dependent on any electoral system being secure - I know that many have fears about the security of internet voting.

The threat from computer hackers in the online banking industry are well documented.

There are also concerns about the digital divide. Not everyone has access to a computer or a mobile telephone.

But electronic voting is an issue that demands further examination.

But the real question is whether changes need to be more fundamental? Can we learn anything from other countries?

It is no accident that there are higher participation rates in Scandinavian countries with their more progressive and cohesive societies.

This Government has made huge strides to reduce poverty and to try and foster a sense of society and citizenship, but there is still more to do.

Some have suggested that reform of the Electoral System is required to bring in Proportional Representation. I remain open minded on this particular issue.. I have met with the Electoral Reform Society, but I am yet to be convinced of the case for this kind of fundamental change. When we introduced Proportional Representation for European elections in 1999 the turnout fell to 24%, down from 36% in 1994. Partly at least, in my opinion, because we lost the local focus that individual constituencies with individual members provide.

Evidence from around the world suggests that the countries with the highest turnouts in elections require their citizens to participate in democratic elections.

We often tend to call this "Compulsory Voting", but this is something of a misnomer given that all that is really required is attendance at a polling station.

The topic has, of course, been considered before.

Attempts were actually made to introduce it in Parliament in 1937.

Winston Churchill supported the concept in a speech in 1948, calling it a "civic duty".

Two of my Parliamentary colleagues, Mark Tami and Tom Watson, wrote an excellent pamphlet for the Fabian Society making the case.

And in 1998, the Home Affairs Select Committee looked at the issue, but felt the time was not right, but saying that "there should be a public debate".

That public debate never actually happened.

Following another General Election with a low turnout perhaps the time for this debate has now actually arrived.

To me, and this is entirely my personal perspective, a higher turnout, will generate more political participation across all strands of society.

A higher turnout is vital if we are to ensure a representative, healthy and vibrant democracy in this country.

International experience points to Compulsory Voting being the most effective way to increase turnout.

The most obvious way to bring those who feel alienated into the political process.

The best means to enhance civic participation.

To bring back the sense that we can all work together.

To show that there is such a thing as society.

Matching the rights we cherish, with the responsibilities that bind us together.

Surveys have suggested that an element of compulsion can increase turnout by around 10%.

More recent evidence confirms the high turnouts in countries with Compulsory voting.

92% turnout in recent elections in Australia.

The same figure in recent elections in Belgium.

A significantly better result than the 61% we manage to achieve in the UK.

When Compulsory Voting was abandoned in the Netherlands in 1970 turnout dropped by around 10%.

In many ways, it is the logical extension of the legal demand we place on citizens to register to vote.

And I believe it will make campaigning in election periods more healthy and more engaging.

Ensuring that political parties must talk to everyone - not just the chattering classes or those who are likely to vote.

Changing that debate brings new issues to the table.

Putting the focus back on persuasion, not just mobilising people to go out to vote.

Breathing new life into our political process - and at the same time leading to higher levels of participation in other forms of political life.

I know that there will be concerns.

Some will feel that low turnout does not matter.

Some will suggest this is in some way "un-British".

Others will defend the right not to vote.

But I am not advocating removing that right.

All I am suggesting is that those registered to vote should have to apply for a postal vote or attend their local polling station on Election Day.

The logical extension of requiring people to register.

It is vital that there should be an option available to abstain or spoil your ballot paper.

I know there will be concerns as well about enforcement.

But experience in other countries suggests that only a small number of people would refuse to take part.

In my view, any penalties should be modest and rather like the introduction of seat belt legislation, would only require one or two cases to be brought to encourage everyone else to participate.

In fact, I would much prefer a system similar to that used in Ancient Greece, where incentives were used. Perhaps a small reduction on Council Tax for those who take part could be a viable solution?

I recognise that this is not a panacea to all of our problems in our democracy.

In an ideal world such fundamental measures would not be necessary.

Increasing turnout is not an end in itself, but it could be a start as we breathe new life into our political process.

It fits in with our broader agenda.

Delivering for the most deprived areas of our country.

Bringing back the sense of society and citizenship.

Matching rights with responsibilities.

There is still a great deal to do.

This speech is no more than a modest beginning. 

But I look forward to engaging in this debate in the weeks and months ahead.