The Cabinet Office has rejected criticism over the accuracy of voter records in last year’s general election.

In its original report, published in April, the select committee set up to investigate the organisation and operation of the 2016 election says there were ’issues regarding the accuracy of the electoral register’.

But the CoMin response states: ’The Cabinet Office strongly contends that this was not the case.

’The register was as accurate as possible and, on behalf of the electoral registration officer, the Cabinet Office undertook every possible action to ensure that every person entitled to be registered, was correctly enfranchised for the election.’

The select committee referred to evidence from newly elected Ramsey MHK Lawrie Hooper. The Liberal Vannin member reported that he had encountered a number of voters who were removed from the voters’ list without their knowledge.

CoMin responds: ’Mindful that 2016 was general election year, from January of that year onwards, where the Cabinet Office has been advised that an elector is no longer residing at an address, a letter addressed to that elector has been issued to inform them that they may be at risk of being removed from the register and to provide details of how they may object and the next stages, along with the contact details for the Crown and Elections team.

’Every effort is undertaken to mitigate the risk that an elector is removed from the register erroneously.’

One of the recommendations of the select committee report is that the Cabinet Office should bring forward legislation ’to enable any declared candidate or sitting MHK to be provided at any time, free of charge, with a copy of the marked register for their constituency from the most recent election and the election before’.

Marked registers show whether an elector voted at a previous election. At present, the marked registers are available for inspection up to 12 months after the election, for the purpose of detecting election fraud or irregularity. In the UK, candidates and certain groups receive a copy of the marked register, upon request, but the documents have to be destroyed after 12 months.

The Council of Ministers points out the recommendation would mean marked copies being available for up to 10 years.

It says it is ’concerned’ at the implications for data protection and human rights of making such ’historic and potentially outdated’ information available.

’It seems that the value of providing a copy of the marked register to a MHKs and candidate at subsequent election(s) would be to provide an indication as to whether or not a particular constituent is or is not likely to vote,’ says CoMin.

’Electors may be concerned if a candidate calls at their door during a subsequent election querying why they did not previously vote. It is important to consider the feelings and views of the electorate, including their right not to vote.’

A 2014 Cabinet Office consultation on the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill found there was not public support for reform of the current system on marked registers.

Council of Ministers says, due to the ’serious consequences’ of extending the period for inspecting marked registers and that lack of public support, it is against the recommendation.

The Council of Ministers, however, agrees with the recommendation that Cabinet Office continues to investigate the use of electronic voting systems at polling stations and that Tynwald be presented with a list of recommendations prior to any trial of such a method.