Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Written Evidence


Memorandum by Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (PVF 03)

  Further to your letter of 14 June 2004 regarding the all postal voting pilot for the Combined European Parliamentary and Local Elections on 10 June 2004. With regard to your questions regarding the process I would respond as follows:

GENERAL

  1.  The late publication of the statutory instrument to enable the conduct of the pilot did cause considerable difficulties in the delivery of the process. Particularly as changes between the various drafts and the final statutory instrument were not annotated so that changes could be readily identified.

  2.  The short timescale between the close of nominations and the delivery schedule also caused problems as there was little time to allow for contingencies in the event of problems arising. This is particularly important considering the short timescale for the delivery of the pilot which provided little time for appropriate planning and testing of methods to ensure the smooth delivery of processes.

  3.  This Authority has been involved with pilot schemes since their inception and consequently the mandatory nature of the pilot did not cause any particular problems. Problems that were experienced related much more to the short time scale remaining following the final decision to implement the pilot process.

  4.  A number of incidents have been reported to the Police in general stem from complaints by candidates and relate to issues such as failure to incorporate printed and published by on election notices and publications and the contents of those publications. One of these complaints does relate to an allegation that a candidate(s) in one ward of the Authority visited properties immediately after the postman delivered ballot papers and suggests that interaction with voters in certain cases may have been excessive. The complainant has not provided any particular evidence for his concern, other than referring to a complaint by a voter. I have attached a copy of the correspondence referring issues to the Police for your information but based upon the information currently available to me I feel that it is unlikely that any proceedings will be brought regarding these issues.

PRINTING AND DISSEMINATION

  5.  The Authority was able to secure two potential suppliers for the printing of ballot papers but some printers were indicating that they were either approaching or had reached the capacity that they were willing to undertake for this project.

  6.  No.

  7.  The co-operation received with Royal Mail was excellent and they were very supportive within the limitations agreed under the National Contract.

  8.  (a)  53.

    (b)  2.

  9.  I have no information on which to base an estimate but consider that the number of ballot papers undelivered would be very low. I have shown below the ballot papers reported as undelivered by voters.

    (a)  27.

    (b)  71.

    (c)  152.

  Total 250.

VOTING PRACTICALITIES AND RETURN

  10.  (a)  Responses from voters indicate that the requirement for a signed witness did cause problems and was also disliked.

       (b)  The use of a double enveloping systems appears to have cause considerable difficulty to some voters and certainly proved a deterrent because of the overall complexity of the postal voting process combined with the requirement for a witness signature. A number of voters and candidates indicated a clear preference to the system used at the Authority's pilot scheme in May 2003 which utilised a one piece mailer and a simplified declaration of identity only requiring the voter's signature.

       (c)  A considerable number of voters and candidates reported that the instructions were considered to be far too complicated and lengthy.

  11.  (a)  30 as at 23 June 2004.

       (b)  1,968 were initially rejected but 746 were allowed following returns of declarations of identity leaving a total of 1,128 or 0.14% of the total votes cast.

  12.  Turnout was increased at both the European (39.1%) and the Local (39.2%) however the Local turnout represented a fall from the previous pilot in May 2003 where the turnout was 47.03%.

  13.  An approximate fall of 8% from 47.03% to 39.2%.

COST AND RESOURCES

  14.  (a)  Extra staff were used to assist with the opening and processing of returned ballot packs.

       (b)  Some work was undertaken outside normal office hours but was not recharged as overtime but by an additional payment to staff for the particular election duties.

  15.  The overall cost of the election is currently being calculated and is not yet available.

  16.  Not applicable as the Election was combined with the Authority's own election.





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 16 September 2004