Memorandum by Liverpool City Council (PVF
04)
Thank you for your letter of 14 June, seeking
comments about the all postal pilot. I will respond with as much
information as I can, in the short response period you have given
us, using the same numbering as your letter.
1. A great deal of difficulty was encountered
planning for an election when there were no Regulations in force.
We had already been through a period of great uncertainty, not
knowing whether we were to run a traditional Election, with polling
stations and Presiding Officers, or an all postal ballot on a
yet to be determined basis. To then know that we had to organise
a postal ballot with no firm Regulations in place, made life very
difficult, and the logistics were almost impossible to determine
in advance.
2. The time between close of nominations
and the delivery of Ballot packs was unreasonably short, and led
no doubt to the errors elsewhere. Fortunately, this did not occur
in Liverpool, but the pressure of the very limited timescale gave
no room whatsoever for slippage, machine breakdown, or the usual
double checking that we do.
3. Those authorities who have self selected
would have considered in advance the need for additional staff,
space, and other resources. We did not have this opportunity,
and this again caused problems.
It could be argued that we could have contemplated
in advance what was going to happen, but as the date of the City
Election has been known since LGA 1972, and the date of the Euro
was fixed at least 15 years ago, one could argue that Government
should have promulgated its intentions sooner than it did.
4. There have been no allegations of fraud.
5. The Merseyside Authorities joined together
to engage the services of ERS. There was in other areas an insufficiency
of capacity, but others will put this more strongly, I'm sure.
6. We had to re-print one Polling District,
about 600 electors. The reason is not yet known. Our printers
say they printed them, but Royal Mail say they did not receive
them.
7. Royal Mail have tried very hard to get
this right, but there have been some problems at a localised level.
8. (a) The 600 referred to in 6 above,
and approximately 60 to aged, infirm or partially sighted who
asked for replacement ballot packs.
(b) We collected about 40 packs mainly
from aged infirm or partially sighted who asked for assistance.
9. (a) We know of about 200, most of
whom were students who had left their accommodation, and the hall
of residence had not forwarded them on.
(b) as above.
(c) A further 600 students had gone
home, and we found that the Ballot Packs had not been forwarded
on, but the Association which runs the Hall of Residence forwarded
the BPs to the students at their home addresses.
10. (a) Practical difficulties occurred
when elderly voter, or those housebound did not have anyone available
to assist or witness.
(b) The voters generally made comment and
the majority of those visiting the ADPs did suggest that the Ballot
paper was too large. Once explained that there were 12 parties/candidates
in the Euro, and up to 15 in the City Election they generally
accepted the inevitability of the size of the Ballot Paper.
(c) A large proportion, approaching 20%,
of ballot papers came back in the wrong envelopes, mainly with
one ballot paper in the BP envelope, and the other, with the Declaration
of Identity in the Return Envelope.
11. (a) So far we have received 1,125 (valid
Ballot papers in count 113,000) therefore less than 1% of votes.
(b) The precise figures have been given
to the Electoral Commission assessors, but less than 3,000 were
rejected because of mistakes on the DoI, so less than 3% of votes.
12. Last year the turnout was 22%, this
year 33%
13. —
14 (a) and (b) We tried to predict the number
of staff we needed for opening, processing and sorting the returned
ballot papers, and this accounted for almost 40 staff, every day
(some including Sunday) for 12 days.
Additionally we used the call centre to deal
with the majority of calls from electors; over 4,000 were logged.
Staff worked overtime, and additional days sorting the incorrect
DoIs and matching ballot papers to returned DoIs.
The staffing requirement was well above what
would have been used at a traditional election, even with a PO
and a PC at 200 polling stations. We have not yet calculated the
additional or actual cost, as claims are still coming through
but we expect it to be almost £60,000.
15. The overall cost will be in the region
of £410,000, although this may increase when all on costs
such as IT and postages, are calculated into the equation.
I hope this is helpful, but if there is any
further information you need please get in touch with me.
Sir David Henshaw
Chief Executive
| 
