Memorandum by Sefton Council (PVF 05)
Further to your letter dated 14 June, 2004 to
Sir Howard Bernstein—Chief Executive, Manchester City Council,
concerning the above. Sir Howard circulated your letter to all
North West Authorities and asked that we comment direct to yourself
and also provide a copy of our response to him.
My comments in relation to the questions set
out in your letter are as follows:
GENERAL
1. The decision to include the North West
Region as an All Postal Pilot was made late during the period
when we would normally be making preparations for the traditional
Election—such as the appointment of staff, booking polling
stations etc. We therefore, in anticipation, commenced the work
in relation to a traditional Election, at the same time as commencing
preparations for the All Postal Pilot. This duplicated work paid
dividends in that when the decision was made, we were better placed
than some Authorities to engage a supplier for the Postal Vote
ballot packs. However, this did involve some abortive work and
some complaints were received particularly from schools, about
then cancelling bookings for Polling Stations.
With particular regard to the Statutory Instruments,
we took the view that we would progress arrangements without the
benefit of the SIs, on the basis that when they came out, we would
then be able to make arrangements to alter what we had previously
put into place. Again this did in some respects mean some abortive
work. Without doing this, we would have been delayed and may have
experienced problems akin to those experienced by other Authorities.
Of particular concern was the lateness of the
Fees and Charges Order. Publication some two weeks after the Elections
will make the task of apportioning costs even more difficult.
It should have been made available prior to when bills and invoices
started being received which is some time after we had engaged
services.
2. The short timescale between close of
nominations and delivery of postal votes, meant staff working
long hours under pressure, particularly due to the all out nature
of the local Elections. The major burden at this time was however
on the printers/suppliers. We were fortunate in the choice of
supplier and developed a very close working relationship, which
involved open and honest communication. The supplier chosen did
not over-commit themselves, but they were able to do this in the
knowledge that their only business is Elections, and therefore,
they have the prior experience necessary to make this judgement.
3. The mandatory nature of these Elections
resulted in the Merseyside Local Authorities collaborating in
the selection of a postal vote ballot pack supplier. In addition,
the Merseyside Authorities also shared publicity in order to secure
economies of this scale and also to ensure coverage in one area
did not affect another ie radio air time. Liverpool City Council
provided a call centre for the five Authorities, under agreement,
and joint funded. Again this allowed staff to build up an expertise
sufficient to handle the complexity of the calls. The collaborative
arrangements across Merseyside also ensured that the Election
expertise within the five Authorities was jointly used to oversee
the organisation and running of the Elections. Particularly beneficial
was the agreement to share documentation between Authorities.
This certainly avoided duplication of effort.
Within Sefton, staff who would normally be engaged
part-time on the Elections had to work full-time and long hours
in order to ensure the success of the Election. The Election was
far more onerous than a traditional Election in terms of organisation
and complexity. This was no doubt due to not only the all postal
nature of the Election, but also, the decision to combine two
different types of Elections together.
4. There have been no allegations of fraud
reported or received. Further reference to the Police would be
necessary in order to answer this question.
PRINTING AND
DISSEMINATION
5. Due to the decision to commence work
prior to a decision in relation to an All Postal Pilot, Sefton
Council, along with the other Merseyside Authorities were able
to engage a supplier immediately after the all postal decision
was made. We interviewed a number of suppliers and in some cases
were given a demonstration of their equipment/service. We agreed
to engage one supplier who could demonstrate experience of printing
Election material, the capacity to do this and the integrity to
know that they were not overcommitting themselves as they had
the benefit of having undertaken the production of Election material
before.
6. No.
7. Royal Mail attended a Merseyside Regional
Returning Officer and Local Returning Officer Meeting at which
they described "the product". They also attended the
AEA Conference in Blackpool and similarly described "the
product". They also at these two events indicated that agreements
could be reached at a local level with regards the particular
requirements of each Local Authority. At this stage no product
documentation was produced. Once the product documentation was
in the throws of being released, which was after the Royal Mail
Local Plans had been agreed with Local Authorities, the Royal
Mail indicated that the product would not allow, for commercial
reasons, the delivery of what had been agreed in the Local Plans.
After making representations at a higher level within Royal Mail,
it was agreed that the Royal Mail would fulfil only for the Merseyside
Authorities, what had been agreed within the Local Plans provided
that the five Authorities assisted with their own additional evaluation.
The level of service specified in the Local
Plans was, in the main, fulfilled. Problems outside of the Local
Plan were experienced in isolated areas of the Borough where mail
delivery problems had been experienced previously. Upon investigation
by the Royal Mail following complaints by Sefton Council, it was
discovered that certain batches of postal vote documentation had
not been delivered despite being told to the contrary. This had
occurred as a result of the postal vote packages being collected
by the Royal Mail from our printers in Derby and then not being
transferred with the other documentation to the Local Sorting
Office. When all the other postal ballot packs were received we
were advised that they had received everything. Obviously the
technology required to track and plot where the postal vote packages
were in their system was not capable of being correlated against
the information that had been provided to them by the printer.
However, they said, once the postal vote packages had been transferred
to the Local Sorting Office they were promptly delivered but this
was some three days after the original deadline for delivery.
The last sweep arrangements caused problems
in that the Borough of Sefton is geographically large with the
Council being served by two large mail centres, one in Liverpool
and one at Preston. The Local Plan provided delivery of postal
vote packages three times at 9.00 a.m., 2.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m.
The 6.00 p.m. delivery was delayed which meant the staff were
sat around waiting for the delivery. The Royal Mail then allowed
a collection outside of the Local Plan which was also delayed
despite them specifying the collection arrangements and time.
It was agreed as part of the arrangements for the last sweep that
employees of the Council could collect the postal vote packages
from the two mail centres—one approximately 25 miles away
and the other 15 miles away and that these would be brought to
a central base for processing. On the last week, around a few
hundred postal vote packages were received across 22 Wards. The
lateness of the collection and the transfer to the LRO base, due
to the geographic nature of the area resulted in the results in
6 Wards being delayed.
8. (a) 190 ballot packs were delivered by
hand—a variety of replacement ballot papers, and spoilt
ballot papers involving disabled or elderly voters.
(b) Around 12 ballot packs were collected
by hand.
9. (a) It is difficult to estimate the number
of cases where ballot papers were not received although only 10
replacements were issued on the last day.
(b) 34 replacements were issued the day before
10 June.
(c) 143 approximately five days before.
VOTING PRACTICALITIES
AND RETURNS
10. We only have anecdotal evidence to suggest
that voters experienced practical difficulties as a result of
the following:
(a)
We had a large number of ballot papers returned without
a signed witness declaration. Some 2,013 ballot papers were rejected
on the basis of either not returning the ballot paper or incorrect
witness declarations or no DOI at all.
(b)
The dimensions of the ballot envelopes did not seem
particularly onerous however we had a fair proportion of the ballot
paper packages returned where the elector had either placed the
ballot paper in the wrong envelope or had made some other mistake.
A good proportion of these could, however, be rectified.
(c)
With regard to complex and unclear instructions we
had a large number of calls in relation to the clarity of the
instructions. It would have certainly helped had the instructions
included the ability for a husband or wife to witness the declaration
of identity. We had a large number of calls regarding the length
of the instructions and quite a number requiring assistance over
the telephone both by Liverpool Direct and to our own Elections
hotline.
11. (a) We only received 150 ballot papers
after the close of poll which is less than ½ %.
(b) The number of ballot papers returned
with either errors in completion of the ballot paper or witness
declarations was 2,013, which is 2.21% of the total votes cast.
12. Postal voting did increase turn-out
by an additional 18.28%.
13. N/A.
COST AND
RESOURCES
14. As a result of using the all postal
system we employed:
(a)
An additional 25-30 extra staff per day from when
the ballot packs were delivered. On some days, we also employed
20 employees of the Council to supplement the processing staff.
We also employed four staff on the ADPS from 1 June, 2004.
(b)
We have a core team of four Elections staff and this
was supplemented by the Assistant Legal Director, all of whom
worked full-time on the Election and worked approximately 10-12
hours per day from the close of nominations through to the 10th
June. It is difficult to estimate the cost of this additional
resourcing given that the Fees and Charges Order has only just
come out.
15. Again it is difficult at this stage
to quantify the overall cost of the Election given that the Fees
and Charges has only just come out.
16. N/A.
Graham Haywood
Chief Executive & Local Returning Officer
| 
