Memorandum by Wigan Council (PVF 09)
I refer to your letter dated 14 June 2004 and
would respond as follows:
GENERAL
1. Yes. The uncertainty about whether the
North West was included in the Pilot or not meant that early planning
of the Election was impossible. As an example, should we book
the Polling Station premises or not. Thereafter, because this
was a Pilot unlike any other, the delay in making the Pilot Order
meant that we were not aware of the rules by which the Election
was to be organised and this again meant that planning and organisation
was rushed.
2. Yes. It was always our contention that
more time was required for the printers to complete this very
complicated process and an additional two days was woefully inadequate.
The timetable for any subsequent all-postal elections must be
stretched considerably to allow as much time as possible for the
printing process. Whilst it is just as important to ensure that
maximum numbers of electors are enfranchised, any consequent delay
in producing the data for the printers to produce the individual
packets must be kept to a minimum.
3. The number of printers with the skills
and resources to produce a job of this complexity was the only
limiting factor. As usual, Returning Officers and their Electoral
Administrators rose to the challenge presented to them, although
many report that it was the most stressful exercise that they
have been involved in.
4. No.
PRINTING AND
DISSEMINATION
5. Whilst we were more than satisfied with
our printer, the answer generally in the North West would appear
to be no.
6. No.
7. The vast majority of packets were delivered
although it did take much longer than expected in some instances.
We had particular concerns about a part of Aspull. We had factual
proof that Royal Mail had received all of the packets from our
printers but Royal Mail could not prove to our satisfaction where
the packets had been through their process. An emergency Assistance
and Delivery Point had to be established in the area to issue
replacement packets upon demand.
8. (a) None.
(b)
If this refers to domiciliary visits, 52; otherwise
none.
9. Approximately 3,000 throughout the campaign
period.
VOTING PRACTICALITIES
AND RETURNS
10. (a) Many were rejected because they
were not completed but the main query received was whether husband
and wife could witness for each other (which is not the case in
passport applications for example).
(c)
The instructions were prescribed and generic
to cover all permutations of printing processes. Options should
have been made available so that they could be tailored to the
process used in each area. For example, there were no instructions
on separating the ballot papers because in some areas they were
collated separately but this led to confusion in Wigan because
ours were produced in one sheet per elector with perforations.
11. (a) 180—0.0076%
12. Yes.
13. No.
COST AND
RESOURCES
14. (a) Yes, substantial numbers. Only a Local
Authority could rise to this challenge as it developed.
(b)
Yes, all weekend before Election Day and late-night
finishing throughout the campaign period. Costs are yet to be
identified.
15. Costs are yet to be identified.
The response is being copied to the Regional
Returning Officer for his information.
Chief Executive
| 
