Memorandum by Knowsley Borough Council
(PVF 16)
Thank you for your letter dated 14 June 2004,
seeking view on the All Postal Pilots held on 10 June 2004.
My comments on the questions to be considered
by the committee are as follows:
1. The late decision to determine which
regions were to conduct all postal pilots caused considerable
difficulties for the Local Authority. Planning for any May election
will normally commence in January/February. To be uncertain whether
the election would be "traditional" using polling station
at an all-postal pilot in April meant that for some time election
staff had to plan as though either option could be implemented.
Staff who would act as presiding officers and poll clerks would
normally have been identified by April and premises to be used
as polling stations would have been confirmed. Even in March we
were unable to tell head teachers for example whether their school
would be needed for a polling station. Not only did this therefore
cause difficulties for election staff it caused problems for schools,
especially those which are required to close on the day of an
election.
Proper procurement processes needed to be bypassed
due to the short timescales with the associated consequent legal
uncertainties. Also, the opportunity for efficiency savings could
never be properly explored.
The delay in publishing the legislation also
caused many practical difficulties. For example, the content of
the pre-election leaflet was not confirmed until the end of April
even though it needed to be printed and distributed to electors
by no later than 11 May 2004. Essentially the opportunity for
any proper project planning for the election was lost as it became
a series of immediate priorities with a host of questions and
problems which had never been faced before, being required to
be addressed.
2. For any election, the short timescale
between the close of nominations and the need to obtain ballot
paper proofs from printers, proof them and have the postal votes
printed, enveloped and dispatched to electors via Royal Mail would
have been extremely tight. Given the complexity of the Election
and the decision to include a Declaration Of Identity this was
always going to be a major of undertaking. We are very happy with
the performance of our printing company, who produced postal votes
for ourselves and a substantial number of other authorities. However,
there was no margin for error and, I believe, any delays with
their printing process would have meant that the need to have
all postal votes with Royal Mail by 25 May 2004, which was the
original stated despatch date would have been missed. I am convinced,
that a greater lead in time between the close of nominations and
deadline for delivery to electors is required in all postal elections.
3. As a Metropolitan Authority, the skills,
resources and capacity were available to deliver the election.
This still required significant commitment on behalf of the individuals
involved. Were all postal elections to be repeated it would be
necessary to significantly improve on the arrangements that applied
to this Election in order to maintain the commitment of staff
involved in its organisation.
4. No reports of fraud were received from
any member of the public. Candidates, agents and party workers
raised a number of issues, and made certain allegations. However,
these were all dealt with by reference to the Electoral Commissions
Code of Practice on handling postal votes.
5. As mentioned in paragraph 2 above our
printers provided a very good service. The experience of authorities
elsewhere must raise questions whether, given the complexity of
the documentation involved in the Election, the printing industry
either recognised the problems, appreciated the need for complete
accuracy in printing of election material or had the capacity
to cope. I am sure that other authorities will provide evidence
on this point.
6. None of our ballot papers required re-printing.
7. At a local level, our arrangements with
Royal Mail were excellent. During the lead in to the Election
regular meetings with our Operations Manager were held to clarify
arrangements regarding mail handing, delivery and the day of poll
sweep etc. During the election itself these arrangements worked
exactly according to plan. At a Regional/National level the picture
was less clear. Proofing of ballot paper envelopes was problematic
as were the arrangements for dispatching postal votes from our
printers into the mail network. There was also evidence of Regional
interference with arrangements agreed locally without any due
consultation. I am aware that our experience with Royal Mail may
not be representative of all authorities.
8. All postal votes were delivered by Royal
Mail and none by election staff. Of the 37,000 postal votes that
were returned, approximately 3,800 were handed in by electors
at one of the four assistance and delivery points set up across
the Borough. This appeared to evidence significant concern amongst
electors that using Royal Mail would not guarantee the vote being
received by the Returning Office.
9. Royal Mail had completed delivery of
postal votes by Saturday morning 29 May 2004. The vast majority
had, in fact, been delivered by Friday 28 May 2004. There were
approximately 750 postal votes returned by Royal Mail as undeliverable,
marked either "addressee gone away" or "property
empty". From the telephone calls received by the Elections
Office there is no evidence that electors in my authority did
not receive their postal vote.
10. (a) The need for a Signed Witness Declaration
was the source of frequent questions by electors as to who could
or could not sign the Declaration. It would also appear to have
caused inconvenience to many electors, particularly to those who
live alone and may have had difficulty in finding someone to witness
the Declaration. Approximately 700 incomplete declarations of
identity were returned to electors for correction. About 250 of
these were returned and it would appear that the majority of those
returned were declarations that did not originally have a witness
signature and address.
(b)
The size of the ballot paper envelopes did not
create any difficulty for voters as far as can be ascertained.
The complexity of the ballot papers themselves was the more problematic
issue.
(c)
The instructions on how to complete and return
the ballot papers certainly required some thought to be exercised
by voters. The pictogram that accompanied our ballot paper was
much easier to follow and helped ensure that documents were returned
in the correct manner. The decision to undertake a postal pilot
in authorities with a Combined Election, particularly those authorities
with whole Council Elections caused a greater degree of confusion.
In those authorities, electors were could vote for one party at
the European Election and for up to three candidates in the Local
Election. In a normal year, voters would elect one Borough Councillor
each year, but this year due to the boundary review they could
vote for up to three candidates. Many electors did not do so and
voted for only one candidate, possibly due to the length and complexity
of the instructions. In a "traditional" election voters
would have been informed when being given their ballot paper by
the Presiding Officer that they could vote for up to three candidates.
This would have reduced the level of under-voting. It was also
the case that in my authority, in the European Parliament election,
55 electors voted for more candidates than they were entitled
to. Many of these electors had voted for three candidates and
had presumably misunderstood the instructions.
11. (a) One week after the election,
74 postal votes had been returned by the post office too late
to be included in the count. This equates to 0.07% of the electorate.
(b)
983 ballot papers were rejected either due to
the Declaration of Identity being invalid or only the ballot papers
or the Declaration of Identity being received rather than both.
This equals 2.73% of the total number of envelopes returned.
12. It is clear that all postal voting did
increase turnout. At the Local Elections in May 2002, turnout
was 23.1%. In May 2003 turnout was 20.7%. At the last European
Parliament Elections in June 1999, both the Knowsley South and
Knowsley North and Sefton Eastern Constituencies had turnouts
below 14%. The turnout at the Local and European Parliament Elections
in 2004 was 34% and 33% respectively.
13. The all-postal system required significant
additional staff resources. Whilst presiding officers and poll
clerks were not required at this election, in a traditional election
these would be needed for only one day a total of 160 person days.
Our four assistance and delivery points alone were required to
be open for nine days and accounted for 72 person days. In addition,
significant resources were required for the opening of postal
votes over eight working days. The amount of time other council
staff were involved in organising the election and dealing with
issues such as home visits, dealing with phone queries, issuing
replacement ballot papers etc was a significant issue. During
a traditional election council staff involvement, other than election
staff, is limited to one or two days either side of election day.
In this election, a significant number of staff were required
throughout a two-week period before 10 June. This had an impact
on other work within parts of the authority. If there had been
sufficient lead in time to the Election alternative arrangements
could have been made to bring in external staff and train them
appropriately. This was another example of the late decision making
impacting negatively on local authorities attempting to administer
the election.
14. At the present time the overall cost
of the Election is not yet known but will be significantly higher
than for a traditional election, even one that is combined. Our
printing and postage bill alone will exceed that cost of undertaking
a traditional election. It is a major concern that on occasions,
proper procurement practices could not be followed due to the
time constraints that the Election was being organised to.
I trust that these views will assist your committee
in its deliberations.
Steve Callender
Deputy Director Corporate & Customer Services
| 
