Memorandum by Rossendale Borough Council
(PVF 20)
I refer to your recent communication seeking
my views to the different matters which will be considered by
the Select Committee on Postal Voting.
Set out below are my comments in the order in
which they appear in the letter from the ODPM Select Committee.
GENERAL
1. Problems were experienced because of
the delay in publishing the necessary statutory instruments. There
was a lack of time to undertake a proper procurement exercise
to appoint a printer with sufficient technical and legislative
experience to meet the requirements of the Pilot Order.
2. This Council did not have all out elections
this year and therefore the number of nominations which were dealt
with was 27. Therefore there were no problems caused by the timescale
between close of nominations and the need to deliver postal voting
documents to electors. However, several neighbouring authorities
had all out elections and therefore the number of nominations
received was considerable and I understand that this did have
an impact on the ability to undertake all the necessary proofing
work to ensure that postal voting documents were delivered on
time.
3. This Council had previously considered
submitting a bid to undertake an all posting pilot. However, the
Council decided not proceed on the basis that there may be difficulties
with skills and resources and finding a suitable contractor to
undertake the work.
During this Pilot there were particular problems
for Rossendale because the Elections Officer had recently retired
and the Council had not been able to fill the post prior to the
election. As a consequence it was necessary to appoint additional
temporary staff to provide help and support to the project. In
particular it was necessary to appoint an officer with IT skills.
4. I am pleased to report there were no
allegations of fraud. During the pilot two fraud initiatives were
undertaken. The first was "flick through" around 1,500
witness statements in the presence of agents to check on the completion
of witness forms, secondly samples of witness and voter signatures
were obtained to cross check with declarations of identities received.
Neither of these initiatives raised any areas of concern.
PRINTING AND
DISSEMINATION
5. This Council's chosen printer Document
Technologies Ltd encountered problems producing combined ballot
paper packs and the Council had to source another printer. The
Council was fortunate enough to be able to secure the support
of Sunderland City Council and in a very short timescale was able
to ensure that ballot papers were delivered to Royal Mail by 28
May.
6. No ballot papers required printing.
7. In light of the necessity to change printers
Royal Mail provided additional staff to support the distribution
of ballot papers over the Bank Holiday weekend. Throughout the
process their staff have been very supportive and on an individual
basis Royal Mail worked very hard with both the distribution and
the return of ballot paper packs.
However, particular problems were experience
during the return of ballot papers. On several occasions we had
to visit neighbouring authorities to collect misdelivered ballot
papers (250 ballot paper packs) and indeed on one occasion we
received over 250 ballot paper packs for other Councils across
the country.
8. No ballot papers were deliver or collected
by hand.
9. I am satisfied that all electors received
ballot papers by 1 June with around 35 exceptions where additional
ballot packs were issued because they were not received.
VOTING PRACTICALITIES
AND RETURNS
10. Many people took the opportunity to
contact the Councils' Assistance and Delivery Point to seek assistance.
Approximately 1,000 or 2% of the ballot paper envelopes returned
were not included in the count because of the failure to properly
complete the declaration of identity or return it with their ballot
paper envelope.
Around 500 votes or 1% of the electorate were
able to be included in the count because we were able to return
them for proper completion.
11. As of the 17 June 2004 approximately
100 or 0.25% of ballot paper packs have arrived too late to be
counted.
12. All postal voting increased turnout
by around 17%.
13. This is the first time this Council
has undertaken a Pilot.
COSTS AND
RESOURCES
14. As a result of using a postal system
it was necessary to bring in extra staff and to pay staff overtime.
The overall staffing cost of this pilot is anticipated to be around
£15,000. This is in fact less than a traditional election
involving the use of polling stations where staffing costs are
usually in excess of £20,000.
15. Final invoices and bills are still awaited,
but the estimated cost of this election is approximately £90,000.
The cost of a traditional election is usually around £45,000.
Local Returning Officer
| 
