Memorandum by Manchester City Council
(PVF 26)
I am writing in response to your letter dated
14 June, and apologise for the delay in responding. Our comments
on the questions set out in your letter are as follows:
GENERAL
1. Some problems, as uncertainty made planning
more difficult.
2. Yes, although we managed to overcome
those problems. The short timescale put additional pressure on
our printers and us and a longer timescale would have alleviated
this.
3. No. Manchester is a large local authority
used to dealing with the delivery of challenging major projects.
4. A small number of allegations have been
received, but not significant and no more than previous elections.
Our new fraud protocol, which was worked up in close collaboration
with Greater Manchester Police (GMP), served to heighten awareness,
and included checking—see copy attached.
PRINTING AND
DISSEMINATION
5. Yes, where effective project management
and quality assurance processes were in place as was the case
in Manchester.
6. No
7. We found Royal Mail to be highly conscious
of performance management, and to be very co-operative both locally
and nationally. There were some minor ward sort problems with
ballot paper returns, but these have been reported to Royal Mail
for the future.
8. (a) On a planned basis, approximately
19,359 Ballot Packs were delivered by hand to individuals identified
as living communally in elderly and care homes, student halls
and to houses in multiple occupation.
(b) 75 (number of home visits made).
9. Royal Mail confirmed that 100% of ballot
papers were delivered before the deadline set.
VOTING PRACTICALITIES
AND RETURNS
10. We returned 2,778 DoIs as they were
incorrectly completed, of which 1,186 were sent back to us by
the voter. We know from our call centre that there was some misunderstanding
around who could witness the DoI, despite our efforts to inform
our electorate through various means both in the run up to the
election and during the election period through local media.
Approximately 3,500 voters used the wrong envelope,
some of which may have been due to the dimensions of the envelopes,
which were very similar (although clearly marked).
Many calls to our help line were from voters
asking to be "talked though" how to complete their ballot
papers. It's our view that any future instructions should be simplified;
however given that in this instance we were dealing with a combined
election where the local election was "all out" it is
difficult to say how these could have been simplified.
11. (a) 109 ballot paper packs arrived
back too late to be counted.
(b) 1,592 DoIs were invalid—so
any local or european ballot papers sent with those DoIs were
not counted. Approx 1,200 local and 2,575 european ballot papers
were rejected, a proportion of which would have been because they
were incorrectly completed.
12. Yes, Manchester's turnout was 34% compared
to 22% last year.
13. N/A
COSTS AND
RESOURCES
14.-16. The all postal system meant that
extra staff and council staff had to be used. We are still in
the process of working up the costs associated with additional
staffing, and the overall costs of the elections; it is clear
that the costs will be significantly higher than for a traditional
election.
Jill Lewis
Acting Manager
Electoral Services Unit
| 
