INFRASTRUCTURE OF ELECTIONS
13.All-postal elections
are currently more expensive than conventional elections, but
we believe that the higher turnouts produced do justify some additional
costs. We welcome the Government's commitment to meet extra costs
resulting from the use of all-postal voting in the June elections.
We recommend that the Government carefully considers the
future funding of elections, including the consistency of recharges
to first-tier councils, and the Electoral Commission's proposal
for a central pot. In response to this report we expect the
Government to outline its long term plans for the funding of elections,
including the viability of a central pot. (Paragraph 98)
The Government is considering whether and how to
take forward the Electoral Commission's recommendations for funding
elections contained in its report "Funding Electoral Services"
as well as other recommendations made in other reports and summarised
in "Voting for Change'. The funding questions raised both
by those reports and by the all-postal voting pilots are complex.
The Government intends to set out its proposals for the long-term
arrangements in due course.
14.In oral evidence
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department for Constitutional
Affairs assured us that if necessary, the Government would fund
an election re run; the subsequent letter from the Minister indicates
that the Government would only fund a re-run if the "pilots
were at faults, presumably meaning the legislation was defective.
The Minister advises that "for all local elections, it is
expected that the Local Returning Officer will have recourse to
their local insurance policies, which are funded by their local
authorities". It is unfortunate that the assurance given
by the Minister in oral evidence was subsequently discovered to
be baseless. The Government must ensure that insurance cover
has been secured by Returning Officers for the June all-postal
pilots. If it has not, we recommend that the Government provide
insurance cover because we have no doubt that many Returning Officers
will have been confused by the Government's U-turn. The Government
must meet with Returning Officers for the proposed 2004 regional
referendums as soon as possible to ascertain whether regional
insurance should be provided by the Government. (Paragraph 105)
The position regarding insurance cover has remained
consistent and clear. There has been no U-turn on insurance cover.
As Chris Leslie indicated at the Select Committee hearing and
confirmed in his letter of 22 April 2004, returning officers have
been provided insurance cover for the running of the European
Elections. In addition the Government has provided an indemnity
to returning officers in the event that some legal costs are not
covered by the insurance policy. As for the cost of any re-run
of the European elections, it has always been the case that the
Government would fund this.
The arrangements for the local elections differ because
Local Returning Officers (LRO), in the event of a liability arising,
would have recourse to their local insurance policies in the first
instance. The local authority funds these and, depending on the
agreement, some include re-runs while others may not. In the event
of a re-run arising from a local election, funding would depend
on the circumstances of the petition. As the letter stated, "if
the fault lies with the LRO, we would expect them to use their
own insurance policy, or alternative funds to cover their costs.
Should the petition be made on the basis that the pilots were
at fault, it will be for LROs to seek recourse to central government
for funding". It has always been the case that the Government
would fund the local election costs attributable to piloting.
When ministers appeared before the Committee, they
promised to write to the Committee with the detailed arrangements
for funding election re-runs, including the financial allocation
between local and national government. This information was provided
in Chris Leslie's letter of 22 April. It is regrettable that the
Committee gained a differing impression, given the clear position
set out in correspondence.
The Chief Counting Officer (the Chairman of the Electoral
Commission, or someone appointed by him) is responsible for the
administration of the referendums and it is therefore for him
to consider, with the counting officers, whether insurance is
necessary for the referendums. We understand that the EC are discussing
the issues with insurance brokers
15.We recognise that
the Royal Mail has a great deal of experience in processing secure
post in large volumes over concentrated periods of time. However
we are concerned that the public may not view the postal service
as reliable or secure. It is therefore vital that the Royal Mail's
audit trail is rigorous and transparent. In order to monitor
the performance of the Royal Mall during an election, we recommend
that the Government introduces seeded electoral papers. The
Electoral Commission should include reference to the performance
of the Royal Mail, based on these seeded papers, in its evaluations
of elections. The independent regulator, the Postal Services Commission
(Postcomm), should also assess the Royal Mail's performance and
set targets which require 100% secure and accurate delivery of
ballot papers. In response to this report we recommend the Government
outlines what research it has conducted into the use of seeds;
or other audit processes to ensure the reliability and security
of the Royal Mail's handling of postal votes. (Paragraph 111)
The Royal Mail was involved in the development of
the arrangements in place for the pilots from an early stage.
Although there were a number of negative reports in the press
about the Royal Mail in the months prior to the June 2004 elections,
the Royal Mail put in impressive efforts to ensure that the ballot
packs were delivered as quickly as possible. The evidence so far
is that Royal Mail played their part extremely well.
We note the Committee's recommendations on seeding
the ballot. The project board that managed the June 2004 pilots,
and which included a representative from the Electoral Commission,
discussed whether to undertake such a project in April 2004. The
Commission was insistent that a body independent of government
should do this work. However we understand that they felt unable
to do it themselves at these pilots. We will work with the Commission
to support any exercise of this nature in the future.
16.The use of different
electoral systems for different elections is no doubt confusing
for all involved, although we accept that different systems are
inevitable when piloting new electoral methods. Nevertheless
we recommend that the Government makes a firm decision as to the
future form of electoral systems, and implements any changes as
soon as possible to prevent further confusion, and potentially
lower voter turnout. In the meantime it is vital that the
Government, Electoral Commission and local authorities, take steps,
including use of the media, to ensure that all electors are aware
of the method(s) of voting in their area in each election. In
response to this report we recommend the Government outline what
promotional strategies have been implemented. (Paragraph 114)
There is a difference between voting systems (e.g.
first-past-the-post, proportional representation) and voting methods
(e.g. polling stations, postal voting). Different electoral systems
may be appropriate for different bodies, depending on various
factors, but the Government recognises the necessity of ensuring
that the electorate is well informed about the particular system
applying to each election. A variety of voting methods (in person
at polling stations, by post, by proxy) has been available for
some time for all elections in the UK. The Government's aim is
to increase that choice and experiments of various kinds have
taken place to test new methods. These have included electronic
voting by the Internet, by text message, by interactive digital
television, and by telephone, as well as increased availability
of postal voting. The aim is to allow voting by a number of different
methods — whichever is most convenient for the voter —
to maximise the opportunity for people to cast their vote.
Whilst these experiments are continuing the Government
recognises the necessity of keeping the electorate informed about
what methods are available for which elections. Responsibility
for national publicity on electoral issues was given to the Electoral
Commission in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums
Act 2000. They have conducted a number of high profile publicity
campaigns to date. The Government also agreed to fund local publicity
where pilots took place in June 2004 to encourage Local Returning
Officers to undertake it. Information about what publicity took
place where will no doubt form part of the Electoral Commission's
evaluation report, along with assessments of its effectiveness.
17.We recommend that if all-postal voting
is used in future elections, the Government and Electoral Commission
consider holding elections In June so that canvassing can be done
In lighter evenings, encouraging greater engagement with the electorate.
(Paragraph 116)
The Government notes the Committee's recommendation
that it considers holding future elections in June to enable canvassing
to be undertaken in lighter evenings. It will consult further
on this issue with the Electoral Commission and other key stakeholders.
ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL
18.The Ministry of
Defence suspect electoral participation rates among service personnel
are low; considering that the Government is trying to increase
electoral participation, we are surprised that there appears to
be little attempt made to encourage service personnel to vote.
Every effort must be made to ensure all who wish to vote are able.
We are pleased that the Ministry of Defence, when it issues its
guidance, intends to encourage greater use of proxies and we hope
to see a copy of this guidance in the response to this report.
The Ministry of Defence and Armed Services must offer more
help to personnel who wish to apply for a proxy vote; we recommend
all new personnel are given forms and guidance during their initial
training period. We also recommend that the Government, Ministry
of Defence and Electoral Commission consider the results of the
electronic voting trial for military personnel in the United States
of America. (Paragraph 121)
The Government confirms that it will make every effort
to ensure that all those who wish to vote are able to do so. Revised
guidance is in preparation for all Service personnel, providing
full information and practical help on how to register and explaining
the various voting options available, including postal or proxy
voting. A copy will be provided for the Committee's information
in due course. The Ministry of Defence will also examine how it
can improve the information available during initial training.
Consideration will also be given to the results of
the electronic voting trial for US military personnel. The Government
was monitoring the progress of the SERVE (Secure Electronic Registration
and Voting Experiment) project until it was ended earlier this
year. Our electoral pilots programme envisages further tests of
electronic voting channels for everyone, and we will consider
how the systems we develop may be used to assist military personnel
in voting.
