The 2004 European Parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom

Transcription

1 December 2004 The 2004 European Parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom The official report

2 Translations and other formats For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large-print or Braille version please contact The Electoral Commission: Tel: publications@electoralcommission.org.uk The Electoral Commission We are an independent body that was set up by the UK Parliament. We aim to gain public confidence and encourage people to take part in the democratic process within the UK by modernising the electoral process, promoting public awareness of electoral matters and regulating political parties. The 2004 European Parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom The official report Copyright The Electoral Commission 2004 ISBN:

3 1 Contents Preface 3 Executive summary 5 1 Introduction 11 The Electoral Commission 11 The European Parliamentary elections Information and sources 16 Recommendations 17 2 Managing the process: the administration of the elections 19 Introduction 19 The legal, regulatory and policy context 20 The impact of combination 24 Funding 25 The key players 27 Preparations for 10 June 35 Election day 44 Close of poll and beyond 50 Conclusions and recommendations 57 3 Voter information and awareness 65 Introduction 65 Prior awareness of the elections 66 The political campaigns 67 Awareness campaigns 80 The role of the media 89 Conclusions and recommendations 98 4 Participation: who voted, who didn t and why 101 Introduction 101 Trends over time 106 Voter turnout: untangling the threads 107 Explaining turnout 114 Who voted in 2004 and why? 114 Comparing 2004 with earlier elections 118 Conclusions and recommendations 120 Appendix: European Parliamentary elections tables 123 Summary table, European Parliamentary elections Summary of election results Results by region 2004 and change from Allocation of seats by region Distribution of European Parliamentary seats 2004 and change from Share of vote by party, UK, GB and by region Party performance at local authority/ constituency level, England, Wales, Scotland Turnout 2004 and change from Highest and lowest local authority/ constituency level turnout by region 2004, and biggest and smallest local authority/ constituency level turnout change on Rejected ballots Postal voting 2004 and Impact of combination on turnout Turnout at European Parliamentary elections Postal ballots issued as % of eligible electorate Postal ballots as % of electorate in 2004, by region and change on Proxy voting in 2004 and change from Gender of candidates by party 166 Gender of winning candidates by party

4 2

5 3 Preface 10 June 2004 saw arguably the most complex set of elections ever held in the UK. Elections to the European Parliament were universal. In addition, local and community council elections were held throughout Wales; there were elections for Mayor and Assembly in London and in many parts of England there were also local elections. In addition, four European Parliament regions in England conducted all-postal votes and in the rest of Great Britain the use of postal voting increased significantly. It was a testing time for all those involved in administering the process. This statutory report is focused on the European Parliamentary elections. Separate reports deal with local elections in Wales and the electronic counting of votes in London. However, analysis of the European elections is inseparable from the combination with other polls and the use of new voting methods. Hence this report whether dealing with administration, participation and turnout, campaigning or media coverage necessarily embraces other elections to the extent that they impinged on the European poll. As this was the first European Parliamentary election on which The Electoral Commission has had to report, we have tried to benefit from comparisons with experience elsewhere in Europe. As part of this effort, we have based the report in large part on the discussions at a series of five seminars including participants from across the European Union. The organisation of the seminars and the framing of this report have been much helped by Demos, our partners for this purpose, and on behalf of the Commissioners I would like to express my thanks to them. Among the Commission s own staff, I would like to express particular thanks to Nicole Smith, Ben Marshall and Laura Richards. Sam Younger European Parliamentary elections 2004: preface

6 4 European Parliamentary elections 2004: preface

7 5 Executive summary Elections to the European Parliament were held between 10 and 13 June 2004 across the 25 member states of the European Union. They were the largest simultaneous transnational elections ever held in the world, with nearly 400 million citizens eligible to vote. This report reviews the conduct of the elections in the UK, in accordance with The Electoral Commission s statutory responsibilities. Facts and figures In the UK, more than 44 million electors were eligible to vote for candidates standing for election to the European Parliament. Altogether some 17 million votes were cast. Turnout rose significantly from 1999, up from 24.0% to 38.5%. Four of the 12 UK electoral regions piloted a system of all-postal voting. In addition, a record number of postal votes were issued in the eight non-pilot regions, where postal voters comprised 8.3% of the electorate. This compares to 4.0% across the UK in the 2001 general election and 1.3% in the 1999 European Parliamentary election. In total, 683 candidates contested the 78 seats. This figure includes representatives of 30 registered political parties and 10 independent candidates. With 27 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) elected, the Conservative Party won the largest number of seats. The Labour Party secured 19 MEPs and the UK Independence Party and the Liberal Democrats both finished with 12. However, the share of the UK vote for the Labour Party and Conservative Party was less than 50% for the first time in a nationwide election since the extension of universal suffrage; and UKIP polled more votes than the Liberal Democrats. These four parties accounted for nearly eight in 10 of the votes cast in the UK. Other parties collected just one fifth of the votes and a total of eight seats (two each for the Greens and the Scottish National Party, one each for the Democratic Unionist Party, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionist Party). European Parliamentary elections 2004: executive summary

8 6 Around 11% of the UK electorate voted for parties or independent candidates that did not win a seat. Of the UK MEPs returned, one in five are new members. A total of 73 incumbent MEPs stood for re-election in 2004, of whom 62 were re-elected. Nineteen of the 78 MEPs elected were women, a decrease from the 21 women elected in Four UK MEPs are from a minority ethnic community; the same number as in the last European Parliament. Managing the process: the administration of the elections What Europeans experienced on June 2004 was an election for one common institution, conducted in 25 different ways. In the UK, the use of electronic counting in London and the increased use of postal voting across Great Britain ensured that the administration of the election had more attention than usual in the run up to the elections. Nevertheless, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) concluded that across the Union the overall impression is that these elections were carried out well enough. Post-election media analysis focused on turnout and results, with the administration of the elections neither criticised nor hardly mentioned. It is inevitable that in a report of this nature the analysis will focus on comparative weaknesses and areas for improvement. But that should not detract from the significant successes. In the UK, willingness of hundreds European Parliamentary elections 2004: executive summary of staff at all levels to deliver the elections with a can do spirit meant that a result was achieved on time. There is also a willingness on the part of central government and leaders in the electoral profession to learn and to co-operate in making improvements for the future. This provides a sound basis for moving forward. Voter information and awareness Levels of political engagement and knowledge generally among voters are not high. Only half the population claim to be interested in politics, the lowest in the 20 years since pollsters first asked the question. In relation to the institutions of the European Union, the levels of knowledge and understanding are lower still. This is troubling given the strong correlation between lack of knowledge and electoral abstention. Responsibility for engaging the electorate with the democratic process must always rest in the main with candidates and parties. It is above all the quality and persuasiveness of the policies put forward by the political parties, and their ability to motivate voters, that shapes public willingness to become involved in the electoral process. But many other organisations also have a role to play in increasing public awareness and promoting voter understanding. An analysis of information campaigns undertaken by different parties, Returning Officers and other organisations, together with the information provided by the media, is given in this report. Research suggests that this year s election campaign reached more people than the campaign five years ago. However, what happens between elections is just as important as what happens during the campaign period.

9 7 While we should take heart from the rise in turnout in the 2004 European Parliamentary elections, there is no room for complacency about the scale of the communication deficit between the institutions and processes of European democracy and voters in the UK. Participation: who voted, who didn t and why Turnout in the 2004 European Parliamentary elections confounded prior expectations by increasing substantially on the 1999 figure to 38.5%. This figure is the highest since the UK first held elections to the European Parliament in The rise in turnout in the UK contrasts with the generally poor showing across other member states. Average turnout across the Union fell to 45.7%, the lowest ever. This was partly as a result of low turnout in some of the new member states in Eastern Europe. But nine of the previous 15 member states also experienced drops in turnout. The UK s reversal of this downward trend is encouraging. Structural factors, notably combination of elections and the extension of postal voting, appear to have had a significant impact on participation and turnout. However political and cultural factors also played a crucial role; the parties efforts to mobilise and energise voters play a significant part in explaining the improvement since A notable development this year was voters sense that they were presented with a wide choice between parties and policies. Other factors also played a part: demographics, voter motivations and attitudes towards Europe. These are analysed in more detail later in this report. Key recommendations This report includes a range of recommendations to Government and others designed to address the key issues identified in our analysis of the 2004 elections. These include the following: Administration a formal working group including all Regional Returning Officers (or their representatives) should be established at least 12 months ahead of the next European Parliamentary elections; Returning Officers should continue to improve the guidance and advice they offer to candidates and party agents; fees and charges set by Government for Regional Returning Officers should reflect the need for effective project management and coordination at regional level; Regional Returning Officers should be more willing to make use of their powers of direction to ensure consistency of practice where this is in the public interest; Government should clarify, through legislation if necessary, the insurance position of Regional and Local Returning Officers at European Parliamentary elections to ensure that adequate cover can be secured; Government should champion (through its participation in the relevant European Union bodies) the development of access standards for European Parliamentary elections; and new legal provision should be made to underpin the Commission s requests for data from Returning Officers for the purpose of this statutory report. European Parliamentary elections 2004: executive summary

10 8 Voter information news organisations should make conscious policy decisions to limit use of the apathy story, to avoid a self-fulfilling prophecy; Government should introduce legislation providing for a single freepost booklet to be produced in each of the 12 European Parliamentary electoral regions at the 2009 elections in place of individual party leaflets; Government should consider whether Regional Returning Officers at European Parliamentary elections should have powers to determine the wording and design of the key forms and documents read by voters; parties and candidates should consider how to improve the accessibility of their political information, including party political broadcasts; and the newly-established British Polling Council should consider the implications of postal voting on demand (and the use of other forms of advance voting) in relation to the publication of public opinion polls during election periods. Participation between now and the next European Parliamentary elections in 2009, which could also be a general election year, further consideration will need to be given to the potential impact of the combination of elections. The balance of arguments in favour and against including the potential impact on turnout will need to be weighed by Government and others. Whatever the outcome, what matters most is that decisions on combination are made sufficiently early to allow for effective planning, by the parties, candidates and Returning Officers. Government should examine initiatives designed to make the voting process more positive and rewarding for voters, drawing on experience from elsewhere in Europe, as part of the work being taken forward by the Department for Constitutional Affairs Voters and Voting Insight project. Conclusion The Commission will also work within its statutory remit to address issues emerging from the 2004 elections. In particular, we will: respond to feedback from Returning Officers and their staff, political parties and others, to improve our guidance and training materials; build on our successful public awareness campaigns; advise the Government on alternatives to all-postal voting which retain the benefits of that approach while offering voter choice; and continue to undertake research into what does and what might motivate voters and non-voters. This will help inform our own public awareness campaigns and provide an evidence base for others, including political parties and individual politicians who wish to forge a more effective relationship with the electorate. European Parliamentary elections 2004: executive summary

11 9 Facts and figures European Parliamentary election results 10 June 2004 turnout, UK Registered electorate 44,157,267 Total number of ballots returned/cast 17,312,030 Total valid votes counted 17,007,880 Turnout unadjusted % 39.2 Turnout adjusted % 38.5 Note: Unadjusted turnout includes all votes cast. Adjusted turnout excludes invalid/ rejected votes. Postal voting on demand non-all-postal pilot electoral regions, GB* Total number of postal ballots issued 2,487,315 Postal ballots issued as percentage of the electorate 8.6 Number of postal ballots included in the count 1,613,049 Number of postal ballots included in the count as a percentage of all ballots included in the count 15.1 Number of postal ballots rejected before the count as a percentage of all postal ballots received 2.8 Note: * Excludes Northern Ireland where arrangements are different to the rest of the UK. Postal voting in all 12 electoral regions, UK Total number of postal ballots issued 16,503,108 Postal ballots issued as percentage of the electorate 37.4 Number of postal ballots included in the count 7,563,109 Number of postal ballots included in the count as a percentage of all ballots included in the count 44.1 Number of postal ballots rejected before the count as a percentage of all postal ballots received 2.1 European Parliamentary elections 2004: executive summary

12 10 Election results, UK Political party Total votes Share of vote Seats Share of seats Conservative Party 4,397, Labour Party 3,718, UK Independence Party 2,660, Liberal Democrats 2,452, Green Party 948, Scottish National Party 231, Democratic Unionist Party 175, Plaid Cymru 159, Sinn Féin 144, Ulster Unionist Party 91, Social Democratic Labour Party 87, Others 1,940, Note: The electoral data used in this report has been supplied to the Commission by Returning Officers and analysed on our behalf by Professors Rallings and Thrasher at the Local Government Chronicle (LGC) Elections Centre at the University of Plymouth. Complete datasets were not provided by all Returning Officers, although the missing data does not impact significantly on the overall analysis. A full breakdown of electoral data by individual local authority areas, including non-response, can be found on the Commission website. European Parliamentary elections 2004: executive summary

13 11 1 Introduction This is The Electoral Commission s first report on European Parliamentary elections in the UK. The report meets our specific statutory obligation to review the administration of these elections, but also examines a broader range of issues within our statutory remit. The Electoral Commission 1.1 The Electoral Commission is a UK-wide independent public body established on 30 November 2000 under Section 1 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA). The Commission is independent of Government and political parties and is directly accountable to Parliament through a committee chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. The Commission is headed by a Chairman and four other Commissioners, none of whom has connections to any political party. 1.2 The Commission is responsible for overseeing a number of aspects of electoral law, including the registration of political parties, monitoring and publication of significant donations to registered political parties, and the regulation of political party spending on election campaigns. The Commission also has a statutory duty to promote public awareness of our democratic systems and institutions, as well as powers to advise those involved in the management of elections on practice and procedure. 1.3 The Commission has a statutory responsibility to report on elections to the UK Parliament, the European Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Our role in reviewing elections 1.4 Under the terms of Section 5 of PPERA, the Commission must prepare and publish a report on the administration of European Parliamentary elections in the UK. This report fulfils that obligation in respect of the elections held in June European Parliamentary elections 2004: introduction

14 12 However, the report is not restricted solely to reviewing the administration of the elections; we look too at the wider experience of the elections in the UK. This approach is consistent with our remit under Section 6 of PPERA to keep under review, and from time to time submit reports to the Secretary of State on such matters relating to elections... as the Commission may determine. 1.5 In preparing this report, we have sought to draw on experience across the European Union and to make pan-european comparisons of electoral processes and practice. We believe that publication of this report provides a benchmark for future elections, enables lessons to be learned and experience to be shared, promotes best practice and improves transparency. Of itself, it is also a contributor to raising public awareness of elections and electoral processes. 1.6 This is the first time the Commission has prepared a report on the European Parliamentary elections, as the Commission did not exist at the time of the previous elections in However, a report was prepared by Home Office officials and published on the department s website after the 1999 election; 1 where relevant, we have had regard to this report as a reference point. 1.7 We have also drawn upon our wider experience of reporting on elections across the UK in the last three years. In July 2001, we published our statutory report on the general election of that year. In November 2003, we published two separate statutory reports on the National Assembly for Wales elections and on the 1 Home Office report on the 1999 elections Scottish Parliament elections, both held on 1 May In April 2004, we also published a report on the administration of the Northern Ireland Assembly election held on 26 November In addition to our experience in reporting on major UK elections, we are required to evaluate and publish reports on electoral pilot schemes. 2 The Commission has published reports on every electoral pilot scheme held since April 2002, as well as annual strategic reports on the direction of the pilots programme in 2002, 2003 and In Wales, and in parts of England, the European Parliamentary elections were combined with local elections. We are not required to report on the administration of local government elections in any part of the UK, although we are able to do so under the terms of the PPERA if requested by a relevant body. No such request was received in relation to the English local elections, including elections to the Greater London Authority. However, the Welsh Assembly Government did ask the Commission to prepare a report on the local elections in Wales in 2004; this report was published in December Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000, as amended by paragraph 16 of Schedule 21 to PPERA. 3 The Electoral Commission (2002) Modernising elections; (2003) The shape of elections to come; (2004) Delivering democracy? The future of postal voting. European Parliamentary elections 2004: introduction

15 13 Priorities and principles 1.10 Our mission is to foster public confidence and participation in the democratic process. In particular, the Commission aims to promote: integrity; involvement; and effectiveness. We do not claim to have an exclusive mandate in relation to any of these aims, and are conscious of the potential tensions between them. However, we are convinced that seeking and achieving the right balance is an important challenge for all who believe in a vibrant and healthy democracy In common with all the Commission s work, we place the interests of voters and the electorate at the centre of this report. In addition, we believe that electoral arrangements must create the best possible conditions for political parties and candidates to engage with the electorate and should enable electoral administrators to conduct elections effectively and efficiently. These priorities reflect our established position and our existing proposals for change and modernisation to the electoral process This report encompasses all matters within the Commission s remit relating to the European Parliamentary elections, with one important exception. An analysis of election campaign expenditure by political parties and candidates will be published in a separate report in The European Parliamentary elections Elections to the European Parliament are conducted on a fixed-term basis every five years, the date for the elections being pre-determined throughout the European Union. Since 1979, the European Parliament has been directly elected through simultaneous national elections, each conducted according to a member state s laws and practice. In accordance with established practice, polling took place in most of the UK on one day, Thursday 10 June, although results could not be announced until after polls closed across Europe at 9pm on Sunday 13 June Since 1999, the UK s Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have been elected on a regional basis from 12 European Parliamentary electoral regions. There are nine English regions and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each represent one region. Following the enlargement of the European Union this year with the accession of 10 additional states, the number of UK MEPs was reduced. In addition, Gibraltar was enfranchised for elections to the European Parliament for the first time, as part of the South West region The electoral system used for European Parliamentary elections in England, Scotland and Wales is a form of proportional representation, using closed party lists. An elector votes for the political party or independent candidate they wish to represent their region. In Northern Ireland, the Single Transferable Vote system is used and there is no closed list system. European Parliamentary elections 2004: introduction

16 14 Combination of polls 1.16 Combined elections in Wales, London and many parts of England in June 2004 meant that, in a significant proportion of the UK, there were two or even three elections on the same day. In Wales, there were all-out elections in each of the 22 unitary authorities and in the large number of town and community councils; in London, more than five million electors were eligible to cast votes in the elections for the London Assembly and London Mayor, using different electoral systems; in other parts of England, there were district or metropolitan authority elections. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, the only elections taking place were to the European Parliament Although the local elections, including those to the Greater London Authority, are outside the scope of this report, the combination of the local elections with the European Parliamentary elections was an important factor in several different contexts (see Table 1). The impact of combination is therefore considered in this Table 1: Electoral regions and extent of combination Region No. of Eligible Geographic No. of No. of local Local MEPs electorate size local authorities authorities (sq. km) authorities holding holding elections elections (%) North East 3 1,905,132 8, North West 9 5,151,488 14, Yorkshire & the Humber 6 3,719,717 15, East Midlands 6 3,220,019 15, West Midlands 7 3,957,848 13, Eastern 7 4,137,210 19, London 9 5,054,957 1, * South East 10 6,034,549 19, South West 7 3,845,077 23, Wales 4 2,218,649 20, Scotland 7 3,839,952 78, Northern Ireland 3 1,072,669 14, Total 78 44,157, ,600 Note: *The elections for the London Assembly and London Mayor are classed in law as local elections; although only a single authority was holding an election, responsibility for administration was shared by all London boroughs. European Parliamentary elections 2004: introduction

17 15 report in relation to public awareness, voter participation, the administration of the election, party campaigns and media coverage. Electoral pilot schemes 1.18 As noted earlier, in most parts of the UK, polling took place on a single day. That was not, however, the case in four regions of England. In September 2003, the Government introduced the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill to provide for piloting of postal voting and other electoral innovations (including electronic voting) in some regions in place of polling stations. Prior to this, legislation provided only for pilot schemes at local government elections Following the introduction of the Bill, the Government directed The Electoral Commission to recommend up to three European Parliamentary regions that would be suitable to run pilots in 2004 and to consider which one of these would be most suitable to incorporate an electronic voting element. The Commission launched its consultation exercise on 25 September 2003 and published its recommendations on 8 December After extensive consultation, the Commission recommended that there should be no e-voting pilot schemes and indicated a priority order of regions for all-postal pilots. The Government accepted the first recommendation. In relation to the postal pilots, they undertook further consultation in relation to the potential postal pilot regions. As a result, the Government proposed a total of four regions: the East Midlands, Yorkshire & the Humber, the North West and the North East. This was one more than envisaged in its original plans, which the Government argued was justified on the grounds that the absence of e-voting from the programme made a larger scale postal pilot affordable and practical. Not all parliamentarians agreed. However, following lengthy debate in Parliament, including referral between the House of Commons and House of Lords five times, the Government s proposals were secured This report does not review the specific experience of the all-postal pilot schemes. The Commission has already published separate evaluation reports for each of the four regions. In addition, a set of strategic recommendations to Government on the future of postal voting were set out in Delivering democracy? The future of postal voting (2004) In Delivering democracy?, the Commission has recommended that postal voting on demand should remain part of the electoral system in Great Britain but that: significant changes are required to improve the legal framework for the administration of postal voting on demand both to enhance the security of the system and to ensure efficient and effective administration. These changes are referred to later in this report in more detail; and all-postal voting should not be pursued for use at UK statutory elections. Instead, a new foundation model of voting for statutory elections and referendums should be developed, capable of offering electors both choice of voting method and security. The Commission intends 4 The Electoral Commission (2003) Electoral pilots at the June 2004 elections. 5 The Electoral Commission, August European Parliamentary elections 2004: introduction

18 16 to report on a recommended approach to this foundation model by 31 March 2005.The Commission s proposed strategy for the future envisages that the new foundation model will be available for piloting after September The Government has indicated in response that it is not at present persuaded of the case for stopping all-postal voting but welcome[s]... the opportunity to contribute to the development of a new model of voting, as proposed in the Commission s report; and will keep the future of postal voting under review, considering the proposals that emerge from that work in due course. 6 Information and sources 1.23 The views and recommendations in this report are those of The Electoral Commission. However, the report has been informed by a variety of sources, including research commissioned from external providers. It has also benefited from the input of key stakeholders whose views have provided an invaluable contribution and whose time and trouble in so doing is much appreciated Sources used in preparing this report include: expert papers commissioned from academics, non-governmental organisations, journalists, political parties and politicians giving their perspectives on the European Parliamentary elections; 6 The Government s response to The Electoral Commission s report: Delivering democracy? The future of postal voting? (August 2004) Cm academic analysis of election results data, including turnout and extent of postal voting, by Professors Michael Thrasher and Colin Rallings of the Elections Centre at the University of Plymouth; public opinion research conducted by ICM after the election, including quantitative opinion polling and qualitative research to probe more deeply the reasons for voter behaviour and participation; a series of stakeholder seminars held between July and September 2004 with attendance from nearly 200 delegates representing a large number of election staff, political parties, politicians, and voluntary and statutory organisations from the UK and other European Union states; feedback from Regional Returning Officers at meetings during and after the election period, together with a report on Gibraltar from the Regional Returning Officer for the South West and data from statistical questionnaires completed by Returning Officers and Electoral Services Managers in relation to the training programme, and (in Wales) more generally; feedback from the Commission s Westminster Parliamentary Parties Panel and the relevant Parties Panels established in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; findings from a series of Commission observation visits to 10 European Union states, prior to the election and on election day itself, to gather comparative information about what happened on the ground ; and European Parliamentary elections 2004: introduction

19 17 information logged from a large volume of correspondence, s and phone calls received by the Commission from members of the public, candidates and agents, and election staff particularly in the three months preceding the election Copies of the expert papers and full research reports are available on the Commission s website at or on request from the Commission s offices. Tables setting out key data in relation to the elections are supplied in the Appendix to this report This report is also written against the backdrop of a wider programme of electoral modernisation and change. The Commission published a major report containing a programme of recommendations for change to electoral law in June 2003, in Voting for change. The Government responded formally to this programme for electoral modernisation in early December and work is now underway within Government to take forward implementation of many of the key changes proposed. Where relevant, recommendations made by the Commission in Voting for change (2003) are referred to in this report The Commission s recent reports on the 2003 elections to the National Assembly for Wales, Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly also included a series of recommendations for changes in legislation and for promotion of best practice. These recommendations are not reiterated in full here, but are referred to where appropriate. Recommendations 1.28 This report is published as a comprehensive account of the administration of the European Parliamentary election in the UK in 2004, and related matters, in accordance with the Commission s obligations under Sections 5 and 6 of PPERA. It has been submitted to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and to the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in respect of the recommendations made for change to current electoral law Our role is an advisory one and we have no powers to ensure implementation of any of the recommendations we make. It is for the Government to initiate and for Parliament ultimately to decide on any proposals for legislative change that might be recommended by the Commission The Commission is, however, able to recommend and disseminate best practice guidance to Returning Officers and election staff and will do so where relevant. In addition, we make a number of recommendations directed at others involved in the wider democratic process and outline actions that we propose to take ourselves to address the issues identified in this report. 7 The data sets can be obtained in full for academic analysis from the Commission s offices. 8 The Government s response to The Electoral Commission s report: Voting for change (December 2004) Cm European Parliamentary elections 2004: introduction

20 18 European Parliamentary elections 2004: XXX

21 19 2 Managing the process: the administration of the elections Electoral administration is the hidden wiring of our democracy. Detailed preparations are undertaken months in advance to ensure that things run smoothly on polling day. These behind-the-scenes efforts rarely make the headlines. But this year, the use of electronic counting in London and the all-postal ballots elsewhere in England ensured that the administration of the election had more attention than usual. In this chapter we review the detailed administrative arrangements for the elections. Introduction 2.1 This chapter aims to provide an accessible guide to the administration of the European Parliamentary elections across the UK and to highlight the key areas of strength and weakness, in order to learn lessons for the future. Where possible, it also seeks to benchmark and compare UK practice with that in other countries across Europe. Many issues in relation to electoral administration have been analysed and reported on in previous Commission publications. This report focuses on the aspects of administration that were unique to these elections either because of the particular context of 2004 or because they are relevant specifically to European Parliamentary elections. 2.2 Many of the administrative difficulties encountered in 2004 related directly to the application and issuing of postal votes and the continuing increase in take-up of postal voting. As indicated earlier, we have recently reported on the challenges and successes of postal voting in the 2004 elections and made wideranging recommendations for the future. 9 This report does not repeat these in detail. 2.3 Overall, the administration of the elections was managed well, but the Commission recognises that this continuing success is increasingly being achieved against the odds. Some Regional Returning Officers have expressed the view that the success of the 2004 elections was despite and not because of the wider legal framework; the extent of change and short timetables for implementing change 9 The Electoral Commission (2004) Delivering democracy? The future of postal voting. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

22 20 posed significant risks. A meeting of all the Regional Returning Officers after the election concluded, the fact that the elections went well was largely due to the expertise of those involved in running the elections. By the time the next European Parliamentary elections come round many of these people will have moved on. 10 The legal, regulatory and policy context Timing 2.4 The timing of the European Parliamentary elections is a matter determined by European law, which required that the elections had to be held between 10 and 13 June Some discretion is left to member states as to the exact day or days of polling (see Table 2 on page 21) and the hours. It has become the practice for polling at the European Parliamentary elections in the UK to take place on a Thursday, following the tradition for most UK elections, both Parliamentary and local. 11 Accordingly, polling took place on Thursday 10 June in all parts of the UK except those involved in all-postal pilot schemes, where ballots were issued from the end of May with a final return date of 10 June. were permitted, if they wished, to count the votes before the close of poll throughout the European Union on the Sunday, but the results could not be announced until after those final polls had closed. In the UK, this meant that the results could be announced at any time from 9pm BST, assuming that counting had been completed by that time. 2.6 The election timetable for European Parliamentary elections (as shown in Table 2) in the UK is not determined by European law, but is set down in UK statute and regulations. Specific issues arising are referred to throughout this chapter. But it is worth noting here that the Commission has previously made recommendations to Government regarding election timetables. In particular, we have recommended that the timetables need to be revised to reflect experience from recent elections, especially to take account of the changing context of increased postal voting on demand. 2.5 Until this year, the counting of votes could not begin until after the close of poll in all member states. This meant that in 1999 counting the votes in the UK elections could not begin until the polls in Italy had closed at 9pm British Summer Time (BST). In 2004, member states 10 Minutes of meeting of Regional Returning Officers, hosted by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, 1 July In Northern Ireland local elections traditionally take place on Wednesdays. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

23 21 Table 2: Polling day a European perspective Country Polling day Austria Sunday 13 June Belgium Sunday 13 June Cyprus Sunday 13 June Czech Republic Friday 11 June Denmark Sunday 13 June Estonia Sunday 13 June Finland Sunday 13 June France Sunday 13 June Germany Sunday 13 June Greece Sunday 13 June Hungary Sunday 13 June Italy Saturday 12 June and Sunday 13 June Latvia Saturday 12 June Lithuania Sunday 13 June Luxembourg Sunday 13 June Malta Sunday 12 June Netherlands Thursday 10 June Poland Sunday 13 June Portugal Sunday 13 June Republic of Ireland Friday 11 June Slovakia Sunday 13 June Slovenia Sunday 13 June Spain Sunday 13 June Sweden Sunday 13 June UK Thursday 10 June Legislation 2.7 The overarching legal framework for the conduct of all elections in the UK is provided by the Representation of the People Act However, the legislative context for the 2004 European Parliamentary elections was significantly different from that applying in In particular, postal voting in Great Britain on demand was introduced by the Representation of the People Act 2000 and has developed very rapidly over the last few years. The European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 also consolidated existing provisions on the management of the election. 2.8 In addition, an unprecedented number and range of new legislative provisions were introduced in the months leading up to the election, many as a result of the decision to combine the local and European Parliamentary elections in England and Wales. 2.9 The fact that key legislation governing the conduct of elections in June 2004 was made as late as March 2004 caused significant difficulties in the administration of the election, preventing adequate planning and contingency management and causing great frustration among Returning Officers and electoral administrators. Those in pilot areas (and prospective pilot areas) were particularly badly affected, as the Parliamentary decisions about which locations would be included in the pilots programme were taken so late that Returning Officers and their staff had been obliged to make preparations for normal polling station elections just in case. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

24 The late introduction and implementation of legislation are not new problems in this field, having been identified as a key area for improvement by the Home Office following the 1999 European Parliamentary elections. The Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) has also noted that regulations were in place earlier in 2004 than in However, there is clearly still scope for further improvement Many of those involved in election management, including the Commission, advocate starting preparation for the elections earlier, including the drafting of any new regulations required. The DCA, as the lead Government player, has acknowledged the potential benefits of early preparation but also points to the risks of technical planning ahead of key policy decisions being made A wider issue in relation to the drafting of legislation is the increasing complexity of the legal framework. One Regional Returning Officer suggested that many of those working on election management in his region had simply not had time to read the new regulations and operated in practice on the basis of the knowledge base from previous elections. This pragmatic approach undoubtedly applied in other areas. While understandable, however, it is clearly not in the interests of effective administration There are now around a dozen different types of election that take place in the UK, but each set of elections has its own rules. In practice, many election rules are duplicated, sometimes with small differences which present difficulties when there is a combination of elections. Returning Officers have argued increasingly in recent years that the consolidation of primary and secondary legislation would be extremely useful, would make matters much clearer and regulations much easier to understand. The Commission supports this view. As a step towards greater clarity, the 2004 regulations were drafted by the Government as a full text, rather than a list of amendments to other legislation as in previous years Frequent changes to regulations are caused in part by the very detailed nature of the controls on the electoral process. Compared to other aspects of public service, the electoral process can appear excessively regulated. To some extent this is a consequence of the need for consistency within elections, although there are significant areas of the process where discretion is left to the Returning Officer. The reality is that prescription in some areas has become embedded in the process and is relied upon by those administering and standing in elections. Many election professionals would prefer certainty over flexibility The Commission believes it is essential to strike a balance between over-prescription and inappropriate local discretion. This is ever more necessary as the process of electoral modernisation moves forward and new regulations are required with increasing frequency. The way forward is perhaps to identify the core elements in relation to which prescription is needed, e.g. the timetable, nomination process and the ballot paper, with other elements being more flexible. We will consider these issues further in developing our proposed foundation model for future UK elections. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

25 23 Combination of elections 2.16 In May 2003, following a period of consultation, the Government announced its intention to combine the local council elections in England scheduled for May 2004, including the Greater London Authority elections, such that they would be held at the same time as the European Parliamentary elections scheduled for June A key factor that the Government identified in its proposal to combine the elections, described in its consultation paper, 12 was that the timing of different elections could have a negative impact on turnout Parliament subsequently approved the necessary legislation in March 2004, when the Local Elections (Ordinary Day of Election) Order 2004 and the Representation of the People (Combination of Polls) (England and Wales) Regulations 2004 were passed. The Order and Regulations gave effect to provisions of Section 103 of the Local Government Act 2003 and provided generally for the combination of Parliamentary, European Parliamentary and local government elections and specifically for combination in The Welsh Assembly Government initially maintained its intention to hold the local government elections in Wales separately from the European Parliamentary elections a month later. However, following a change of administration after the National Assembly elections held on 1 May 2003, the new Welsh 12 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2003) Combining English local authority, Greater London Assembly and European Parliamentary elections in Assembly Government announced on 23 September 2003 its proposal to postpone the local elections by a further month and launched a consultation on 21 October On 27 November the Welsh Assembly Government announced that, following its consultation, the elections for local councils and community councils would be postponed to be combined with the European Parliamentary elections on 10 June Using enabling provisions of the Local Government Act 2003, Section 104, the National Assembly made the Local Government (Ordinary Day of Election) (Wales) Order 2004 which came into effect on 1 March Reduction in the number of MEPs 2.20 Under the terms of the Treaty of Nice, the total number of MEPs elected by each existing member state of the European Union was reduced in order to accommodate new member states. The Treaty of Accession, signed in Athens in April 2003, provided for 10 states to accede to the European Union on 1 May 2004 and specified that the UK would have 78 seats in the European Parliament rather than 87. This necessitated a recalculation of the number of MEPs that each region returns On 13 October 2003 the Lord Chancellor formally directed The Electoral Commission to make a recommendation as to the distribution between the electoral regions of 78 MEP seats. The Commission s recommendations were published later that same month and approved by Parliament. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

26 24 Gibraltar 2.22 The European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 provided for Gibraltar to be enfranchised for elections to the European Parliament. These new provisions followed a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in 1999 which found the UK Government to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights for failing to allow Gibraltarians to vote or stand in the elections to the European Parliament in There are fewer than 20,000 voters in Gibraltar, which is too small a number to create a separate electoral region. Accordingly, the procedure set out in the Act provided for the Commission to identify an existing European Parliamentary electoral region in England or Wales with which Gibraltar should be combined The Commission consulted the Governor, the Chief Minister and the leader of each political party represented in the House of Assembly of Gibraltar, in accordance with the Act, as part of a wide-ranging consultation exercise. In August 2003, the Commission recommended that the South West region should be combined with Gibraltar. This recommendation was approved by Parliament and came into force in February The impact of combination 2.25 When the proposal to combine the local elections with the European Parliamentary election was put to consultation both in England and Wales, there was much concern among 13 The European Parliamentary Elections (Combined Region and Campaign Expenditure)(United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order Electoral Services Managers about the impact of combination on the administration of the election. This was a particular concern given the nature of the local elections scheduled for 2004, with a large number of English metropolitan boroughs conducting rare all-out elections on new boundaries and all authorities in Wales conducting whole council elections, alongside town and community council elections Despite being the subject of enormous apprehension among parties and administrators, particularly due to the possibility of increased voter confusion, in most parts of the UK with combined elections relatively few problems were encountered. The two major exceptions, outside the four pilot regions, were London and Wales. But even here, the evidence available to us suggests that the biggest challenge to the safe conduct of the elections was not so much combination in itself (the alternative, after all, was to have run two sets of elections within a month) but the late decision-making and the levels of postal voting on demand. Wales 2.27 The UK Government s decision to combine the local government elections in England with the European Parliamentary elections was known a year in advance for election planning purposes. The lateness of the decision to postpone the elections in Wales was criticised by many electoral administrators on the grounds of the planning difficulties it caused. One electoral administrator commented that: The impact of combination of elections on the staff in our electoral office was immense. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

27 25 The experience was hellish and there were many times when the tasks at hand had seemed unachievable. The fact that the elections were achieved was due to the dedication of staff, but this was at the expense of their health and well being However, although this experience was reported to us from many Electoral Services Managers in local authorities, it was not a universal experience. The different experience arose primarily as a result of the number of elections being contested, as well as the level of postal voting on demand locally. Where the two levels were comparatively low the administrative burden was reduced. The difference does not reflect variable degrees of planning and organisation or the experience of staff. Several of the most experienced electoral staff in Wales told us the combined elections this year left them feeling exhausted, demoralised and, for some, considering alternative employment or retirement. London 2.29 Across London, administrators similarly reported considerable complications and difficulties. One went as far as describing the June election as the most complicated combined election ever dreamt up by man. If the elections had not been combined, any amendments to the Greater London Authority (GLA) election rules would have been expected to be in place by July In the period before the rules (the GLA Elections (Amendment) 14 For more information see The Electoral Commission (2004) Local elections in Wales 2004: The official report on the local elections 10 June Regulations 2004) were laid, there were several changes in Government approach, and there were some late unexpected changes to the rules. As the GLA s own internal report notes, This made it difficult to predict with certainty what the final rules would say on particular issues These delays and uncertainties had several impacts on the planning and management of the elections, especially in relation to the management of the London aspects of the elections. Most importantly, it was difficult accurately or reliably to manage the budget for the project in the absence of a final decision on combination and, following the decision to combine the polls, without an agreement as to how the costs of the elections would be shared between the Government and the GLRO. 16 The rules for the combined elections removed the Greater London Returning Officer s ability to control the wording of certain documentation (powers which had been allowed under the rules for the GLA elections in 2000). Funding 2.31 With the exception of the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland, 17 Regional Returning Officers and Local Returning Officers are paid a fee for their services. They are also entitled to recover the costs of running the election from the Consolidated Fund through the DCA. Levels of Regional Returning Officers and Local Returning Officers fees and allowable expenses are laid 15 Report to Greater London Returning Officer from Director of GLA Secretariat (30 September 2004) Greater London Authority and European Parliament Elections, 10 June 2004 An Initial Review. 16 Ibid. 17 A permanent salaried office holder. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

28 26 down in regulations. Securing the funds involves a detailed and complex claim for reimbursement. For combined elections, the claims system is made even more complicated by the fact that the cost of conducting local elections is borne by local authorities themselves The total budget set aside by the DCA for funding the elections was 57 million, of which 34.6 million was earmarked for payments to Regional and Local Returning Officers in England and Wales. 18 The Scotland Office allocated 6.8 million for election administration and the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland 1.5 million. In addition, the DCA allocated a further 13.2 million to meet the extra costs of all-postal pilots in England The Fees and Charges Orders for the European Parliamentary elections were made on 3 and 6 May 2004, setting out the specified levels of funding available for different areas of activity. Regional and Local Returning Officers were particularly critical of the lateness of the Charges Order, and its crucial guidance notes, leaving them little time to plan around it. Complaints also surfaced in relation to the process for providing of advances (typically up to 90% of the estimated full claim) Despite negotiations centrally between the DCA and the Regional Returning Officers, concerns were raised by many Local Returning Officers over the size of the overall pot, the allocation of funds to specific tasks, the million was reserved for payment to Royal Mail for delivery of freepost leaflets. A further 3.4 million was set aside by the Scotland Office, and 0.5 million in Northern Ireland. See Chapter 4 for further information. gap between the resources available and the increasing volume of administrative work to be carried out especially in managing postal voting in Great Britain. The relative numbers of registered postal voters in a local authority area were not taken into account in determining the funding formula. While this may have worked when postal voters typically made up less than 1% or 2% of the electorate it is a far more fundamental issue when postal voters represent up to 30% of the register In Scotland, Returning Officers also pointed to the inadequacy of the Fees and Charges Order in meeting modern management and presentational costs, e.g. ICT support, media management and presentational issues. Local Returning Officers also argued that payments to Deputy Returning Officers and other senior staff should be met from specific allocations within the Fees and Charges Order rather than being bound up in the Returning Officer s fee. More explicit fees for these roles would recognise the need to deliver elections in a modern business environment. This point would undoubtedly be echoed by others across Great Britain In 2004, as in previous years, many local authorities argued that insufficient central funding meant that they were obliged to provide subsidies from local authority funds. Establishing the extent (or existence) of such subsidies is almost impossible because of the complexities of the funding mechanisms and the combination of elections. It is perhaps ironic that a highly bureaucratic approach nevertheless provides a distinct lack of transparency in terms of actual outcomes. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

29 The Commission has previously recommended greater autonomy for Returning Officers in determining and accounting for expenditure within a fixed overall formula. We believe that such changes would recognise the professionalism that local authorities bring to elections and, if linked to the delivery of national standards, secure greater value-formoney than the present arrangements. We are therefore pleased that the Government has recently indicated its intention to consider ways of giving Returning Officers more flexibility alongside clearer performance standards. 19 The key players Regional and Local Returning Officers 2.38 Statutory elections in the UK are regulated by legislation but organised, conducted and administered by an independent Returning Officer. In Great Britain, this is usually the Chief Executive of a local authority or another senior officer. At European Parliamentary elections, a single Regional Returning Officer is appointed for each of the 12 European electoral regions. In each region within Great Britain, a number of Local Returning Officers report to the Regional Returning Officer. In Northern Ireland, the Chief Electoral Officer fulfils the responsibilities of Returning Officer at all elections and therefore acts as Regional Returning Officer for European elections; his own staff also act as Local Returning Officers at these elections In 2004, following lobbying from Returning Officers, and to make the combination with local 19 The Government s response to The Electoral Commission s report: Voting for change (December 2004) Cm elections easier, the Government determined that the European Parliamentary elections in England and Wales would be arranged, delivered and counted based on local government electoral areas rather than the UK Parliamentary constituency boundaries as in The Returning Officer for the local authority area therefore had to exercise the functions of the Local Returning Officer for each area In Scotland, however, where there were no ordinary local elections, the elections continued to be conducted at Parliamentary constituency level and the European elections Local Returning Officer was the Acting Returning Officer for Parliamentary elections in that constituency. Appointment of Regional Returning Officers 2.41 The Regional Returning Officer in each electoral region is responsible in their region for: all aspects of the nomination procedure; determining the form of the ballot paper, and if they so direct, printing and arranging for distribution to Local Regional Officers of the ballot papers; authorising the announcement locally of the count details to Local Regional Officers; calculating the results of the election within the region and allocating seats to candidates; announcing the results of the elections in the region and publishing those results; and notifying the names and other details of elected MEPs to the Secretary of State. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

30 An application process was used by the DCA to select the Regional Returning Officers for all but two regions. 20 In the areas that were subject to open competition, only three regions were actually contested and in practice it tended to be the old hands who were selected for appointment. Of the 10 Regional Returning Officers appointed through the selection process, five had personally been a Regional Returning Officer in 1999 (although one of these stepped down from their local government post and was replaced by his successor in that post) and two others were Chief Executives of local authorities which had provided the Regional Returning Officers in 1999, so were able to rely on experienced election professionals In London, the Greater London Returning Officer was designated as the Regional Returning Officer for London, as the Greater London Authority and the London region for the European Parliamentary elections cover the same geographical area. The DCA decided in addition to appoint a Deputy Regional Returning Officer for the European Parliamentary elections, by open competition which was contested. 20 Those not subject to competitive selection were Northern Ireland (where there is a permanent Electoral Office headed by a Chief Electoral Officer) and London (where the combination of election made it logical that the Greater London Returning Officer also be appointed as Regional Returning Officer). Regional Returning Officers, 2004 Northern Ireland Scotland Wales Eastern East Midlands London North East North West South East South West Yorkshire & the Humber West Midlands Denis Stanley, Chief Electoral Officer Tom Aitchison, Chief Executive, the City of Edinburgh Council Bryn Parry-Jones, Chief Executive, Pembrokeshire County Council David Monks, Chief Executive, Huntingdonshire District Council Roger Morris, Chief Executive, Northampton Borough Council Antony Mayer, Chief Executive, Greater London Assembly (Deputy: David Wechsler, Chief Executive, Croydon Borough Council) Colin Sinclair (replaced by Ged Fitzgerald), Chief Executive, Sunderland City Council Sir Howard Bernstein, Chief Executive, Manchester City Council Steven Lake, Electoral Registration Officer, South Oxfordshire District Council Paul Morris, Electoral Registration and Returning Officer, Borough of Poole Paul Rogerson, Chief Executive, Leeds City Council Lin Homer, Chief Executive, Birmingham City Council European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

31 The Commission welcomed the use of a competitive recruitment process in 2004 and hopes it will be repeated in the future. The selection criteria for the next European Parliamentary elections in 2009 will also need to take into account changes in the legal and wider context in the intervening period. Given the likely pace and scope of the Government s electoral modernisation programme over the next five years, the role of Regional Returning Officer will be crucial. This will be a particular consideration if there are pilot schemes of any sort at those elections. We anticipate that all those appointed will need to have the resources at their disposal to undertake a significant level of coordination, project management and the status within the region to resolve problems where they arise. Relationships between Regional Returning Officers and Local Returning Officers 2.45 In Great Britain, the Local Returning Officer is responsible in their local authority area for: the conduct of the poll including the appointment of polling station staff; arranging training for polling station staff; the issue of poll cards; arranging for the printing of the ballot papers to be used in their area unless otherwise directed by the Regional Returning Officer; the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers; the verification of the ballot paper accounts; counting the votes in that local authority area; informing the Regional Returning Officer of the number of valid votes each party and individual candidate (where relevant) received and details of the invalid votes; and publishing a notice locally with these results The existence of the Regional Returning Officer function does not imply or require coordinated election planning across each region. In practice, all Regional Returning Officers undertook some form of cross-regional communication. But the nature of this varied significantly dependent on the capacity of the lead authority, the resources available (e.g. in Scotland, the Regional Returning Officer produced a professionally designed monthly newsletter to keep all local authorities informed) and pre-existing relationships among Local Returning Officers. Some areas employed formal project management and sub-regional coordination to enhance their planning and communication; this was a positive feature Some aspects of election management were subject to a degree of regional planning certainly that was true of the timing of the European Parliamentary count. Moreover, in a combined election, the higher order election 21 takes precedence and the election rules for the combined election, such as hours of poll, follow those for the higher election. As a result, Local Returning Officers needed to follow the advice of the Regional Returning Officer on aspects of the combined elections which would otherwise be matters for local discretion. For example, in Wales, decisions were made locally on colours of the three different ballot papers on the advice of the Regional Returning Officer, where the European Parliamentary ballot paper was to be white. 21 Legally, there is a hierarchy of elections which determines that European Parliamentary elections (and general elections) are higher order than elections to local authorities, including elections for the Greater London Assembly and London Mayor. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

32 It is also interesting to note that a consultation process with Regional Returning Officers in Great Britain had resulted in the granting of a new legal power of direction, to give them greater authority over Local Returning Officers. However, our evidence suggests that some Regional Returning Officers felt uncomfortable exercising this new authority; the power of direction was in fact only employed in two pilot areas and in none of the non-pilot areas. The reluctance to use these powers appeared to reflect primarily a concern or commitment to proceed by way of consensus wherever possible, although there was also some nervousness about seeking to dictate to peers In Northern Ireland, a different approach operated as the nine Local Returning Officers are all permanent employees of the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland. The Chief Electoral Officer has argued that this makes for a considerably more efficient process as he can determine the approach across the electoral region and communicate through established channels to his staff When compared with the common European practice of more central control of elections, UK candidates, agents and political parties find that electoral practice varies considerably according to where the election is held. The political parties regularly tell us that they welcome a consistent approach in as much of electoral practice as possible. This creates a level playing field, they argue, and helps candidates know what to expect. Benefits can also accrue from a coordinated and planned approach to administrative issues such as design and printing of election stationery and forms. There are likely to be economies of scale in coordination on these kinds of administrative tasks, and benefits in terms of information management, as one election professional pointed out: Although we would wish to use our normal printer it might be helpful if the Regional Returning Officer could ascertain and advise a list of printers in the various local authority areas who are able to handle very large ballot papers should we need to approach them. Local Returning Officer, Eastern region 2.51 One way of achieving a more efficient administrative management system would be to boost the capacity and authority of Regional Returning Officers, through dedicated management resources at regional level and a greater use of the power of direction. Such resources and structures would ensure that up-to-date information could have been shared, approaches coordinated and practice decisions jointly considered. We will explore these issues further through our recently established Electoral Leadership Forum which all serving Regional Returning Officers have been invited to join. Relationships between Returning Officers, parties and candidates 2.52 In previous reports, we have recommended as a matter of good practice that Returning Officers should organise briefing meetings for candidates and agents. This is now the practice in many areas, in one form or another, and does help to ensure that candidates are better informed, contact is established and problems pre-empted or ironed out relatively quickly. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

33 31 For the European Parliamentary elections, it is primarily the Regional Returning Officer who takes responsibility for the nomination process, but Local Returning Officers who liaise with candidates and agents in relation to the wider management processes, including the count arrangements The Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, in a joint discussion paper for the Commission on the June elections, said As usual, matters generally ran more smoothly where Returning Officers were willing to give an informal check of the [nomination] paperwork before formal submission. They also reported that meetings were held in many areas, but added These usually seemed to be held so that the Returning Officer could tell the parties how they would be running the election. They were usually held at the convenience of the Returning Officer. 22 Examples of good communication between administrators and parties included the production of information packs for candidates, using either local material or that produced centrally by The Electoral Commission as well as informative guides at regional count venues However, some shortcomings in communications provoked delays, confusion and inefficiencies on both sides. In particular, concerns were raised by some Returning Officers about the relationship with agents and sub-agents. A lack of communication between agents and one Local Returning Officer s staff, for example, resulted in one party being unable to appoint counting agents in the eastern region because their request was received after the deadline. 22 Joint submission of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties to The Electoral Commission on aspects of the elections held on 10 June. Central government 2.55 The DCA is responsible for legislation and policy relating to the European Parliamentary elections. The Department works with government colleagues in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales in this process. In 2004, as a result of the combination with local elections in England, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) was also involved at the centre. Returning Officers in England reported that this led to some confusion as to which department was ultimately responsible not least because the Election Claims Unit (which all Local Returning Officers staff had contact about their advances ahead of the election date) is officially a responsibility of the DCA, but in practice is staffed by ODPM. The extra dimension of the Commission itself (not in existence in 1999) also added to the confusion There were a number of positive improvements reported over 1999, when the process had been managed in Whitehall by the Home Office operating with a far smaller team. In 2004, Regional Returning Officers felt more involved in the process, through membership of a regular liaison group and noticed more openness and transparency than previous years. For the four pilot regions there was also a dedicated project board, with representatives of the DCA, ODPM, The Electoral Commission and the four Regional Returning Officers. This was warmly welcomed by the four regions concerned and also benefited others in ensuring that the wider liaison meetings were not dominated by pilot issues. In addition, the decision to produce consolidated European Parliamentary elections regulations, rather than a table of amendments to other legislation, was welcomed as improved practice. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

34 However, it was not all good news. Electoral administrators on the ground have reported to us that they frequently felt ill-informed, for example, about the progress of relevant legislation and decisions which impacted on the organisation of the election. In Northern Ireland, there were significant errors in the new regulations made for the elections. More generally, as we have already indicated, there were a number of key decisions governing this year s elections which were made late: late decisions by Parliament on the shape and location of electoral pilot schemes in England and late making of legislation governing the conduct of the election more generally This was felt particularly in Wales, where the effect of combination exacerbated the situation. One Returning Officer encapsulated the views of many election managers in Wales about the situation when they wrote to us: The secondary legislation, [Electoral Commission] guidance, training materials and booklets all arrived too late in the process. The major blame must lie with the UK Government for making the secondary legislation so late, which will have affected the Commission s timetable for producing training material. A perfect example is the Welsh Forms Order 2004 which was made on 17 May and came into force on 19 May. This was perilously late for arranging printing of forms, ballot papers, etc. We did not receive notification of the Welsh Forms Order from the Department for Constitutional Affairs until its newsletter 6/04 dated 28 June braidd yn hwyr! [somewhat late!] Local Returning Officer, Wales 2.59 It is clearly important to try to avoid these problems for the future. The DCA has already agreed with Regional Returning Officers that a full management procedure would be extremely useful in maintaining the momentum created by the collaboration in these elections, preparing for future elections and avoiding potential pitfalls. 23 A clear timetable for the production of legislation and its dissemination would also have eased the situation. Equally, the Government may wish to consider specifying in appointing Regional Returning Officers a minimum level of communication within the region expected as part of their fee, so it can be confident that information given to Regional Returning Officers centrally is being passed swiftly down the line to Local Returning Officers. The Electoral Commission 2.60 Unlike many Electoral Commissions outside the UK, the Commission does not have a responsibility for maintaining and updating electoral rolls, employing electoral administration staff or conducting elections. Nor does the Commission have powers to direct, monitor or resolve complaints in relation to the work of Returning Officers, who are constitutionally independent office holders. Our role in the administration and management of elections is limited to commenting on proposed statutory instruments governing the conduct of the elections, offering training and advice on administrative issues to Returning Officers, their staff, candidates and agents during the process, and reporting after the event. 23 Minutes of meeting of the Regional Returning Officers, hosted by the DCA, 1 July European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

35 The Commission s separate statutory responsibilities in promoting public awareness of current and pending electoral systems in the UK and current and pending systems of local and national government in the UK, as well as the institutions of the European Union, 24 are examined in further detail in the next chapter. Training for Returning Officers and electoral administrators 2.62 The Commission undertook a training programme at these elections to achieve three goals: that professional elections staff were provided with clear guidance on the procedures and legal framework for managing the elections; that voter-facing temporary staff were equipped to deal accurately with the most common queries from electors and understand their duties; and that all staff involved in the delivery of the election had a clear understanding of the equal access and quality of service principles that underpin the election process The project covered the 12 European Parliamentary regions of the UK and produced separate material for regions holding traditional elections and for the four English regions holding an all-postal ballot. In addition, separate material for Northern Ireland and Welsh language translations of all relevant materials were produced. 24 Section 13 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act Key products included handbooks for Returning Officers and their staff, open and flexible learning materials to be used at training events or in self-paced training, and materials for polling station and Assistance and Delivery Point staff. The Commission also trialled e-learning products for the first time in 2004 and has learned useful lessons on the design of such tools for the future The Commission arranged for the training in the London region to be delivered by the Greater London Returning Officer (London Elects) in conjunction with training for London mayoral and Assembly elections. In Northern Ireland separate arrangements were made with the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland to recognise the different structure of delivery of the electoral process, and separate legislation and electoral procedures. In the other regions the training was delivered through facilitated events for Returning Officers and electoral administrators who in turn cascaded it to their staff An independent evaluation of the project, conducted by Deloitte, noted that it achieved a great deal. Several key members of the electoral community were involved with the development process, a number of valuable documents were created and good working relationships were maintained. However, some administrators reported that the hard copies of the materials would have been more useful if received earlier. The Deloitte evaluation also found that the sessions delivered to Returning Officers did not wholly meet their expectations, which was echoed in comments made at post-election events. This has informed the Commission s European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

36 34 approach to training events at both the North East regional referendum and plans for future electoral events In relation to the content of the training materials, Deloitte s evaluation concluded that overall, the materials produced were of a high quality and the content was felt to be accurate and with the right tone. In addition to this, a large majority of respondents stated that they appreciated the provision of the materials in general and they were well received. The large majority of documents are reusable and will serve as the foundation for future Commission projects. The evaluation report also noted that a large number of those responding to the evaluation were positive about the efforts of the Commission s staff and the project team and the role of the Commission going forward as regards training is seen as necessary within the electoral community particularly as the more experienced staff retire, and new staff replace them. 25 Ninety per cent of polling station staff responded that they had found the training useful. Guidance to Returning Officers and electoral administrators 2.68 Another important facet of the Commission s role is the provision of guidance. The Commission published two comprehensive guidance documents for Returning Officers on the conduct of the election in Great Britain (one for pilot regions and one for non-pilot regions) and 16 additional circulars with advice on interpretation 25 Deloitte (October 2004) Evaluation of European Parliamentary elections training project. A summary of the report has been published on the Commission s electoral administration extranet and can be obtained from the Commission. of the law and good practice in relation to fraud issues for electoral administrators A helpline was also set up for parties and electoral administrators, with expanded capacity to deal with enquiries and requests for advice as compared to previous election events. The provision of guidance was generally well received but, as with training materials, concerns were raised about the late timing of the Commission s circulars (a direct consequence of the late introduction of key legislative provisions). Guidance to political parties, candidates and agents on the administration of the elections 2.70 In addition to guidance for Returning Officers and their staff, the Commission produced a guidance manual for candidates and agents. This was made available on our website and, along with other material, on a CD-ROM circulated to the main political parties. Some Returning Officers provided website links to the Commission s guidance from their own local authority websites and many included copies of, or reference to, the guidance in their candidate packs The content of the guidance proved to be popular, with positive feedback received from political parties, candidates and agents, and Electoral Services Managers. Some parties also called for additional, simplified guidance, in a short form, setting out the basics of the electoral process for inexperienced candidates. At the same time, the larger political parties wanted the guidance to go into greater practical detail covering issues such as the wearing of party rosettes on election day and the use of European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

37 35 loudspeakers near polling stations. It was also suggested that the guidance should have differentiated between individual and party list candidates to provide separate, more targeted advice for both groups. The Commission will take account of all these suggestions in revising the guidance for future elections Unfortunately, the delays in finalising the legislation applying to the elections, referred to earlier in this chapter, meant that the Commission s guidance to candidates (based on that legislation) was circulated later than would have been wished. This led to complaints from parties and candidates from both directions; some of the main political parties complained that the Commission s guidance was too late and came after the parties had issued their own guidance, while some candidates complained that legislative references in the guidance were out of date the legislation having been made after the guidance was issued The Commission also published a draft code of conduct for political parties on postal voting in advance of the election. Despite being widely seen as a potentially valuable tool, the draft was the subject of some concern and confusion. Parties regarded some of the contents of the code as controversial and (although consulted on the proposed text by the Commission via the Westminster Parliamentary Parties Panel) suggested that they had not been clear that it would be made publicly available in draft form. In addition, the voluntary nature of the code was not always understood. As a result, some political parties were unhappy that they risked being criticised for not signing up fully to the draft by the media (and some Returning Officers) who viewed the code as compulsory We have commented in more detail on these issues in Delivering democracy? The future of postal voting (2004). The Commission is now working to revise the draft code in the light of feedback received after the June elections. Preparations for 10 June Registration 2.75 The starting point for any election is the electoral register. In a number of our published reports, we have highlighted the significance of electoral registration and made clear that we view electoral registration as the lynchpin of the electoral process. It is therefore a concern that in public opinion research conducted across the UK for the Commission by ICM after the European Parliamentary elections, 26 12% of non-voters said they were not registered to vote, while a further 5% did not know whether they were registered The Commission has previously urged the Government to move to a system of individual registration in Great Britain, as the key building block on which safe and secure remote elections can be delivered. Individual registration is also an important element in our recommendations to Government for improvement of the process and security of postal voting. 27 The electoral registration system in Northern Ireland is already conducted on the basis of individual registration. 26 ICM and Professor John Curtice (2004) The June 2004 Elections The Public s Perspective. 27 The Electoral Commission (2003) Voting for change and (2004) Delivering democracy? The future of postal voting. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

38 36 In relation to Great Britain, the Government has recently indicated its sympathy for the principles of individual registration, while also noting the importance of maintaining a comprehensive register In 2004, the cut off date for registration to ensure an entitlement to vote at the European Parliamentary elections was 13 April 2004 nearly two months before the actual election, at a time when few potential voters were aware that an election was looming. This reflects standard UK practice. The Commission has previously argued that registration cut off dates fall far too early in the process and this was reinforced by examination of practice in some other European countries, where registration for the elections was either not an issue at all (because a standard population register was used and was updated on a rolling basis) or was permitted far closer to the registration date including on polling day, in some cases The eligible electorate for elections in the UK varies according to the type of election. For elections to the European Parliament, the franchise covers all those entitled to vote in local elections, which goes wider than those entitled to vote in elections to the House of Commons This franchise is determined within member states and is therefore not consistent across the European Union. However, one change to the franchise in 2004 did apply Union-wide. Ten new states acceded to the European Union on 28 The Government s response to The Electoral Commission s report: Voting for change (December 2004) Cm May 2004 and would therefore take part in the elections to the European Parliament the following June. Two European Council directives directed that these citizens should be able to vote at the European Parliamentary elections wherever their place of residence within the European Union. Citizens of two accession states Cyprus and Malta were already entitled to register in the UK as qualifying Commonwealth citizens if they were resident in the UK. The Local and European Parliamentary Elections (Registration of Citizens of Accession States) Regulations 2003 were made to allow Electoral Registration Officers to add citizens of other accession states resident in the UK to their registers prior to 1 May, although these citizens registration only became active after that date. The Commission supplied a form, available in all official languages, for use by Electoral Registration Officers in implementing these regulations It is also notable that systems of administration of registration vary across the UK. There is no UK-wide, centrally administered voter register, a fact found alarming by our European administrative counterparts. The management and administration of electoral registers is undertaken at local authority level in England and Wales, but centrally by the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland and typically on a crossauthority basis by assessors in Scotland. Work is underway to develop a co-ordinated online register of electors (CORE) 29 which would bring together the existing local registers. 29 The Electoral Commission (2004) Response to ODPM consultation paper. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

39 37 Registration: European practice Voter registration procedures vary substantially across the European Union, although all countries allow citizens the right to vote at 18. A key determinant of how a country s electoral register is produced appears to be whether a country has a national register of citizens. Many countries including Sweden, Holland, Germany and Belgium, draw information from this register in order to create an electoral register. Others, such as the UK and Ireland, undertake an annual household canvass. Differences in how the registers are produced naturally mean that different organisations assume responsibility for compiling them, from local authorities to central electoral management bodies. In Latvia, the 2004 elections were the first at which an electoral register had been used. Previously, voters could go to any polling station and the elector s passport was stamped to prevent multiple voting. There are various examples of good practice in the management of electoral registers across Europe. In Malta, for example, the electoral register is published for comment on 31 March, before being finalised at the end of April. Similarly in Spain the electoral register is made public a week before the election; people who find that they are mistakenly not on the register can apply to the census office for a certificate authorising them to vote. Both these practices allow voters the opportunity to confirm their inclusion in the register and ensure there is an opportunity to rectify mistakes that would otherwise disenfranchise voters The Electoral Commission is undertaking research on under-registration, on registration rates across local authorities and in particular socio-economic communities. Our research includes comparisons between electoral registration data, Census and other population data. We will draw on this research in order to develop best practice guidance on tackling under-registration for use by Electoral Registration Officers and ourselves. We expect to publish our findings in spring Nominations 2.82 Nomination papers for candidates had to be received not later than 4pm on the sixth working day after the last day for the issue of the notice of election. That day was 13 May in areas where conventional elections were taking place and 11 May in pilot areas Since 1999, in order to bring the UK system more into line with its European counterparts, Scotland, Wales and England have employed a system of closed list proportional representation (PR) for European Parliamentary elections. Both parties and independents can put forward nominations. In the case of parties, the candidates names are submitted by party European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

40 38 nominating officers in the order in which they are to appear on the ballot paper Nominations had to be accompanied by a deposit of 5000 (per list, or per individual candidate). No supporters signatures are required. The deposit was refundable to those polling at least 2.5% of the vote in that electoral region (in Northern Ireland, the threshold was one quarter of the quota). In the event, 39 party lists forfeited their deposits and two independent candidates saved theirs, although they were not elected Martin Bell in the Eastern region and Neil Herron in the North East. The Commission has previously recommended that the deposit should be scrapped for European Parliamentary elections or, if that is not favoured, that a standard deposit of 500 be applied. The Government has recently indicated that it intends to proceed in line with the latter proposal. 30 Nomination procedures: a European perspective Wide variations in nomination deadlines can be found throughout Europe. In Slovakia for example, the deadline for registration of candidates was in early April and in Estonia it was 29 April. Danish candidates had to be nominated by early May, no less than four weeks before polling day, while candidates in Greece could be nominated until 26 May. Sweden presents a particularly interesting comparison. Here there are no formal deadlines for nominations at all. Political groups may order and distribute ballot papers right up until 30 The Government s response to The Electoral Commission s report: Voting for change (December 2004) Cm election day itself. With the open list PR voting system in Sweden voters may vote only for parties or can choose their most favoured candidate on the party list. In Belgium, the rule was that voting lists had to have equal numbers of male and female candidates. In addition, the first three names on the list had to include at least one man and one woman. Administration of the nomination process 2.85 The Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, in their joint discussion paper for the Commission on the June elections, said: Generally the nomination process was straightforward. One issue that caused concern was that Returning Officers issued different forms to The Electoral Commission. This led to some early confusion as instructions issued by the parties to regional agents didn t completely match the Returning Officers forms. The parties did not come across any significant differences between the different parts of the UK in the nomination process.... As the forms produced by The Electoral Commission allowed for their completion specifically separating the name of the Registered Party and the description of candidates on the ballot paper, the use of a different description was straightforward Joint submission of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties to The Electoral Commission on aspects of the elections held on 10 June. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

41 One specific issue that caused problems related to a prospective candidate in the North West who turned 21 between nomination day and polling day. Inconsistent statutory provisions and no clear legal precedents led to uncertainty over the correct approach to take. We have separately recommended the reduction of the candidacy threshold for all UK elections to 18 years old; we await a Government response. Whether or not this recommendation is accepted, it is clearly important that there is greater clarity in relation to the operation of the minimum age of candidature. The Commission intends to issue further advice to political parties on this matter as soon as practical In previous elections, the Commission has found that the timetable of election events in relation to nominations has thrown up some practical problems. These issues were exacerbated because of the combination of elections. For example, the last date for withdrawal of candidature in local elections is three statutory days after the close of nominations, when for European Parliamentary elections the last opportunity for withdrawal is the same as close of nominations. This five-day delay greatly increases pressure on the printing firms that produce ballot papers A further familiar problem was inconsistent practice in relation to the acceptability of commonly used names on nominations (and therefore ballot papers). The Commission has previously recommended standardisation of regulation in this regard and the evidence from the European Parliamentary elections serves to reinforce the need for this. We are therefore pleased that the Government has recently indicated its intention to act on our earlier recommendation The impact of nominations for the European Parliamentary election was minimal for Local Returning Officers, i.e. 420 out of 432 local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales, although 167 of these had to deal with nominations for local elections. The impact of the European Parliamentary nominations process was substantial, of course, on the local authorities where the Regional Returning Officers were based. Of the 12 Regional Returning Officers, six were also responsible for managing local elections (excluding the Greater London Returning Officer); many found this to be a significant burden. Election agents 2.90 Election agents are appointed by candidates to act on their behalf (unless the candidate decides to act for themself). The agent has a duty to ensure that the campaign is conducted in accordance with the relevant legal requirements. Sub-agents may be appointed to cover part of the constituency area. At European Parliamentary elections a sub-agent may be appointed for each Parliamentary constituency Some confusion was evident among the political parties about the notification procedures for election agents. In particular, not all nominating officers of parties putting up candidates in more than one electoral region complied with the requirement to notify the Secretary of State of the name and address of their national agent by the last date for withdrawal of nominations. The fact that this process was unclear seems to be attributable less to deficiencies in legislation European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

42 40 than to ineffective communication between parties, Regional Returning Officers and the DCA. Identification of polling places 2.92 A polling place is a geographical area designated by the appropriate council or, in the case of Northern Ireland, by the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland. It might be a particular building, a street or even a whole polling district. A polling station is the physical location where polling takes place. At a European Parliamentary election, it is up to the Local Returning Officer (or the Chief Electoral Officer in Northern Ireland) to decide on polling stations within the designated polling place As at most UK elections, a diverse range of venues was used to provide polling stations in June In some rural villages, polling stations were even located in private houses or vans. However, the use of church facilities was regarded as potentially problematic in some areas because 10 June was Corpus Christi. Use of schools also became an issue for some Returning Officers dramatically described as committing suicide in certain areas, in reference to the political objections likely to ensue Inadequacies in the Government funding available for polling stations were noted by many Local Returning Officers and this was cited as one of the principal reasons for being unable to provide modifications for disabled access. This issue is examined in more detail below. Staffing 2.95 Typically, a Local Returning Officer would need to employ several hundred polling staff to meet the needs of the European Parliamentary elections across the local authority area and in the largest single authority area over 1,000 staff. 32 Pay rates varied across the country. Most UK Returning Officers recruit from the ranks of local authority staff, although some initiated open recruitment exercises or used other regular local sources of election staff. Recruitment of suitable staff was a difficulty for some Local Returning Officers, especially in urban areas and those with a recent history of all-postal local elections rather than polling stations. The following comments are typical of those experiencing difficulties: Recruiting sufficient staff was a challenge, particularly when it is such a long polling day but without the level of interest generated by a general election. Over a quarter of the Presiding Officers we employed were new to the role a higher proportion than we would want at any election. Local Returning Officer Eastern region 2.96 The recruitment difficulties also meant that some regions reported a decline in the core skills especially counting and verification, although others reported a more positive experience. There was also significant variation in the numbers of staff deployed for counts. The main political parties reported some apparent lack of knowledge in relation to postal vote procedures: At one opening of postal ballot papers the declarations were not being removed prior to the opening of the ballot paper envelopes so that clerks were able to identify the voter once the Conservative 32 Figures from Birmingham City Council. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

43 41 agent realised what was happening this was stopped but this may have been more widespread In Northern Ireland, the Chief Electoral Officer encountered no problems with staffing, unlike the Assembly election in November The Chief Electoral Officer believes that this was due to the increase in fees for presiding officers and poll clerks when comparing the European Parliamentary election fees with those offered for the Assembly elections. Design of the ballot 2.98 Following the Commission s report on ballot paper design in 2003, significant changes to ballot paper design were employed in this year s elections, including a return to a portrait format for ease of counting However, the large size of the ballot paper in 2004 presented major problems across the UK. This was largely due to the presence of individual candidates names on the paper as well as the party names a measure supported by the Commission in the interests of providing voters with more information. The size of the ballot paper was found to be close to the maximum size for most of the specialist printers used by Returning Officers. In Scotland, for example, the space for each party on the ballot paper was increased from 25mm to 35mm compared to elections in 2003 (and contingency plans were put in place by the Regional Returning Officer to deal with the prospect of it being even larger). 33 Joint submission of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties to The Electoral Commission on aspects of the elections held on 10 June (July 2004) Although the final composition of the ballot paper cannot be determined until close of nominations, concern was raised that difficulties would have been provoked if larger printers had been required at short notice. The internal design must be fixed in advance to allow for production of the Braille template, which can reduce the flexibility of printers to cope with large ballot papers. These anxieties were also echoed elsewhere in the UK: We came close to having a real problem here. The size of the paper as it turned out to be was at the absolute maximum paper size my printer can handle and even then the size of the counterfoil was as small as could reasonably have been accepted. Any larger and it would have to have been dealt with by some other printer. Because ballot paper printing is a bit specialised (numbers, counterfoils, etc.) we always use the same printer and he always does an excellent job. To have found someone else at a very late stage might have meant at least delays in issuing postal votes and at worst having no ballot papers. Local Returning Officer Eastern region In practical terms, the consequence was that the papers were unwieldy and the ballot boxes heavy. Narrow counterfoils also led to some confusion and consequent writing on the ballot papers. In some cases, Regional Returning Officers also used a print that was below the font size recommended by the Royal National Institute of the Blind in order to ensure legibility. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

44 The Commission continues to believe that the inclusion of candidates names on ballot papers is important for voters. However, it is important that the price of this additional information is not to reduce the accessibility of the ballot paper through the use of small print. The changes made in 2004 were not made at short notice, but were a change from previous practice this evidently created problems. For future European Parliamentary elections, there will be more time available for advance planning and liaison with printers. It might also be useful for Regional Returning Officers to take responsibility across the region for identifying alternative printers, in case Local Returning Officers find that their usual suppliers are unable to meet the need. Ballot paper design across Europe There is great variation of ballot paper design throughout Europe. All candidates and parties are found on one ballot in Poland, resulting in a ballot paper that is over a half a metre wide. In Finland, a ballot paper contains only a simple circle. Each candidate has a corresponding number, listed on posters in the voting station. The voter writes the number in the circle on the ballot paper. In Belgium, voters fill in a circle against their preferred candidate s name. In Italy, the voter ticks the symbol of the party beside which are three blank lines to write in the name of three candidate preferences as an additional option. A different approach is the envelope model, originated in France and adopted in parts of Scandinavia, where candidate lists are printed on separate ballot papers, and piled on tables outside the polling station for voters to pick up. The control of voting and the secrecy lies not with the ballot paper, but with the envelope provided to the voter. The voter can accept the list order as is, or affect the list order by ticking a preferred candidate. Postal vote application and issuing A significant factor in June 2004 for voters, political parties and candidates, and electoral administrators was the increased availability of postal voting in Great Britain. In the 2001 general election, 3.9% of the electorate chose to vote by post, almost double the figure for This year s European Parliamentary elections saw a continuation of this trend, with 8.3% of the electorate issued with a postal vote in the UK s eight non-pilot regions. Overall, 37.4% of the UK electorate was issued with a postal vote. Across the non-pilot regions, 14.5% of ballots included in the count were postal and 44.1% across the UK. 34 Impact on administration This volume of postal voting impacted heavily on the administration of the election, especially where there were combined polls. This was described to us by many Electoral Services Managers, who largely had the same number of staff as 1999 to deal with substantially increased workloads. A significant difference in 2004 from the last combined national elections in 2001 was the requirement to issue all-postal ballot papers in one pack, rather than leaving European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process 34 Figures based on data supplied by Returning Officers and analysed for us by Professors Rallings and Thrasher of the Elections Centre at the University of Plymouth.

45 43 this to local discretion. One commented to us that the workload of his small team increased by 100% in terms of issuing postal votes. The problems created were also acknowledged by the main political parties: Part of the problem was that with increased postal voting there has been no equivalent increase in the number of staff in Electoral Registration Departments. They have had a lot more work [and] with rolling registration, etc. seem to be feeling very unhappy this has led to some early retirements leaving less experienced staff dealing with what is becoming a much more complex task Perhaps the biggest pressure point in 2004 was the deadline for last receipt of postal vote applications, at 5pm on the sixth day before close of poll. The late deadline is intended to be a safeguard for voters whose circumstances change at the last minute. If large numbers of postal vote applications are received on or close to the deadline, this means difficulty for Returning Officers in issuing postal votes. The problems this year related in particular to the delivery of large number of late postal vote applications by political parties Although party campaigns to encourage applications for postal votes are welcomed in principle by the Commission, it is obviously important that they do not impact adversely on the efficiency of the process especially if that leads to some applicants being disenfranchised. We have recommended in our 2004 report on postal voting, Delivering democracy?, that 35 Joint submission of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties to The Electoral Commission on aspects of the elections held on 10 June (July 2004). changes to legislation to address these concerns; the Government has recently indicated that they will consider one of the Commission s proposals in this regard For their part, the political parties were critical of what they perceived as delays in processing postal votes in some areas: Many people did not get their ballot papers prior to going away on the weekend of 5th June in [named borough] for example no postal ballot papers were issued until 1st of June, a subsequent batch were issued on 2nd of June and a final batch on Friday 4th June. There is no reason why local authorities cannot issue the first batch following close for changes to existing applications which was on 25th May for this particular election In Delivering democracy? we explored in some detail the main barriers to the efficient and timely issue and return of postal votes, including the election timetable. One key problem is that, because of the inflexibility of the regulations governing elections, lessons learnt from pilot schemes have not been able to be used to provide better postal voting on demand services. It is clear that the procedures underpinning the administration of postal voting have not kept pace with the large number of electors who now regard postal voting as their channel of choice. We have made a number of recommendations directed at improving the legal framework for management of postal votes. These are summarised at the end of this chapter. 36 The Government s response to The Electoral Commission s report: Voting for change (December 2004) Cm Joint submission of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties to The Electoral Commission on aspects of the elections held on 10 June (July 2004). European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

46 44 Royal Mail The support of Royal Mail was clearly essential to the successful management of the increased numbers of postal votes in non-pilot areas. Some anxieties were expressed that the necessary priority that Royal Mail gave to the four all-postal pilot schemes (commented on in greater detail in Delivering democracy?) would mean a commensurately poorer service in the other parts of the UK. In practice, there was no major decline in service, but localised deficiencies were noted including mixed-up mail shots and non-delivery of poll cards In London, several boroughs reported unacceptable delays in the delivery of postal ballot forms to electors, in one case of up to a week even within a borough s area, despite the envelopes being marked as urgent electoral material. The GLA Secretariat report on the election process also records: We did find some anecdotal reports of postal votes arriving after 10 June, and of boroughs receiving complaints about nondelivery of postal ballot papers. 159,704 of the applications for a postal vote (37.7%) did not result in actual postal votes being cast it is not yet clear how many of these missing postal votes were not delivered to voters, or were delayed in their return journey to the boroughs Report to Greater London Returning Officer from Director of Greater London Authority Secretariat (30 September 2004) Greater London Authority and European Parliament elections 10 June 2004 An Initial Review. The Commission understands that these issues are being investigated further by the London Assembly Elections Review Committee In Scotland, concern was expressed that promises made at senior level in Royal Mail did not always work through to local management and staff. Lack of locally identifiable Royal Mail contacts appeared to inhibit arrangements for getting approval to postal vote materials. Local Returning Officers also pointed to a lack of consistency between printing requirements described on the Royal Mail website and what was acceptable to Royal Mail managers. Insurance One important practical issue to emerge in 2004 was the difficulty experienced by Regional Returning Officers in securing insurance cover. The reluctance of insurers to offer cover appears to have been in part attributable to the complexity of the elections and the increased risk associated with all-postal voting, coupled with a generally more risk-averse insurance industry since While some coverage was obtained, central government also assisted with an indemnity arrangement for the Regional Returning Officers. The Commission continues to work with officials from the DCA to identify options for the future in this area, which may include legislative change. Election day Despite the pressures and complexities of the preparations, election day ran smoothly across almost all the non-pilot areas. Despite the pressures of organising this year s combined elections, the face of the election seen by the majority of voters was an effective European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

47 45 one on 10 June. By a margin of just under seven to one (76% against 11%), the public were satisfied with the voting arrangements in non-pilot areas and actual voters were more positive still 88% to 6%. Additionally, as in previous years, our research found particularly positive perceptions of polling station voting The one significant exception was in Northern Ireland, where three polling places in Derry came under stone and petrol bomb attack. The Electoral Office for Northern Ireland will be reviewing the location of these polling places. Across most of Northern Ireland, however, the Chief Electoral Officer reported few problems. Voting across Europe Electors who voted in polling stations voted on different days and at different times, depending on the country in which they were voting. Belgium had the most limited polling hours (five for the traditional poll and seven for e-voting), but the highest turnout. Voters in the Netherlands could vote between 7.30am and 9pm on Thursday 10 June. In common with other Irish elections, Irish voters could vote until 9pm on Friday, although as part of an experiment, polling stations opened two hours earlier than normal, at 7am, to enable people to vote on the way to work. Italy opened its polling stations on both Saturday, from 3pm until 10pm, and Sunday, from 7am until 10pm. 39 ICM and Professor John Curtice (2004) The June 2004 Elections The Public s Perspective. Lithuanian voters voted on Sunday between 7am and 8pm. One rare area of significant consistency, however, is the frequent selection of schools as polling places. Operation of polling stations Despite the overall success of the operation, there were some reported local problems. For example, in the London region, there were insufficient supplies of ballot papers in certain wards. In one Eastern ward there were also problems with a certain number of ballot papers being issued unstamped, therefore rendering them invalid Where there was combination of elections, this inevitably brought some confusion. We received reports of at least one polling station in a London borough where the presiding officer was informing those electors entitled to vote in local government elections only that they could not vote for London Assembly or Mayoral elections. This was rectified when pointed out by a political party but illustrates the level of potential confusion, even among staff. 40 Where there were combined elections, the time taken to place votes was also longer than it was in those areas where voters were only voting for European Parliamentary elections A small number of voters arrived at polling stations to vote in person even though they were shown on the polling station electoral register as having a postal vote. These were not people intending to perpetrate electoral fraud. 40 Joint submission of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties to The Electoral Commission on aspects of the elections held on 10 June (July 2004). European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

48 46 Some were people who had requested a permanent postal vote at elections in previous years or ticked a box on their annual canvass form requesting one some months previously. Some were intending voters who had agreed to tick a box requesting a postal vote as a result of political parties campaigning activities, without realising the significance of their actions. One elderly lady told an Electoral Commission observer, I just agreed to do it (tick the box) to get the party canvasser to go away. I didn t realise it meant I wouldn t be able to vote at the polling station In Northern Ireland, the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 produced a new requirement for photographic ID at polling stations. In June 2004, the Chief Electoral Officer reported that 2,622 people presented either invalid or no photographic identification at the European Parliamentary election. In percentage terms (0.5%) this was similar to the number presenting invalid or no photographic identification at the November 2003 Assembly election. Altogether 377 people out of the 2,622 (14.4%) turned up without any of the four forms of photographic identification. This was higher than at the November Assembly election where the equivalent percentage was 10.8%. The voter as customer : the European perspective The assistance and attitude of staff in polling stations is an important component in framing voters overall impressions of the voting process were polling staff able to assist voters with queries?; was there a relaxed atmosphere within the polling station itself? Small measures that can enhance voters experiences. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) point to some anecdotal examples of good practice. For example, the number of staff at polling stations in Cyprus was cited as creating a positive atmosphere, while Belgian polling staff would typically meet and greet voters as they entered polling stations and one local initiative in Brussels involved two people welcoming voters outside a polling place where there were several polling stations. The way polling staff are recruited might affect the feasibility of adopting such practices more widely. In Belgium (and Spain) staff are selected randomly from the register and are required to work in polling stations. In other places, there is a reliance on paid or unpaid volunteers. Ballot papers The main problem faced by voters in completing ballot papers (in polling stations and at home) in Great Britain appeared to be understanding the closed party list system, rather than choosing individual candidates. This was particularly troublesome where there were combined elections that used different voting systems above all in London, where three different voting systems were operating in parallel and polling staff were called upon to repeatedly explain the voting system. The impact of this on the number of valid votes is considered in subsequent chapters. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

49 One of the practical consequences of the increased size of ballot papers was the need to accommodate more paper in the ballot boxes than at previous elections: Because of the size of the paper there are problems about ballot box capacity. We issued all the boxes we had because we had to issue multiple boxes at most stations (up to six). Ballot boxes are not designed for such large ballot papers. The slits through which the papers are posted are of such a size that the papers need lots of folding and obviously the capacity of the boxes is much less with large papers. They re fine for other elections. Local Returning Officer Eastern region Where elections were combined, the Local Returning Officer had discretion to use either separate or combined ballot boxes. In London, it was decided to have separate boxes, which found favour with a number of electoral service staff: [separate ballot boxes at combined elections] was a wonderful innovation (and a long time coming). We should very much like this to become something which a Returning Officer could choose to use at a combined election whatever combination was being polled. It made verification so much quicker and easier thus resulting in a speedier declaration. We had no complaints from electors either at the polling station or in the office and only about four people put their papers in the wrong box. It seems so much more logical. Electoral Services Manager London borough In Wales, by contrast, most Local Returning Officers used one ballot box to receive votes for all three elections. The intent was to ensure that every vote for the three separate elections was counted and not missed. A small number of local authorities did, however, use three ballot boxes and considered this to be a success. Electoral Services Managers in those authorities found that the process was speeded up, since no prior sorting of ballot papers was required before verification. As all three elections were verified on Thursday night if ballot papers had been placed in error by voters in the wrong box, it was a simple matter to transfer these to count staff simultaneously dealing with the relevant election The number of ballot boxes used in local or combined elections is a matter for local discretion and decision by individual Returning Officers. At each election, a decision must be made on the particular set of circumstances. In considering best practice for future elections, however, the Commission concludes that there is no disadvantage in the count process to the use of separate ballot boxes for each type of election, where verification of the combined elections takes place at the same time. There may be advantages in using separate ballot boxes in speeding up the count, by avoiding sorting of ballot papers prior to verification. Accessibility The Commission has consistently sought to champion equal access to elections. This is a concern not only for the UK s estimated 10 million disabled people, but also for others facing potential barriers to access including those with low levels of literacy, minority ethnic European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

50 48 groups whose first language is not English and older people. At European Parliamentary elections, the way national voting systems are designed is crucial to ensuring equal access for all voters. Just as important is the way elections are delivered locally, as the right information, access arrangements and support from electoral staff can make the difference between a person voting independently and them not voting at all Barriers to access can exist in terms of physical access to buildings, getting access to information and getting around. Attitudes of those who provide election services and decide electoral policy are also significant as are barriers to accessing basic services like education, transport and social care In June 2004, each polling station was supplied with a special tactile voting device and large print display versions of the ballot paper, to assist blind and partially-sighted electors to vote. The device is a reusable, adhesive, plastic template which enables blind and partiallysighted people to vote independently and without having to reveal to anyone else how they have voted or what their voting intentions are. Partially-sighted voters and those who find it difficult to read were also assisted by the requirement for Returning Officers to provide at least one large-scale version of the ballot paper to be displayed inside the polling station Another key change in access rights since 1999 was the extension of the entitlement to have the assistance of a companion to help them cast their vote. In 2000, this was extended from blind people to voters who have other physical incapacities, or who are unable or find it difficult to read. However, the Commission has no way of assessing the extent to which this entitlement was known about by voters, or used The disability charity, Scope, has undertaken research over several years with disabled people around access to voting and undertook a specific survey for the Commission in the four English pilot regions in June 2004 as well as their own research in Wales; Disability Action also undertook a limited study in Northern Ireland. Both organisations argue that discrimination within the electoral process is still widespread. 41 Results from Scope s 2004 Polls Apart Cymru survey indicate that 70% of the 150 or so polling stations surveyed in Wales were inaccessible, according to Scope s criteria. Disability Action concluded that there had been little improvement in overall accessibility to the voting process for disabled people since the last election. Capability Scotland undertook no specific programme of work in relation to the European Parliamentary elections, but in 2003 had concluded that the elections to the Scottish Parliament and local elections were the most accessible to date, although there was no room for complacency The European Forum on Disability has also taken up the call for fully accessible voting, conducting a Europe-wide survey of disabled 41 Scope (2004) Polls Apart Cymru 2004 A reassessment of the accessibility of Welsh polling stations during the 2004 Local and European elections; Disability Action Northern Ireland (2004) Access to Polling Stations European elections June The Electoral Commission (2003) Scottish elections European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

51 49 people s experiences of access to voting at the European Parliamentary elections. Unfortunately, they were not able to secure a sufficiently robust evidence base on which to reach conclusions, but identified a number of areas of good practice as well as inconsistencies of approach between different member states. 43 We believe that the UK Government is well placed to champion (through its participation in the relevant European Union bodies) the development of access standards that individual countries would be encouraged to follow for European Parliamentary elections The Commission itself will continue to work with disability organisations and representatives of other groups facing access barriers to promote good practice. It is equally important that Returning Officers are resourced to carry this good practice through at a local level. To assist, the Commission has previously recommended that Returning Officers should be given statutory powers to use all accessible publicly owned buildings as polling stations. We are disappointed that the Government has recently indicated that it does not intend to pursue this change. 44 Polling agents and tellers The law provides for each candidate to appoint polling agents to observe in polling stations. Polling agents bear a primary responsibility for identifying cases of personation. In Northern Ireland in June 2004 it was quite common for polling agents to be 43 Correspondence dated 25 November 2004 from Sophie Beaumont, Disability Intergroup Secretariat, European Disability Forum. 44 The Government s response to The Electoral Commission s report: Voting for change (December 2004) Cm seen in polling stations alongside the presiding officer and other election staff In the rest of the UK, however, polling agents were rarely seen. A more common sight in England, Scotland and Wales were tellers party workers who undertake electioneering and collect the polling numbers of voters as they enter or leave the building. Unlike polling agents, tellers have no legal status or authority. They are not permitted to enter the polling station except to cast their own vote. Many electors assume that tellers are an official part of the election process and most provide the details requested The Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, in a joint UK-wide discussion paper for the Commission on the June elections, said: Our general experience was that too many Returning Officers and others still see tellers as people who get in the way and who they would rather not have as opposed to a key and legitimate part of an electoral process which is about having a competition between candidates and parties. For example, [one Regional Returning Officer s] website had a guide to voting on the day that simply said of tellers that they are not a formal part of the process and can be ignored. A decent attempt at public education of how UK elections worked would have explained what tellers are, why they do it and why it may be useful to work in partnership with them Joint submission of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties to The Electoral Commission on aspects of the elections held on 10 June (July 2004). European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

52 There is no doubt that tellers can be a source of conflict, as the Commission has reported in relation to previous elections. Complaints made to Returning Officers during the course of the European Parliamentary elections generally related to active campaigning near the entrance to a polling station, the use of party promotional materials and, occasionally, intimidating behaviour from tellers. However, the overall number of incidents appears to have been relatively small, involving the activities of over-zealous individuals, often acting outside party guidance, rather than any more fundamental problem One Local Returning Officer in Wales preempted most problems in a lively local election by making small posters using material from Electoral Commission training manuals for polling station staff and having these pinned to polling station walls by the desks of tellers. This served a dual purpose, both to self-regulate the activity of tellers and alert voters that these were not official polling station staff The Commission nevertheless believes that there is a need to clarify in law the status of tellers. We are already committed to undertaking a review of the role and legal authority of tellers and polling agents in elections across the UK. We expect to begin this review after the next general election. In the meanwhile, guidance to local party workers and election staff in advance of an election, and effective liaison between local parties and Returning Officers on the parameters within which tellers operate is clearly important. Close of poll and beyond The count Organising the count in June 2004 was a more complex process than internal UK elections owing to the fact that the result of the European Parliamentary elections could not be declared until after polls had closed across Europe at 9pm BST on Sunday 13 June. In Great Britain, ballot papers were counted using the d Hondt system. 46 In Northern Ireland, the Single Transferable Vote system required a different and even more intricate counting process Some administrators raised questions about the necessity of this policy due to the logistical complications it entailed. Although there were many examples of excellent count organisation, other counts were badly organised and went on significantly longer It is a matter for each Local Returning Officer to decide when to begin their count, in consultation with their Regional Returning Officer. The decisions Returning Officers and their teams had to make, therefore, were to balance the understandable demands of local election candidates and political parties for results to be declared early and the need to organise counts that were not subject to significant human error as a result of staff fatigue. In some areas the logistics of managing combined ballots were also a key consideration. 46 Further details of the counting method can be found in the Commission s factsheet (2004) European Parliamentary elections. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

53 Table 3 illustrates the decisions taken by different regions. Table 3: Decisions taken by different regions Verification Counting Announcement of result England Thursday evening Sunday 13 June Sunday 13 June (outside London) after 10pm from early evening London Friday 11 June Friday 11 June Sunday 13 June Wales Thursday evening Sunday 13 June Sunday 13 June after 10pm from early evening Scotland Thursday evening Sunday 13 June Sunday 13 June after 10pm (most areas) (provisional) Monday 14 June (Highlands and Islands) Monday 14 June (final, following results from Highlands and Islands) Northern Ireland Saturday 12 June Monday 14 June Monday 14 June Verification process A crucial part of the procedures designed to preserve the integrity of the electoral process is the verification of ballot papers. The number of European Parliamentary ballot papers entering the count must match the number of ballot papers issued at each polling station for that election. In the presence of the election agents, the Local Returning Officer therefore began the count process by verifying each ballot paper account (i.e. the number of ballot papers issued at each polling station) against the number of ballot papers in each ballot box. At the combined elections, ballot papers for the different elections also had to be sorted according to the election before verification In June 2004, the size of ballots papers proved to be a factor in slowing the process, since the paper had to be folded to fit into the ballot box and (where there were combined elections) voters frequently folded their other ballot papers up inside it The law requires ballot papers to be verified face down, although this is not universally endorsed by those managing or observing the process. Some have suggested that verifying face-down makes the process less secure than taking the alternative approach of verifying face-up : Verifying face down compromises the secrecy of the ballot as you can see both the voter mark and the serial number of the ballot paper. This means that verifying agents could identify how each voter cast their vote. Senior local government officer Eastern region European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

54 However, the Commission is not convinced that the case for change has been made. The ability to see the serial number of the ballot paper does not itself permit the identification of the voter. Nor, if the process is being carried out properly, should the votes cast be visible in most cases. Verifying face-up would also mean that election agents were able to predict the result ahead of the formal commencement of counting. A more fundamental issue is whether serial numbers are needed at all; the Commission has previously committed itself to review this issue, and expects to begin work in After verification, ballot papers are returned to the ballot boxes which are then transported to a place of safety to await the count. The separation of verification and counting also caused irritation in relation to the European Parliamentary elections, as one Local Returning Officer reported, Conducting the verification and count as separate tasks greatly increases the administrative burden (particularly for authorities... which had to use separate centres for the two elements). In London, however, electronic counting meant that verification and counting were undertaken simultaneously. This has prompted some to argue for extending the same approach to manual counts. Count location In law, the number of count centres operated by the Returning Officer is a matter for their discretion. In Northern Ireland, one central count centre is used to count all ballots at European Parliamentary elections. In Great Britain, the total number of votes for each party and independent candidate are counted initially at the Local Returning Officer level and then transmitted to the Regional Returning Officer in charge of the electoral region concerned to be collated and totalled. In many areas, Local Returning Officers have tended to operate on the basis of a single count in each local authority area for all types of elections This situation is almost unique in Europe, where in the majority of countries the voting figures are reported at polling station level. Counting votes where they are cast is justified in many countries on grounds of security ballot boxes are less likely to go astray or be tampered with if votes are counted where they are cast. However, since the security of sealed ballot boxes or vote tampering has not been a problem in the UK, the judgement about the number of count centres to deploy has been determined primarily by the availability of experienced staff to supervise the count Although political parties in other parts of Europe appear to have no objections to polling station-based counts, UK parties continue to advocate the central local authority count. Their concern is predominantly to do with the need for party supervision of the count process; they also suggest that decentralising the count would require significant education and training to achieve consistency It is therefore interesting to note that in 2004, one Local Returning Officer adopted a model very close to that used in other parts of Europe. Newport in Wales has 20 electoral divisions and held a count in each of these divisions. They were run in community centres European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

55 53 or school halls which had been used as polling stations during the day. A Deputy Returning Officer was allocated to each count centre, while the Electoral Services Manager remained in the council offices to collate the figures phoned in by the count centres. Our Electoral Commission observer found that the practice appeared to work very smoothly. Polling station Counting in other member states Malta In Malta, there is a single count venue (Ta Qali) permanently set up as counting hall. It has rooms for election officials and policy officers to sleep in, a canteen, showers, dedicated rooms for the main parties and TV studios. All areas in the count centre are accessible by parties. Outside live election periods, it is used to store polling booths and ballot papers. The costs are borne by the consolidated fund. The count process began with transportation from polling stations after 10pm on the Saturday (only after party representatives there are satisfied with numbers tallying). Boxes started arriving at Ta Qali just after 11pm. The counting of votes at the Ta Qali counting complex was slow but steady. Although the first count votes were known on the Sunday, the names of all five elected candidates were not known and announced officially by the Returning Officer until the following Wednesday. staff remained on site and became count assistants, as did more Presiding Officers and poll clerks arriving with ballot boxes. If sufficiently trained or experienced Deputy Returning Officers are available, this suggests that the Newport model can work well from an administrative point of view. Germany: Berlin In Berlin, the count takes place at each of the polling stations, organised by the polling staff, with party representatives invited to attend. This system is designed to maximise efficiency and avoid the risks and delays involved in transporting ballots to a central count venue. Votes are counted aloud to maximise transparency. District Electoral Committees visit count centres to check the procedures and provide quality assurance. They would normally expect to have the final result by mid-evening. In very small polling districts, two polling stations might combine for the purpose of the count (to avoid any connection being made between individual voters and voting preference). But this was not necessary in any part of Berlin. Results are phoned into the central point and tallied. The final results are published on the internet, broken down by polling district. The Returning Officer provides the public and media with official projected outcomes about 90 minutes after close of poll, based on the Statistics Office s analysis of a representative sample of polling stations (5% of polling stations are always allocated for this purpose). European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

56 54 Count innovations It was apparent in 2004 that a number of Local and Regional Returning Officers had given thought to the introduction of innovations in the way they managed the count. The motivating reasons for this seem to have varied: in a couple of cases, new Chief Executives taking over for the first time as Returning Officers encouraged a fresh approach with their teams; the extent of pre-planning necessary to manage the combined elections meant that practices were reviewed; and the higher profile given to the administration of elections in recent years has been a catalyst for review and change In Wales, at least seven Local Returning Officers organised counts on the so-called grass skirt method. 47 This is not a new count method and has been in use for a number of years, but was adopted in more areas in Wales in All Electoral Services Managers in Wales who used the system this year considered it a success and would use it again. A similar approach was adopted in the South West, which also considerably increased efficiency in the region. Colour coding was used to bundle papers into 25s and then 100s, significantly reducing the numbers of recounts because it was possible to authenticate at each stage This positive assessment was also supported in feedback to us from a variety of other sources. The majority of candidates appear to have been impressed by its transparency 47 Verified votes are counted in bundles of 25 and then adhered to prepared sheets. Votes cast for each candidate are visible on the sheets; these are totalled up, enabling calculation of the final result. For more information see The Electoral Commission (2004) Local elections in Wales 2004: The official report on the local elections 10 June and speed, although we are aware of the dissatisfaction of candidates and political parties at one count centre where the method was adopted. Problems encountered there may have resulted from inexperience in using the method rather than anything more fundamentally wrong London witnessed the most radical break with the past in relation to European Parliamentary elections. Given the complexity of counting the votes, the Greater London Returning Officer (GLRO) judged that a traditional manual count would take several days, with an increased possibility of errors. The Returning Officer therefore decided at an early stage to use electronic scanning machines to count the ballot papers and votes. At the first elections for the Mayor of London and London Assembly in May 2000 votes had been counted using electronic rather than manual methods and some changes to the system were made in Counting took place in 14 separate count centres across London, using electronic scanning machines to process ballot papers, with central count management systems in each count centre. The European Parliament election ballot papers were scanned on 11 June, although results were not collated and confirmed with parties, candidates and agents until the evening of Sunday 13 June, and announced soon after 9pm The Commission has undertaken a short review of the operation and administration of electronic counting systems in London, which provides a more detailed analysis of the technology used The Electoral Commission (2004) Electronic counting at the London elections, June European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

57 55 Party attendance Political parties, individual candidates and their election agents have a statutory right to request the Local Returning Officer to recount the votes or recount them again without having to give them a reason for their request. The Local Returning Officer does however have the right of refusal if they consider the request to be unreasonable. This year some authorities reported a considerable number of recounts. In some cases the decision to carry out several recounts was controversial A further problem experienced was the late notification of sub-agents to attend the counts. As one Local Returning Officer from the Eastern region reported: Notification of sub-agents (where there were any) was slow too close to the verification for comfort really when bearing in mind the need to issue count passes and all the other bumpf we send to agents. Fortunately there was a much lower level of interest from political people wishing to be at counts, opening of postal votes, etc. which helped. There seemed to have been quite poor communication between the agents and their local people also in some cases In Scotland too, similar problems were experienced. The timetable for appointing election sub-agents meant that information on the proposed appointments trickled in over a two-week period. Returning Officers reported that this made it difficult to work directly with local agents and led to a lack of consistency. In that context, it has been suggested that all information should be sent to the national agents, who would be asked to take responsibility for ensuring that their local agents get information; alternatively, the date for appointing local subagents could be earlier to coincide with the date for notifying the appointment of election agents. The Commission will consult with the political parties in relation to these options in advance of the next European Parliamentary elections. Reporting of results In general, reporting of the election results ran smoothly with some results (London) available almost immediately and a steady flow of results throughout Sunday night. However, there were a number of procedural issues and technical problems which emerged behind the scenes: In law, the local results cannot be cleared with local election agents until after the close of polls across Europe. Accordingly, Regional Returning Officers should not have been informed until after that time. Despite this clear legal position repeatedly communicated to and by Regional Returning Officers we are aware that, across the country, several Local Returning Officers forwarded results to the Regional Returning Officers prior to 9pm. In a small number of areas, there were breakdowns in communication between counting centres in locations other than administration offices and Regional Returning Officers, leading to delays in either submitting or confirming acceptance of their results. Some administrators also complained about the inefficient use of s, and suggested that fax would be an appropriate additional or alternative medium. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

58 The tools used by Regional Returning Officers to calculate the regional results were not prescribed centrally. In the South West, for example, a spreadsheet had been developed specifically by a member of staff with IT expertise (who usually works in a school) to work out the calculations for the allocation of seats. A manual paper copy was kept in parallel as backup. This region-by-region approach clearly risks some duplication of effort. The Commission will therefore consult with Regional Returning Officers ahead of the next European Parliamentary elections to assess whether there would be benefit in the Commission producing a model spreadsheet for use by all Positive feedback on improvements to results display was received in a number of regions, especially in Northern Ireland. Plasma screens and overhead projector displays were thought particularly successful. In the North West, the central count at Manchester Town Hall displayed local results as they were accepted by the Regional Returning Officers on a series of plasma screens. Those at the count were supplied with booklets to record the tallies, encouraging a feeling of participation in what can otherwise be a remote process. In some other areas, however, complaints were made by candidates and agents that there were no screens on which to view results as they were coming through from the local authorities; paper sheets were not regarded as a sufficient substitute for this kind of results service. This was also a concern for journalists covering the events. Publication of official results One final point of comparison with the rest of Europe is the methods used to publish the official results. In much of Europe, Returning Officers make the results available via website either simultaneously with a live announcement or even ahead of it. In the UK, by contrast, Returning Officers will typically publish the official results by means of the announcement at the count centre (usually relayed live by the media) and a formal notice outside their civic building the next day. Not all Regional Returning Officers even had websites. In 2004, however, there was a significant shift in London, where the Greater London Returning Officer s website supplied elections results to BBC, Reuters, ITN and the Press Association as well as the Greater London Authority. Each full set of results was on the site in three different formats, fully tabulated, within one minute of each declaration a significant achievement The formal publication of the full election results is by means of this report. Accordingly, obtaining full, accurate and timely information from Returning Officers is crucial. In 2004, this process proved to be less than straightforward. In some cases, data requested was still not with the Commission over three months after the election date and the Commission had no powers to compel the provision of such information We are aware that some Local Returning Officers feel that there are too many groups now looking for post-election statistics (central government, media, the Regional Returning Officers as well as the Commission) and that these requests are often similar. We recognise that there is a need to rationalise this and to ensure that what is being asked for is deliverable. Equally, we acknowledge that the specification of data needed should be provided earlier in the process than was the case in European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

59 The Commission also intends to propose and promote a standard method of election results reporting to fit all elections in the UK. The current local discretion about the method of reporting on turnout, for example, does not assist in comparing performance year to year or area to area The Commission will consult further on these issues ahead of the next European Parliamentary elections. In addition, we believe that new legal provision should be made to underpin our requests for data from Returning Officers for the purpose of the historical record provided by this statutory report and to provide a robust evidence base for all those involved in developing policy in relation to elections. Conclusions and recommendations What Europeans experienced between 10 and 13 June 2004 was an election for one common institution, conducted in 25 different ways. Despite the relatively high profile given to the administration of the elections in the run up to polling day in the UK, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance concluded that across the European Union the overall impression is that these elections were carried out well enough. Post election media analysis focused on turnout and results, with the administration of the elections neither criticised nor hardly mentioned It is inevitable that in a report of this nature the analysis will focus on comparative weaknesses and areas for improvement. But that should not detract from the significant successes. The willingness of hundreds of staff at all levels to deliver the elections with a can do spirit meant that a result was achieved on time and with no greater degree of challenge than is usual given the political tensions involved. There is also a willingness on the part of central government and leaders among the electoral profession to learn and to co-operate in making improvements for the future. This provides a sound basis for moving forward As with other statutory elections in the UK, a European Parliamentary election can only be challenged by way of an electoral petition that must be lodged within 21 days of the official notification of the election result. In 2004 only one European Parliamentary election result was challenged that of the Eastern region in a petition lodged by an unsuccessful independent candidate, John Naisbitt. This petition was struck out on 30 July However, four other petitions in regard to local government elections which were combined with the European Parliamentary election relate to issues of electoral administration. As the elections were run together these petitions may yield lessons for future European Parliamentary elections. Recommendations to others Building on the positive experience of the 2004 elections, including the project board established for the pilot regions, the Government should establish a formal working group or project board including all Regional Returning Officers (or their representatives) at least 12 months ahead of the next European Parliamentary elections, to advise and comment on proposed regulations, to share good practice and to resolve issues arising during the course of the election period. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

60 Returning Officers should continue to improve the guidance and advice they offer to candidates and party agents, taking account of areas of confusion and difficulty experienced in The Electoral Commission will organise at least one meeting between Regional Returning Officers and the national agents for parties fielding candidates in advance of the next European Parliamentary elections The fees and charges set by Government for Regional Returning Officers should reflect the need for effective project management and coordination at regional level. Specifically, a project office should be established with dedicated resources in addition to the expert support provided by electoral services staff. As the programme of electoral modernisation progresses, it is likely that the need for significant investment in project management will increase The Commission welcomed the use of a competitive recruitment process in 2004 and hopes it will be repeated in the future. The selection criteria for the next European Parliamentary elections in 2009 will also need to take into account changes in the legal context and the development of the electoral modernisation programme in the intervening period Regional Returning Officers should be more willing to make use of their powers of direction to ensure consistency of practice where this is in the public interest. All such directions should be issued formally in writing, not by or at meetings and their status should be clear The Government should clarify, through legislation if necessary, the insurance position of Regional and Local Returning Officers at European Parliamentary elections to ensure that adequate cover can be secured There is no standard practice across Europe in terms of delivering accessible democracy. The UK Government should champion (through its participation in the relevant European Union bodies) the development of access standards that individual countries would be encouraged to follow for European Parliamentary elections New legal provision should be made to underpin the Commission s requests for data from Returning Officers for the purpose of this statutory report. Previous relevant recommendations A new foundation model of voting for statutory elections and referendums should be developed to underpin the development of multi-channel elections. This would form the basis of future multi-channel elections, of which postal voting on demand would be a part. This new approach to voting must be capable of offering electors both choice and security In the meanwhile, the law relating to the management of postal votes should be revised to reflect the operation of postal voting on demand and to increase the security and integrity of the process; detailed recommendations are set out in the Commission s August 2004 report Delivering democracy? The future of postal voting. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

61 In relation to election funding, in the short-term, the Commission recommends that there should be: streamlining of the audit processes in negotiation with the National Audit Office and others, limiting the bureaucracy and central costs involved in processing claims; an annually-negotiated review of the Fees and Charges Orders, rather than preparing a new Order in advance of specific elections; and rationalisation of the fees and charges mechanisms and changes to the miscellaneous heading within the Charges Order to give greater freedoms and flexibilities to local managers and to ensure that legitimate costs, reasonably incurred, are efficiently reimbursed Longer term, the Commission recommends that core funding for electoral services should come from the Consolidated Fund via The Electoral Commission so that the funding can be matched with UK-wide standards which the Commission would set Given the scale of change already underway and contemplated for the future, it would be in the best interests of effective management if there were to be a single department responsible for policy and law in relation to UK elections and referendums. If this is not feasible, there should at least be clarity as to where leadership on such matters within Government is located rather than continuing the current approach of parallel responsibilities The Commission has previously committed itself to review whether serial numbers are needed on ballot papers. We expect to begin our work in Commission actions In response to feedback, the Commission will review and revise as necessary: the existing guidance materials for election staff, candidates and agents on tellers and candidate and party campaigning in the environs of polling stations; and the election-specific Candidates and Agents guidance, with a view to producing more generic guidance and a quick guide The Commission will continue to support Returning Officers and their staff through targeted training provision at relevant electoral events and during periods of electoral reform Clarification over the operation of the minimum age of candidature is needed; the Commission intends to advise parties as soon as practical The Commission believes it is essential to strike a balance in electoral regulations between over-prescription and inappropriate local discretion. The Commission will consider these issues further in developing our proposed foundation model for future UK elections. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

62 One way of achieving a more efficient administrative management system would be to boost the capacity and authority of Regional Returning Officers, through dedicated management resources at regional level and a greater use of the power of direction. The Commission will explore these issues further through its recently established Electoral Leadership Forum which all serving Regional Returning Officers have been invited to join The Commission will consult with the political parties in relation to options for improving notification of sub-agents to Returning Officers in advance of the next European Parliamentary elections The Commission will consult with Regional Returning Officers ahead of the next European Parliamentary elections to assess whether there would be benefit in the Commission producing a model spreadsheet for use by all in preparing results The Commission will consult on a range of issues relating to the calculation and collection of results data ahead of the next European Parliamentary elections. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

63 61 Case study: European Parliamentary elections in Gibraltar The European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 provided for Gibraltar to be enfranchised for elections to the European Parliament. In August 2003, the Commission recommended that the South West region should be combined with Gibraltar. This recommendation was I was appointed as Regional Returning Officer for the South West immediately prior to The Electoral Commission s consultation exercise on where to place Gibraltar for election purposes. One of my first acts was to make contact with Gibraltar s Returning Officer, Dennis Reyes, who is also the Clerk to the House of the Assembly. From discussions, it became clear that the Gibraltarians themselves wish to be included in the South West region as opposed to London, or indeed, any of the other regions. This was finally endorsed by The Electoral Commission and the Government. Shortly after this exercise, the Chief Minister from Gibraltar, Peter Caruana, called a snap general election to take place on 27 November With this in mind, I was invited to travel to Gibraltar to examine the way in which the elections are run and to ascertain what was needed to be done to ensure that the Gibraltarian system worked with the system that was going to be used in the rest of the UK. I arrived a day before the election and it became abundantly clear from discussions with Gibraltarians in Main Street that they are passionately interested in democracy and elections. approved by Parliament and came into force in February Paul Morris was selected as Regional Returning Officer for the South West region in early summer 2003 and formally appointed in December This is his account of the experience of overseeing the first Gibraltarian elections to the European Parliament. Election day was a beautiful day and we travelled around the 12 polling stations. The word election was on everyone s lips. Posters, newspaper articles, television and radio only had one story the election. The first polling station we visited was an eye opener. There were some 80 plus people queuing in a line outside the station, two policemen standing guard were not needed to keep order but just to reinforce the fact that democracy is taken seriously. Inside the polling stations there were six poll clerks and one presiding officer. Apart from the queues outside, and a first glance in the polling station, you could have thought that you were in a polling station in the UK. Then, as you looked around, you noticed the curtains on the large number of polling booths, crowds struggling to get into the station, another policeman in the station and the fact that the ballot box was twice the size of a conventional UK black box and was painted brilliant white. A poll clerk was sited permanently by the ballot box with a piece of card over the slot. Their job was to check each individual ballot paper to make sure it had a mark before the voter was allowed to insert it in the box. Needless to state, ballot papers are never rejected because they don t contain the official mark! European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

64 62 The next station was just as busy. It was then that we noticed that two red lines had been painted right away across the road outside the polling station. These lines are painted four yards each side of the main entrance. Basically, no-one with any political affiliations is allowed into this area. This kept the tellers and politicians at bay and it worked extremely well. Whatever election I m involved with, there are always problems regarding how one defines the curtiledge of the polling station. The remaining 10 stations once again had queues outside, irrespective of what time of day, and you would see why elections in Gibraltar often achieve in excess of a 90% turnout. Something we in the UK can only dream of. One of the other surprising points was that in two of the stations Spanish TV companies had set up cameras and were filming people voting, and apparently they stay there for hours. Polling station staff are treated extremely well, and at lunch time, food and drink (including Spanish omelettes) are delivered to all staff. In the afternoon cakes and drinks are delivered, and in the evening sandwiches, drinks, etc. It is considered to be an honour to carry out electoral duties. One of the most exciting items was a concept called the mobile ballot box. Proxy voting does not exist in Gibraltar and postal voting is extremely restricted, and therefore virtually nonexistent. If you are unable to get to a polling station for a whole variety of reasons, i.e. you are in hospital or in a nursing home, etc. you apply to the Local Returning Officer, Dennis Reyes, and a pre-arranged time a presiding officer, two poll clerks, a ballot box and two policemen will arrive at a pre-determined location and you will be issued with a ballot paper which you mark in the usual way and then place in the box. The counting of votes was an incredible logistical exercise which large numbers of guests invited to watch the proceedings. It was rather akin to an ordinary council election with multi-member wards. The initial verification cannot commence until all ballot boxes have been received and they are then ceremonially opened by the Returning Officer in person. The process involved in actually counting the votes once the verification has been completed for the individual candidates was very labour intensive and time consuming with double check and double check, etc. However, it was extremely concise and you could see why the word re-count doesn t enter into the Gibraltarian election dictionary. Attending the general election was a marvellous experience, but it was apparent that there was work to be done to try and merge the two systems, the one fundamental thing missing was of course an all-singing, all-dancing electoral register which would include European Union nationals, Commonwealth citizens, etc. The register in Gibraltar is complied, on average, once every four years with appropriate updates. The other potential problem was that Gibraltar has its own legislative system and the House Assembly basically acts as the Parliament. European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

65 63 However, it runs in tandem with UK legislation and a great deal of work was carried out to prepare the necessary audiences to allow for the European elections to take place. Other fundamental differences included the fact that parties are not required to be registered in Gibraltar; the hours of poll are different; there are no poll cards, only booklets delivered to each elector advising them of the location of all polling stations in Gibraltar; voters have to produce forms of ID at the polling stations and the station registers are locked away at the close of poll and are not available for public inspection or purchase. Following the election, a great deal of work went into creating a new register of electors. I must pay great credit to Dennis Reyes and also Ernest Montado, the Chief Secretary, for the positive way in which they reacted for what could have been a real problem. The whole registration exercise was undertaken in an extremely condensed period in a very efficient and effective way. What was interesting was that once the register of electors forms had been despatched to all properties within Gibraltar, people were not relying on actually putting the completed forms in the appropriate envelope. They actually came to the European Parliamentary Election Office to form queues to actually hand the forms in and ensure that there was no doubt that they will be registered to vote in the European election. In Poole, we operate on the basis that we have to send out at least two reminders, but in Gibraltar this just isn t necessary. A handful of canvassers were appointed to deal with the non-responders, which in the main were holiday homes or rented properties, but within a five week period they actually achieved a 100% return. The final part of the integration process was to train all the staff from the Local Returning Officer downwards, and then embark on a publicity campaign to heighten voter awareness which had been helped by The Electoral Commission s advertising campaign. This wasn t actually specifically targeted at Gibraltar but many of them have satellite television and had seen the adverts on Sky. Prior to the notice of election being published, there was considerable interest from Gibraltarians to stand for election, but at the end of the day, only one Gibraltarian decided to stand and that was with the Green Party. The elections went ahead, and with other areas in the South West region, were uneventful. What was surprising was that the turn out in Gibraltar was only 57%. The 90% plus of previous elections and referendums were not matched, and it could well be that a lack of local candidates had some effect on the turnout. Finally, you can understand when we talked about personation how the Gibraltarians found this concept rather amusing as it was such a compact geographical area of six square kilometres, 21,000 voters and 12 polling stations, everyone knows everyone else! Paul Morris Regional Returning Officer South West European Parliamentary elections 2004: managing the process

66

67 65 3 Voter information and awareness An informed electorate is vital to a healthy democracy. To have confidence in the political system, voters need to understand not just what they are voting for the powers and responsibilities of the institution to which they are electing representatives but also the positions of the parties and candidates and how the voting system itself works. In this chapter we look at the extent of, and influences on, voters knowledge about the European Parliamentary elections. Introduction 3.1 Levels of political engagement and knowledge among voters are not high. Only half the population claim to be interested in politics, the lowest in the 20 years since pollsters first asked the question. Fewer than half know their MP s name, feel that they know about politics or the role of MPs or are able to pass a test of political knowledge. 49 In relation to the institutions of the European Union, the levels of knowledge and understanding are lower still This is troubling given the strong correlation between familiarity and favourability. According to research, the more people know about a service or an institution, the more positive they tend to be towards it. Our research has also found a strong relationship between knowledge and electoral abstention While high quality information and effective awareness campaigns are important at every election, there are a number of aspects of the European Parliamentary elections that make them special. In historic terms, the European Parliament is still a young institution and voters may not understand or trust its workings as much as they do more familiar institutions. The issues the European Parliament deals with are unlikely to feature as intensively in routine national political and media debates. The European Union s decision-making structure is 49 The Electoral Commission (2004) An audit of political engagement. 50 The Electoral Commission (2003) Public opinion and the 2004 elections. Carried out for The Electoral Commission by MORI and Professors Rallings and Thrasher of the Elections Centre at the University of Plymouth. 51 Ibid. European Parliamentary elections 2004: voter information and awareness

68 66 complex and the role of the European Parliament within it difficult for many to grasp. The European Parliamentary elections are generally considered to be second-order elections, in that voters do not attach as much importance to them as they do national elections Responsibility for engaging the electorate with the democratic process must always rest in large part with the parties. It is above all the quality and persuasiveness of the policies put forward by the political parties and their ability to motivate voters that shapes their willingness to become involved in the electoral process. But many other organisations also have a role to play in increasing public awareness and promoting voter understanding, including The Electoral Commission, the media and civil society organisations, even though the resources at their disposal and the strategies they are able to deploy are necessarily very different. Prior awareness of the elections 3.5 In the months running up to the European Parliamentary elections public awareness was low. Public opinion and the 2004 elections, a study of public attitudes towards the European Parliamentary elections published in late 2003, revealed significant knowledge and information gaps and a dramatic relationship between 52 Reif and Schmitt first distinguished between first order and second order elections. The most important distinction between the two is that parties and the public consider there to be less at stake in the case of second order elections. See Reif K. and Schmitt H. (1980) Nine National Second-Order Elections: A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results, European Journal of Political Research, 8, pp knowledge and electoral abstention. Focus group research found that awareness of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) among focus groups was almost zero and for many the European Parliament was seen as totally lacking in human scale. 53 Few were aware of the political issues at stake in the European Parliamentary elections or had any real knowledge about what the European Parliament actually did. 3.6 The research also found: a deep sense of disconnection among the public with the political process and its personnel; scepticism about the impact of voting per se; many different reasons for disconnection and electoral abstention; acute disconnection with second order elections with European Parliamentary elections arguably third order ; the low turnout at the European Parliamentary elections in 1999 was a function of these attitudes plus contextual factors such as the proximity to local elections a month earlier (leading to voter, party and media fatigue); there were similar patterns in turnout among different demographic groups in 1999, 2000 and at recent general elections; and that low public understanding of the European institutions is a key driver of abstention. 53 The Electoral Commission (2003) Public opinion and the 2004 elections. European Parliamentary elections 2004: voter information and awareness

69 Building on these findings, the report provided some clear pointers as to what could realistically be achieved by the Commission and others in encouraging participation. It concluded that the task of mobilising the electorate to participate in the London and European elections will be a formidable one with much of the responsibility lying with politicians. Additionally, the report cautioned that the reasons for disconnection are not primarily to do with what happens at election time, but rather with the between election period. 3.8 The research found a small minority of voters regarding themselves as knowledgeable about the European Union, its institutions and its policies. When members of the UK public who did not foresee themselves voting in the June 2004 elections were asked in a Eurobarometer poll to explain why this was the case, 56% of respondents said the reason was because they weren t sufficiently informed to go and vote. Meanwhile, 45% of respondents believed that they did not sufficiently know the role of the European Parliament. 54 The political campaigns 3.10 For many potential voters the political campaign is what brings an election to life. However, in the UK, campaigns for the European Parliament have often been seen as less vibrant or engaging than other elections. Despite the powers of the European Parliament (which arguably make MEPs more powerful legislators than their counterparts in Westminster), parties have appeared to be unwilling or unable to campaign as effectively as they do in other elections In many ways, the European Parliamentary elections in June 2004 confirmed these trends. Only a quarter of the electorate believed it was an interesting campaign (see Table 4 on page 68), although significantly, this position is not as distinctive to the UK as might be imagined. 3.9 At the same time, a MORI poll for the UK Office of the European Parliament conducted in January 2004 found that nine out of 10 voters cared passionately about the sorts of issues the European Parliament was concerned with. 54 Flash Euro-barometer 162 Post elections 2004 survey, en.pdf European Parliamentary elections 2004: voter information and awareness

70 68 Table 4: Interest in the election campaign by country It was an interesting campaign Agree (%) Disagree (%) Net Turnout (%) UK Republic of Ireland Italy Spain Germany Latvia Poland Sweden There were, however, two important caveats: first, as we explore in the next chapter, turnout jumped sharply; second, the dramatic emergence of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and the passionate debate about the war in Iraq galvanised the political campaign with clear and robust messages, albeit ones that were only loosely connected to the actual powers of MEPs. As focus group respondents 55 remarked: If you saw all the parties on the television the only party with a specific message was UKIP and the rest were the usual political rhetoric. Labour and the Tories tied themselves up in knots. ICM focus group member, years old, Barnard Castle What they stood for got into the news. That was because they have got a definite stance, the others were pussy-footing around. ICM focus group member, years old, Aldershot 55 Focus groups conducted as part of public opinion research carried out for The Electoral Commission in April-July 2004 by Professor John Curtice of the University of Strathclyde and ICM Research. The full results are published as ICM (2004) The June 2004 Elections The Public s Perspective Opinion polling (see Table 5) also suggests that voters did indeed believe that there were more significant differences between the parties in these elections than in comparable contests in recent years. Table 5: Little difference between what the parties were offering? * Agree Neither Disagree Note: * Entries are answers to There were big differences in the policies put forward by the parties with the agree and disagree responses reversed. Source: 2001 and 2003: MORI/The Electoral Commission; 2002: NOP/ The Electoral Commission. The 2002 and 2003 figures are for all people in England living in an area where a local election was held in May of that year. European Parliamentary elections 2004: voter information and awareness

71 69 Campaign themes 3.14 Many of the prominent campaign themes were connected only very loosely to the remit of the European Parliament. For example, the Liberal Democrats emphasis on the Iraq conflict did not relate directly to MEPs decision-making powers. The irreducibly simple message of the UKIP campaign: NO featured on billboards up and down the country, even though the UKIP MEPs subsequently elected to the European Parliament will have no powers to extract the UK from the European Union. Making the European Parliamentary campaigns relevant to UK voters, it seems, continues to depend on refracting them through a local or national lens The campaign themes chosen were diverse, with some of the parties choosing to use the election as a mid-term poll on the UK Government s popularity while others chose themes that were much more strictly aligned with Europe and the European Union. Figure 1 contains some examples of the campaign slogans that were fielded in party manifestos this year The Labour Party and the Conservative Party ran campaigns that accentuated their commitment to Britain and British interests, albeit in rather different ways. The parties campaign slogans (for the Conservatives Put Britain First and for Labour Britain is Working ) hinted at their wider campaign messages and themes, but Figure 1: Party slogans at the 2004 European Parliamentary elections both parties campaigned on a platform of defending and promoting their overall record The Liberal Democrats pointed to their policy proposals, but also used the election as an opportunity to encourage voters to send a message to Blair on Iraq. George Galloway s Respect party spoke in even stronger terms, claiming the election should serve as a Referendum on Blair. 56 Figure 1 is a selection of some of the major political parties manifestos this year. However, it is not intended as a definitive collection of party manifestos, but rather a representative sample. European Parliamentary elections 2004: voter information and awareness