To receive a report from David Scott, Head of Governance, Partnerships,

Performance and Policy, (Monitoring Officer) on the concerns raised by Parish Councils on the increase in election expenses.

David Scott, Head of Governance, Partnerships, Performance and Policy, reported that the update would be on election costs and not expenses. David Scott explained that it was very complex and would try and explain. David Scott informed the Conference Members that two very specific concerns had been raised and cleared.

David Scott explained that the 2015 elections were a set of combined election, the largest in a number of years. It was a very busy election with votes given for general, parish councils and local. Information and estimates were provided to Parish Councils explaining that these would vary.

David Scott provided information on the eight elements that build up the figures. These are as follows:

1.    Nominations and nomination packs

Charge for a number of nominations received actually.

2.    Contribution of returning officer and deputy costs

Fees for both officers.

3.    Premises and Equipment

Portioned to reflect the share. Cost spread with other elections on a third basis or a nominal basis, including the variation. The printing of ballot papers was significantly higher. Normally there would be a 60% turnout but in 2015, there was a 90% turnout.

4.    Poll cards including postal

Portioned across the three the three elements. In 2011, Parish Councils had not been charged compared to in 2015. However, these costs were not recharged to Parish Councils.

5.    Postal Vote Cards

There were a high level of these plus printing, postal costs and return costs. There were 104,000 in total, which was a 85% return rate. Other points included that:

·         Recharge of cost of dealing with returns.

·         Have to scrutinise 100% of returned votes, incorrect dates and signatures rejected.

·         It was decided not to print all of the postal votes for Parish Councils. It was better to only print the contested elections. There were only five Parish Councils with contested elections.

6.    Polling station staffing costs (Presiding Officer and Poll Clerks)

There were a higher amount of staff than in 2011, it was a more complex election to run. There was more training for staff. The government is very clear of what can be claimed for with the general elections and there was a tight scrutiny of accounts, that were signed off by government once approved.

7.    Verification and count costs

This was the largest cost. Firstly the general election is verified and counted which was a very lengthy process. Since the verification and counting was completed over two days, this lead to double costs. One Parish Council took over nine hours to count.

8.    Nominal contribution to office administration

This was put towards Parish Councils.

The three main points that differed between 2011 an 2015 were as follows:

·         Poll Cards – Parish Councils not charged in 2011.

·         Incoming costs of postal votes - Parish Councils not charged in 2011.

·         Verification and counting costs – two nights instead of one.

Points highlighted by Conference Members included:

·         Bray and Holyport had similar levels as there were more candidates resulting in three ballot papers.

·         Comparison of cost of general to bi election – in 2014, there were two lots of bi elections for Holyport and Wraysbury therefore the 2014 costs were less than 2015, however higher than 2011.

·         Waltham St Lawrence would like to know how estimated figures are then the actual figures.

ACTION: David Scott to report back

·         Sandra Baker asked that if there were only two elections, then surely the costs would go down. David Scott explained that the venue and duration costs would be reduced if just borough and Parish Council elections.

·         The Chairman asked who would be paying for the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) Election in May 2016. David Scott explained that the borough received a Maximum Recoverable Amount (MRA) from government. There would be a centralised count for the PCC Elections. There was only one election and no cross boundary confusion. This would be a Thames Valley count so the borough would only be verifying the votes and then sending them all to Abingdon where all the votes would be counted, centrally.

·         The Chairman asked about the referendum costs. David Scott explained that since it was in different regions, they were counted locally at the Magnet and then the results would be fed in to Southampton to the regional officer.

Cllrs Mrs Bateson and those attending the Conference thanked David Scott for the very comprehensive explanation of the election cost arrangements and the clarity the explanation had provided.